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 Mammatech Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended February 29, 2008, (the
"Report"), I, Mary Sellers, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.


Date:  April 9, 2008
                                           /s/ Mary Sellers
                                           ----------------
                                           Mary Sellers, Chief Financial Officer










                                       14
-----Original Message----- 

From: przhk@hotmail.com [mailto:przhk@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:52 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Paul Zumhagen-Krause 

2630 Hoard St 

Madison, WI 53704
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, November 2, 1995 (139), Para 139.20 Calendar Wednesday Business Dispensed With]
[Page 1871]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.139.20  calendar wednesday business dispensed with

  On motion of Mr. ARMEY, by unanimous consent,
  Ordered, That business in order for consideration on Wednesday, 
November 8, 1995, under clause 7, rule XXIV, the Calendar Wednesday 
rule, be dispensed with.
```
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.26    
    


 
 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO WARRANT NO. 1    
    


        This Amendment No. 2 to Warrant No. 1 is made and entered into as of the 30th day of December, 2005, by and among Digital Generation
Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), and Scott K. Ginsburg ("Ginsburg"). 


        WHEREAS,
the Corporation issued Warrant No. 1, dated as of December 9, 1998 for 1,460,067 shares of common stock of the Corporation (the "Warrant") to Ginsburg; 



        WHEREAS,
the Warrant was amended on or about November 30, 2000 pursuant to that certain Amendment No. 1 to Warrant No. 1 and again on or about June 24, 2004
pursuant to resolutions adopted by the unanimous written consent of the board of directors of the Corporation; and 


        WHEREAS,
the Corporation and Ginsburg wish to further amend the terms of the Warrant as described herein; 


        NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, benefits and covenants herein contained, the Corporation and Ginsburg hereby agree as follows: 



        1.     Unless
otherwise defined, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Warrant. All references to Section herein shall be to Sections
of the Warrant. 


        2.     The
introductory heading of the Warrant shall be amended to read "Void after December 31, 2010." 


        3.     The
entirety of Section 2 in the Warrant shall read as follows: 



        "2.   Exercise Price.    The purchase price for the Shares shall be $1.00, as adjusted from time to time pursuant to
Section 8 hereof (the "Exercise Price"). 


   




        [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.]








        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 2 to Warrant No. 1 as of the date first above written. 



	 	 	DIGITAL GENERATION SYSTEMS, INC.
	

 	
 	

By:	

/s/  ANTHONY J. LEVECCHIO      
	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	Name:	Anthony J. LeVecchio
	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	Title:	Audit Committee Chairman
	 	 	 	 	

	

 	
 	

GINSBURG:
	

 	
 	

/s/  SCOTT K. GINSBURG      
 Scott K. Ginsburg, Individually















QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.26


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO WARRANT NO. 1
#### § 29.801 Can the Department reassume a portion of a compact or funding agreement and the associated funds?

The Department may reassume a portion of a compact or funding agreement and the associated funds if the Department has sufficient grounds to do so. The Department must identify the narrowest portion of the compact or funding agreement for reassumption.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRYAN KEITH RICHARDSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden; et

al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55902

D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00420-UA-AGR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 13, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Bryan Keith Richardson appeals pro se from the district

court’s order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in his action brought

under Bivens v. Six Unknown Names Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403

FILED

NOV 29 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-55902

U.S. 388 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an

abuse of discretion, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990), and we

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Richardson’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint shows that the action is

without merit. See id. at 616-17; see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 475-76,

486 (1995) (prisoner has no due process right to present witnesses at prison

disciplinary proceeding where no atypical hardship imposed).

Richardson’s contention that the district court failed to construe his

complaint as a Bivens action is unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
-----Original Message-----

From: John Stubbs [mailto:john.stubbs@comcast.net] 

Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 8:48 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

Stay the hell out of my IRA
# National Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Week, 2007 

During National Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Week, we recognize the vital contributions of the brave men and women who serve our great Nation, and we pay tribute to the employers who support them.

The courageous men and women of the National Guard and Reserve are fighting a new and unprecedented war, having answered the call to defend our freedom and way of life. At home, the National Guard is working to protect our borders, and provide vital aid and assistance in times of crisis and natural disasters. The dedicated service of those who wear the uniform reflects the best of America, and all Americans are proud to stand behind the men and women of the National Guard and Reserve.

Our Nation also appreciates the sacrifice of employers across our country who support the important mission of our National Guard and Reserve personnel. Employers across America demonstrate their patriotism by providing time off, pay, health-care benefits, and job security to their Guard and Reserve employees, helping them prepare for their return to families and to civilian life. The commitment of our Nation's employers is a vital and integral part of the success of our Armed Forces.

During National Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Week, we offer our country's deepest gratitude to the dedicated men and women of the National Guard and Reserve and to the employers who support them in their important service to our Nation. 

                    NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 9 through September 15, 2007, as National Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Week. I encourage all Americans to join me in expressing our thanks to members of our National Guard and Reserve and their civilian employers for their patriotism and sacrifices on behalf of our Nation. I also call upon State and local officials, private organizations, businesses, and all military commanders to observe this week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.                           ( print page 51158)    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second. 

[FR Doc. 07-4372

Billing code 3195-01-P
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/21/15 

Received: July 21, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8k3x-pw98

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related 

Proposed Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2636

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Thomas Mann

Address: 

5138 Bayside Drive

Troy, MI, 48098

Email: thommann@wideopenwest.com

Phone: 248 202 0804

General Comment

To think that fee based accounts and clients in these accounts get "better" advise is obscene, 

when in fact they are over charged and often given worse advise.....my ira clients total fees are 

typically in the neighborhood of 58 basis points. 

The problem with fee based accounts is that they are expensive on an ongoing annual basis and 

are only an excuse for switching investments to make it appear they are "earning" their fee, when 

in fact by switching they are often costing clients billions.....

I have been fighting high fee's and switchijng in the industry for years and it has cost me two 

jobs at large wirehouses for speaking out against them. 

Please feel free and call me for more details on the unscrupulous activities of the big wirehouses 

and their corruption of the industry 
I have already filed a whistleblower complaint that I have not heard a word back from FINRA in 

over a year.

FINRA is part of the scam as well. Who pays their salaries.....They are often not even qualified 

to make the right decisions.

I would be willing to be on a board of advisors to be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Mann 248 202 0804 thommann@wideopenwest.com
§ 246.121 Knowledge testing. ( a ) After FRA has approved a railroad's signal employee certification program, the railroad shall determine, prior to issuing any person a signal employee certificate and in accordance with the requirements of this section, that the person has demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the railroad's signal standards, test procedures, and instructions for the installation, operation, testing, maintenance, troubleshooting, and repair of the railroad's signal system equipment and signal-related technology.
( b ) To make the knowledge determination required by paragraph (a) of this section, a railroad shall have procedures for testing a person being evaluated for certification as a signal employee that: ( 1 ) Are designed to examine a person's knowledge of: ( i ) All applicable Federal railroad safety laws, regulations, and orders governing signal systems and signal-related technology;
( ii ) All applicable railroad safety and operating rules; and
( iii ) All applicable railroad standards, procedures, and instructions for the installation, operation, testing, maintenance, troubleshooting, and repair of the railroad's signal systems and signal-related technology, including: ( A ) The railroad's rules and standards for disabling and removing signal systems from service; and
( B ) The railroad's rules and standards for placing signal systems back in service;
( 2 ) Are objective in nature;
( 3 ) Include a practical demonstration component;
( 4 ) Are in written or electronic form;
( 5 ) Are sufficient to accurately measure the person's knowledge of the subjects listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and
( 6 ) Allow for testing conducted with reference to books and other written materials, as addressed in the railroad's certification program.
( c ) The railroad shall provide the certification candidate with an opportunity to consult with a mentor, signal instructor or qualified instructor to explain one or more test questions.
( d ) If a person fails the test, no railroad shall permit or require that person to work as a certified signal employee prior to that person's achieving a passing score during a reexamination of the test.
( e ) Each railroad shall adopt and comply with a program meeting the requirements of this section. When any person (including but not limited to a railroad; any manager, supervisor, official, or agent of a railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad equipment, track, or facilities; any employee of such owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor or subcontractor) violates any requirement of a program which complies with the requirements of this section, that person shall be considered to have violated the requirements of this section.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 922

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce to age 21 the

minimum age for an individual without children to be eligible for the

earned income credit.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 7, 2001

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce

to age 21 the minimum age for an individual without

children to be eligible for the earned income credit.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MINIMUM AGE FOR INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT

4 CHILDREN TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EARNED IN5 COME CREDIT REDUCED TO 21.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subclause (II) of section

7 32(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (de8 fining eligible individual) is amended by striking ‘‘age 25’’

9 and inserting ‘‘age 21’’.
2

•HR 922 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

3 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn experimental evaluation of software redundancy as a strategy for improving reliabilityThe strategy of using multiple versions of independently developed software as a means to tolerate residual software design faults is suggested by the success of hardware redundancy for tolerating hardware failures. Although, as generally accepted, the independence of hardware failures resulting from physical wearout can lead to substantial increases in reliability for redundant hardware structures, a similar conclusion is not immediate for software. The degree to which design faults are manifested as independent failures determines the effectiveness of redundancy as a method for improving software reliability. Interest in multi-version software centers on whether it provides an adequate measure of increased reliability to warrant its use in critical applications. The effectiveness of multi-version software is studied by comparing estimates of the failure probabilities of these systems with the failure probabilities of single versions. The estimates are obtained under a model of dependent failures and compared with estimates obtained when failures are assumed to be independent. The experimental results are based on twenty versions of an aerospace application developed and certified by sixty programmers from four universities. Descriptions of the application, development and certification processes, and operational evaluation are given together with an analysis of the twenty versions.Document ID19900014642Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsEckhardt, Dave E., Jr.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Caglayan, Alper K.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Knight, John C.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Lee, Larry D.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Mcallister, David F.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Vouk, Mladen A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Kelly, John P. J.*(California Univ. Santa Barbara., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1990Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:102613NASA-TM-102613Accession Number90N23958Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-65-11Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900014642.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
##### 



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 on Form 10-Q of United Bancorporation of Alabama, Inc. for
the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Mitchell D. Staples, principal accounting officer of the Corporation,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: (1). The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2). The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation. Date: May 13, 2005 /s/Mitchell D. StaplesMitchell D. StaplesPrincipal Accounting Officer
§ 270.7 Penalties and responsibility for compliance. ( a ) Any person who violates any requirement of this part or causes the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil penalty of at least the minimum civil monetary penalty and not more than the ordinary maximum civil monetary penalty per violation, except that: Penalties may be assessed against individuals only for willful violations, and, where a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations has created an imminent hazard of death or injury to persons, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to exceed the aggravated maximum civil monetary penalty per violation may be assessed. *See* 49 CFR part 209, appendix A. Each day a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. Any person who knowingly and willfully falsifies a record or report required by this part may be subject to criminal penalties under 49 U.S.C. 21311. FRA's website at *www.fra.dot.gov* contains a schedule of civil penalty amounts used in connection with this part.
( b ) Although the requirements of this part are stated in terms of the duty of a railroad or passenger rail operation, when any person, including a contractor or subcontractor to a railroad, performs any function covered by this part, that person (whether or not a railroad or passenger rail operation) shall perform that function in accordance with this part.
( c ) ( 1 ) All persons providing intercity rail passenger or commuter (or other short-haul) rail passenger service share responsibility for ensuring compliance with this part. Nothing in this paragraph (c), however, shall restrict the ability to provide for an appropriate designation of responsibility for compliance with this part.
( 2 ) ( i ) Any passenger rail operation subject to this part may designate a person as responsible for compliance with this part by including a designation of responsibility in the SSP plan. This designation must be included in the SSP plan's statement describing the passenger rail operation's management and organizational structure and include the information specified by § 270.103(e)(6).
( ii ) A passenger rail operation subject to this part may notify FRA of a designation of responsibility before submitting an SSP plan by first submitting a designation of responsibility notice to the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer. The notice must include all information required under § 270.103(e)(6), and this information must also be included in the SSP plan.
[85 FR 12843, Mar. 4, 2020]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6368
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY J. STOKES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-89-D, CA-96-405-1) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy J. Stokes, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Stokes , Nos. CR-91-89-D; CA-96-405-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 17, 1997).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
-----Original Message----- 

From: ruthmglenn@comcast.net [mailto:ruthmglenn@comcast.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:51 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Ruth Glenn 

8001 East 11th Avenue Unit 3210 

Denver, CO 80220