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

        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  IGENE  Biotechnology,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  Annual on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December
31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the  date  hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward J. Weisberger,  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, 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, as amended; and

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


Date: December 11, 2007              By: /S/ EDWARD J. WEISBERGER
                                      ___________________________
                                          EDWARD J. WEISBERGER
                                          Chief Financial Officer

A  signed original of this written statement required by  Section
906  has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission
or its staff upon request.
#### § 2700.1 General statement.

This part is issued in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) to provide guidance for the general public as to the organization and functions of the Office of Information Resources Management.
§ 1970.55 CEs for multi-tier actions. The CEs in this section apply solely to providing financial assistance to primary recipients in multi-tier action programs. ( a ) The Agency's approval of financial assistance to a primary recipient in a multi-tier action program is categorically excluded under this section only if the primary recipient agrees in writing to: ( 1 ) Conduct a screening of all proposed uses of funds to determine whether each proposal that would be funded or financed falls within § 1970.53 or § 1970.54 as a categorical exclusion;
( 2 ) Obtain sufficient information to make an evaluation of those proposals listed in § 1970.53 and prepare an ER for proposals under § 1970.54 to determine if extraordinary circumstances (as described in § 1970.52) are present;
( 3 ) Document and maintain its conclusions regarding the applicability of a CE in its official records for Agency verification; and
( 4 ) Refer all proposals that do not meet listed CEs in § 1970.53 or § 1970.54, and proposals that may have extraordinary circumstances (as described in § 1970.52) to the Agency for further review in accordance with this part.
( b ) The primary recipient's compliance with this section will be monitored and verified in Agency compliance reviews and other required audits. Failure by a primary recipient to meet the requirements of this section will result in penalties that may include written warnings, withdrawal of Agency financial assistance, suspension from participation in Agency programs, or other appropriate action.
( c ) Nothing in this section is intended to delegate the Agency's responsibility for compliance with this part. The Agency will continue to maintain ultimate responsibility for and control over the environmental review process in accordance with this part.
Performance Incentive Plan


 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 AMENDMENT ONE TO THE QUAKER CHEMICAL CORPORATION 
 2001 LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 WHEREAS, Quaker Chemical Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Quaker Chemical Corporation 2001 Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan (the “2001
LTIP”); 
  
 WHEREAS, Section 3.4 of the 2001 LTIP provides that no stock
option shall be exercisable prior to the expiration of one year from the date of grant, except in the case of certain corporate transactions; and 
  
 WHEREAS, in light of upcoming changes in the accounting rules applicable to options, the Company desires to amend the 2001 LTIP to provide that an option may become
exercisable prior to the first anniversary of the date of grant, subject to restrictions on transfer of stock purchased under the option; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the first sentence of Section 3.4 of the 2001 LTIP is hereby deleted and replaced by the following, effective February 22, 2005: 
  

	3.4	Exercise. 

  
 Subject to Sections 3.10 and 6.1, no Stock Option shall be exercisable prior to the expiration of one (1) year from the date it was granted; provided, however, the Committee may, in its discretion, at the time of
grant or thereafter, provide that a Stock Option may be exercised prior to the first anniversary of the date of grant provided the Committee imposes reasonable restrictions on transfer of any Common Stock purchased under the Stock Option during a
period of not less than one (1) year beginning on the date the Stock Option was granted. Such restrictions shall cease to apply upon the occurrence of an Option Event (as described in Section 3.10) or a reorganization, merger, consolidation or sale
(as described in Section 6.1). 
  
 Adopted by the Board of
Directors 
 of Quaker Chemical Corporation 
 March 9, 2005
#### § 201.58c Detection of captan, mercury, or thiram on seed.

The bioassay method may be used according to the procedure given in Association of Official Seed Analysts, Handbook No. 26, “Microbiological Assay of Fungicide-treated Seeds”, May 1964.

[38 FR 12733, May 15, 1973]
Amendment to Employment Agreement--Richard P. Herpich



 EXHIBIT 10.5(K) 
  
 AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made January 14, 2005 by and between Valassis Communications, Inc. (the
“Corporation”) and Richard P. Herpich (the “Executive”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into that certain Employment Agreement effective as of January 17, 1994, as amended June 30, 1994, December 19, 1995, February 18, 1997, December 30, 1997,
December 15, 1998, January 4, 2000, December 21, 2000, December 20, 2001, May 13, 2002, July 8, 2002 and January 8, 2004 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement to extend the term of employment
under the Employment Agreement. 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the above recitals, the parties hereto agree as set forth below. 
  
 1. Section 1(b) of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
  
 “The Employment Period shall commence as of January 17, 1994 (the “Effective Date”) and shall continue until the close of
business on December 31, 2007. 
  
 2. The first sentence of
Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to read as follows: 
  
 “The Executive’s Annual Base Salary (“Annual Base Salary”), payable on a biweekly basis, shall be at the annual rate of not less than $360,000 effective January 1, 2005.” 
  
 3. All other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect. 







 4. This instrument, together with the Employment Agreement, contains the entire agreement of the parties
with respect to the subject matter hereof. 
  
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Executive and the Corporation have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	 VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Barry P. Hoffman


	 Name:
	 	 Barry P. Hoffman

	 Title:
	 	 Executive Vice President and Legal Counsel

		
	 	 	 /s/ Richard P. Herpich


	 	 	 Richard P. Herpich



  

 2
#### Richard J. CRECCO, Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

No. 04-1174.

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

March 6, 2007.

Before KASOLD, HAGEL and DAVIS, Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

In a March 2, 2007, joint motion for remand, the parties propose that the Court vacate the May 28, 2004, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision on appeal. They contend that the Board failed to address the appellant’s arguments that he was entitled to a disability rating for injuries to additional muscle groups than those for which he had been rated. The Court agrees, and the parties’ motion will be granted.

The Court expresses its appreciation to amicus curiae, American Legion, Military Order of the Purple Heart, National Veterans Legal Services Program, United Spinal Association, Veterans Law Group, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Disabled American Veterans. The Court also extends its gratitude to attorneys Ronald B. Abrams, Margaret C. Bartley, Mark R. Lippman, Christopher J. Clay, Ralph A. Finizio, Michael P. Horan, and William S. Mailander for serving as amicus curiae in this matter and filing briefs with the Court.

On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the March 7, 2007, oral argument scheduled before the Court is cancelled. It is further

ORDERED that the joint motion for remand is GRANTED. The May 28, 2004, Board decision is SET ASIDE and the matter is REMANDED for readjudication in accordance with the bases for remand included in the joint motion. On remand, Mr. Crecco is permitted to submit additional evidence and argument to support his claim. *See Kay v. Principi*16 Vet.App. 529 (2002). Further, this order and the joint motion for remand will be included in Mr. Crecco’s claims file. *See id.; see also Fletcher v. Derwinski*1 Vet.App. 394 (1991). Under Rule 41(b) of the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this order is the mandate of the Court.
```

[109th Congress Public Law 185]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ185.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 293]]

Public Law 109-185
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 2000 McDonough Street in Joliet, Illinois, as the ``John F. Whiteside 
 Joliet Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Mar. 20, 2006 -  [H.R. 2113]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2000 
McDonough Street in Joliet, Illinois, shall be known and designated as 
the ``John F. Whiteside Joliet Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John F. Whiteside Joliet Post 
Office Building''.

    Approved March 20, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2113:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 151 (2005):
                                    July 13, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 152 (2006):
                                    Mar. 3, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7542

OTIS LEE WEAVER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-02-125)

Submitted: April 24, 2003 Decided: May 1, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Otis Lee Weaver, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Otis Lee Weaver, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An

appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue for claims dismissed by

a district court solely on procedural grounds unless the petitioner

can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and find that Weaver has not satisfied this standard.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1034, 1039

(2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 22.306 Financing rural development planning.

States will be required to finance rural development planning through their own resources, revenue-sharing allocations, or the Department of Housing and Urban Development planning and management assistance program or other available Federal planning programs.
*Monday, August 17, 1998*

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

98-866.

#### State ex rel. Smith v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 97APD04^457. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1992 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 12 (legislative day, DECEMBER 11), 2013 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

AN ACT 

To amend the requirements relating to assessment of Israel’s 

qualitative military edge over military threats, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1992 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Israel QME Enhance3 ment Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO 

5 ASSESSMENT OF ISRAEL’S QUALITATIVE 

6 MILITARY EDGE OVER MILITARY THREATS. 

7 (a) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED; REPORTS.—Section 

8 201 of Public Law 110–429 (122 Stat. 4843; 22 U.S.C. 

9 2776 note) is amended— 

10 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘an ongoing 

11 basis’’ and inserting ‘‘a biennial basis’’; and 

12 (2) in subsection (c)(2)— 

13 (A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘QUADREN14 NIAL’’ and inserting ‘‘BIENNIAL’’; and 

15 (B) in the text, by striking ‘‘Not later than 

16 four years after the date on which the President 

17 transmits the initial report under paragraph 

18 (1), and every four years thereafter,’’ and in19 serting ‘‘Not later than one year after the date 

20 of the enactment of the Israel QME Enhance21 ment Act, and biennially thereafter,’’. 

22 (b) REPORT.— 

23 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after 

24 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

25 of State shall submit to the appropriate congres26 sional committees a report on— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1992 RFS

1 (A) the range of cyber and asymmetric 

2 threats posed to Israel by state and non-state 

3 actors; and 

4 (B) the joint efforts of the United States 

5 and Israel to address the threats identified in 

6 subparagraph (A). 

7 (2) FORM.—The report required under para8 graph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, 

9 but may contain a classified annex. 

10 (3) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMIT11 TEES DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘ap12 propriate congressional committees’’ means the 

13 Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Rep14 resentatives and the Committee on Foreign Rela15 tions of the Senate. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 

2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Director Compensation Arrangements



 Exhibit 10.32 
  
 Director Compensation Arrangements 
  
 Radiant’s present policy is not to pay any cash compensation to its directors, other than to the Audit Committee
Chairman, who receives a $5,000 annual retainer. Each non-employee director receives an automatic grant of options to purchase 10,000 shares of Radiant’s common stock on the last business day of each year. Each non-employee director is also
reimbursed for travel and other expenses incurred in connection with the performance of his or her duties. 
  
 In addition, all new non-employee directors receive a one-time grant of an option to purchase 25,000 shares of Radiant’s common stock at an exercise
price equal to the fair market value of such stock on the date of grant, which options vest over a period of three years. All such options expire, unless previously exercised or terminated, ten years from the date of grant. 
  
 Radiant’s non-management directors are also eligible to receive
additional stock option grants under Radiant’s Non-Management Directors’ Stock Option Plan, in the discretion of Radiant’s Board of Directors.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-149V

(Not to be published1)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

*

ELAINE DEJESUS, *

*

Petitioner, * Filed: June 17, 2013

*

v. * Decision by Stipulation; Influenza

* Vaccine; Chronic Inflammatory

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Demyelinating Polyneuropathy 

HUMAN SERVICES * (“CIDP”)

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

DECISION

HASTINGS, Special Master.

This is an action seeking an award under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 

Program

2

on account of an injury suffered by Elaine Dejesus. On June 13, 2013, counsel for 

both parties filed a Stipulation, stipulating that a decision should be entered granting 

compensation. The parties have stipulated that petitioner shall receive the following 

compensation:

● A lump sum of $80,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner, 

representing compensation for all damages that would be available under 

42 U.S.C. §300aa-15(a). 

 

1

 Because this document contains an explanation for my action in this case, I intend to post

this document on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the 

E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). 

Therefore, as provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request 

redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade secret or commercial or 

financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that are medical files and similar 

files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” 

Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, this entire document will be available to the public. Id.

2

 The applicable statutory provisions defining the Program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 

et seq. (2006 ed.). Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all "§" references will be to 42 U.S.C. (2006 

ed.).
● A lump sum of $20,877.84, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner 

and petitioner’s counsel, Anne Carrion Toale, representing compensation for 

attorney’s fees and costs. 

Under the statute governing the Program, as well as the “Vaccine Rules” adopted by this 

court, the special master must now enter a decision endorsing that stipulation, and the clerk must 

enter judgment, in order to authorize payment of the award. See § 300aa-12(d)(3)(A) and (e)(3); 

§ 300aa-13(a); Vaccine Rules 10(a), 11(a).3

I have reviewed the file, and based on that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation 

appears to be an appropriate one. Accordingly, my decision is that a Program award shall be 

made to petitioner in the amount set forth above. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for 

review of this Decision, the clerk shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George L. Hastings, Jr.

George L. Hastings, Jr.

Special Master

 

3

 The “Vaccine Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims” are found in Appendix B of 

the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.545 Additional grants.

An additional grant may be made to an applicant that has previously received a TSA grant and has achieved or nearly achieved the goals established for the previous grant by submitting a new proposal for TSA funds. The additional grant application will be processed as if it were an initial application. Upon approval, a new grant agreement will be required and the grant will be coded as an initial grant on Form RD 1940-1.
§ 248.1 General purpose and scope. This part announces regulations under which the Secretary of Agriculture shall carry out the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. The dual purposes of the FMNP are: ( a ) To provide resources in the form of fresh, nutritious, unprepared foods (fruits and vegetables) from farmers' markets to women, infants, and children who are nutritionally at risk and who are participating in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) or are on the waiting list for the WIC Program; and
( b ) To expand the awareness, use of and sales at farmers' markets.
This will be accomplished through payment of cash grants to approved State agencies which administer the FMNP and deliver benefits at no cost to eligible persons. The FMNP shall be supplementary to the food stamp program carried out under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 *et seq.*) and to any other Federal or State program under which foods are distributed to needy families in lieu of food stamps.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1980.474 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1980.435-1980.440 [Reserved]