alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           OMEGA FINANCIAL CORPORATION

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


      This certification is intended to accompany Omega Financial Corporation's
(the "Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30,
2004 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002. I, Daniel L. Warfel, hereby certify in my capacity as the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.


                                                  /s/ Daniel L. Warfel
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Daniel L. Warfel
                                                  Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 9, 2004

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
-----Original Message----- 

From: sfrunnnnr@gmail.com [mailto:sfrunnnnr@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 11:45 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

May 02, 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, 

David Balter 

1250 Guerrero St 

San Francisco, CA 94110
Editorial Note on Part 396
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 396 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 396.19 Inspector qualifications. ( a ) Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers must ensure that individuals performing annual inspections under § 396.17(d) or (e) are qualified as follows: ( 1 ) Understand the inspection criteria set forth in part 393 and appendix A to this part and can identify defective components;
( 2 ) Are knowledgeable of and have mastered the methods, procedures, tools and equipment used when performing an inspection; and
( 3 ) Are capable of performing an inspection by reason of experience, training, or both as follows: ( i ) Successfully completed a Federal-or State-sponsored training program or have a certificate from a State or Canadian Province that qualifies the individuals to perform commercial motor vehicle safety inspections, or
( ii ) Have a combination of training or experience totaling at least 1 year. Such training or experience may consist of: ( A ) Participation in a commercial motor vehicle manufacturer-sponsored training program or similar commercial training program designed to train students in commercial motor vehicle operation and maintenance;
( B ) Experience as a mechanic or inspector in a motor carrier or intermodal equipment maintenance program;
( C ) Experience as a mechanic or inspector in commercial motor vehicle maintenance at a commercial garage, fleet leasing company, or similar facility; or
( D ) Experience as a commercial motor vehicle inspector for a State, Provincial or Federal government.
( b ) Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers must retain evidence of that individual's qualifications under this section. They must retain this evidence for the period during which that individual is performing annual motor vehicle inspections for the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider, and for one year thereafter. However, motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers do not have to maintain documentation of inspector qualifications for those inspections performed as part of a State periodic inspection program.
[73 FR 76825, Dec. 17, 2008, as amended at 81 FR 47732, July 22, 2016; 86 FR 57077, Oct. 14, 2021]
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 120 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 120

 Urging cemeteries to maintain the flags placed on the grave sites of 
       American veterans on Memorial Day through at least May 31.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2001

   Mr. Grucci (for himself and Mr. English) submitted the following 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Urging cemeteries to maintain the flags placed on the grave sites of 
       American veterans on Memorial Day through at least May 31.

Whereas Decoration Day (now Memorial Day), which became a Federal holiday in 
        1888, was established to allow Civil War veterans who were employed by 
        the Federal Government to pay their respects to those who gave their 
        lives in the conflict, without losing a day's pay;
Whereas it was the intent of Congress that Memorial Day be a time to reflect on 
        our hard earned freedom and to pay our respects to those men and women 
        who gave their lives to preserve that freedom;
Whereas, in 1968, Memorial Day was changed by law from its traditional date of 
        May 30th to the last Monday of May;
Whereas the true meaning of Memorial Day has been too often lost to 
        commercialism, leisure, and recreation;
Whereas, on Memorial Day, our Nation's flag is placed on the graves of our 
        fallen veterans to honor their bravery and supreme sacrifice;
Whereas many cemeteries remove flags from the graves of veterans immediately 
        after the observation of Memorial Day; and
Whereas there is no more fitting remembrance of veterans and their service to 
        this Nation than the flag upon their place of rest: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives --
            (1) urges all cemeteries to maintain the American flags 
        placed on the graves of veterans on Memorial Day until at least 
        May 31, the day after the original date of Decoration Day, 
        except in the case of inclement weather; and
            (2) encourages all cemeteries to create partnerships with 
        local veterans' organizations to allow veterans to respectfully 
        assist in the removal of the flags.
                                 <all>
```
#### The State v. Clifton, *Appellant.*

1. Practice, Criminal: grand jury. Objections to the constitution-of the grand jury come too late when made for the first time after verdict.

2. -: sheriff. It is no ground of exception that the record does-not show that the sheriff' and his deputies took the oath prescribed by law before summoning the grand or petit jury.

*Appeal from Webster Circuit Court.*— Hon. R. W. Fyan,. Judge.

Affirmed.

*D. H. McIntyre,*Attorney General, for the State.

Norton, J.

Defendant was indicted at the September term, 1877, of the Webster county circuit court, for a felonious assault with a deadly weapon upon one Lee, with intent to do him great bodily harm. He was found guilty of the offense charged, and his punishment assessed at a. *431fine of $100. Ilis case is here on appeal, and there being neither assignment of errors nor brief of counsel in the case, we are to look to the motion for new trial and in arrest for grounds of error. It is claimed in these motions that the indictment is insufficient, that the defendant was not arraigned, that neither the grand nor petit jury were properly constituted, and that the court erred in giving and refusing instructions.

The record, in an entry at length, shows the arraignment of defendant before trial.

The objection made to the grand jury comes too late after verdict. *State v.*Smallwood, 68 Mo. 192.

Nor is it ground of exception that the record does not show that the sheriff and his deputies took the oath prescribed before summoning the grand or petit jury. *State v. Hart,*66 Mo. 208.

"VVe find no valid objection to the indictment; it was founded on section 321, Wagner’s Statutes, 449, and it clearly charges the offense therein defined.

The instructions that were given fairly presented the law of the case, and those that were refused were properly refused. Perceiving no error in the record nor in the trial of the cause, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsGrasping with mechanical intelligenceMany robotic hands have been designed and a number have been built. Because of the difficulty of controlling and using complex hands, which usually have nine or more degrees of freedom, the simple one- or two-degree-of-freedom gripper is still the most common robotic end effector. A new category of device is presented: a medium-complexity end effector. With three to five degrees of freedom, such a tool is much easier to control and use, as well as more economical, compact and lightweight than complex hands. In order to increase the versatility, it was necessary to identify grasping primitives and to implement them in the mechanism. In addition, power and enveloping grasps are stressed over fingertip and precision grasps. The design is based upon analysis of object apprehension types, requisite characteristics for active sensing, and a determination of necessary environmental interactions. Contained are the general concepts necessary to the design of a medium-complexity end effector, an analysis of typical performance, and a computer simulation of a grasp planning algorithm specific to this type of mechanism. Finally, some details concerning the UPenn Hand-a tool designed for the research laboratory-are presented.Document ID19900017182Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeThesis/DissertationAuthorsUlrich, Nathan Thatcher*(Pennsylvania Univ. Philadelphia, PA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1988Subject CategoryMan/System Technology And Life SupportReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:186864MS-CIS-89-51NASA-CR-186864GRASP-LAB-190Accession Number90N26498Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG5-1045CONTRACT_GRANT: NSF DMC-85-17315CONTRACT_GRANT: N00140-85-K-0807CONTRACT_GRANT: NSF MEA-81-19884CONTRACT_GRANT: NSF INT-85-14199CONTRACT_GRANT: NSF DCR-82-19196CONTRACT_GRANT: NSF DCR-84-10771Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017182.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
§ 37.101 Purchase or lease of vehicles by private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people. ( a ) *Application.* This section applies to all purchases or leases of vehicles by private entities which are not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people, in which a solicitation for the vehicle is made after August 25, 1990.
( b ) *Fixed Route System. Vehicle Capacity Over 16.* If the entity operates a fixed route system and purchases or leases a vehicle with a seating capacity of over 16 passengers (including the driver) for use on the system, it shall ensure that the vehicle is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.
( c ) *Fixed Route System. Vehicle Capacity of 16 or Fewer.* If the entity operates a fixed route system and purchases or leases a vehicle with a seating capacity of 16 or fewer passengers (including the driver) for use on the system, it shall ensure that the vehicle is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, unless the system, when viewed in its entirety, meets the standard for equivalent service of § 37.105 of this part.
( d ) *Demand Responsive System, Vehicle Capacity Over 16.* If the entity operates a demand responsive system, and purchases or leases a vehicle with a seating capacity of over 16 passengers (including the driver) for use on the system, it shall ensure that the vehicle is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, unless the system, when viewed in its entirety, meets the standard for equivalent service of § 37.105 of this part.
( e ) *Demand Responsive System, Vehicle Capacity of 16 or Fewer.* Entities providing demand responsive transportation covered under this section are not specifically required to ensure that new vehicles with seating capacity of 16 or fewer are accessible to individuals with wheelchairs. These entities are required to ensure that their systems, when viewed in their entirety, meet the equivalent service requirements of §§ 37.171 and 37.105, regardless of whether or not the entities purchase a new vehicle.
[56 FR 45621, Sept. 6, 1991, as amended at 61 FR 25416, May 21, 1996]
2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-27-2005 

# In Re: D es amour P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1666

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: D e s amour " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1119. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1119H P S- 63 ( M arch 2005) NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 05- 1666

________________ I N RE: REYNOLDO DES AM OUR, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on fora W r i tof M andamus fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he E a ste rn D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o E . D . Pa. C r i m . N o. 89- cr - 00389- 6)

_____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Unde rRul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

M ar ch 11, 2005 Bef or e : CH I EF J U D G E SC I RI CA , W EI S A N D G A RT H , CI RC U I T J U D G ES Fi l ed: M ay27, 2005

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M.

R e yn o ld o D e s a m o u r h a s f ile d a m a n d a m u s p e titio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 5 1 , se e k in g to c o m p e l th e D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia to rul e on hi s m ot i on fi l ed pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) . I tappea r s t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our thas r ece nt l yent er ed an or derdi s pos i ng of hi s R ul e 60 mot i on. A ccor di ngl y , t he p e titio n f o r a w ri t o f

m a n d a m u s w ill b e d e n ie d a s m o o t. D e s a m o u r m a y , o f c o u rs e ,2

c h a llen g e th e D istric t C o u rt’s d isp o sitio n o f h is R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n b yf ili n g a tim e ly not i ce of appea l i n acc or dance w i t h t he di ct at es of R ul es 3 and 4 of the Feder al R ul es of A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re .
April 12 , 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CEASAR LAKENDRICK RU SSI , Appellant
NO. 14

- 14

- 00397

- CR NO. 14

- 14

- 00398

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this C ourt holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further or der this decision certified below for observance.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsRemote measurement of ice thickness on the shuttle external tank surfaceA passive technique is proposed for remote measurement of thickness of the ice layer formed on the external tank surface of the Shuttle during the T-2 hours period before launch. It is based on the comparison of the ratios of the intensities of three preselected near-IR wavelength bands scattered from the (test spot) and a neighboring (reference spot) on the tank surface. The Shuttle is uniformly illuminated by a battery of strategically located solar simulator lamps and banks of incadescent lamps during prelaunch period. Thus, there should be adequate radiation in the three selected bands incident on the external tank surface during the test period. It is planned to conduct a feasibility study of the proposed technique before recommending it to the KSC/SSC teams for adoption.Document ID19900015268Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsSingh, Jag J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1990Subject CategoryInstrumentation And PhotographyReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-102667NAS 1.15:102667Accession Number90N24584Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 307-50-09-13Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900015268.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
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1221.html[7/22/2015 3:57:29 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvd-r00g

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-1221

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Jim W

General Comment

I should have the right to continue to exercise my choices regarding my 401K retirement plan. The government

 needs to keep their nose out of this area. Hands off!
§ 511.57 Effective date of order. ( a ) *Consent orders.* An order which has been issued following acceptance of an offer of settlement in accordance with § 511.26 becomes effective upon issuance.
( b ) *Litigated orders.* All other orders become effective upon the expiration of the statutory period for court review specified in section 508(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, title 15, U.S.C. section 2008(c)(1), Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat. 911, or, if a petition for review has been filed, upon court affirmance of the Administrator's order.
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
Quarter Ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") by Applied Spectrum Technologies,
Inc. ("Registrant"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

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 Registrant.


Date:  May 14, 2003                          /s/ Mark R. Littell
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Mark R. Littell
                                             Chief Executive Officer



                                             /s/ Mark R. Littell
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Mark R. Littell
                                             Chief Financial Officer
H. Res. 234

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

September 5, 2001.

Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the Honorable Floyd Spence, a Representative from the State of South Carolina.

Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions

to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of

the deceased.

Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased.

Attest:

Clerk.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1161.html[7/22/2015 2:51:34 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvd-8sj1

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-1161

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Matthew Brew

General Comment

The issue I take with this and other government proposals like it is that a specific plan is not in place for the

 public to actually review. Your write-up is ambiguous, at best. At worst, it is intended to obfuscate more sinister

 intent. If this is not the case, why not make a full write-up of exactly what the proposal is, and let the public

 actually read it and make a decision, rather than having us comment on meaningless information that tells us

 nothing about what is actually going on. For this reason, I cannot recommend that this plan be taken seriously

 because no serious thought was given to letting the public read it.