alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO




18
U.S.C. §1350,




AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of the Cryoport, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dee S. Kelly, Vice
President, Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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




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





/s/
Dee S. Kelly


DEE S.
KELLY


Vice
President, Finance


June 30,
2008
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 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 
            -           Resource: Starter Guide: Trauma-Informed Care for Adolescents in Primary Care      

# Resource: Starter Guide: Trauma-Informed Care for Adolescents in Primary Care

This fact sheet (PDF, 5 pages) shares information and best practices on providing trauma-informed primary medical care. The fact sheet defines trauma-informed care, provides tips on creating a trauma-informed clinical environment, outlines additional considerations, and offers further resources on trauma-informed physical and mental health care. **Learn more.**
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1416.101 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart establishes the terms and conditions under which the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP) will be administered.
( b ) Eligible producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish will be compensated for eligible losses due to an eligible adverse weather or eligible loss condition that occurred in the program year for which the producer requests benefits. The eligible loss must have been a direct result of eligible adverse weather or eligible loss conditions as determined by the Deputy Administrator. ELAP does not cover losses that are covered under LFP or LIP.
#### In the Matter of Dameon M., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[775 NYS2d 863]

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about December 2, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts, which if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed him on probation for 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility, including its resolution of inconsistencies in testimony. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.
#### Albert Bartolai, appellee, v. The Willett Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 33,586.

Opinion filed January 6, 1930.

Ralph Rosen, for appellant. Rathje & Connor, for appellee; Emmet J. Cleary, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Leo C. Noblett et al., Appellants, v Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Leonard J. Boughal et al., Defendants and Third-Party Defendants-Respondents, et al., Respondent.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered January 3, 1978, which was in favor of defendants and against them (the trial court dismissed the action as against the defendants County of Suffolk and Town of Brookhaven, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant Avis). Judgment modified, on the facts, by deleting therefrom all provisions against the plaintiffs, except those which are in favor of the County of Suffolk. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted as to all remaining parties and causes. Plaintiff Leo Noblett parked his car along the southbound shoulder of William Floyd Parkway in front of a delicatessen which he frequented. The time was 7:15 p.m. and, although the delicatessen was lit by a floodlight, no street lights were in the vicinity. After making several purchases, Mr. Noblett emerged from the delicatessen to find his car tightly situated between two other parked cars. He commenced maneuvering out of the parking space. Seeing no cars or headlights, Mr. Noblett pulled away from the shoulder and into the right-hand lane of the parkway. After traveling approximately 45 feet, Mr. Noblett’s car was struck on the driver’s side by a rented car driven by defendant Leonard Boughal. Mr. Noblett suffered a severe injury to his left leg. In our opinion, the verdict in favor of defendant Avis in this comparative negligence case cannot be supported by any fair interpretation of the evidence. Credible testimony was presented at the trial to the effect that defendant Leonard Boughal’s negligent driving contributed to this collision. Thomas Helgrick was driving southbound on the William Floyd Parkway. Boughal’s car passed him at a speed of 60 to 65 miles per hour. It continued along the road at that speed until it struck Mr. Noblett’s vehicle which had just pulled onto the parkway. Mr. Noblett’s testimony established that he saw no oncoming traffic as he drove into the right-hand lane of the parkway. No horn was sounded before the collision. Finally, the impact of the two cars propelled Mr. Noblett’s car a great distance before it came to rest on the median. These facts lead this court to believe that the jury’s finding that Boughal was not at all negligent was not warranted. Sufficient evidence was presented that his vehicle was traveling at too great a speed considering all of the surrounding facts and circumstances. Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Shapiro and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
852.235-72 Animal Welfare. As prescribed in 835.003-73, insert the following clause: Animal Welfare (DEC 2022) ( a ) The Contractor shall— ( 1 ) Use the Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Research Oversight (ORO) Laboratory Animal Welfare Checklist;
( 2 ) Comply with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations at *https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare ,* and the Animal Welfare Information Center's (AWIC) information for improved animal care and use in research, testing, and teaching provided at *https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic ;*
( 3 ) Develop and provide to the Contracting Officer a written plan of providing adequate veterinary care to laboratory animals, including— ( i ) The frequency of visits; and
( ii ) Provisions for after-hours, weekend and holiday veterinary coverage.
( b ) The Contracting Officer may immediately suspend the work by issuance of a stop work order and suspend further payments under this contract for failure to comply with the requirements of this clause.
( c ) The suspension will stay in effect until the Contractor complies with the requirements. Failure to complete corrective action within the time specified by the Contracting Officer may result in termination of this contract.
( d ) The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, in all subcontracts involving research and development, testing, evaluation or training that use live vertebrate animals.
(End of clause) [87 FR 70750, Nov. 21, 2022]
Exhibit 32.1



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 Amended Quarterly Report of Amecs Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Alexei Gavriline, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated this 2nd day of October, 2006.



| | ALEXEI GAVRILINE                                   
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Alexei Gavriline                                   
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



















---
§ 1221.121 Programs, plans, and projects. ( a ) The Board shall receive and evaluate, or on its own initiative develop, and submit to the Secretary for approval any program, plan, or project authorized under this subpart. Such programs, plans, or projects shall provide for: ( 1 ) The establishment, issuance, effectuation, and administration of appropriate programs for promotion, research, and information, including consumer and industry information, with respect to sorghum; and
( 2 ) The establishment and conduct of research with respect, but not limited to: The yield, use, nutritional value and benefits, sale, distribution, and marketing of sorghum, and the creation of new products thereof, to the end that the marketing and use of sorghum may be encouraged, expanded, improved, or made more acceptable; and to advance the image, desirability, or quality of sorghum.
( b ) No program, plan, or project shall be implemented prior to its approval by the Secretary. Once a program, plan, or project is so approved, the Board shall take appropriate steps to implement it.
( c ) Each program, plan, or project implemented under this subpart shall be reviewed or evaluated periodically by the Board to ensure that it contributes to an effective program of promotion, research, or information. If it is found by the Board that any such program, plan, or project does not contribute to an effective program of promotion, research, or information, then the Board shall terminate such program, plan, or project.
( d ) No program, plan, or project including advertising shall be false or misleading or disparaging to another agricultural commodity. Sorghum of all origins shall be treated equally.
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 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 
            -           Resource: Working with Immigrant and Refugee Families: A Guide for Child Welfare Agencies      

# Resource: Working with Immigrant and Refugee Families: A Guide for Child Welfare Agencies

This bulletin (PDF, 16 pages) describes strategies that child welfare agencies can use at the systems level to improve case outcomes for immigrant and refugee children, youth, and families. **Learn more.**
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0001017 29-JAN-2016 10:30 AM
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-11125.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-11125.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00242-CV

Vicky Malloy Breedlove, Appellant

v.

Olivia D. Uballe, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF COMAL COUNTY

NO. 2002CV0560, HONORABLE BRENDA CHAPMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Because appellant Vicky Malloy Breedlove hasfailed to file an appellant’s brief, we

will dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). 

The Clerk of this Court filed the clerk’srecord in this cause on April 23, 2003. Thus,

appellant’s brief was due May 23, 2003. See id. 38.6(a)(1). By postcard dated July 25, 2003, the

Clerk of this Court notified the parties that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of

prosecution unless appellant tendered a motion by August 5 reasonably explaining the failure to file

a brief. See id. 38.8(a)(1). Thus far, appellant has submitted neither a brief nor a motion reasonably

explaining the failure to file a brief.
2

Accordingly, we dismissthe appeal for want of prosecution on our own motion. See

id. 42.3(b).

 

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Patterson

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: October 2, 2003
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Gustavo Valencia,

 

 Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas,

State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00165-CR

Appeal from the

168th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20140D05521)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief 

until March 22, 2018. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE STATE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime Esparza, the State’s Attorney, 

prepare the State’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before March 22, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5

th day of February, 2018.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
Exhibit 10_23


		
			
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			PROJECT ASSIGNMENT
		

		
			 
		

		
			This Project Assignment is issued under the Independent Contractor Services Agreement (“Original Agreement”) dated August 14, 2007, between Scientific Learning Corporation of Oakland, California (“SLc”) and School Executive Consulting, Inc. of Dallas, Texas (“Contractor”).
		

		
			 
		

		
			Services to be performed:  
		

		
			Under the direction of the CEO or the person to whom he delegates this role, provide executive-level marketing and sales consulting services on a nationwide basis, including but not limited to (1) activities nationwide directed toward increasing the awareness about the Fast ForWord products and the research behind the products and (2) assisting in the organization of a team of prominent educational authorities in Texas to support SLC’s marketing and sales activities in Texas under the direction of the Regional Sales Director.  
		

		
			 
		

		
			Time Period during which Services will be performed:
		

		
			The term of this Project Assignment will begin January 1, 2013 and end December 31, 2013.
		

		
			 
		

		
			Fees for Services:    
		

		
			SLC will pay Contractor a consulting fee of $3,000 per month.
		

		
			 
		

		
			Expenses:
		

		
			SLC will also reimburse Contractor for reasonable travel, lodging, phone, mileage and meal expenses incurred in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement provided that Contractor has obtained prior approval from Contractor’s principal SLC contact and submits verification of such expenses as SLC may require.  
		

		
			 
		

		
			Payment Requirements:
		

		
			SLC will pay Contractor the monthly consulting fee by the 15th of the applicable month, without the need for invoice.  For expenses, Contractor shall invoice SLC.  SLC will pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt.
		

		
			 
		

		
			Note:            This Project Assignment is governed by the terms of an Independent Contractor Services Agreement in effect between SLc and Contractor.  Any item in this Project Assignment which is inconsistent with that Agreement is invalid.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Signed: /s/ Cheryl Leatherbury

					
					
						 

					
					
						/s/ Mike Moses

				
	
					
						For Client Hiring Manager

					
					
						 

					
					
						For Contractor

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Dated:   1-14-13

					
					
						 

					
					
						   1-11-13
#### Valentine F. Parker, Respondent, v Judith R. Parker, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 16, 1979, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements (see *Greschler v Greschler,*71 AD2d 322). Mollen, P. J., Lazer and Margett, JJ., concur.

Damiani, J.,

concurs in the result on constraint of *Greschler v Greschler*(71 AD2d 322).
#### § 1405.4 Delegations of authority.

The delegations of authority relating to the CCC programs and activities are set forth in the by-laws of CCC and in dockets approved by the CCC Board of Directors. Copies of the By-laws and the dockets may be obtained from the Secretary of CCC.
#### Louis Nappi, Appellant, v St. John’s Cemetery et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 10, 1979, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute the same. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the motion to dismiss is denied on condition that the plaintiff’s attorney, personally, pay the total sum of $250 to the defendants within 30 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. In the event such condition is not timely complied with, then order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Orderly procedure mandates timely compliance with a 90-day notice served pursuant to CPLR 3216, and where it appears that a valid reason may exist for a party’s inability to comply, he should, before default, apply to the court for an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004. (See Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3216:26, p 934.) The plaintiff has established that his action has merit. At the time the 90-day notice was served by mail on January 31, 1979, this litigation was in a viable state of activity with the defendants being thereafter deposed on February 23, 1979. The instant motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 was received by plaintiff on May 21, 1979, which was 17 days after the day on which the plaintiff should have complied with the notice. The default was not willful and the defendants have not been prejudiced; the interest of justice would, under the circumstances, best be served by reversing the order of Special Term granting the motion to dismiss, in order to prevent the plaintiff from being deprived of his day in court, and imposing appropriate financial sanctions upon his attorney for suffering the default to occur (see *Moran v Bynar,*39 AD2d 718). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Rabin, Gulotta and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
Second Department,

March, 1979

(March 5, 1979)

#### Joy Achuthan, Respondent, v M. Radh Achuthan, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action, the defendant appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered February 24, 1978, which, after a nonjury trial, *inter alia,*(1) dismissed his action for divorce, (2) granted the plaintiff’s action for divorce, (3) awarded custody of the children to the plaintiff, (4) granted alimony to the plaintiff of $100 per week, (5) awarded child support of $50 per week per child and (6) ordered the defendant to pay $3,000 in counsel fees. Judgment modified, on the facts, by reducing the award of alimony to $75 per week. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The alimony award was excessive to the extent indicated. O’Connor, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Mangano, JJ., concur.
Order entered April 17, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00732-CV

ALBERT G. HILL, III, Appellant

V.

ALBERT G. HILL, JR., Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-04523

ORDER

Before the Court is the motion of Daniel L. Jackson, Receiver for Hill 3 Investments LLC 

requesting that the Court reconsider and clarify the Court’s March 31, 2104 order staying the 

trial court’s March 17, 2014 Order Approving Receiver’s Application for Payment of Fees and 

Expenses Regarding Preparation of Appellate Brief and the Court’s March 31, 2014 order 

consolidating Cause No. 05-14-00397-CV and Cause No. 05-13-00732-CV. The Court DENIES 

the motion.

/s/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE