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

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, as Chief Financial
Officer of Transcend Services, Inc., certifies that to the undersigneds knowledge, the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Transcend Services, Inc. at the dates
and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Lance Cornell      
|Lance Cornell          
|Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 10, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from CSA Income
Fund Limited Partnership IV's Statement of Financial Position as of March
31, 1998 and Statement of Operations for the three months then ended and is
qualified in its entirely by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,012,460
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,199,588
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      59,437,134
<DEPRECIATION>                              27,211,314
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,437,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,247,779
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,437,868
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,800,197
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,872,326
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,142
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             426,645
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                445,084
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            445,084
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   445,084
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.87
<FN>
<F1>The registrant maintains an unclassified Statement of Financial Position.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
HomePeople...Glen Johnson

# 				Dr. Glen Johnson			

															Chief Technology Officer						Bureau of Diplomatic Technology												

				November 12, 2019 -									November 1, 2023							

**Glen Johnson's term ended on November 1, 2023.**
Dr. Glen H. Johnson is the Chief Technology Officer for the Department of State. He is responsible for providing senior executive guidance to the Department’s executive leadership and bureaus on scientific and technology issues. He coordinates closely with the Chief Information Officer as new technologies are implemented and assists in planning both near term and long-term impacts of emerging technologies. A member of the Senior Executive Service with over two decades in executive leadership positions in the Department, Dr. Johnson previously served as Deputy Chief Information Officer for Operations. Dr. Johnson has managed many large, complex, high risk projects such as the Foreign Affairs Cloud Environment Technology (FACET) program that enabled Department unclassified system to connect to the Cloud; and the modernization of the Department’s communications, command and control system, known as State Messaging and Archival Retrieval Toolset (SMART).

Dr. Johnson has received numerous awards including two Senior Executive Service Presidential Rank Awards, the White House Year 2000 Medal, and several Superior Honor Awards.  He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Maryland in national security studies and computer science, and holds master’s degrees in Latin American studies and quantitative research methods and an undergraduate degree in political science from Brigham Young University.

Tags
Information PolicyInformation TechnologyState Department OfficialBack to Top- White House
- USA.gov
- Office of the Inspector General
- Archives
- Contact Us
follow usFacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility Statement
- Copyright Information
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
U.S. Department *of* StateThe Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
§ 510.407 Payments from blocked accounts to satisfy obligations prohibited. Pursuant to § 510.201, no debits may be made to a blocked account to pay obligations to U.S. persons or other persons, except as authorized by or pursuant to this part. Note 1 to § 510.407 :
*See also* § 510.502(e), which provides that no license or other authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part authorizes transfers of or payments from blocked property or debits to blocked accounts unless the license or other authorization explicitly authorizes the transfer of or payment from blocked property or the debit to a blocked account.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 342.6 Taxation. ( a ) *General.* For the purpose of determining taxes and tax exemptions, the increment in value represented by the difference between the purchase price and the redemption value received for a savings note is considered interest. The interest is subject to all taxes imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The notes are subject to estate, inheritance, gift, or other excise taxes, whether Federal or State, but are exempt from all other taxation now or hereafter imposed on the principal or interest thereof by any State, or any of the possessions of the United States, or by any local taxing authority.
( b ) *Federal income tax on notes.* An owner of savings notes who is a cash-basis taxpayer may use either of two methods for reporting the increase in the redemption value of the notes for Federal income tax purposes, as follows: ( 1 ) Defer reporting of the increase to the year of final maturity, actual redemption, or other disposition, whichever is earlier; or
( 2 ) Elect to report the increase for the year in which it accrues, in which case the election applies to all savings notes then owned and those subsequently acquired, as well as to any other similar obligations purchased on a discount basis.
If the method in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is used, the taxpayer may change to the method in paragraph (b)(2) of this section without obtaining permission from the Internal Revenue Service. However, once the election to use the method in paragraph (b)(2) of this section is made, the taxpayer may not change the method of reporting without permission from the Internal Revenue Service. For further information on Federal income taxes, the Service Center Director or District Director, Internal Revenue Service, of the taxpayer's district should be contacted.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 14

- 3580

__________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ANNA MUDROVA,

Appellant

__________

O RDER AMENDING OPINION

__________

The opinion and judgment filed July 23, 201 5 shall be amended to reflect the

correct District Judge, the Honorable Juan R. Sanchez.

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Dated: July 27, 2015

CJG/cc: Thomas D. Kenny, Esq.

Mary Beth Leahy, Esq.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

Editorial Note on Part 363
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 363 appear at 70 FR 57433, Sept. 30, 2005, 70 FR 57442, Sept. 30, 2005, and 75 FR 70815, Nov. 19, 2010.

§ 363.46 What evidence is required to establish the validity of judicial proceedings? ( a ) We will require certified copies of the final judgment, decree, or court order, and any necessary supplementary proceedings.
( b ) A transaction request by a trustee in bankruptcy or a receiver of an insolvent's estate must be supported by evidence of appointment and qualification.
( c ) A transaction request by a receiver in equity or a similar court officer (other than a receiver of an insolvent's estate) must be supported by a copy of an order that authorizes the receiver or similar court officer to take possession and control of the security.
[70 FR 57435, Sept. 30, 2005]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7465

TIMOTHY LUXURIOUS X LLOYD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of SouthCarolina; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BARNEY S. LOYD, JR., Acting Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-01-835-9-8RB) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 20, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Luxurious X Lloyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Lloyd v. Condon , No. CA-01-835-9- 8RB (D.S.C. June 18, 2001). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

###### Editorial Note on Part 363

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 363 appear at 70 FR 57433, Sept. 30, 2005, 70 FR 57442, Sept. 30, 2005, and 75 FR 70815, Nov. 19, 2010.

#### § 363.101 Can an account owner transfer a book-entry savings bond to a minor?

An account owner can transfer a book-entry savings bond held in TreasuryDirect ® to a minor as a gift or pursuant to one of the specified exceptions in § 363.55(a).

[70 FR 57444, Sept. 30, 2005]
MAGNETIC MAP

a
5]
=
N
=

NOS 1711N-17M
S. E. BERING SEA E. of PRIBLOF {5.

vece $200
PACING OCEAN
BATHYMETRIC MAP SUR CANYON

SUR CANYON
§ 1.21 Definitions. ( a ) The term *agency* means agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. 552(e).
( b ) The term *individual* means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
( c ) The term *maintain* includes maintain, collect, use, or disseminate.
( d ) The term *record* means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by the Treasury or its components. This includes, but is not limited to, the individual's education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains the name, or an identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph.
( e ) The term *system of records* means a group of any records under the control of the Treasury or any component from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual.
( f ) The term *statistical record* means a record in a system of records maintained for statistical research or reporting purposes only and not used in whole or part in making any determination about an identifiable individual, except as provided by 13 U.S.C. 8.
( g ) The term *routine use* means the disclosure of a record that is compatible with the purpose for which the record was collected.
( h ) The term *component* means a Treasury bureau or office as set forth in § 1.20 and in the appendices to this subpart. (See 5 U.S.C. 552a(a).)
( i ) The term *request for access* means a request made pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(1).
( j ) The term *request for amendment* means a request made pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(2).
( k ) The term *request for accounting* means a request made pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3).
( l ) The term *Privacy Act* means the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
#### Joseph Bolinsky *vs.*Raymond Shobrinsky.

Maltbiio, C. J., Haines, Hinman, Banks and Avery, Js.

Argued May 3d

decided June *5th, 1934.*

*J. Warren Upson,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Michael V. Blansfield,*with whom was *Harry J. Beardsley,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

From the finding, with such slight changes as the defendant can properly ask us to make, the following facts appear: The plaintiff was driving westerly on the highway leading from Middlebury to Woodbury, down a steep hill, upon a highway having a twenty-two foot concrete surface, divided by a line in the center into two strips or lanes, with hard surfaced shoulders six feet wide on one side and seven feet wide on the other. He was proceeding on his own right side of the highway, in second gear. A car driven by a Mr. Gardner was coming in the opposite direction and, because of a flat tire, was drawing off the concrete on the southerly side of the highway to the shoulder of the road. The defendant, following the Gardner car, turned to his left to pass it, his wheels passing over the center line of the highway. Recognizing the occupants of the Gardner car, he diverted his attention from the highway in front of him toward it. His car *704continued to turn to its left, into the northerly lane of the highway, the defendant still looking back toward the Gardner car. The plaintiff, seeing the defendant’s car coming toward him, drew further to his right to avoid the collision, until his car was partly on the northerly shoulder of the road, and slowed down almost to a standstill. When the defendant looked forward again, the plaintiff’s car was directly in front of him, only a few feet distant, and it was then too late to avoid the collision. There was nothing to prevent the defendant from seeing the plaintiff’s car approaching and he had ample room to pass the Gardner car and avoid that of the plaintiff. Upon these facts and the other circumstances detailed in the finding, the trial court could reasonably reach the conclusion that the defendant was negligent and the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence. Granted, as the defendant claims, that the plaintiff’s testimony is demonstrably untrue in certain important particulars, the trial court evidently accepted it in its essentials only where it was corroborated by testimony of other witnesses or by reasonable inferences.

There is no error.
#### Duell et al. *v.*Madison County Plan Commission et al.

[No. 20,067.

Filed June 25, 1964.]

*Ketner & Yelton,*of Anderson, for appellants.

*Whitehead & Whitehead,*of Anderson, for appellees.

Kelley, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Madison Circuit Court permanently enjoining appellants from continuing the business of automotive body repair upon certain real estate in Madison County, Indiana, and ordering the abatement of the nuisance of continuing and maintaining the same. Appellees file no brief.

Appellants’ brief states that the real estate in question is now a part of and within the territorial limits of the City of Anderson and subject to Ordinance No. 2439 of said City, pertaining to zoning and improvement location permits; and that the issues presented below and upon this appeal “are now rendered moot.”

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

Hunter, C. J., Mote, Pfaff, JJ., concur.

Note.—Reported in 199 N. E. 2d 476.
VPRT Ex-10.40






EXHIBIT 10.40


Summary of Compensatory Arrangements with Members of the Supervisory Board
Fiscal Year 2012
 
Each member of the Supervisory Board of Vistaprint N.V. receives an annual cash retainer of $24,000 per year, payable in quarterly increments, plus $3,000 for each regularly scheduled meeting of the board that the director physically attends and $10,000 annually for each committee on which the director serves. The chairs of the Supervisory Board and of the Audit Committee each receive an additional annual cash retainer of $15,000, and the chairs of the Compensation Committee and of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee each receive an additional annual cash retainer of $10,000.


Directors are also reimbursed for reasonable travel and other expenses incurred in connection with attending meetings of the board of directors and its committees. 
 
On the date of each annual general meeting, each director will receive two equity grants: (i) a share option to purchase a number of ordinary shares having a fair value equal to $50,000, up to a maximum of 12,500 shares, granted under our 2005 non-employee directors’ plan, as amended, and (ii) restricted share units having a fair value equal to $110,000. 
 
Each newly elected or appointed Supervisory Board member will receive two equity grants upon his or her initial appointment or election to the board: (i) a share option to purchase a number of ordinary shares having a fair value equal to $150,000, up to a maximum of 50,000 shares, granted under our directors’ plan, and (ii) restricted share units having a fair value equal to $125,000. 
 
The directors’ options and restricted share units vest at a rate of 8.33% per quarter over a period of three years from grant, so long as the director continues to serve as a director on each such vesting date. Each option and restricted share unit terminates upon the earlier of ten years from the date of grant or 90 days after the director ceases to serve as a director. The exercise price of the options granted under the directors’ plan will be the fair market value of Vistaprint N.V. ordinary shares on the date of grant. 
 
All dollar amounts are in United States dollars.
40276.

#### ALLIGOOD v. THE STATE.

Jordan, Judge.

On March 14,1963, a plea of guilty to the charge of possessing nontax-paid liquor was entered by the defendant in the City Court of Swainsboro, and sentence was imposed thereon by the court. Subsequently, on March 23, 1963, the defendant filed a motion for new trial, and on the same date he made an oral motion to the court to allow the withdrawal of his plea of guilty, and an oral motion to vacate the sentence and judgment of the court. Said oral motions were denied, and *454on March 30, 1963, the court entered an order disapproving the defendant’s brief of evidence and dismissing his motion for new trial. The defendant assigns error on this judgment and on the antecedent orders denying his oral motions. *Held:*

Decided October 8, 1963.

*Joseph H. Briley,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. R. Thompson, Solicitor pro tern,*contra.

1. “One who has filed a plea of guilty in a criminal case cannot move for a new trial. Where one accused of crime voluntarily pleads guilty to the charge, a new trial cannot be granted; for there was no verdict. A plea of guilty may, as a matter of right, be withdrawn before sentence; and after sentence the judge may permit it to be withdrawn upon meritorious grounds, addressed to his discretion; but neither before nor after sentence can a motion for a new trial be employed as a means of withdrawing a plea of guilty.” *Bearden v. State,*13 Ga. App. 264 (1) (79 SE 79). The defendant having entered a plea of guilty to the offense with which he was charged, the trial court did not err in dismissing his motion for new trial and in disapproving the brief of evidence filed in connection therewith. *Welch v. State,*63 Ga. App. 277 (1) (11 SE2d 42).

2. The remaining assignments of error in the bill of exceptions which merely aver that the orders of court denying the defendant’s oral motions to the court to allow the withdrawal of the plea of guilty and to vacate the sentence and judgment of court were “contrary to law” without setting forth the grounds upon which said oral motions were based and without specifying the reasons why said orders were alleged to be erroneous are too general and incomplete to present any question for consideration by this court. *Callaway v. City of Atlanta,*6 Ga. App. 354 (2) (64 SE 1105); *Daniel v. Boykin,*211 Ga. 43 (1) (84 SE2d 48); *Sherrill v. Sherrill,*202 Ga. 288 (2) (42 SE2d 921).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
H. R. 2556

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To redesignate the Federal building located at 345 Middlefield Road in Menlo

Park, California, and known as the Earth Sciences and Library Building, as

the ‘‘Vincent E. McKelvey Federal Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

The Federal building located at 345 Middlefield Road, in Menlo

Park, California, and known as the Earth Sciences and Library

Building, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Vincent E.

McKelvey Federal Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal building referred

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Vincent

E. McKelvey Federal Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the reference to our firm
under the captions “Financial highlights” in the Prospectus and “Complete and
partial portfolio holdings — arrangements to disclose to service providers and
fiduciaries”, “Independent registered public accounting firm” and “Financial
statements” in the Statement of Additional Information and to the use of our
report dated August 28, 2012 on UBS Retirement Money Fund for the year ended
June 30, 2012 which is incorporated by reference in Amendment No. 47 to the
Registration Statement of UBS RMA Money Fund Inc. (Form N-1A No. 811-03503).



	/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
	 
	ERNST & YOUNG
  LLP




New York, New York
August 28, 2012