alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2
                                                                   ------------



                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the filing of eClickMD, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the
"Company") Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March
31, 2002 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Neil Burley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. (SS) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (SS) 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


November 21, 2002                               /s/ Neil Burley
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Chief Financial Officer
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<RESTATED>

<CAPTION>

1996 Financial Data Schedule (Q2 Restated)
<S>                      <C>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            3-MOS-Restated        6-MOS-Restated
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1996           DEC-31,1996
<PERIOD-END>                MAR-30-1996           JUN-29-1996
<CASH>                          29,838              73,086
<SECURITIES>                    63,971              19,888
<RECEIVABLES>                   49,150              47,649
<ALLOWANCES>                     1,398               1,333
<INVENTORY>                     49,358              48,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               201,077             201,665
<PP&E>                         127,020             136,090
<DEPRECIATION>                  76,405              79,088
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 255,523             262,462
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           64,812              66,620
<BONDS>                             0                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0                   0
<PREFERRED>                         0                   0
<COMMON>                           166                 166
<OTHER-SE>                     184,897             189,216
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   255,523             262,462
<SALES>                         61,174             119,355
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                61,174             119,355
<CGS>                           30,497              58,924
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   30,497              58,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                22,172              43,526
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    57                 (35)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 198                 370
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 16,108              25,285
<INCOME-TAX>                     4,510               7,080
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 0                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                      0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0                   0
<CHANGES>                           0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                    11,598             18,205
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .32                .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .30                .48



</TABLE>
# C_2017064EN.01000101.xml

| 28.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8263 — Sharp/Skytec UMC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 64/01)

On 15 February 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8263. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8263. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2021096EN.01000801.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/8

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2021/C 96/08)

Image 1

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Spain

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country: Spain

Subject of commemoration: UNESCO - Toledo

Description of the design: The design depicts a view of the Puerta de Sol and a detail of the ‘La Sinagoga del Tránsito’, both buildings built in the fourteenth century in Mudejar style. On the left hand and in capital letters the word ‘ESPAÑA’ and the year of minting ‘2021’. At the top on the right hand the mintmark.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Estimated number of coins to be issued: 4 000 000

Date of issue: February 2021

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

---
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Report: Prevalence of Parent-Reported Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Diagnosis and Associated Treatment Among U.S. Children and Adolescents, 2016      

# Report: Prevalence of Parent-Reported Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Diagnosis and Associated Treatment Among U.S. Children and Adolescents, 2016

This study examines survey data from the National Survey of Children’s Health to estimate the prevalence of ADHD diagnosis and treatment. The results indicate that, as of 2016, 6.1 million children aged 2-17 years living in the U.S. had been diagnosed with ADHD, which is similar to previous estimates. Almost two thirds were taking medication, slightly less than half had received behavioral treatment in the past year, and nearly one fourth had received neither treatment. **Learn more.**
#### Russell F. MYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Caspar WEINBERGER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 74-2147.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 1, 1975.

*294Frank J. Neff, Barkan, Barkan & Neff, Columbus, Ohio, for appellant.

William W. Milligan, U. S. Atty., W. Robinson Watters, Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.

Before EDWARDS, PECK and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from the District Court’s affirmance of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare’s denial of total disability Social Security benefits.

Appellant is a 61-year-old man with a 10th grade education, who quit his job operating a file cutting machine after 28 years at work on it because of low back pains. Appellant’s doctors diagnosed his problem as degenerative disc syndrome, and two of the doctors gave as their opinion that he was totally disabled.

The Secretary concedes appellant is disabled from his prior occupation but asserts that, nonetheless, he retains residual capacity to do other light jobs. Where the case is in such a posture, the burden shifts to the Secretary to present evidence that appellant can perform substantial work with his lessened capability and that there are jobs in the national economy as defined which he could accomplish. Vaughn v. Finch, 431 F.2d 997 (6th Cir. 1970); Garrett v. Finch, 436 F.2d 15 (6th Cir. 1970).

Our inspection of this record indicates that the Secretary failed to present such proofs. By brief and oral argument counsel for the Secretary relied entirely upon the answers to two hypothetical questions which had been posed to a vocational expert witness. It is axiomatic that a hypothetical question is not evidence. It should be an accurate summation of the evidence already presented in the record and can neither add to nor detract from that evidence.

We are unable to find in this record (in spite of a prior remand for further testimony) any evidence to substantiate the government’s claim that plaintiff while disabled from his prior occupation is capable of performing jobs which are available in the national economy to a person with his education and training. *See*20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(c) (1974).

The judgment of the District Court is reversed. The case is remanded to the District Court for entry of an order awarding benefits.
42.709-2 General. ( a ) The following penalties apply to contracts covered by this section: ( 1 ) If the indirect cost is expressly unallowable under a cost principle in the FAR, or an executive agency supplement to the FAR, that defines the allowability of specific selected costs, the penalty is equal to— ( i ) The amount of the disallowed costs allocated to contracts that are subject to this section for which an indirect cost proposal has been submitted; plus
( ii ) Interest on the paid portion, if any, of the disallowance.
( 2 ) If the indirect cost was determined to be unallowable for that contractor before proposal submission, the penalty is two times the amount in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
( b ) These penalties are in addition to other administrative, civil, and criminal penalties provided by law.
( c ) It is not necessary for unallowable costs to have been paid to the contractor in order to assess a penalty.
[60 FR 42658, Aug. 16, 1995. Redesignated at 86 FR 44255, Aug. 11, 2021]
51.104 Furnishing assistance to contractors. After receiving an activity address code, the contracting officer will notify the appropriate GSA regional office or military activity, which will contact the contractor and— ( a ) Provide initial copies of ordering information and instructions; and
( b ) When necessary, assist the contractor in preparing and submitting, as appropriate— ( 1 ) The initial FEDSTRIP or MILSTRIP requisitions, the Optional Form 347, or the agency-approved forms;
( 2 ) A completed GSA Form 457, FSS Publications Mailing List Application, so that the contractor will automatically receive current copies of required publications; or
( 3 ) A completed GSA Form 3525, Application for Customer Supply Center Services and (Address Change).
[48 FR 42476, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 29282, July 11, 1989]
#### BECKER v. HOTCHKIN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 7, 1906.)

Action by James P. Becker against Rosette B. Hotchkin and others.

No opinion. Motion denied, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         148,239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  882,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  7,444,457
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,604,570
<PP&E>                                       1,309,517
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,914,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,256,758
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    400,000
<COMMON>                                    18,914,871
<OTHER-SE>                                 (15,658,659)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,914,087
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,568,599
<CGS>                                       13,404,351
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,404,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             276,397
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                464,629
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            464,629
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   464,629
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
43.201 General. ( a ) Generally, Government contracts contain a changes clause that permits the contracting officer to make unilateral changes, in designated areas, within the general scope of the contract. These are accomplished by issuing written change orders on Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract (SF 30), unless otherwise provided (see 43.301).
( b ) The contractor must continue performance of the contract as changed, except that in cost-reimbursement or incrementally funded contracts the contractor is not obligated to continue performance or incur costs beyond the limits established in the Limitation of Cost or Limitation of Funds clause (see 32.706-2).
( c ) The contracting officer may issue a change order by electronic means without a SF 30 under unusual or urgent circumstances, *provided* that the message contains substantially the information required by the SF 30 and immediate action is taken to issue the SF 30.
[48 FR 42386, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 78 FR 37689, June 21, 2013; 81 FR 83099, Nov. 18, 2016]
# Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Program

# Competitive Grants 

## FY 2019 Non-Competing Continuation (NCC) Awards
32.501-3 Contract price. ( a ) For the purpose of making progress payments and determining the limitation on progress payments, the contract price shall be as follows: ( 1 ) Under firm-fixed price contracts, the contract price is the current amount fixed by the contract plus the not-to-exceed amount for any unpriced modifications.
( 2 ) If the contract is redeterminable or subject to economic price adjustment, the contract price is the initial price until modified.
( 3 ) Under a fixed-price incentive contract, the contract price is the target price plus the not-to-exceed amount of unpriced modifications. However, if the contractor's properly incurred costs exceed the target price, the contracting officer may provisionally increase the price up to the ceiling or maximum price.
( 4 ) Under a letter contract, the contract price is the maximum amount obligated by the contract as modified.
( 5 ) Under an unpriced order issued against a basic ordering agreement, the contract price is the maximum amount obligated by the order, as modified.
( 6 ) Any portion of the contract specifically providing for reimbursement of costs only shall be excluded from the contract price.
( b ) The contracting officer shall not make progress payments or increase the contract price beyond the funds obligated under the contract, as amended.
[48 FR 42328, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 74 FR 28431, June 15, 2009]
42.803 Disallowing costs after incurrence. Cost-reimbursement contracts, the cost-reimbursement portion of fixed-price contracts, letter contracts that provide for reimbursement of costs, and time-and-material and labor-hour contracts provide for disallowing costs during the course of performance after the costs have been incurred. The following procedures shall apply: ( a ) *Contracting officer receipt of vouchers.* When contracting officers receive vouchers directly from the contractor and, with or without auditor assistance, approve or disapprove them, the process shall be conducted in accordance with the normal procedures of the individual agency.
( b ) *Auditor receipt of vouchers.* ( 1 ) When authorized by agency regulations, the contract auditor may be authorized to ( i ) receive reimbursement vouchers directly from contractors,
( ii ) approve for payment those vouchers found acceptable, and
( iii ) suspend payment of questionable costs. The auditor shall forward approved vouchers for payment to the cognizant contracting, finance, or disbursing officer, as appropriate under the agency's procedures.
( 2 ) If the examination of a voucher raises a question regarding the allowability of a cost under the contract terms, the auditor, after informal discussion as appropriate, may, where authorized by agency regulations, issue a notice of contract costs suspended and/or disapproved simultaneously to the contractor and the disbursing officer, with a copy to the cognizant contracting officer, for deduction from current payments with respect to costs claimed but not considered reimbursable.
( 3 ) If the contractor disagrees with the deduction from current payments, the contractor may— ( i ) Submit a written request to the cognizant contracting officer to consider whether the unreimbursed costs should be paid and to discuss the findings with the contractor;
( ii ) File a claim under the Disputes clause, which the cognizant contracting officer will process in accordance with agency procedures; or
( iii ) Do both of the above.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20521

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE BENITO ALVAREZ, also known as Benito Alvarez, also known as Benito

Iraheta-Alvarez, also known as Benito Iraheta Alvarez,

Defendant-Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 12-40819

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BENITO IRAHETA-ALVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-398-1

USDC No. 1:12-CR-289-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 18, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 12-20521 Document: 00512277995 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2013
No. 12-20521

c/w No. 12-40819

Before JONES, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Benito IrahetaAlvarez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Iraheta-Alvarez has filed a response. We have reviewed

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well

as Iraheta-Alvarez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the

appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

2

 Case: 12-20521 Document: 00512277995 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2013
Exhibit 32.2

                      Statement of Chief Financial Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Henry P. Herms, the Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer of
CopyTele, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1.       The Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ended October
         31, 2003 (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 results of operations of
         the Company.


                                            /s/ Henry P. Herms
                                            ------------------
                                            Henry P. Herms
                                            Vice President - Finance and
December 22, 2003                           Chief Financial Officer