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





STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER





I,
O'Donnell Iselin II, herby certify, to my knowledge, that:





1.
the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cadiz Inc. for the period
ended September 30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities and 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 Cadiz
Inc.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Statement as of the date
first written above.





Dated:
November 10, 2008




/s/ O’Donnell Iselin II
 
 O'Donnell
Iselin II
 Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, each of
the undersigned officer(s) of Accelr8 Technology Corporation, a Colorado
corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2009 (the
"Form 10-QSB") of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

Dated: March 16, 2009


/s/  Thomas V. Geimer
---------------------
Thomas V. Geimer,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2006086EN.01002602.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/26

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2006 — Elisabetta Dami v OHIM

(Joined Cases T-466/04 and T-467/04) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Word mark GERONIMO STILTON - Opposition - Stay of proceedings - Restriction of the list of goods designated by the mark for which registration is sought - Withdrawal of the opposition)

(2006/C 86/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Elisabetta Dami (Milan, Italy) (represented by: P. Beduschi and S. Giudici, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: The Stilton Cheese Makers Association (Surbiton, Surrey, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Action

Two actions against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2004 (Cases R 973/2002-2 and R 982/2002-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Mrs Elisabetta Dami and The Stilton Cheese Makers Association,

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 September 2004 (Cases R 973/2002-2 and R 982/2002-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 September 2004 (Cases R 973/2002-2 and R 982/2002-2);

| 2. | orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.

1

---
§ 438.12 Provider discrimination prohibited. ( a ) *General rules.* ( 1 ) An MCO, PIHP, or PAHP may not discriminate in the participation, reimbursement, or indemnification of any provider who is acting within the scope of his or her license or certification under applicable State law, solely on the basis of that license or certification. If an MCO, PIHP, or PAHP declines to include individual or groups of providers in its provider network, it must give the affected providers written notice of the reason for its decision.
( 2 ) In all contracts with network providers, an MCO, PIHP, or PAHP must comply with the requirements specified in § 438.214.
( b ) *Construction.* Paragraph (a) of this section may not be construed to— ( 1 ) Require the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP to contract with providers beyond the number necessary to meet the needs of its enrollees;
( 2 ) Preclude the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP from using different reimbursement amounts for different specialties or for different practitioners in the same specialty; or
( 3 ) Preclude the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP from establishing measures that are designed to maintain quality of services and control costs and are consistent with its responsibilities to enrollees.
#### § 436.1004 FFP in expenditures for medical assistance for individuals who have declared United States citizenship or nationality under section 1137(d) of the Act and with respect to whom the State has not documented citizenship and identity.

Except for individuals described in § 436.406(a)(1)(v), FFP will not be available to a State with respect to expenditures for medical assistance furnished to individuals unless the State has obtained satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or national status, as described in § 436.407 of this chapter that complies with the requirements of section 1903(x) of the Act.

[72 FR 38697, July 13, 2007]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3524 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3524

To amend title 32, United States Code, to authorize the National Guard 
of a State, as part of a drug interdiction and counter-drug activities 
   plan, to assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the 
   transportation of aliens who have violated a Federal or State law 
  prohibiting or regulating the possession, use, or distribution of a 
                         controlled substance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 1996

  Mr. Gilman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 32, United States Code, to authorize the National Guard 
of a State, as part of a drug interdiction and counter-drug activities 
   plan, to assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the 
   transportation of aliens who have violated a Federal or State law 
  prohibiting or regulating the possession, use, or distribution of a 
                         controlled substance.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL GUARD TO ASSIST IN TRANSPORTATION OF 
              CERTAIN ALIENS.

    Section 112(d)(1) of title 32, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The plan as approved by 
the Secretary may provide for the use of personnel and equipment of the 
National Guard of that State to assist the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service in the transportation of aliens who have 
violated a Federal or State law prohibiting or regulating the 
possession, use, or distribution of a controlled substance.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 435.404 Applicant's choice of category.

The agency must allow an individual who would be eligible under more than one category to have his eligibility determined for the category he selects.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3477 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3477

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to restrict employers in 
        obtaining, disclosing, and using of genetic information.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 1996

 Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
  referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to restrict employers in 
        obtaining, disclosing, and using of genetic information.

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

SECTION. 1. GENETIC INFORMATION.

    The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

                         ``genetic information

    ``Sec. 20. (a) No employer may obtain from any source genetic 
information about an employee or prospective employee unless authorized 
by such employee or prospective employee in accordance with subsection 
(b).
    ``(b) An authorization for the disclosure of genetic information 
about an employee or prospective employee to an employer is valid only 
if each of the following requirements is met:
            ``(1) The authorization is in writing, signed by the 
        individual making the authorization, and dated on the date of 
        the signature.
            ``(2) The authorization is not on a form used for any other 
        purpose.
            ``(3) The employer authorized to receive the information is 
        specifically named in the authorization.
            ``(4) The authorization contains an acknowledgment that the 
        individual making the authorization has received the statement 
        described in subsection (c).
    ``(c) An employer who wishes to receive genetic information about 
an employee or prospective employee shall provide the employee or 
prospective employee with a written statement of the uses which the 
employer intends for such genetic information.
    ``(d) If an employer obtains, discloses, or uses genetic 
information without a valid authorization or not in accordance with a 
statement provided under subsection (c), the employee or prospective 
employee whose genetic information was so obtained, disclosed, or used 
may bring a civil action for actual damages and equitable relief.
    ``(e) Nothing in this section authorizes an employer to obtain, 
disclose, or use genetic information about an employee or prospective 
employee in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 or 
any other Federal or State law that restricts access to, disclosure of, 
or use of genetic information.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit
      32.2**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. §1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of SpectraScience, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Dorst, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





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/
                James DorstJames
                Dorst
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              May
                15, 2008
Order entered December 13, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01453-CV

IN RE ETHAN JEREMY HAZELTON, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-55640-2013

ORDER

Before Justices Lang, Evans, and Schenck

The Court has before it relator’s December 13, 2016 petition for writ of habeas corpus 

and motion for emergency stay of commitment. 

We GRANT relator’s December 13, 2016 motion for emergency stay of commitment. 

Pending this Court’s determination of relator’s petition on the merits, and until further order of 

this Court, we ORDER that relator Ethan Jeremy Hazelton be released from the custody of the 

Sheriff of Collin County only upon posting a good and sufficient cash or surety bond, 

conditioned as required by law, in the sum of $500, plus all expenses which may be incurred by 

peace officers in rearresting relator in the event that relator fails to appear at a hearing before this 

Court or violates some other condition of the bond.

In the event relator Ethan Jeremy Hazelton gives such bond, the Sheriff of Collin County 

is ORDERED to immediately forward a certified copy of the bond to the Clerk of this Court. 
This order releases relator Ethan Jeremy Hazelton only from custody under the Order of 

Commitment dated December 13, 2016 issued by the 380th Judicial District Court of Collin 

County, Texas, styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Ethan Jeremy Hazelton vs. Katie Bliss 

Hazelton and in the Interest of L.B.H.

The Court ORDERS that the reporter’s record of the December 13, 2016 hearing be filed 

by December 28, 2016.

The Court requests that real parties in interest and respondent file a response, if any, by 

January 4, 2017.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, 

to the Honorable Benjamin Smith, Presiding Judge, 380th Judicial District Court; Karla 

Kimbrell, official court reporter, 380th Judicial District Court; Terry G. Box, Collin County 

Sheriff; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
#### Manuel SABINA, Maria Sabina, his wife and Neri Blanco, Appellants, v. GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE AND LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD., Appellee/Cross Appellant, v. HILLSBOROUGH INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Appellee.

No. 79-1601.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 14, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1980.

*1216Stevan T. Northcutt of Levine, Freedman, Hirsch *&*Levinson, Tampa, and Gold-ner, Reams, Marger, Avis, Piper & Kiernan, P. A., St. Petersburg, for appellants.

Chris W. Altenbernd of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P. A., Tampa, for appellee/cross appellant.

W. M. Carson and Gary W. Nicholson of Carson & Guemmer, Tampa, for appellee.

RYDER, Judge.

Manuel Sabina, Maria Sabina and Neri Blanco appeal from the finding that Manuel Sabina rejected uninsured motorist coverage in his policy with General Accident. We reverse.

Appellants sued General Accident seeking a determination that the insurance policy included uninsured motorist coverage and seeking recovery thereunder for injuries resulting from an automobile accident. General Accident impleaded Hillsborough Insurance Services, the agent writing the policy, alleging that if Manuel Sabina’s rejection of uninsured motorist coverage was invalid, then the invalidity was a result of Hillsborough’s negligence in writing the policy.

The issue of coverage was tried separately, and the parties presented conflicting factual testimony. Both counsel for the appellants and appellees requested instructions to the jury that Florida Statutes require uninsured motorist coverage to be *knowingly*rejected by the insured if deleted from the policy. Nevertheless, the court instructed the jury that the deletion was valid if “uninsured motorist coverage is rejected by an insured named in the policy.” Counsel for appellants made timely objection to the omission of the word “knowingly.” The jury returned a special interrogatory that found Manuel Sabina had signed a rejection, and the court entered judgment for appellees.

Appellants argue that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a rejection must be knowingly made. We agree. A rejection of uninsured motorist coverage required by Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), must be knowingly made. *Wilson v. National Indemnity Company,*302 So.2d 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). *See United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v, Darden,*338 So.2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

The judgment for appellees is REVERSED and the case REMANDED for a new trial. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, we also REVERSE and REMAND the derivative third party action against Hillsborough Insurance Services for new trial.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Order entered August 18 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 01479 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 01480 - CR MARCUS STEVE MCCLARI TY, JR, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court D allas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F10 - 56375 - R , F14 - 56269 - R 

### O RDER Before Justices Fillmore, Myers, and Evans Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DIRECT the Clerk to issue the mandates in these appeals INSTANTER

. /s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
§ 423.1968 Scope. This subpart sets forth the requirements relating to the following: ( a ) Part D sponsors, the Part D IRE, ALJs and attorney adjudicators, and the Council with respect to reopenings.
( b ) ALJs with respect to hearings and decisions or decisions of attorney adjudicators if no hearing is conducted.
( c ) The Council with respect to review of Part D appeals.
( d ) Part D enrollees' rights with respect to reopenings, ALJ hearings and ALJ or attorney adjudicator reviews, Council reviews, and judicial review by a Federal District Court.
[82 FR 5125, Jan. 17, 2017]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 346 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 346

 To authorize the Secretary of the Navy to transfer a riverine patrol 
    boat of the U.S.S. Swift class to Tidewater Community College, 
                         Portsmouth, Virginia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Pickett introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Navy to transfer a riverine patrol 
    boat of the U.S.S. Swift class to Tidewater Community College, 
                         Portsmouth, Virginia.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF RIVERINE PATROL CRAFT.

    (a) Authority To Transfer Vessel.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) 
and (d) of section 7306 of title 10, United States Code, but subject to 
subsections (b) and (c) of that section, the Secretary of the Navy may 
transfer a vessel described in subsection (b) to Tidewater Community 
College, Portsmouth, Virginia, for scientific and educational purposes.
    (b) Vessel.--The authority under subsection (a) applies in the case 
of a riverine patrol craft of the U.S.S. Swift class.
    (c) Limitation.--The transfer authorized by subsection (a) may be 
made only if the Secretary determines that the vessel to be transferred 
is of no further use to the United States for national security 
purposes.
    (d) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require such terms and 
conditions in connection with the transfer authorized by this section 
as the Secretary considers appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
§ 417.548 Provider services through arrangements. ( a ) *Principle.* The cost incurred by an HMO or CMP for covered services furnished under arrangement with a provider is allowable to the extent that it would be allowable and payable under parts 412 and 413 of this chapter, unless the HMO or CMP petitions CMS and demonstrates to HFCA's satisfaction that payment in excess of the amount authorized under parts 412 and 413 of this chapter is justified on the basis of advantages gained by the HMO or CMP.
( b ) *Application.* An advantage gained must represent a real and tangible benefit received by the HMO or CMP for the excess cost incurred, and any excess payment is subject to other applicable requirements of parts 405, 412 and 413 of this chapter, including tests of reasonableness.
( c ) *Example.* In the case of an arrangement an HMO or CMP has with a provider that is located outside the HMO's or CMP's geographic area and that is not related to the HMO or CMP by common ownership or control, payment of the provider's charges to the HMO or CMP (rather than the payment amounts determined under part 412 or part 413 of this chapter) may be justified in exchange for the advantages of not having to incur the administrative costs of determining the provider's reasonable cost and of making a more timely final settlement with the HMO or CMP. However, repayment of the provider's charges would be acceptable only if— ( 1 ) The provider furnishes services to the HMO's or CMP's enrollees infrequently;
( 2 ) The charges represent an insignificant portion of total Medicare reimbursement to the HMO or CMP; and
( 3 ) The charges do not exceed the customary charges by the provider to its other patients for similar services.
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985, as amended at 51 FR 34832, Sept. 30, 1986; 58 FR 38080, July 15, 1993; 60 FR 46230, Sept. 6, 1995]