alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 aQuantive, Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Form 10-Q***”), I, Michael Vernon, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

 

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: May 7, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          22,137
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         325,489
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                41,175
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 1,794
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     57,739
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          12,865
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            12,510
<LOANS>                                        301,874
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (4,002)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 457,588
<DEPOSITS>                                     413,494
<SHORT-TERM>                                     8,600
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,425
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,537
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,532
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 457,588
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,480
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,034
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   589
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,103
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,458
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,752
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,351
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    (340)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,249
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,519
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,519
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.468
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.458
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.24
<LOANS-NON>                                        815
<LOANS-PAST>                                       815
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,793
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    (189)
<RECOVERIES>                                        58
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,002
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,002
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
§ 385.20 Authority of the Inspector General. The Inspector General has authority to: ( a ) Require special reports, including documentation, from any air carrier regarding audits and other examinations of carrier facilities, operations, and accounting and statistical records.
( b ) ( 1 ) For accounting purpose, make findings regarding the reasonable necessity for the application of the Department authority to obtain access to lands, buildings, and equipment, and to inspect, examine, and make notes and copies of accounts, records, documents, papers, and correspondence of persons having control over, or affiliated with, any person subject to regulation used to carry out titles IV and X of the Act through issuance of an appropriate order, letter, or other transmittal;
( 2 ) Authorize one or more auditors or special agents to conduct audits, inspections, and examinations and to make notes and copies in accordance with such findings.
( c ) Release to the carrier that is the subject of a financial audit the audit report and other information developed during the audit.
( d ) Require submission by carriers of special statements necessary to an explanation of any carrier accounting practice.
[Doc. No. T-1, 49 FR 50985, Dec. 31, 1984. Redesignated by Doc. No. OST-96-1268, 61 FR 19170, May 1, 1996]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

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

     In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Amdocs Limited (the
"Company") for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Ron
Moskovitz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of his knowledge and belief:

     (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.

Dated: December 28, 2005

/s/ Ron Moskovitz
---------------------------------------------------------
Ron Moskovitz
Chief Financial Officer
Amdocs Management Limited
#### § 102.6 Notice to the Administrative Law Judge or Board of supplemental authority.

Pertinent and significant authorities that come to a party's attention after the party's submission to the Administrative Law Judge or the Board has been filed may be brought to the Judge's or the Board's attention by the party promptly filing a letter with the judge or the Board and simultaneously serving all other parties. The body of the letter may not exceed 350 words. A party may file and serve on all other parties a response that is similarly limited. In unfair labor practice cases, the response must be filed no later than 14 days after service of the letter. In representation cases, the response must be filed no later than 7 days after service of the letter. No extension of time will be granted to file the response.
§ 99.13 Transponder-on requirements. ( a ) *Aircraft transponder-on operation.* Each person operating an aircraft into or out of the United States into, within, or across an ADIZ designated in subpart B of this part, if that aircraft is equipped with an operable radar beacon transponder, shall operate the transponder, including altitude encoding equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC.
( b ) *ATC transponder equipment and use.* Effective September 7, 1990, unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate a civil aircraft into or out of the United States into, within, or across the contiguous U.S. ADIZ designated in subpart B of this part unless that aircraft is equipped with a coded radar beacon transponder.
( c ) *ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.* Effective December 30, 1990, unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate a civil aircraft into or out of the United States into, within, or across the contiguous U.S. ADIZ unless that aircraft is equipped with a coded radar beacon transponder and automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having altitude reporting capability that automatically replies to interrogations by transmitting pressure altitude information in 100-foot increments.
( d ) Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section do not apply to the operation of an aircraft which was not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system and which has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, a balloon, or a glider.
[Doc. No. 24903, 55 FR 8395, Mar. 7, 1990. Redesignated at 69 FR 16756, Mar. 30, 2004]
§ 29.783 Doors. ( a ) Each closed cabin must have at least one adequate and easily accessible external door.
( b ) Each external door must be located, and appropriate operating procedures must be established, to ensure that persons using the door will not be endangered by the rotors, propellers, engine intakes, and exhausts when the operating procedures are used.
( c ) There must be means for locking crew and external passenger doors and for preventing their opening in flight inadvertently or as a result of mechanical failure. It must be possible to open external doors from inside and outside the cabin with the rotorcraft on the ground even though persons may be crowded against the door on the inside of the rotorcraft. The means of opening must be simple and obvious and so arranged and marked that it can be readily located and operated.
( d ) There must be reasonable provisions to prevent the jamming of any external doors in a minor crash as a result of fuselage deformation under the following ultimate inertial forces except for cargo or service doors not suitable for use as an exit in an emergency: ( 1 ) Upward—1.5g.
( 2 ) Forward—4.0g.
( 3 ) Sideward—2.0g.
( 4 ) Downward—4.0g.
( e ) There must be means for direct visual inspection of the locking mechanism by crewmembers to determine whether the external doors (including passenger, crew, service, and cargo doors) are fully locked. There must be visual means to signal to appropriate crewmembers when normally used external doors are closed and fully locked.
( f ) For outward opening external doors usable for entrance or egress, there must be an auxiliary safety latching device to prevent the door from opening when the primary latching mechanism fails. If the door does not meet the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section with this device in place, suitable operating procedures must be established to prevent the use of the device during takeoff and landing.
( g ) If an integral stair is installed in a passenger entry door that is qualified as a passenger emergency exit, the stair must be designed so that under the following conditions the effectiveness of passenger emergency egress will not be impaired: ( 1 ) The door, integral stair, and operating mechanism have been subjected to the inertial forces specified in paragraph (d) of this section, acting separately relative to the surrounding structure.
( 2 ) The rotorcraft is in the normal ground attitude and in each of the attitudes corresponding to collapse of one or more legs, or primary members, as applicable, of the landing gear.
( h ) Nonjettisonable doors used as ditching emergency exits must have means to enable them to be secured in the open position and remain secure for emergency egress in sea state conditions prescribed for ditching.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-20, 45 FR 60178, Sept. 11, 1980; Amdt. 29-29, 54 FR 47320, Nov. 13, 1989; Amdt. 27-26, 55 FR 8003, Mar. 6, 1990; Amdt. 29-31, 55 FR 38966, Sept. 21, 1990]
## National Estuaries Program

You are here: Water Our Waters Oceans, Coasts, Estuaries & Beaches National Estuaries Program Sustainable Financing Strategies 

# Sustainable Financing Strategies On average, the National Estuary Programs (NEPs) raise $15 for every $1 provided by EPA. The NEPs successfully leverage federal seed money by:

 Developing finance plans  Building strategic alliances  Demonstrating environmental results  Providing seed money or staff to initiate and develop new funding sources such as stormwater utilities.

Over the 2003-2010 period the NEPs leveraged nearly $2.3 billion from $160 million in EPA grants. This additional funding came from a variety of federal, state, local and private sources through such mechanisms as annual membership appeals, license plate revenues, fines and penalties, State appropriations and intergovernmental agreements. There are many sustainable funding examples from the NEPs
.

The NEPs use leveraged resources to protect and restore important habitat, support critical land acquisitions, upgrade wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, conduct outreach and education, and implement other priority actions contained in their Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans. Note: Leveraged dollars are defined as the dollar value (cash or in-kind equivalent) of resources dedicated to implementing an NEP CCMP above and beyond the funding provided to the NEP under Section 320, including earmark funding. "Primary” leveraging indicates that the NEP Director

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/fund.cfm 

## Page 1 of2 Sustainable Financing Strategies | National Estuaries Program | US EPA

3/7/2011 http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/fund.cfmLast updated on Tuesday, January 25, 2011.

and staff, rather than NEP partners, played the central or leadership role in obtaining the additional resources. Drinking Water Education & Training Grants & Funding Laws & Regulations Our Waters

Pollution Prevention and Control Science & Technology Water Infrastructure What You Can Do Drinking Water Ground Water Lakes Oceans, Coasts, Estuaries & Beaches Rivers & Streams Stormwater Wastewater Watersheds Wetlands Where You Live Share 

## Page 2 of2 Sustainable Financing Strategies | National Estuaries Program | US EPA

3/7/2011 http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/fund.cfm
#### STREAM v BARNARD, Exrx

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21281.

Decided Mar 20, 1929

Syllabus by

ROBINSON, J.

TRIAL

(590 W3k) The purpose of paragraphs three and four of Section 11495, General Code, is not to restrict but to enlarge the right of parties to an action to testify in their own behalf.

Where the representative of a deceased person, party to an action, examines as a witness the adverse party to such action, vith reference to any conversation, admission or transaction of or with deceased, he he thereby waives the incompetency of such adverse party to testify as a witness in his own behalf. Thereafter such adverse .party is competent to testify in his own behalf to any matter relevant to any issue in the case of which he has knowledge.

Marshall, CJ, Kinkade, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Davel Communications, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 and
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.

Date: November 14, 2003                 /s/ Woody M. McGee
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Woody M. McGee, Chief Executive Officer

                                       32
#### SCHATZDER v CLEVELAND RY CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9716.

Decided May 13, 1929

J M Friedlander, Cleveland, for Schatzder.

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, for Ry Co.

*328SULLIVAN, J.

It is claimed in the petition, and by the proof that the steps which plaintiff had to use in her exit from the car were worn, shining, and slippery, but there is no evidence of any extrinsic element that caused any one of these conditions. Therefore the question arises as a matter of law whether there is a liability on the part of the defendant in error if, 1st., the steps were worn, 2nd, if they were shining, and 3rd, if they were slippery, when all such conditions were inherent in the steps themselves and not because of any external condition.

Analyzing the charges in their elements of course there can be no liability simply because the steps were worn, or because the steps shone, or because the steps were slippery, because that the steps were worn was naturally due to the use of them by the passengers and the same reason applies to their shiny condition and the fact that they shone would in a sense make them slippery but all of these conditions without the interception of any other fact, are results of the use of the steps by the passengers of whom plaintiff herself was one.

There is an utter failure of proof on the part of the plaintiff to attach to the steps' any other condition than as herein noted and certain photographs of the steps taken three days after the accident, settle beyond controversy that there was no defect in the steps resulting from construction or otherwise, and therefore the photographs themselves cooperated with the proof of the defendant as to the condition of the steps.

In order tp recover for negligence there must be some act of commission or omission which can be substantively pointed to but in the present case the only possible thing deducible from the evidence is the natural condition of the steps necessitated by the use of the passengers and the plaintiff cannot be excluded from their number.

For the court to have failed to grant the motion to direct would have meant that a car that had steps which were worn or shiny or slippery, because of their being shiny and defective in no .other way, was subject to the junk heap. Such a holding practically would out all excepting brand new cars out of use and commission. It was upon this theory undoubtedly that the court acted in sustaining the motion to direct a verdict and in coming to the conclusion that there was not a scintilla of substantive evidence which was a sufficient basis for recovery.

It must be remembered upon the scintilla rule that while there must be a scintilla, it must be a scintilla of evidence, and evidence even though it be nothing but a scintilla, must be substantive in its character and impregnated with the essence of such negligence as creates liability.

Holding, these views the judgment of the Common Pleas Court is hereby affirmed.

Vickery, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.
OFFICE OF THE A-ITORNEY GENERAL OF TElU& 

AUSTIN 

3% 

Eenombla Goorgr Ii. shrpprrd 

Qeiaptroller oi Publio MOounts 

hImtin. Taxelr 

Rear Sir: Opiaioa 80. 

80: should 

tba iiQh*ay 

lett*r et #oToiof thts dopart- 
383 

Honorabla George 8. Sheppard, page 2 

In oonatruing th6 ebove 8aetion of Satiate Bill 

Ho. 127, it must be borne in zalnd that tha prias funotfon 

of this depsrtmant, as ~11 aa t&et or tha court, Is to 

detamf.ne ths laglsletlre intent, and thut oooatructloa of 

a atstuta should be adOptad wblah is reasonable and vhioh 

211 affeotuata tha purpoea of tlw Leglalaturo ?a adopting 

S.*w. 

Imperial Irrigation Co. v. Jayno, 104 Tax. 395, 138 

575. Ollrar v. Stata, 1u 8. V. 604. A stat&to 1 

should not ba gitan a construotion that will rmndar It 

rain and purpoaelsse, If it 06x1 br otbexwlor oonatrurd. 

Stolt v. Karirn (Clv. App. 1, 191 8. 7?. 600. 

As you state In gaur latter, there lr no ap*oirla 

'approprletlon for portam rtasps made fbr tha dlrl8lon otrlorre(flrld and distrlot otiiorrr.) Part of the ltemizrd 

funds appropriated for these offices wara vetoed by t& Gora-nor, aul the fund8 now being umd ror the operation 814 

raaintrnanoo oi there eald offium are darlvod ma the balanon fund approprlatad by the rldar found at the oanolurlon 

of tha U3way motion of Senate Bill No. 427. (For further 

deta118, see oonfarenor oplnlon lo. 3OS0, Attornay Ganaral*s 

Dopartwmt . ) 

*PRa postage ataag alaus in sac&ion 2 or sanatr 

Bill WO. L27, quota4 in the first part ot this lattw, apfli68 t0 811 pWOh!WW Or pOSt6gO 6t8CQ?8 ~8dO ~~OAQ ftUtd8 

appreprlatrd by said bill. 'Phi6 claws olrarl~ lndl~at~8 

t&t both in thr ca8a of spaoifie postage applPpr1atlOn 

and wherr oontlngant funds arC’ used, th6 rtmpe must be 

purohassd by voucharn mada payabla to tha United Sates 

Voat ottloo, for even in tha lattar 0atm wham oontingrnt 

funds are uaad wa must hold that suoh PurObaSa *Is OOLLtrmplatod and intsndrd by the Laglrlatura or suoh aVPzOVrlatlon could not ba uaad to pprohare l k a mva . 

‘in our opinion, tha .&gialatlva intar& was 

olrarly to require all postage StMpe $0 be pUNhS*Q 

by +ouohera made Payable to tha United gtakaa post of$iOa. 

merafore, pu are adrlmd that you should raqu*a tba 

swt8 ni&hrrcrf mpartmue to submit rouchara rawatlne 

the ~SSI~~ROS of poatag6 warraat8 In favor Of the Unlt*Q 

statsi Foatnmoter. 
&norablg George II. Sheppard, pegs 3 

T&s foragolng rclprerents the aonalderod opinion 

of tbls depnrtamnt. 

Tours vary txulr 

ATTORHBT ODYERAL OF SpIFxhS 

&;&
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 46 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 46

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2019

             Referred to the Commitee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
             To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Repeal 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Public Law 89-224 (commonly known as the ``Klamath Tribe Judgment 
Fund Act'') (79 Stat. 897) is repealed.

SEC. 3. DISBURSEMENT OF REMAINING FUNDS.

    Notwithstanding any provision of Public Law 89-224 (79 Stat. 897) 
(as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act) 
relating to the distribution or use of funds, as soon as practicable 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
shall disburse to the Klamath Tribe the balance of any funds that, on 
or before the date of enactment of this Act, were appropriated or 
deposited into the trust accounts for remaining legal fees and 
administration and per capita trust accounts, as identified by the 
Secretary of the Interior, under that Act (as in effect on the day 
before the date of enactment of this Act).

            Passed the Senate June 27, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```