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

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         In connection with the periodic report of Connetics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John L. Higgins, Chief
Financial Officer, Executive Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development
of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of
Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best
of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date: March 11, 2004

    /s/ John L. Higgins
--------------------------------
John L. Higgins
Chief Financial Officer;
Executive Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development
§ 102-37.495 How must a SASP handle funds derived from compliance actions? You must handle funds derived from compliance actions as follows: ( a ) *Enforcement of Federal restrictions.* You must promptly remit to GSA any funds derived from the enforcement of compliance involving a violation of any Federal restriction, for deposit in the Treasury of the United States. You must also submit any supporting documentation indicating the source of the funds and essential background information.
( b ) *Enforcement of State restrictions.* You may retain any funds derived from a compliance action involving violation of any State-imposed restriction and use such funds as provided in your State plan of operation.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JEFFREY SCOTT ROLAND
,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D14

- 985

[ December 17, 2014 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.853 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Jud icial Circuit, Broward County ; Martin J. Bidwill

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 01

- 006152 CF10A

.

Jeffrey Scott Roland, Daytona, pro se

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach , for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

The State concedes in its response to this court’s order to show cause

that this matter must be reversed and remanded for further consideration of appellant’s rule 3.853 motion for DNA testing. This

cause is remanded for the trial court to consider the merits of that motion. In doing so, the trial court may also consider, if appropriate, its earlier ruling on appellant’s petition for release and transportation of evidence for DNA testing, and motion for order directing buccal swabbing.

R eversed and remanded.

W ARNER
, G ERBER and L EVINE
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 13.1

RULE 13a-14(b) CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code ) each of the undersigned officers of National Grid plc, a public limited company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales (the
Company), hereby certifies to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ending
March 31, 2013 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: 10 June 2013 |  |  |  | /s/ Steve Holliday     
|                   |  |  |  | Steve Holliday         
|                   |  |  |  | Title: Chief Executive 
|                   |  |  |  | National Grid plc      
|                   |  | 
|Date: 10 June 2013 |  |  |  | /s/ Andrew Bonfield    
|                   |  |  |  | Andrew Bonfield        
|                   |  |  |  | Title: Finance Director
|                   |  |  |  | National Grid plc
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"20-1268: SHUFORD v. WILKIE [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"LzVVc2svvm\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-23-2020-20-1268-shuford-v-wilkie-rule-36-judgment-20-1268-rule_36_judgment-10-23-2020_1674345\/\">20-1268: SHUFORD v. WILKIE [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-23-2020-20-1268-shuford-v-wilkie-rule-36-judgment-20-1268-rule_36_judgment-10-23-2020_1674345\/embed\/#?secret=LzVVc2svvm\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1268: SHUFORD v. WILKIE [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"LzVVc2svvm\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: SHUFORD v. WILKIE [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1268 Origin: CAVC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 11-5138.

#### Partin *v.*Simpson, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"17-2402: FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC v. BASS [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"t7HMBsQCbl\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-17-2402-fresenius-kabi-usa-llc-v-bass-rule-36-judgment-17-2402-rule_36_judgment-11-7-2018-1\/\">17-2402: FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC v. BASS [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-17-2402-fresenius-kabi-usa-llc-v-bass-rule-36-judgment-17-2402-rule_36_judgment-11-7-2018-1\/embed\/#?secret=t7HMBsQCbl\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“17-2402: FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC v. BASS [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"t7HMBsQCbl\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC v. BASS [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 17-2402 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"Judicial Conduct and Disability - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rCMPSm85de\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/the-court\/judges\/judicial-conduct-and-disability\/\">Judicial Conduct and Disability<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/the-court\/judges\/judicial-conduct-and-disability\/embed\/#?secret=rCMPSm85de\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Judicial Conduct and Disability” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"rCMPSm85de\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Pursuant to statute, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 351 et al. and the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability Proceedings (pdf), any person may file a written complaint with the Circuit Executive concerning the actions or behavior of a judge of this court.\u00a0 The\u00a0form\u00a0that may be used for a complaint is provided at the end of […]"}
§ 15.15 General technical requirements. ( a ) An intentional or unintentional radiator shall be constructed in accordance with good engineering design and manufacturing practice. Emanations from the device shall be suppressed as much as practicable, but in no case shall the emanations exceed the levels specified in these rules.
( b ) Except as follows, an intentional or unintentional radiator must be constructed such that the adjustments of any control that is readily accessible by or intended to be accessible to the user will not cause operation of the device in violation of the regulations. Access BPL equipment shall comply with the applicable standards at the control adjustment that is employed. The measurement report used in support of an application for Certification and the user instructions for Access BPL equipment shall clearly specify the user-or installer-control settings that are required for conformance with these regulations.
( c ) Parties responsible for equipment compliance should note that the limits specified in this part will not prevent harmful interference under all circumstances. Since the operators of part 15 devices are required to cease operation should harmful interference occur to authorized users of the radio frequency spectrum, the parties responsible for equipment compliance are encouraged to employ the minimum field strength necessary for communications, to provide greater attenuation of unwanted emissions than required by these regulations, and to advise the user as to how to resolve harmful interference problems (for example, see § 15.105(b)).
[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at 70 FR 1373, Jan. 7, 2005]
46415.

#### DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. ARC SECURITY, INC.

(380 SE2d 712)

Decided May 11, 1989.

*Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Charles C. Pritchard, Special Assistant Attorney General,*for appellant.

*Glenville Haldi,*for appellee.

Per curiam.

After plenary consideration of this matter, *Dept. of Transp. v. ARC Security, Inc.,*189 Ga. App. 34 (375 SE2d 42) (1988), it is found not to satisfy the criteria for the .grant of certiorari, and the writ is therefore vacated.

*All the Justices concur, except Weltner, J., who dissents.*
#### § 301-72.204 What must we do to minimize the need for a traveler to use cash to procure common carrier transportation services?

You must establish procedures to encourage travelers to use the GSA individual Government contractor-issued travel charge card(s), or your agency's centrally billed or other established account, or a GTR (when no other option is available or feasible).

[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15976, Apr. 1, 1998; 63 FR 35538, June 30, 1998]
Exhibit        23.2

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Form S-8 (No.        333-07377) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plans, in Registration Statement Form S-8        (No. 333-53400) pertaining to the Special Purpose Stock Option Plan, in Registration        Statement Form S-8 (N0. 333-73000) pertaining to the 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in        Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-73002) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option Plan        and in registration Statement Form S-8 (No 333-72998) pertaining to the 2001 Consultant        Stock Purchase Plan of SPAR Group, Inc. and with Respect to the December 31, 2006        consolidated financial statements of SPAR Group, Inc included in the Annual Report (Form        10-K), for the year ended December 31, 2007 of our report dated February 20, 2008 with        respect to the financial statements of SPAR Alan Pazarlama Limited Sirketi, as of December        31, 2007 and for the year ended December 31, 2007.

|   | /s/ Güreli Yeminli Mali Müşavirlik                        A.Ş. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Istanbul,        Turkey

February        20, 2008

 

 

 

        Ex-2
791 A.2d 214

#### IN THE MATTER OF MARK *D.*CUBBERLEY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

March 8, 2002.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 00-373 and DRB 00-403, concluding that MARK D. CUBBERLEY of TRENTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1984, and who thereafter was suspended from the practice of law by Order of the Court filed March 30, 2001, and who remains suspended at this time, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence) and *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities);

And the Disciplinary Review Board further having concluded that on reinstatement to practice, respondent should be required to practice under the supervision of an attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of two years;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MARK D. CUBBERLEY is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and until the further Order of the Court, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that on reinstatement to practice, respondent shall practice under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of two years and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and *33that respondent continue to comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 2.801 Radiofrequency device defined. As used in this part, a radiofrequency device is any device which in its operation is capable of emitting radiofrequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means. Radiofrequency devices include, but are not limited to: ( a ) The various types of radio communication transmitting devices described throughout this chapter.
( b ) The incidental, unintentional and intentional radiators defined in part 15 of this chapter.
( c ) The industrial, scientific, and medical equipment described in part 18 of this chapter.
( d ) Any part or component thereof which in use emits radiofrequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means.
[35 FR 7898, May 22, 1970, as amended at 54 FR 17711, Apr. 25, 1989]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"20-150: GALLOGLY v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5fCo3Un8q2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-19-2020-20-150-gallogly-v-us-order-20-150-order-10-19-2020_1671367\/\">20-150: GALLOGLY v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-19-2020-20-150-gallogly-v-us-order-20-150-order-10-19-2020_1671367\/embed\/#?secret=5fCo3Un8q2\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-150: GALLOGLY v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"5fCo3Un8q2\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: GALLOGLY v. US [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-150 Origin: RIT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}