alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

### Edinger, Richard

From: jay.turnberg@faa.gov

Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:15 PM

To: Edinger, Richard; Christopher.J.Ric hards@faa.gov; Kim.Edwards@faa.gov

Cc: Mattice, Burt; Bowerman, Rick

Subject: Marking Email 11/28/2000 email to Jerry Seay

Attachments: rules.doc

‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded by Jay Turnberg/ANE/FAA on 08/20/2013 12:11 PM

‐‐‐‐‐

Jay Turnberg

11/28/2000 01:33 To

PM jseay@hartzellprop.com

,

cc

Subject

Marking Rules

Jerry,

For future reference if needed.

My opinion after reviewing the current and past part marking

requirements (see attached), is that the method that Hartzell

currently uses to mark the blades is acceptable. That is:

Serial number

Part number (Design number)

Builders name (Hartzell)

PC number

Heat Code

This is based on the 45.11 (b) Which says "Each person who

manufactures a propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub under

the terms of a type or production certificate shall identify his

product by means of a plate, stamping, engraving, etching, or

other approved method of fireproof identification"

According to part 21 the "product" is the propeller. The blade

is a critical component of the product and must according to

45.14 have a part number and serial number.

The TC data sheet specifies the propeller blades that are

acceptable in the propeller models. The propeller model, TC2 number, PC number, builder's name and etc. are marked for the

product (propeller) on the hub.

Jay Turnberg

(See attached file: rules.doc)
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 145

To authorize testimony by employees of the Senate in The People of the

State of California versus Roger Calderon.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 20 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 7), 1993

Ms. MIKULSKI for Mr. MITCHELL (for himself and Mr. DOLE) submitted the

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize testimony by employees of the Senate in The

People of the State of California versus Roger Calderon.

Whereas, in the case of The People of the State of California

versus Roger Calderon, No. 1457661, pending in the Municipal Court for the City and County of San Francisco,

California, the District Attorney has requested testimony

from Claudette Josephson, an employee of the Senate on

the staff of Senator Barbara Boxer;

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken

from such control or possession but by permission of the

Senate; and
2

SRES 145 ATS

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or

in the possession of the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take such action as will

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That Claudette Josephson and any other

2 employee of the Senate from whom testimony may be nec3 essary are authorized to testify in The People of the State

4 of California versus Roger Calderon or related proceed5 ings, except concerning matters for which a privilege

6 should be asserted.

Æ
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Frederick Sullivan

*Peter J. Zaccagnino, Jr.,*in support of the petition.

*James D. Mirabile,*assistant prosecuting attorney, in opposition.

Submitted February 7

decided March 10, 1964

The petition by the defendant for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.
##### 




    
    within fifteen (15) days of the occurrence of the event, make a payment to the
Holder of an amount that, once paid, causes the aggregate amount of payments paid to
the Holder to equal the amount of payments (including interest) that would have been
paid to the Holder by such time had this Note not been amended. For example, assume
the Event of Acceleration occurs on November 15, 2006; $ 113,271 has been paid by the
Company to the Holder as of such time; and $ 324,301 would have been paid to the Holder
as of such time under the original payment schedule of this Note, as originally
executed and delivered on or about September 30, 2005. In such case, the Company shall
pay to the Holder within 15 days of the occurrence of the event, the amount of $
211,030.




---



##### 




    
    thereafter continue to make payments to the Holder according to the original payment
schedule of this Note, as originally executed and delivered on or about September 30,
2005.
       AGREED AND ACCEPTEDMITEM CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Gale AguilarIts:
    
    Pres & COODate:
    
    9-13-06
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). E H / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R AMON A H OL DE R MAN, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. D O R A B . S C H R I R O ; e t a l., R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 07- 17292 D . C . N o . C V - 0 6 - 0 3 0 1 6 - S MM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona S t e phe n M . M c N a m e e , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry16, 2010 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A rizo n a s tate p riso n erR am o n a H o ld er m an ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng he r28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f irm . 

# FI LED MA R 05 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSE H / Res ea r ch 07- 17292 2 H o ld e rm a n c o n te n d s th a t h e ra g g r a v a te ds e n te n c e v io la te s th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t b e c au s e th e tr ia l c o u rt r e lie do n ju d g e - f o u n da g g r a v a tin g f

a c to r s to s e nt e nc e he rabove the pr e s um pt i ve s e nt e nc i ng r a nge . B e c aus e the s t a t e tr i a l j udge r e l i e d on a tl e a s tone pe rm i s s i bl e f a c t ori n e nha nc i ng H ol de rm a n’ s s e nt e nc e , the A r i z onaS upr e m e C ourt ’ s de c i s i on r e j e c t i ng thi s c l a i m w a s ne i the rc ontr a ryt o, nor a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r lye s tab lis h e df

e d e r a l la w . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; see a l

so B u t ler v. C u rry , 52 8 F . 3d 62 4, 64 3 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). H ol de rm a n a l s o c ont e nds tha the rdue pr oc e s s r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d w he n the tr i a l j udge f

a i l e d t o gi ve he rnot i c e tha the w oul d c ons i de rc e rt a i n a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rri n di s m i s s i ng thi s c l a i m a s une xhaus t e d a nd p r o c e d u r a llyd e f

au lte d . Se e B e a ty v. S tew a rt , 30 3 F . 3d 97 5, 98 7 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). AF F I RME D.
<page> EXHIBIT 32.01

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 Quarterly Report of Dean Witter Principal
Plus Fund L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey A.
Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, 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 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 Partnership.









By:  	/s/Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		   Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	   President

Date:		   November 15, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000855585
<NAME>                        FONIX CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                   490,614
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                          1,048,742
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                              121,968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,737,351
<PP&E>                                 3,648,411
<DEPRECIATION>                         1,668,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        40,028,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 20,291,353
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                           24,246,095
<COMMON>                                   6,906
<OTHER-SE>                          (12,892,424)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          40,028,315
<SALES>                                1,765,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       1,765,383
<CGS>                                    354,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            354,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      14,443,820
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     2,801,421
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (15,812,649)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (15,812,649)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                        (15,812,649)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (0.26)


</TABLE>
Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2005 

Index-1

Index 

Alternatives Considered S-9, 2-1, App. L 

Alternative B S-9, 2-17, 2-27, 4-8, 4-16, 4-37, 

 4-51, 4-81 

Alternative D S-9, 2-17, 2-27, 4-8, 4-16, 4-37, 

 4-58, 4-83 

No Action S-8, 2-17, 2-27, 4-8, 4-16, 4-36, 

 4-56, 4-76 

Proposed Action S-2, 2-11, 4-8, 4-16, 4-36, 4-58, 

 4-78, 4-109 

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study 2-33, 2-36, App. L 

Comments on Draft EIS 1-14, App. A 

Comparison of Alternatives 2-25 

Control Treatments App. N 

Manual 3-80 

Mechanical 3-80 

Biological 3-86, App. H 

Cultural 3-82 

Herbicides 3-87, 3-93, 3-95, 4-15, 4-28, 4-68, 

 4-88 

Fire 3-84 

Cumulative Effects 4-1, 4-22, 4-39, 4-61, 4-89, 4-104, 

 4-107, 4-111, 4-122, 4-129, 

 4-131, 4-139, 4-145, 4-157 

Economics 1-12, 3-66, 4-93, 4-94, 4-109 

Environmental Justice 1-14, 3-16, 4-163 

Fish 1-13, 3-61, 4-113, 4-146, 4-157, 

 4-161 

Forest Plans 2-4, 2-27, App A, E, I, J, K 

Grazing S-8, 1-12, 2-7, 3-19, 3-82, 4-106 

Herbicides 2-27, 3-87, 3-93, 4-1, 4-15, 4-28, 

 4-68, 4-88, 4-111, 4-115, 

 4-135, 4-152, App. G 

2,4-D 3-91, 4-31, 4-70 through 4-88 

chlorsulfuron 3-91, 4-29, 4-70 through 4-88 

clopyralid 3-91, 4-29, 4-70 through 4-88 

dicamba 3-91, 4-31, 4-70 through 4-88 

glyphosate 3-91, 4-32, 4-70 through 4-88 

imazapic 3-91, 4-29, 4-70 through 4-88 

imazapyr 3-91, 4-29, 4-70 through 4-88 

metsulfuron methyl 3-91, 4-29, 4-70 through 4-88 
Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2005 

Index-2

picloram 3-91, 4-30, 4-70 through 4-88 

sethoxydim 3-91, 4-33, 4-70 through 4-88 

sulfometuron methyl 3-91, 4-29, 4-70 through 4-88 

triclopyr 3-91, 4-30, 4-70 through 4-88 

Human Health S-8, 1-11, 4-66, App. G, App. Q 

Incomplete or Unavailable Information 4-26, 4-41, 4-64, 4-92, 4-107, 

 4-173 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts 4-173 

Issues S-7, 1-9 through 1-14, App. A 

Land Designations 3-70 through 3-73 

Monitoring 2-9, 2-15, App. M 

National Strategy App. S 

OHV 1-12, 2-6, 3-23, 4-107, App. D, 

 App. R 

Prevention S-1, 1-1, 2-5, 2-11, 3-75, App. E 

Public Participation S-7, 1-9, App. A 

Recreation S-8, 1-12, 2-17, 3-23, 4-107, 

 App. D 

Riparian Areas 1-13, 2-22, 3-35, 4-113, 4-119, 

 4-146, App. D 

Roads S-8, 1-12, 2-6, 3-16, 4-102, 4-107, 

 App. D 

Socioeconomic S-8, 3-66, 4-93 

Soil Productivity 1-13, 3-27, 4-109 

T, E and S Species 1-14, 3-49, 4-125, App. C 

Animals 3-56, 4-131, 4-146, 4-148 

Plants 3-50, 4-130 

Fish 3-61, 4-146, 4-159 

Treatment/Restoration Standards 2-8, 2-27, 3-76, 4-15 

Tribes and Treaty Rights 1-14, 3-69, 4-163 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 4-165 

Water Quality 3-31 

Weed Free Feed 4-104 

Wildlife 3-47, 4-42
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.55

                         AMENDMENT TO WARRANT AGREEMENT

         This Amendment, dated as of June 1, 2001, is by and between
International Business Machines Corporation, a New York Corporation ("IBM"), and
IBIS Technology Corporation, Massachusetts corporation (the "COMPANY").

         WHEREAS, IBM and the Company have executed a Warrant Agreement dated as
of December 15, 2000 ("WARRANT AGREEMENT"); and

         WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Warrant Agreement as set forth
herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as
follows:

         Section 1. TERMS. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have
the meanings ascribed thereto in the Warrant Agreement.

         Section 2.  AMENDMENT.

                 (a) Section 7(f) of the Warrant Agreement is deleted in its
entirety. Therefore, the words "Intentionally Omitted" shall be deemed inserted
in place of such provision.

         Section 3. MISCELLANEOUS.

                 (a) The Warrant Agreement shall remain in full force and effect
in accordance with its terms except as amended or modified by this Amendment.

                 (b) This Amendment may be signed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures
thereto and hereto were upon the original instrument.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of
the date first written above.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES

By: /s/ Robert Pemberton
    --------------------------------------------
    Name: Robert Pemberton
    Title: Director, Corporate Development

IBIS Technology Corporation

By: /s/ Debbra L. Nelson
    --------------------------------------------
    Name: Debra L. Nelson
    Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### Beard Sand and Gravel Company, Inc. *v.*Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Milford

King, C. J., Murphy, Alcorn, Comley and House, Js.

Argued April 10

decided May 20, 1964

*Gilbert M. Galer,*with whom, on the brief, were *Joseph Weiner*and *William G. Gitlitz,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Richard EL.*Lynch, for the appellee (defendant).

Murphy, J.

The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas from the action of the defendant, *636the town planning and zoning board (25 Spec. Laws 752, § 4) of the town of Milford, in designating certain of the plaintiff’s property along the east bank of the Honsatonie River as a public recreation area, to be developed in the future as a riverfront park. The designation is in the town plan of development which the board, acting in its capacity as a planning commission, adopted on January 3, 1957. The court held that the defendant had not acted arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has appealed to us.

At the time that the plan of development was adopted, municipal planning in Milford was governed by No. 536 of the 1947 Special Acts. 25 Spec. Laws 752. That act made no provision for an appeal" to the courts from the decisions of the board on matters relating to planning. Section 8-28 of the General Statutes provides for appeals from the official actions of planning commissions created by ordinance under § 8-19. It does not, however, apply to the actions of planning commissions created by special act. Section 8-10 was enacted to cover situations analogous to the one in this case, but it applies only to zoning matters and not to planning. The Court of Common Pleas should have dismissed the appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. *Bardes*v. *Zoning Board,*141 Conn. 317, 318, 106 A.2d 160; *Bartlett*v. *Rockville,*150 Conn. 428, 430, 190 A.2d 690.

There is error in the form of the judgment, it is set aside and the court is directed to render judgment dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

B.T. PALMER, A.Y. MARKS, M.N. FULTON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JAMES I. TILLMAN

CULINARY SPECIALIST SEAMAN (E-3), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201600117

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 14 December 2015.

Military Judge: CAPT Robert J. Crow, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital, 

Jacksonville, FL.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LT I.E. Paige, JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: LCDR Derek Hampton, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

14 June 2016

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted without 

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved 

by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military 

Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

 For the Court 

 R.H. TROIDL 

 Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 180 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 180

 To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Office of Senate 
  Fair Employment Practices in Betty Johnson v. Office of Senate Fair 
             Employment Practices, No. 94-6002 (Fed. Cir.).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             February 9 (legislative day January 25), 1994

 Mr. Levin (for Mr. Mitchell) (for himself and Mr. Dole) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Office of Senate 
  Fair Employment Practices in Betty Johnson v. Office of Senate Fair 
             Employment Practices, No. 94-6002 (Fed. Cir.).

Whereas, in the case of Betty Johnson v. Office of Senate Fair Employment 
        Practices, No 94-6002, pending in the United States Court of Appeals for 
        the Federal Circuit, the Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices is 
        the respondent in a proceeding under section 309 of the Civil Rights Act 
        of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1209), to review a final decision concerning 
        allegations of discrimination in Senate employment;
Whereas section 303(f) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1203(f)) 
        provides that for the purpose of representation by the Senate Legal 
        Counsel, the Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices shall be deemed 
        a committee within the meaning of title VII of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978 (2 U.S.C. 288, et seq.);
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, (2 U.S.C. 288b(a), 288c(a)(1)), the Senate may direct its 
        Counsel to defend a committee of the Senate in any civil action in which 
        there is placed in issue any action taken by such committee in its 
        official capacity: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to represent 
the Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices in the case of Betty 
Johnson v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices.

                                 <all>
```
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 Quarterly Report of Milestone Scientific Inc on Form
10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas M. Stuckey
Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Thomas M. Stuckey
                                        ---------------------
                                        Thomas M. Stuckey
                                        Chief Financial Officer

November 11, 2003


                                       40
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 18

To amend paragraph 3 of rule XXV.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. MITCHELL submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To amend paragraph 3 of rule XXV.

1 Resolved, That paragraph 3 of rule XXV of the

2 Standing Rules of the Senate is amended for the One

3 Hundred Third Congress as follows:

4 (1) In subparagraph (a) strike ‘‘19’’ after

5 ‘‘Small Business’’ and insert in lieu thereof ‘‘21’’.

6 (2) In subparagraph (c) strike ‘‘10’’ after ‘‘In7 dian Affairs’’ and insert in lieu thereof ‘‘18’’.

8 SEC. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions S. Res. 400,

9 the Committee on Intelligence shall have seventeen mem10 bers solely for the duration of the One Hundred Third

11 Congress.

Æ
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Yvonne Stanley

Submitted December 22, 1967

decided January 30, 1968

*Joseph D. Harbaugh,*chief public defender, in support of the motion.

The motion by the defendant for a waiver of fees and security in her appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is dismissed. See *State*v. *Hudson,*154 Conn. 631, 636, 228 A.2d 132.
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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Biopure Corporation for the quarter ended April 30, 2008, I, David A. Butler, Chief Financial Officer,
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. the Form 10-Q/A for the period ended April 30, 2008, 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 Form 10-Q/A for the period ended April 30, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Biopure Corporation.



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/ David A. Butler            
|David A. Butler                
|Interim Chief Financial Officer

June 18, 2008



32