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



Exhibit (32)(b)

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Republic Bancorp Inc.
(the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                       |  |                                                                       
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 13, 2003 |  | /s/ Thomas F. Menacher

Name: Thomas F. Menacher                      
|                       |  | Title: Executive Vice President, Treasurer
and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification accompanies the filing and is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Republic Bancorp Inc.
and will be retained by Republic Bancorp Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 510.440 Injectable iron preparations.

There has been an increasing interest in the use of injectable iron compounds for the prevention or treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in animals. Although some such preparations have been shown to be safe, such articles are regarded as new animal drugs within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Accordingly, an approved new animal drug application is required prior to the marketing of such preparations within the jurisdiction of the act. In addition to the need for demonstrating the safety of such articles, the labeling of such preparations should not only recommend appropriate dosages of iron but also declare the amount (in milligrams) of available iron (Fe) per milliliter of the subject product.
_________________________________________ 

 

_____________________________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

134665(81)(82)(84) Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

FRANK J. TOMECEK, JR., and

JANIS H. TOMECEK,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

 SC: 134665 

v COA: 258907 

 Berrien CC:02-003707-CH 

ANDREW LUCIAN BAVAS, et al,

 Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY, d/b/a 

AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC., 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND 

ECONOMIC GROWTH, and BERRIEN COUNTY 

DRAIN COMMISSIONER,

 Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

DANIEL JOHNSON, et al,

 Defendants. 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by defendants-appellants for 

extension to September 19, 2008 of the time for filing their brief and appendix is 

GRANTED. The motions by Walloon Lake Association and by Michigan Lake & 

Stream Association for leave to file briefs amicus curiae is considered and they are 

GRANTED. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 25, 2008 

 Clerk
[No. 15528-5-III.

Division Three.

January 27, 1998.]

#### Donald L. Stickley, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Labor & Industries, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 94-2-00116-4, Duane E. Taber, J., entered January 25, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, C.J., concurred in by Kurtz and Brown, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         30,652,011
<SECURITIES>                                   1,505,909
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,131,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               37,559,641
<PP&E>                                         5,702,736
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,269,451
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 42,945,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,992,840
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       141,765
<OTHER-SE>                                     35,421,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   42,945,278
<SALES>                                        10,326,912
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,326,912
<CGS>                                          7,649,962
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  29,972,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             74,480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (26,534,621)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (26,534,621)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (26,534,621)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (2.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2.54)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit








Univar Inc. Omnibus Waiver regarding Whistleblower Protections
Univar Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) are party to agreements, plans, programs, policies and arrangements with current and former employees, members and agents of the Company, including but not limited to employment, confidentiality, separation, release, settlement, equity, restrictive covenant, consulting and other similar agreements (collectively, the “Employee Arrangements”).  This Omnibus Waiver (the “Waiver”) has been approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Univar Inc. as of May 3, 2017 (the “Effective Date”) in accordance with whistleblower provisions under applicable U.S. federal, state, local and non-U.S. law and regulation.  
This Waiver applies with respect to all Employee Arrangements in effect as of the Effective Date.  This Waiver shall be deemed to amend and become a part of the terms and provisions of each of the Employee Arrangements and the terms and provisions of this Waiver will prevail in the event of any conflicting terms or provisions in the Employee Arrangements.  This Waiver is intended to waive any and all rights of the Company to enforce the terms and provisions of any Employee Arrangement that may be deemed to violate whistleblower provisions under applicable U.S. federal, state, local and non-U.S. laws and regulations.
Waiver of Rights under Employee Arrangements
The Company hereby waives any and all rights it may now or in the future have to enforce the terms and provisions of any Employee Arrangement that: 
		
	(i)
	preclude or prohibit any employee or former employee of the Company from recovering monetary damages from the government under Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;


		
	(ii)
	limit the ability or right of any employee or former employee of the Company to disclose possible violations of applicable U.S. federal, state, local and non-U.S. law or regulation to, file a charge or complaint with, or participate in an investigation or proceeding conducted by, any governmental agency or entity, or make other disclosures that are protected under the whistleblower provisions of applicable U.S. federal, state and non-U.S. law or regulation; and


		
	(iii)
	require any such employee or former employee to seek authorization from, or to provide notice to, the Company or any of its affiliates prior to or after taking any of the actions described in subclause (ii) above.


Interpretation and Administration
The Compensation Committee of the Board and the General Counsel of the Company has the authority to administer, interpret and construe this Waiver.




Univar Inc. 

By: /s/ Stephen N. Landsman 
                Name:  Stephen N. Landsman 
                Title:  Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
#### Carlos GODINEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-70963.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.*

Decided Oct. 21, 2005.

Frank P. Sprouls, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Seroj Meserkhani, Law Offices of Mes-erkhani & Bagramian, Glendale, CA, Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Luis E. Perez, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: HALL, T.G. NELSON and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Godinez-Gareia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“U”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. ‘We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s decision that an applicant has failed to establish ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States.” *Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision because Godinez-Gareia did not testify consistently with his two applications for cancellation of removal regarding his initial entry to the United States, whether and how frequently he has departed the United States, the places and dates of his employment, and when he started his own business. *See Singh-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d 1147, 1152-53 (9th Cir.1999). The record also supports the *552IJ’s determination that Godinez-Garcia’s documentary evidence did not overcome the inconsistencies.

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 Annual Report of Astea International Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rick
Etskovitz, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial and Chief Accounting
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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 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/Rick Etskovitz
                                -----------------
                                Rick Etskovitz
                                Chief Financial Officer
                                (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
                                March 28, 2005





<PAGE>
Editorial Note on Part 328
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 328 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 328.3 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) *Alcohol* means the substance known as ethanol, ethyl alcohol, or Alcohol, USP.
( b ) *Inactive ingredient* means any component of a product other than an active ingredient as defined in § 210.3(b)(7) of this chapter.
[No. 21249-8-II.

Division Two.

December 12, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Toan Thein Vo, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 96-1-02192-1, Thomas R. Sauriol, J., entered September 24, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Armstrong, JJ.
§ 357.801 Scope. ( a ) An over-the-counter deodorant drug product for internal use in a form suitable for oral administration is generally recognized as safe and effective and is not misbranded if it meets each condition in this subpart and each general condition established in § 330.1 of this chapter.
( b ) References in this subpart to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21 unless otherwise noted.
<PAGE>   1

The Loewen Group Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(NYSE, TSE, ME: LWN)                                                        NEWS


Contact:
Thomas C. Franco
Broadgate Consultants, Inc.
Tel: (212) 232-2222

                              FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

                    LOEWEN GROUP ANNOUNCES LENDING AGREEMENTS

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

VANCOUVER, BC, March 30, 1999 -- The Loewen Group Inc. (NYSE, TSE, ME: LWN)
today announced it has negotiated revised lending agreements with its lenders
under its bank revolving credit agreement, MEIP bank term credit agreement and
certain other notes. The revised lending agreements, expected to become
effective March 31, 1999 upon completion of the previously announced sale to an
investor group led by McCown De Leeuw & Co. of 124 cemeteries and three funeral
homes, require a permanent paydown under these agreements of $103 million from
the resulting proceeds.

John Lacey, Chairman of the Loewen Board stated "the successful completion of
this agreement means both that there is no event of default under our agreements
and that the Company will have additional working capital while it addresses the
difficult challenges it faces. This will give the Company time in which to work
with all stakeholders in exploring value alternatives that will be in the best
interests of all concerned."

The Company's revised lending agreements provide for: waivers of financial
covenants at December 31, 1998; the suspension of all common, preferred and MIPS
dividends; a requirement to refinance the PATS senior notes on satisfactory
terms to the lenders by September 15, 1999; no further borrowings under its
revolving bank credit agreement except for certain letters of credit; and
changes and additions to existing covenants.

The Loewen Group Inc. is the second largest funeral home and cemetery operator
in North America. The Company employs approximately 16,000 people and owns 



<PAGE>   2

or operates more than 1,100 funeral homes and over 500 cemeteries across the
United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Over 90 percent of the Company's
revenue is derived from the United States.


The Loewen Group's website is located at http://www.loewengroup.com




                                    - more -
§ 26.1 Definitions. ( a ) *Enforcement* means action taken by an authority to protect the public from products of suspect quality, safety, and effectiveness or to assure that products are manufactured in compliance with appropriate laws, regulations, standards, and commitments made as part of the approval to market a product.
( b ) *Equivalence* of the regulatory systems means that the systems are sufficiently comparable to assure that the process of inspection and the ensuing inspection reports will provide adequate information to determine whether respective statutory and regulatory requirements of the authorities have been fulfilled. Equivalence does not require that the respective regulatory systems have identical procedures.
( c ) *Good Manufacturing Practices* (GMP's). [The United States has clarified its interpretation that under the MRA, paragraph (c)(1) of this section has to be understood as the U.S. definition and paragraph (c)(2) as the EC definition.] ( 1 ) GMP's mean the requirements found in the legislations, regulations, and administrative provisions for methods to be used in, and the facilities or controls to be used for, the manufacturing, processing, packing, and/or holding of a drug to assure that such drug meets the requirements as to safety, and has the identity and strength, and meets the quality and purity characteristics that it purports or is represented to possess.
( 2 ) GMP's are that part of quality assurance which ensures that products are consistently produced and controlled to quality standards. For the purpose of this subpart, GMP's include, therefore, the system whereby the manufacturer receives the specifications of the product and/or process from the marketing authorization/product authorization or license holder or applicant and ensures the product is made in compliance with its specifications (qualified person certification in the EC).
( d ) *Inspection* means an onsite evaluation of a manufacturing facility to determine whether such manufacturing facility is operating in compliance with GMP's and/or commitments made as part of the approval to market a product.
( e ) *Inspection report* means the written observations and GMP's compliance assessment completed by an authority listed in appendix B of this subpart.
( f ) *Regulatory system* means the body of legal requirements for GMP's, inspections, and enforcements that ensure public health protection and legal authority to assure adherence to these requirements.
[63 FR 60141, Nov. 6, 1998; 64 FR 16348, Apr. 5, 1999]
Editorial Note on Part 314
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 314 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 81 FR 69639, Oct. 6, 2016.

§ 314.122 Submitting an abbreviated application for, or a 505(j)(2)(C) petition that relies on, a listed drug that is no longer marketed. ( a ) An abbreviated new drug application that refers to, or a petition under section 505(j)(2)(C) of the act and § 314.93 that relies on, a listed drug that has been voluntarily withdrawn from sale in the United States must be accompanied by a petition seeking a determination whether the listed drug was withdrawn for safety or effectiveness reasons. The petition must be submitted under §§ 10.25(a) and 10.30 of this chapter and must contain all evidence available to the petitioner concerning the reasons for the withdrawal from sale.
( b ) When a petition described in paragraph (a) of this section is submitted, the agency will consider the evidence in the petition and any other evidence before the agency, and determine whether the listed drug is withdrawn from sale for safety or effectiveness reasons, in accordance with the procedures in § 314.161.
( c ) An abbreviated new drug application described in paragraph (a) of this section will be disapproved, under § 314.127(a)(11), and a 505(j)(2)(C) petition described in paragraph (a) of this section will be disapproved, under § 314.93(e)(1)(iv), unless the agency determines that the withdrawal of the listed drug was not for safety or effectiveness reasons.
( d ) Certain drug products approved for safety and effectiveness that were no longer marketed on September 24, 1984, are not included in the list. Any person who wishes to obtain marketing approval for such a drug product under an abbreviated new drug application must petition FDA for a determination whether the drug product was withdrawn from the market for safety or effectiveness reasons and request that the list be amended to include the drug product. A person seeking such a determination shall use the petition procedures established in § 10.30 of this chapter. The petitioner shall include in the petition information to show that the drug product was approved for safety and effectiveness and all evidence available to the petitioner concerning the reason that marketing of the drug product ceased.
[57 FR 17990, Apr. 28, 1992; 57 FR 29353, July 1, 1992]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 74 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to propose, establish, implement, or 

enforce any requirement that an individual wear a mask or other face 

covering, or be vaccinated, to prevent the spread of COVID–19, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to propose, establish, 

implement, or enforce any requirement that an individual 

wear a mask or other face covering, or be vaccinated, 

to prevent the spread of COVID–19, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON REQUIREMENTS TO WEAR 

4 FACE COVERINGS OR BE VACCINATED. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), no Fed6 eral funds may be obligated or expended to propose, estab7 lish, implement, or enforce, directly or indirectly through 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 74 IH

1 the imposition of a condition on receipt of Federal funds, 

2 any requirement that an individual wear a mask or other 

3 face covering, or be vaccinated, to prevent the spread of 

4 COVID–19. 

5 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with 

6 respect to an individual in a health care setting. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 25
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 25.35 Tobacco product applications. The classes of actions listed in this section are categorically excluded and, therefore, normally do not require the preparation of an EA or an EIS: ( a ) Issuance of an order finding a tobacco product substantially equivalent under section 910(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
( b ) Issuance of an order finding a tobacco product not substantially equivalent under section 910(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, denial of a request for an exemption under 21 CFR part 1107 from the requirement of demonstrating substantial equivalence, issuance of an order under section 910(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that a new tobacco product may not be introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, or issuance of an order under section 911 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that a modified risk tobacco product may not be introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce;
( c ) Rescission or temporary suspension of an order authorizing the marketing of a new tobacco product under section 910 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
( d ) Rescission of an order authorizing the marketing of a modified risk tobacco product under section 911 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and
( e ) Rescission of an order granting an exemption request under § 1107.1 of this chapter.
[80 FR 57535, Sept. 24, 2015]