alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Sentex Sensing Technology, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William R. Sprow, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U. S. C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
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/ William R. Sprow
--------------------

William R. Sprow
Chief Financial Officer
October 15, 2002































                                       15
#### § 21.9580 Counseling.

An individual may receive counseling from VA before beginning training and during training. VA will apply the provisions of § 21.7100 to beneficiaries under 38 U.S.C. chapter 33 in the same manner as they are applied to individuals under 38 U.S.C. chapter 30.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3034(a), 3323(a), 3697A)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTHUR ANDERSEN, LLP, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-21200.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 5, 2005.

Elizabeth D. Collery (argued), Sangita Katikineni Rao, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Crim. Div. App. Section, Washington, DC, James Lee Turner, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, TX, for U.S.

Charles Rothfeld, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Maureen E. Mahoney (argued), Latham & Watkins, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

*896PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion for remand to the' United States District Court for the Southern District of Houston so the government may move to dismiss the indictment is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s unopposed motion to vacate the order of October 27, 2005, pending disposition of the appellee’s motion to remand is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s unopposed motion to issue a revised supplemental briefing schedule that would begin from the date denying the governments motion for remand giving the appellant adequate time to submit a supplemental brief is DENIED as moot.
#### Administrators of Ryerson *against*Ryerson.

ON CERTIORARI.

Suit against one, where there are two administrators, (a)

(a)

*Dickerson vs. Robinson, 1 Hal. 195. Smith vs. Van Houten, 4 Hal. 382. Cole vs. Smalley, 1 Dutch. 374. Hunt vs. Kearney, Pen. *721. Acts of 1871 p. 59.*For the rule in equity, see *Mulford vs. Allen, 1 Gr. Ch. 288. Abraham Coursen’s Will, 3 Gr. Ch. 410. Rinehart vs. Rinehart, 2 McC. 44,*and *Marsh vs. Oliver, 1 McC. 259.*

The plaintiff below brought his suit against one only, whereas there were two administrators. The defendant filed no plea in writing, but at the trial moved for a non-suit upon that ground. The justice overruled the motion, and judgment was given for the plaintiff. The administrators sued out the certiorari, to be relieved from this judgment; and the court ruled, 1. That the error in bringing the suit was fatal. And 2. That a defendant need not plead it in abatement, in writing, in the court for the trial of small causes, but might take advantage of it, by motion for a nonsuit.

Judgment reversed.
#### § 17.165 Emergency outpatient dental treatment.

When outpatient emergency dental care is provided, as a humanitarian service, to individuals who have no established eligibility for outpatient dental care, the treatment will be restricted to the alleviation of pain or extreme discomfort, or the remediation of a dental condition which is determined to be endangering life or health. The provision of emergency treatment to persons found ineligible for dental care will not entitle the applicant to further dental treatment. Individuals provided emergency dental care who are found to be ineligible for such care will be billed.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)

[50 FR 14704, Apr. 15, 1985; 50 FR 21604, May 28, 1985. Redesignated at 61 FR 21966, May 13, 1996]
41754.

#### CROWE v. QUILTED TEXTILE CORPORATION.

*69Argued January 6, 1966

Decided January 18, 1966

Rehearing denied February 2, 1966

*Wade H. Leonard,*for appellant.

*Burton Brown, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Frank Love, Jr., Warren B. Wilson,*for appellee.

Hall, Judge.

This court held in *Hartford Acc. &c. Co. v. Carroll,*106 Ga. App. 624 (127 SE2d 687), that a judgment for compensation payments according to the terms of an approved agreement during the period when an employer’s application for hearing on a change in condition was pending was error. Accord *Gentry v. Georgia Cas. &c. Co.,*109 Ga. App. 294 (136 SE2d 26); *Zurich Ins.*Co. *v. Cooper,*106 Ga. App. 437, 439 (127 SE2d 165); *Collins v. Kiker,*106 Ga. App. 513, 515 (127 SE2d 849); *Anglin v. St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co.,*106 Ga. App. 395, 399 (126 SE2d 913); *James v. General Motors Corp.,*107 Ga. App. 588, 590 (131 SE2d 58); *Bump v. Continental Cas. Co.,*109 Ga. App. 228 (136 SE2d 14).

Opinions of our courts contain language to the effect that an *70employer cannot voluntarily cease making compensation payments under an award or agreement approved by the board unless the original award or agreement has been superseded by a new award or agreement, and that a new award based upon a change in condition cannot be made retroactive. See *Home Acc. Ins. Co. v. McNair,*173 Ga. 566 (161 SE 131); *Sears, Roebuck*& *Co. v. Wilson,*215 Ga. 746, 753 (113 SE2d 611); *Guess v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,*219 Ga. 581, 582 (134 SE2d 783); *American Cas. Co. v. Herron,*102 Ga. App. 658, 660 (117 SE2d 172); *Armour & Co. v. Youngblood,*107 Ga. App. 505 (130 SE2d 786); *Hartford Acc. &c. Co. v. Webb,*109 Ga. App. 667, 669 (137 SE2d 362); *Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Bailey,*111 Ga. App. 609, 614 (142 SE2d 388).

The employee in the present case, relying on such opinions, contends that the employer is liable for payments during the period while its application for hearing on a change in condition was pending. However, the decisions in those cases are that an award based on a change in condition cannot be made retroactive to a time before the application for hearing on a change in condition was filed. They are not in conflict with the decisions first cited above, which hold that an employer may stop making payments of compensation after filing an application for hearing on a change in condition, and the employer’s liability from the date of the application will depend upon the final determination of the issue after the hearing, but his liability before the date he files an application for change in condition cannot be altered.

The trial court did not err in denying the application.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*
§ 21.6140 Evaluation and improvement of rehabilitation potential. ( a ) *General.* The services described in paragraph (d) of this section may be used to: ( 1 ) Evaluate rehabilitation potential;
( 2 ) Provide a basis for planning: ( i ) A program of services and assistance to improve the veteran's potential for vocational rehabilitation; or
( ii ) A vocational training program; and
( 3 ) Reevaluate the vocational training potential of a veteran participating in a rehabilitation program. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(a))
( b ) *Periods during which evaluation and improvement services may be provided.* Services described in paragraph (d) of this section may be provided during: ( 1 ) An evaluation or reevaluation;
( 2 ) Rehabilitation to the point of employability;
( 3 ) Employment services. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2))
( c ) *Duration of services.* The duration of services needed to improve rehabilitation potential, furnished on a full-time basis either as a preliminary part of the period of rehabilitation to the point of employability or as the total program, may not exceed 9 months. If these services are furnished on a less than full-time basis the duration will be for the period necessary, but may not exceed the equivalent of 9 months of full-time training. See § 21.6310. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2))
( d ) *Scope of services.* Evaluation and improvement services include: ( 1 ) Diagnostic services;
( 2 ) Personal and work adjustment training;
( 3 ) Medical care and treatment;
( 4 ) Independent living services indispensable to pursuing a vocational training program;
( 5 ) Language training, speech and voice correction, training in ambulation, and one-hand typewriting;
( 6 ) Orientation, adjustment, mobility and related services; and
( 7 ) Other appropriate services. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2))
( e ) *Applicability of chapter 31 rules.* the provisions of § 21.140 of this part are not applicable to this temporary program. The provisions of § 21.142 through § 21.156 of this part are applicable, subject to provisions of this section.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2))
§ 360.21 Time of filing. ( a ) *General.* During January and February of each year, every interested copyright party claiming to be entitled to DART royalty payments made for quarterly periods ending during the previous calendar year must file a claim with the Copyright Royalty Board. Claimants may file claims jointly or as a single claim.
( b ) *Consequences of an untimely filing.* No royalty payments for the previous calendar year will be distributed to any interested copyright party who has not filed a claim to those royalty payments during January or February of the following calendar year.
( c ) *Authorization.* Any organization or association acting as a common agent for collection and distribution of DART royalty fees must obtain from its members or affiliates separate, specific, and written authorization, signed by members, affiliates, or their representatives, apart from their standard affiliation agreements, for purposes of royalties claim filing and fee distribution relating to the DART Musical Works Fund or Sound Recordings Fund. The written authorization, however, will not be required for claimants to the Musical Works Fund when either: ( 1 ) The agreement between the organization or association and its members or affiliates specifically authorizes the entity to represent its members or affiliates as a common agent before the Copyright Royalty Board in royalty claims filing and fee distribution proceedings; or
( 2 ) The agreement between the organization or association and its members or affiliates, as specified in a court order issued by a court with authority to interpret the terms of the contract, authorizes the entity to represent its members or affiliates as a common agent before the Copyright Royalty Board in royalty claims filing and fee distribution proceedings.
```

[107th Congress Public Law 113]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ113.107]

[[Page 115 STAT. 2099]]

Public Law 107-113
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
    To amend the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
Improvement Act of 1997 to permit any Federal law enforcement agency to 
    enter into a cooperative agreement with the Metropolitan Police 
   Department of the District of Columbia to assist the Department in 
  carrying out crime prevention and law enforcement activities in the 
     District of Columbia if deemed appropriate by the Chief of the 
Department and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, 
     and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Jan. 8, 2002 -  [H.R. 2199]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: District of Columbia Police 
Coordination Amendment Act of 2001.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Police 
Coordination Amendment Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING ADDITIONAL FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO ENTER 
            INTO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH METROPOLITAN POLICE 
            DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    Section 11712(d) of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997 (D.C. Code, sec. 5-133.17(d)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(33) Any other law enforcement agency of the Federal 
        government that the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department 
        and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia deem 
        appropriate to enter into an agreement pursuant to this 
        section.''.

    Approved January 8, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2199:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 107-103 (Comm. on Governmental Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
            Sept. 25, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 11, considered and passed Senate, amended.
            Dec. 19, House concurred in Senate amendment.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 18b.13 Appearance.

A party may appear in person or by counsel and participate fully in any proceeding. A State agency or a corporation may appear by any of its officers or by any employee it authorizes to appear on its behalf. Counsel must be members in good standing of the bar of a State, territory, or possession of the United States or of the District of Columbia or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
### Clean 

### &Hpi.d'·' !. 

### It\ 

### your rigl"

September 1, 2011
Jim Martin, Regional Administrator Steve Tuber Callie Videtich Laurel Dygowski Monica Morales Sara Laumann Vanpssa Hinkle Carl Daly U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1595Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129
DearJim and Staff:
Thankyou all for taking time out ofyour busy schedules to meet with us last week. We very much appreciated your time and attention. Creating a regional haze Federal Implementation Plan for Montana and reviewing State Implementation Plans for Region 8 states is no small task. We recognize how difficult and time consuming this will be for all of you and hope we can be helpful throughout the process.
Your valuable input during the meeting was most welcome. But most ofall we appreciated your serious consideration ofour concerns. Please let us know ifthere is anything we can do to assistyou in your difficult task. Thanks again and we look forward to working with you to help create the best possible plans to protect our mosttreasured resources.
Sincerelv

.

.**~ ~**  

# 'f/l**.~!**

# rk </ -;l-O t/ Ic

__ __**.~((t( ~** 

## ~nne Hedges 

## J
Signing on behalfof: Jenny Harbine, Earthjustice Stephanie Kodish, National Parks Conservation Association John Barth Doug Howell, Sierra Club Reed Zars Shannon Anderson, Powder River Basin Resource Council Bruce Pendry, Wyoming Outdoor Council
Protecting Montana's environment since 1973. 107 W. Lawrence Street, Suite N-6· PO. Box 1184· Helena, MT 59624· (406) 443-2520· WWW.!i:
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 42.9 Action by patent owner.

(a) *Entire interest.* An owner of the entire interest in an involved application or patent may act to the exclusion of the inventor (*see* § 3.71 of this title).

(b) *Part interest.* An owner of a part interest in the subject patent may move to act to the exclusion of an inventor or a co-owner. The motion must show the inability or refusal of an inventor or co-owner to prosecute the proceeding or other cause why it is in the interests of justice to permit the owner of a part interest to act in the trial. In granting the motion, the Board may set conditions on the actions of the parties.
#### § 21.7141 Tutorial assistance.

An individual who is otherwise eligible to receive benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill - Active Duty may receive supplemental monetary assistance to provide tutorial services. In determining whether VA will pay the individual this assistance, VA will apply the provisions of § 21.4236.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3019, 3492)

[61 FR 26117, May 24, 1996]
#### § 17.635 Bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy under the VIOMPSP is treated in the same manner as bankruptcy for the HPSP under § 17.611.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7505(c), 7505(d))
#### § 21.3002 Administration of Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance Program.

Subpart D of this part applies to the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance Program, unless the provisions of a section in that subpart are explicitly limited to one or more of the other educational assistance programs VA administers.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 3501-3566)

[61 FR 26108, May 24, 1996]
#### Nannie Reed, Respondent, *v.*William W. Newman, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, first district, borough of Manhattan.

James Murphy, for appellant.

George W. Gibbons, for respondent.

*Per Guriam.*

The complaint is for wages due, and plaintiff must be confined to the period during which she actually rendered services. There can be no recovery for damages for breach *793of contract under such a complaint. Fallon v. Farber, 30 Misc. Rep. 626; 62 N. Y. Supp. 742.

The judgment should, therefore, be reduced to eleven dollars and fifty cents, and as modified affirmed, without costs to either party.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegeeicii and O’Gobman,. JJ.

Judgment modified ánd as modified affirmed, without costs.
§ 1.989 Review of VA records related to the debt. ( a ) *Notification by employee.* An employee who intends to inspect or copy VA records related to the debt as permitted by a notice provided under § 1.983 must send a letter to the office which sent the notice of the debt stating his or her intention. The letter must be received by that office within 30 calendar days of the date of the notice.
( b ) *VA response.* In response to timely notice submitted by the debtor as described in paragraph (a) of this section, VA will notify the employee of the location and time when the employee may inspect and copy records related to the debt.
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5514)
[52 FR 1905, Jan. 16, 1987, as amended at 69 FR 62203, Oct. 25, 2004]
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.1(a)


                        [Confidential Portions Omitted]

                           Acclaim Entertainment Ltd.
                                  Moreau House
                              112-120 Brompton Road
                                 London SW3 1JJ

                                                              September 30, 2003
BAM Entertainment Limited
Upper Borough Court
Borough Wells
Bath
BA1 1RG

           RE ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT INC. -W- BAM ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED

Gentlemen:

We would like to clarify a number of provisions of the letter of intent entered
into between our companies dated July 17, 2003.

Specifically:

      1.    Wallace and Gromit PS2 - This product will be developed as 3 SKU's
            with associated minimum guaranteed royalties on each SKU payable as
            follows:

                  a.  PAL English                            $ [*]
                  b.  PAL German                             $ [*]
                  c.  PAL French, Italian, German, Spanish   $ [*]

                  Excess royalties are only payable once the total minimum
                  guarantee is exceeded.

      2.    Wallace and Gromit XBox - This product will be developed as 2 SKU's
            with associated minimum guaranteed royalties on each SKU payable as
            follows:

                  a.  PAL English                            $ [*]
                  b.  PAL French, Italian, German, Spanish   $ [*]

                  Excess royalties are only payable once the total minimum
                  guarantee is exceeded.

________________

*Confidential portion omitted and filed separately with the Commission.
<PAGE>

      3.    Wallace and Gromit Gamecube - This product will be developed as 2
            SKU's with associated minimum guaranteed royalties on each SKU
            payable as follows:

                  a.  PAL English                             $   [*]
                  b.  PAL French, Italian, German, Spanish    $   [*]

                  Excess royalties are only payable once the $[*] total
                  minimum guarantee is exceeded.

      4.    Samarai Jack - This product will be developed as an English language
            Version only.

                                           Sincerely
                                           Acclaim Entertainment Limited

                                           By /s/ Simon Hosken
                                              ----------------

Agreed and Accepted

BAM Entertainment Limited

By /s/ Stephen Ambler
   ----------------------

________________

*Confidential portion omitted and filed separately with the Commission.