alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


UNDER
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cybrdi Inc. (“We") for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
as of the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yanbiao Bai, the chief executive
officer of us, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of us.




Date:
      August 13, 2009
            
            /s/
      Yanbiao
      BaiYanbiao
      Bai, CEO and President
#### 3052.216-70 Evaluation of offers subject to an economic price adjustment clause.

As prescribed in (HSAR) 48 CFR 3016.203-470, insert a provision substantially the same as the following:

# Evaluation of Offers Subject to an Economic Price Adjustment Clause (JUN 2006)

Offers shall be evaluated without adding an amount for an economic price adjustment. Offers may be rejected which: (1) Increase the stipulated ceiling; (2) limit the downward adjustment; or (3) delete the economic price adjustment clause. If the offer stipulates a ceiling lower than that included in the solicitation, the lower ceiling will be incorporated into any resulting contract.

(End of provision)

[71 FR 25775, May 2, 2006]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 109 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 109

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 9, 2024

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Securities and 
 Exchange Commission relating to ``Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the

              

 Securities and Exchange Commission relating to ``Staff Accounting 
Bulletin No. 121'' (87 Fed. Reg. 21015 (April 11, 2022) and a letter of 
opinion from the Government Accountability Office dated October 31, 
2023 (which was printed in the Congressional Record on November 1, 
2023, on pages S5310-5312), concluding that such Staff Accounting 
Bulletin is a rule under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code), and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 8, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
30.202-7 Determinations. ( a ) *Adequacy determination.* ( 1 ) As prescribed by 48 CFR 9903.202-6, the auditor shall— ( i ) Conduct a review of the Disclosure Statement to ascertain whether it is current, accurate, and complete; and
( ii ) Report the results to the CFAO.
( 2 ) The CFAO shall determine if the Disclosure Statement adequately describes the contractor's cost accounting practices. Also, the CFAO shall— ( i ) If the Disclosure Statement is adequate, notify the contractor in writing, and provide a copy to the auditor with a copy to the contracting officer if the proposal triggers submission of a Disclosure Statement. The notice of adequacy shall state that— ( A ) The disclosed practices are adequately described and the CFAO currently is not aware of any additional practices that should be disclosed;
( B ) The notice is not a determination that all cost accounting practices were disclosed; and
( C ) The contractor shall not consider a disclosed practice, by virtue of such disclosure, an approved practice for estimating proposals or accumulating and reporting contract and subcontract cost data; or
( ii ) If the Disclosure Statement is inadequate, notify the contractor of the inadequacies and request a revised Disclosure Statement.
( 3 ) Generally, the CFAO should furnish the contractor notification of adequacy or inadequacy within 30 days after the CFAO receives the Disclosure Statement.
( b ) *Compliance determination.* ( 1 ) After the notification of adequacy, the auditor shall— ( i ) Conduct a detailed compliance review to ascertain whether or not the disclosed practices comply with CAS and Part 31, as applicable; and
( ii ) Advise the CFAO of the results.
( 2 ) The CFAO shall make a determination of compliance or take action regarding a report of alleged noncompliance in accordance with 30.605(b). Such action should include requesting a revised Disclosure Statement that corrects the CAS noncompliance. Noncompliances with Part 31 shall be processed separately.
[70 FR 11753, Mar. 9, 2005, as amended at 85 FR 67614, Oct. 23, 2020; 86 FR 72971, Nov. 16, 2020]
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6888

WESLEY THOMAS GALLOP, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Lawrence Richard Leonard, Magistrate Judge . ( 2:16

- cv - 00596

- MSD

- LRL )

Submitted : November 16, 2017 Decided: November 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Wesley Thomas Gallop, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit

.2 PER CURIAM: Wesley Thomas Gallop, Jr. , seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and the magistrate judge’s report recommending that Gallop’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition be denied. This court may e xercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order denying Ga llop’s motion for appointment of counsel and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we deny Gallop’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave t o proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional proc ess. DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 23**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-86016 and 333-95149 and 33-32503) pertaining tothe MPSI Systems Inc. 1988 Stock Option Plan, the MPSI Systems Inc. 1998 StockPlan, and the MPSI Systems Inc. Matching Investment Plan of our report datedJanuary 23, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of MPSISystems Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB, as amended) for theyear ended December 31, 2003.
TULLIUS TAYLOR SARTAIN & SARTAIN LLP
Tulsa, Oklahoma
**Who May Apply: (by category)** Individuals

**Who May Apply: (specifically)** Undergraduate and vocational students  enrolled or accepted for enrollment in participating schools may apply.

Pell Grants are awarded usually only to students who have not earned a bachelor's or a professional degree.

To be eligible for a Pell grant, you must also meet the general **federal student aid eligibility** requirements.

To apply for a **Pell grant**, you must complete the...

- Free Application for Federal Student Aid (**FAFSA**)
EXHIBIT 21.1





Subsidiaries of US Airways Group, Inc.
--------------------------------------


     Airways Assurance Limited LLC
          Incorporated under the laws of Bermuda.

     Allegheny Airlines, Inc. (operates under the trade name 
       "US Airways Express")
          Incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

     Material Services Company, Inc.
          Incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

     Piedmont Airlines, Inc. (operates under the trade name 
       "US Airways Express")
          Incorporated under the laws of the State of Maryland.

     PSA Airlines, Inc. (operates under the trade name 
       "US Airways Express")
          Incorporated under the laws of the State of
          Pennsylvania.

     Shuttle, Inc. (operates under the trade name "US Airways 
       Shuttle")
          Incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

     US Airways, Inc. 
          Incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

     US Airways Fuel Corporation
          Incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

     US Airways Leasing and Sales, Inc.
          Incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sylvan Earl Ostroff, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Appellant specifically waived assignment of counsel upon this appeal. (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court denying,' without a hearing, motion to vacate a judgment of conviction for manslaughter, first degree, rendered April 4, 1962.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecehio, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 24 (Monday, February 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8675-8676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02470]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice:11350]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Projects: Gabrielle 
L'Hirondelle Hill'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Projects: Gabrielle L'Hirondelle 
Hill'' at the Museum of Modern Art's Sue and Edgar Wachenheim III 
Gallery, in New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions 
or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, 
further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United 
States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered 
that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5d6c0c6d1cccacb9791909ce5d6d1c4d1c08bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="483b2d2b3c2127267a7c7d71083b3c293c2d662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/

[[Page 8676]]

PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000.

Matthew R. Lussenhop,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-02470 Filed 2-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit
      31.22





RULE
      13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION


OF
      PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF CILCORP INC.


(required
      by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








I,
      Warner
      L. Baxter, certify that:





1.  I
      have
      reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended September
      30,
      2005 of CILCORP Inc.; and





2.  Based
      on
      my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
      fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
      in
      light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this report.










Date:
      February 12, 2007









/s/
      Warner L.
      Baxter


Warner
      L.
      Baxter


Executive
      Vice President and


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                             |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                             | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of English Language Acquisition Home |
|                                             |

This page provides information about award recipients, project abstracts, and summaries of competitions under the D2 program.  (Please note: Project abstracts, and summaries coming soon)

Breaking News: The U.S.  Department of Education announced $836,000 in grants to be awarded to  three State Education Agencies (SEAs) under its Asian American Pacific  Islander (AAPI) Data Disaggregation Initiative (D2). The three SEA grant  recipients are the Minnesota  Department of Education, Washington’s  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Hawaii Department of  Education. In May, U.S. Secretary of Education John B. King, Jr. announced  D2, which will award up to $1 million per year for five years pending annual  budget appropriations to SEAs to improve data collection and to identify  effective practices to close achievement and opportunity gaps through data  analysis. 

**2016 D2 Grantees** (PDF, 19KB)

**2016 D2 Grantee Applications****** (PDF, 40KB) 

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
... 

SERVED: JULY 8, 2013 

~~- --- -~-~------

1 

' 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD. 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0046 

ORDER GRANTING COMPLAINANT'S MOTION 

/,. :·: (". ;) ;f; ··. l : ...... : t .. ~ ........ 

The Motion of Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") to extend 

the time to answer the discovery requests of Respondent Trans North Aviation, Ltd. 

("Respondent") until July 9, 2013 is hereby GRANTED. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
2 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Charles R. Barnett III, Respondent's Counsel 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

TEL: 84 7-809-9520 

FAX: 815-356-7042 

Jeanette B. Daubaras, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Great Lakes Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, AL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7313 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0046 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shawn Syville, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered September 18, 1961 after a jury trial, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of the crime of which he was convicted. At the trial the People called one eyewitness (Roman), *but*failed to call another eyewitness (Butler) even though he was present and available to be called by either the People or the defendant. The trial court ruled that, although neither side called Butler, no inference could be drawn by the jury that the testimony of Butler would be unfavorable to the People or to the defendant; since he was available to be called by either side. In our opinion, under the facts of this ease, that ruling was correct because: (1) the trial Assistant Dis*731triet Attorney explained the People’s refusal to call Butler, from which explanation it was apparent that .at the time of the trial Butler, was a witness hostile to the prosecution; (2) Butler’s testimony was merely cumulative, and the prosecution is not obliged to produce two eyewitnesses to the crime as long as it has produced one of them; and (3) on the eve of trial Butler had informed the trial Assistant District Attorney that if called as a witness at the trial, he (¡Butler) would repudiate his prior written statements to the police and his prior testimony before the Adolescents’ Court and the Grand Jury *(People*v. *Elbroch,*250 App. Div. 583; of. *People*v. *Moore,*17 A D 2d 57, cert, denied 371 TJ. S. 838). Beldoek, P. J., TJghetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jose De La Garza, Appellant

No. 06-15-00123-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 18th District Court of 

Johnson County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

F48905). Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss

and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Jose De La Garza, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 12, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### George Game *vs.*Archie Whaley.

May 5, 1890.

Chattel Mortgage — Replevin — Evidence. — Claim by defendant of the right of possession of personal property by virtue of a mortgage *held*unsustained, for lack of proof of the identity of the property mortgaged and the property in controversy.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of tbe district court for Clay county, *Holland,*J., presiding.

*Taylor & Greene,*for appellant.

*O. Mosness,*for respondent.

*By the Court.*

This action was commenced in a justice’s court for tbe recovery of certain personal property. Judgment was recovered by tbe plaintiff, wbicb upon appeal was affirmed in the district court; and from tbe judgment of tbe latter court this appeal was taken.

Tne plaintiff' alleged that be was the owner of tbe property. The defendant, in bis answer, denying tbe plaintiff’s ownership, asserted bis right to tbe possession of the property under a chattel mortgage executed by one James Game to tbe McCormick Harvesting-Machine Company, the defendant being tbe agent of that company. Tbe district court decided the case upon its construction that chapter 58 of the Laws of 1887, amending tbe law as to the period of time during wbicb chattel mortgages should be deemed valid as to subsequent purchasers, was not applicable to mortgages executed prior to that amendment of the law; and to the consideration of that question tbe brief of the appellant has been devoted. But since, for another reason relied upon by tbe respondent, the judgment must be affirmed, and as a fact which might be found to be important as affecting the question of tbe applicability of tbe law of 1887 to this case is not disclosed by tbe record, we do not enter upon tbe consideration of that question. Tbe case shows that tbe defendant took tbe property from the possession of the plaintiff. Tbe plaintiff testified, without objection, that be was the owner of it. This constituted a prima facie *235case in favor of the plaintiff. This is not opposed by any evidence that the property was ever owned by any other person. To overcome the plaintiff’s ease the defendant relied upon the asserted rights of his principal, as mortgagee, under the mortgage executed by a third person, James Game. But, while the mortgage was offered in evidence, there was no proof that the property mortgaged and the property in question were the same. For this reason, if for no other, the judgment of the justice of the peace, and of the district court affirming it, were right.

Judgment affirmed.'
#### 28.100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes requirements and procedures for the use of bonds, alternative payment protections, and all types of bid guarantees.

[62 FR 44806, Aug. 22, 1997]