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

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADDED BY**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fidelity D & D Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Salvatore R. DeFrancesco, Jr., Treasurer****and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by § 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

 

 
| Date:      March 21,  2006 | By:                                    | /s/  Salvatore R. DeFrancesco, Jr. |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                     |  Salvatore  R. DeFrancesco, Jr.   |
|                                                     | Treasurer and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

87

----
No. 54716.

#### Foresta Factors *v.*United States,

protests 155029-K and 156462-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sawed lumber similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 53917, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 52686.

protests 808722-G, etc. (New York).

#### Accurate Millinery Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
            NAME                                         STATE OF INCORPORATION
            ----                                         ----------------------
<S>                                                      <C>
Concentra Management Services, Inc......................     Nevada
Concentra Preferred Systems, Inc........................     Delaware
Prompt Associates, Inc..................................     Delaware
First Notice Systems, Inc...............................     Delaware
Focus Healthcare Management, Inc........................     Tennessee
Hillman Consulting, Inc.................................     Nevada
CRA Managed Care of Washington, Inc.....................     Washington
CRA-MCO, Inc............................................     Nevada
Drug-Free Consortium, Inc...............................     Texas
Concentra Managed Care Services, Inc....................     Massachusetts
Concentra Health Services, Inc..........................     Nevada
Concentra Managed Care Business Trust...................     Massachusetts
Occucenters I, L.P......................................     Texas
OCI Holdings, Inc.......................................     Nevada
Concentra Laboratory, L.L.C.............................     Delaware
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Frontier Fund.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                            
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                              
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                               
|Brent Bales                                                                                                   
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of The Frontier Fund              
|                                                                                                              
|Date: May 10, 2007
EXHIBIT 16:1











|Jewett, Schwartz & Associates

Certified Public Accountants | 
|----------------------------------------------------------- | 

November 10, 2005





US Securities and Exchange Commission

Mail Stop 11-3

450 5th Street, NW

Washington, DC  20549



Dear Sirs:



We have read and agreed with the statements under Item 4.01 of Form 8-K report dated November 10, 2005 regarding our firm.



We have no basis to agree or disagree with any matter reported therein.





Very truly yours,



Jewett, Schwartz & Associates

/s/ Jewett, Schwartz & Associates

________________________
Jewett, Schwartz & Associates
#### Samuel Sellers v. John W. Botsford and others.

Appeal in Chancery taken within forty days from the time decree is drawn up and, left with the register to be entered, is in time, though more than forty days from the time when the Circuit Judge announced orally what the decree would be.

*Heard January 8th.*

*Decided January*20*th.*

Appeal in Chancery from Livingston Circuit.

*O. BCawMns,*for the complainant and appellee,

moved to dismiss the case, on the groTmd that the appeal was not claimed and entered within forty days from the time of making the decree. From the papers, it appears that the Circuit Judge orally announced j the decree, September Y, 1861; that Botsford, who is the sole appellant, was present by his counsel at the time of this announcement; that the register of the Court made no entry or minute of the decree at this time; that the decree of the Court was drawn up in form afterwards, and transmitted by the Judge to the register, who received, filed and entered the same October 1Y, 1861, and that the appeal was claimed and entered November 4, 1861. The decree as entered is entitled of the seventh of September.

*491Mr. Hawkins claimed that. the decree dates from the time of being pronounced by the Judge, and the time of appeal must be computed from that day. He referred to *Wal. Ch. Rep. 72.*The caption of the decree is the evidence when it was entered.

*G. V. JST.*Lothrop, contra.

There' is no decree upon the mere oral announcement by the Judge. By the English practice, the registrar takes minutes, which are submitted to the parties, and the decree afterwards drawn tip by the registrar in form. By the New York practice, the successful party draws uj> the decree, and submits it to the opposite party for correction and settlement. But the decree is not deemed to be entered until, after being-drawn up and settled; it is left with the entering officer for that purpose: — 2 *Dan. Ch. Pr. (Perkins Pr.)*1215, 1217; 10 Paige, 374; 11 Paige, 642. The signing by the Judge afterwards is only for the purpose of enrollment. The caption of the decree ought to correspond with the time of the entry: 7 Paige, 245. It is only from that time that either party can have any benefit from the decree: 4 Paige, 140.

The Court

held the appeal to have been taken in time, and denied the motion.
### MEMORANDUM

TO: Nhan Nguyen

FROM: Maj’d El-Zoobi

DATE: December 2, 2008

SUBJECT: Review of Inhalation Monitoring Study for of P-07-601

The submitter of P-07-601 submitted the subject matter study as an alternative assessment to CEB’s assessment of inhalation exposure for of P-07-601.

The review of this study was tasked to ER G’s industrial hygienist who was provided with guidelines for conducting the review that are based on your directive on this matter which you

sent to me on 8/12/08.

ERG’s report on the study, which cont ains a brief description of the study and its results, as well as ERG’s review of the study, is available on the CBI LAN at J:\postfocus\FY2007\P07601.sr\CEB documents and is titled “ Inhalation Monitoring Study
Review_112108.doc”.

Exposure values reported in the study ranged from to CEB’s current assessed inhalation exposure level at the site is ppm (hr TWA) and is in accordance with CEB’s " Generic Scenario”. The assessment in the gene ric scenario is based on a mass balance model.

Based on ERG’s review of the submitter’s study, I assess the submitter’s study to be unacceptable for use in assessing inhalation exposure at sites due to deficiencies in the study in regard to number of samples taken, the peri od of time over which samples were collected, and the sample collection method.

It is recommended that CEB’s curre nt assessed inhalation exposure level at the site be

maintained as the assessed value with the added cl arification that ppm is actually, according to the original reference for the Ge neric Scenario, the estimated valu e for the reasonable worst case, while the estimated value for the likely exposure case is ppm.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8415 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8415

To require the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human 
 Services to evaluate the cybersecurity practices and protocols of the 
                  Department, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2024

 Mrs. Steel (for herself, Mr. Schiff, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mr. Ryan, Ms. 
 Spanberger, Mr. Pappas, and Mr. Trone) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human 
 Services to evaluate the cybersecurity practices and protocols of the 
                  Department, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Strengthening Cybersecurity in 
Health Care Act''.

SEC. 2. EVALUATION OF HHS CYBERSECURITY.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 
of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Inspector General of the 
Department of Health and Human Services shall evaluate the 
cybersecurity practices and protocols of the Department through the 
conduct of penetration tests and other testing procedures to determine 
how systems processing, transmitting, or storing mission critical or 
sensitive data by, for, or on behalf of the Department is currently, or 
could be compromised and--
            (1) expose patient data, including Medicare numbers of 
        individuals; or
            (2) impact patient safety.
    (b) Reports.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of 
this Act, and every 2 years thereafter--
            (1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit 
        to Congress a report that describes how the Secretary will 
        update the cybersecurity practices and protocols of the 
        Department of Health and Human Services to adapt to the latest 
        cyberattack strategies; and
            (2) the Inspector General of the Department of Health and 
        Human Services shall submit to Congress a report that 
        describes--
                    (A) how the Inspector General is currently using 
                Federal funds of the Inspector General to carry out 
                subsection (a); and
                    (B) legislative changes required for the Inspector 
                General to maintain the evaluation described in 
                subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
#### Johnson Bros. *v.*United States

No. 6305.

Entry No. 718533, etc.

Invoices dated Hanley, England, September 4, 1941, etc.

Certified September 8, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 9, 1941, etc.

*270(Decided July 29, 1946)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisemeut listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the 'merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 9187)

#### Gulf Oil Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. C-5174.

(Decided July 11, 1958)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain seamless steel grade-B line pipe exported from Scotland and entered at the port of Philadelphia.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value thereof is 43 shillings, 9 pence, per foot, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8321 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8321

 To require person convicted of unlawful activity on the campus of an 
institution of higher education beginning on and after October 7, 2023, 
                 to provide community service in Gaza.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2024

Mr. Ogles (for himself, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Weber of Texas) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require person convicted of unlawful activity on the campus of an 
institution of higher education beginning on and after October 7, 2023, 
                 to provide community service in Gaza.

    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 ``Antisemitism Community Service 
Act''.

SEC. 2. COMMUNITY SERVICE REQUIREMENT.

     Any person convicted of unlawful activity on the campus of an 
institution of higher education beginning on and after October 7, 2023, 
shall be assigned to Gaza for the purpose of providing community 
service (as such term is defined in 20 U.S.C. 1070c-4), for a period 
not fewer than six months.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 25, 2010 

s0517 

Order 

 

May 25, 2010 

139621 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139621 

 COA: 280260 

Kent CC: 06-011607-FC; 

 06-011875-FC; 

 06-011944-FC; 

 06-012819-FH 

SCOTT GORDON PAYNE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 28, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 40235.

#### Protest 894784-G of S. K. F. Steele, Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallingbr, J.

The examiner described the merchandise as large boards with pieces of steel attached thereto, the steel of hollow drill varying from 3 to 4 inches in length. There was no proof that the pieces of hollow drill steel are either billets or bars. The protest was therefore overruled.
Exhibit 31 (a)**CERTIFICATION**I, Anthony J. Orlando, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Holdings LLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:November 9, 2005        By:   /s/ Anthony J. Orlando   Anthony J. Orlando   Chief Executive Officer and President