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


EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 June 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: August 14, 2003         /s/ Donald L. Paliwoda
      ---------------         --------------------------------------------------
                              Donald L. Paliwoda, Acting Chief Financial Officer



                                       32
```

[113th Congress Public Law 155]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 1828]]

Public Law 113-155
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Forest Service for the 
 Grandfather Ranger District located at 109 Lawing Drive in Nebo, North 
 Carolina, as the ``Jason Crisp Forest Service Building''. <<NOTE: Aug. 
                        8, 2014 -  [H.R. 4360]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JASON CRISP FOREST SERVICE BUILDING, 
                              NEBO, NORTH CAROLINA.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the Grandfather Ranger District of 
the United States Forest Service located at 109 Lawing Drive in Nebo, 
North Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ``Jason Crisp 
Forest Service Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Jason Crisp 
Forest Service Building''.

    Approved August 8, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4360:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            June 17, considered and passed House.
            July 31, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 31999R1122 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R1122

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/1999 of 28 May 1999 rectifying Regulation (EC) No 883/1999 on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector **

*
Official Journal L 135 , 29/05/1999 P. 0033 - 0033 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1122/1999

of 28 May 1999

rectifying Regulation (EC) No 883/1999 on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2190/96 of 14 November 1996 on detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1287/98(2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

(1) Whereas a check has discovered an error in Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/1999(3);

(2) Whereas the date of 26 April 1999 should be corrected to 28 April 1999 in that Regulation;

(3) Whereas, in the case of exports of apples to geographic zone X for which an export declaration was accepted on 27 or 28 April 1999, the time limit for applying to the competent bodies in the Member States for the system B licence should be extended, because the operators were informed too late of the eligibility of these operations,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 883/1999, the date "26 April 1999" is replaced by "28 April 1999".

Article 2

Applications to the competent bodies in the Member States for system B licences for apples intended for group X and for which the export declaration was accepted on 27 or 28 April 1999 can be made in the five working days immediately following the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 May 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 12.

(2) OJ L 178, 23.6.1998, p. 11.

(3) OJ L 111, 29.4.1999, p. 38.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 839 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 839

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude amounts received 
as a military basic housing allowance from consideration as income for 
  purposes of the low-income housing credit and qualified residential 
                            rental projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2007

 Mr. Roberts (for himself and Mr. Brownback) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude amounts received 
as a military basic housing allowance from consideration as income for 
  purposes of the low-income housing credit and qualified residential 
                            rental projects.

    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 ``Military Access to Housing Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS FROM INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF 
              ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN HOUSING PROVISIONS.

    (a) In General.--The last sentence of 142(d)(2)(B) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income of individuals; area median 
gross income) is amended to read as follows ``For purposes of 
determining income under this subparagraph, subsections (g) and (h) of 
section 7872 shall not apply and any payments to a member of the Armed 
Forces under section 403 of title 37, United States Code, as a basic 
pay allowance for housing, shall be disregarded.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect with respect to determinations made after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jaswant K. Lamba, Respondent, v Manmohan S. Lamba, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 715]

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant former husband appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), entered August 7, 1998, as awarded the plaintiff former wife 50% of his pension, directed that the pension be valued as of July 6, 1994, and failed to equitably distribute the value of the plaintiffs degree in computer science.

*516Ordered that the order and judgment is modified by deleting so much of the fifth and sixth decretal paragraphs thereof as directed that the defendant’s pension be valued for purposes of equitable distribution as of July 6, 1994; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine the valuation date of the defendant’s pension in accordance herewith.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion to have the defendant’s pension valued as of July 6, 1994, the date the instant action was commenced, as opposed to the date that a previous, discontinued, divorce action between the parties was commenced in or about May 1989, since her moving papers contained no evidence that the parties reconciled and continued to receive the benefits of the marital relationship. The court compounded that error when it subsequently denied the plaintiff the opportunity to present such evidence at trial. Inasmuch as the plaintiff was required to make such a showing before the court could grant her motion *(see, Gonzalez v Gonzalez,*240 AD2d 630; *Thomas v Thomas,*221 AD2d 621; *Marcus v Marcus,*137 AD2d 131), we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine whether after the commencement of the plaintiff’s prior 1989 action for divorce, the parties reconciled and received the benefits of the marital relationship.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, S. Miller and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
No. 76-1406.

#### Thornton et al. *v.*Personal Service Insurance Co.

Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.
#### § 18.36 Amendments after referral to the Office of Administrative Law Judges.

The judge may allow parties to amend and supplement their filings.
§ 10.52 Debarment proceedings. ( a ) Whenever any contractor is found by the Secretary of Labor to have disregarded its obligations to workers or subcontractors under Executive Order 13658 or this part, such contractor and its responsible officers, and any firm, corporation, partnership, or association in which such contractor or responsible officers have an interest, shall be ineligible for a period of up to three years to receive any contracts or subcontracts subject to Executive Order 13658 from the date of publication of the name or names of the contractor or persons on the ineligible list.
( b ) ( 1 ) Whenever the Administrator finds reasonable cause to believe that a contractor has committed a violation of Executive Order 13658 or this part which constitutes a disregard of its obligations to workers or subcontractors, the Administrator shall notify by certified mail to the last known address, the contractor and its responsible officers (and any firms, corporations, partnerships, or associations in which the contractor or responsible officers are known to have an interest), of the finding. The Administrator shall afford such contractor and any other parties notified an opportunity for a hearing as to whether debarment action should be taken under Executive Order 13658 or this part. The Administrator shall furnish to those notified a summary of the investigative findings. If the contractor or any other parties notified wish to request a hearing as to whether debarment action should be taken, such a request shall be made by letter to the Administrator postmarked within 30 calendar days of the date of the investigative findings letter from the Administrator, and shall set forth any findings which are in dispute and the reasons therefor, including any affirmative defenses to be raised. Upon receipt of such timely request for a hearing, the Administrator shall refer the case to the Chief Administrative Law Judge by Order of Reference, to which shall be attached a copy of the investigative findings letter from the Administrator and the response thereto, for designation of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct such hearings as may be necessary to determine the matters in dispute.
( 2 ) Hearings under this section shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 6. If no hearing is requested within 30 calendar days of the letter from the Administrator, the Administrator's findings shall become the final order of the Secretary.
ex105.htm


    Exhibit
10.5

    


     Hague
Corp.

    7700 S.
River Parkway

    Tempe, AZ
85284

    


                          


    


                                                                                                    October
28, 2009

    Oceanus Capital LLC

    and
Steven Posner

    10800
Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 350

    Miami,
Florida 33161

    


    Gentlemen:

    


     

    This
letter shall serve to confirm that we have engaged both of you to act as
consultants on behalf of Hague Corp. As consultants, you have introduced us and
have agreed to facilitate Hague’s relationship with Dr. Bob Glass and others and
have arranged meetings with various strategic partners and joint venture
candidates. In consideration of your working each as a consultant to Hague, we
have agreed to issue to Steven Posner Irrevocable Trust u/t/a dated June 17,
1965, 1,000,000 restricted shares of Hague Corp. and to Oceanus Capital LLC,
2,000,000 shares of restricted Common Stock.

     

    If the foregoing correctly sets forth
our agreement, please acknowledge your acceptance of this agreement by signing
and returning a copy of this agreement to the undersigned.

    


    This
agreement may be executed by the parties hereto in counterpart.  This
agreement and all such counterparts so executed taken together shall be deemed
to constitute one and the same instrument.

     

     

    
      	 	

              Very
      truly yours,

               

              HAGUE
      CORP.

            	 
	 	 	 	 
	
            	
              By:
      

            	/s/ Stephen
      Squires	 
	 	 	

              Stephen
      Squires

              Chief
      Executive Officer

            	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 


    

     

    
      
        	 	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                 

              	
                By:
      

              	/s/ Steven
      Posner	 
	 	 	Steven
      Posner	 
	 	 	
              	 
	 	 	 	 


      

    

    


    
      
        	 	OCEANUS
      CAPITAL, LLC	 
	 	 	 	 
	
              	
                By:
      

              	/s/ Richard
      Chancis	 
	 	 	

                Richard
      Chancis
§ 93.219 Allocation of slots for essential air service operations and applicable limitations. Whenever the Office of the Secretary of Transportation determines that slots are needed for operations to or from a High Density Traffic Airport under the Department of Transportation's Essential Air Service (EAS) Program, those slots shall be provided to the designated air carrier or commuter operator subject to the following limitations: ( a ) Slots obtained under this section may not be bought, sold, leased or otherwise transferred, except that such slots may be traded for other slots on a one-for-one basis at the same airport.
( b ) Any slot obtained under this section must be returned to the FAA if it will not be used for EAS purposes for more than a 2-week period. A slot returned under this paragraph may be reallocated to the operator which returned it upon request to the FAA office specified in § 93.221(a)(1) if that slot has not been reallocated to an operator to provide substitute essential air service.
( c ) Slots shall be allocated for EAS purposes in a time period within 90 minutes of the time period requested.
( d ) The Department will not honor requests for slots for EAS purposes to a point if the requesting carrier has previously traded away or sold slots it had used or obtained for use in providing essential air service to that point.
( e ) Slots obtained under Civil Aeronautics Board Order No. 84-11-40 shall be considered to have been obtained under this section.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-1073 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-039-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 120L12-36

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
§ 1608.10 Standard of review. ( a ) *Affirmative action plans or programs not specifically relying on these guidelines.* If, during the investigation of a charge of discrimination filed with the Commission, a respondent asserts that the action complained of was taken pursuant to an in accordance with a plan or program of the type described in these Guidelines, the Commission will determine whether the assertion is true, and if so, whether such a plan or program conforms to the requirements of these guidelines. If the Commission so finds, it will issue a determination of no reasonable cause and, where appropriate, will state that the determination constitutes a written interpretation or opinion of the Commission under section 713(b)(1). This interpretation may be relied upon by the respondent and asserted as a defense in the event that new charges involving similar facts and circumstances are thereafter filed against the respondent, which are based on actions taken pursuant to the affirmative action plan or program. If the Commission does not so find, it will proceed with the investigation in the usual manner.
( b ) *Reliance on these guidelines.* If a respondent asserts that the action taken was pursuant to and in accordance with a plan or program which was adopted or implemented in good faith, in conformity with, and in reliance upon these Guidelines, and the self analysis and plan are in writing, the Commission will determine whether such assertion is true. If the Commission so finds, it will so state in the determination of no reasonable cause and will advise the respondent that: ( 1 ) The Commission has found that the respondent is entitled to the protection of section 713(b)(1) of title VII; and
( 2 ) That the determination is itself an additional written interpretation or opinion of the Commission pursuant to section 713(b)(1).
#### §§ 1627.8-1627.9 [Reserved]
#### Sharp and Tuttle *against*Young and Young.

Affidavit is judgment,' and'obligations, but in no- other cases *(a)*

VANARSDALE moved for leave to enter judgment a warrant of attorney, unaccompanied by bond, and without affidavit: the statute requiring the affidavit UP0U all confessions of judgment, having been repealed ; and the affidavit being now required only in cases of . , , , , , , ,. .. ,, judgments upon bonds and obligations; other cases being left, as they were, before the passage of the statute, requiring the affidavit. See statute, 24th *February*1820.

(a)

**See Acts of 1829—92. *Parker vs. Griggs, 1 South. 163. Cliver vs. Applegate, ante 479. Woodward ads. Cook, 1 Hal. 160. Burroughs vs. Condit, 1 Hal. 300. Latham vs. Lawrence, 6 Hal. 322. Evans vs. Adams, 3 Gr. 373. Melville vs. Brown, 1 Har. 363. Reading vs. Reading, 4 Zab. 358. Dean vs. Thatcher, 3 Vr. 470.*

Court.

Let the judgment be entered, upon the warrant of attorney, without affidavit.
#### § 1922.2 Purpose and scope.

Whenever any serious injury results from the employments covered by the Act or whenever it is otherwise appropriate, the Assistant Secretary may appoint a Board of Investigation to hold an investigational hearing during the course of any investigation made under section 41 of the Act. This part prescribes the manner in which any investigational hearings shall be conducted. This part does not apply to any adjudicative proceedings held under section 41(b)(5) of the Act.
§ 1635.1 Purpose. ( a ) The purpose of this part is to implement Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. 2000ff, *et seq.* Title II of GINA: ( 1 ) Prohibits use of genetic information in employment decision-making;
( 2 ) Restricts employers and other entities subject to Title II of GINA from requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information;
( 3 ) Requires that genetic information be maintained as a confidential medical record, and places strict limits on disclosure of genetic information; and
( 4 ) Provides remedies for individuals whose genetic information is acquired, used, or disclosed in violation of its protections.
( b ) This part does not apply to actions of covered entities that do not pertain to an individual's status as an employee, member of a labor organization, or participant in an apprenticeship program. For example, this part would not apply to: ( 1 ) A medical examination of an individual for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment unrelated to employment, which is conducted by a health care professional at the hospital or other health care facility where the individual is an employee; or
( 2 ) Activities of a covered entity carried on in its capacity as a law enforcement agency investigating criminal conduct, even where the subject of the investigation is an employee of the covered entity.
§ 450.37 Equivalent level of safety. ( a ) An applicant must demonstrate compliance with each requirement of this part, unless the applicant clearly and convincingly demonstrates that an alternative approach provides an equivalent level of safety to the requirement of this part.
( b ) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to § 450.101(a), (b), (c)(1) and (3), (d), (e)(1), and (g).
Exhibit 32.1
                                 INTERDENT, INC.

                            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 (18 U.S.C. 1350):

I, H. Wayne Posey Chief Executive Officer of InterDent,  Inc.,  certify,  to the
best of my knowledge and belief,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that:

1)   The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,
     2003, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and;

2)   The information contained in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
     quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of InterDent,
     Inc.

Date: August 20, 2003


                                    /s/ H. WAYNE POSEY
                                  ---------------------------------
                                  H. Wayne Posey
                                  Chairman of the Board and
                                  Chief Executive Officer
#### BRYAN v. WINFIELD MERCANTILE CO.

(Decided December 1, 1916.)

Appeal from Marion Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. C. P. Almon.

No counsel marked for appellant.

E. B. & K. V. Fite, for .appellee.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.