alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2
                          INTRAOP MEDICAL CORPORATION

                            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 Intraop  Medical  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Howard Solovei, 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  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 Company.


                                             /S/   HOWARD SOLOVEI
                                             -----------------------
                                             Howard Solovei
                                             Chief Financial Officer

                                             Date:  February 9, 2006

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Intraop Medical  Corporation and will be retained by Intraop Medical
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
No. 96-5642.

#### Diaz *v.*Duckworth, Superintendent, Indiana State Reformatory.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 1188 Directorate ID : 2012 - SW - 049 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model EC135 P1, EC135 P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 T1, EC135 T2, and EC135 T2+ Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 244 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : These actions are intended to detect a crack on the hub - shaft flange, which if not corrected could result in failure of the main rotor hub and subsequent loss of control of the helic opter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $55,715 for replacement Labor per Helicopter ( 2.5 x $ 8 5 /work - hour for the inspection) (8 x $85/work - hour for the replacement) $ 212 $680 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 212 per inspection cycle $56,3 95 for the replacement Total US Fleet Cost $51,850 per inspection cycle Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Gary

Roach
May, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Economic Impact Analysis for Proposed Recons ideration of Final Rule for Standards of Performance for Stationary Gas Turbines; Standards of Performance for Stationary

Combustion Turbines

FROM: Tom Walton

Economist AEG (C439-02)

TO: Christian Fellner Engineer ESG (D243-01)

This document addresses the econo mic impacts of the proposed Reconsideration of Final Rule for Standards of Performance for Stationary Combusti on Turbines. Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and output levels. If change s in market prices and out put levels in the primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets are also examined.

The proposed amendments would not change the EPA’s original projections for this rule's compliance costs, environmental benefits, burden on industry or th e number of affected facili ties. Therefore, these proposed amendments will have no costs or changes in emissions. No market changes are projected. The proposed rule will have no impact on prices or output . Since there is no cost for any entity, there is no significant impact on a substa ntial number of small entities.
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE:** 0 7 /25 /2014 **FROM:** Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR– 2013
- 0602 **SUBJECT:** Western States Meeting on EPA’s Proposed Rule for Existing Power Plants u nder Section

111(d) of the Clean Air Act
- Thursday, July 17, 2014 **SUMMARY :**  Joe Goffman from EPA Headquarters, Laura Farris and Callie Videtich from EPA Region 8, and Amy Zimpfer from EPA Region 9 , attended the Western States Meeting on EPA’s Proposed Rule for Existing Power Pla nts u nder Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act on Thursday, July 17, 2014
. The meeting was hosted by the Center for a New Energy Economy. Joe Goffman answered questions from attendees on the r ule, which was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES: EPA**  Joe Goffman Laura Farris Callie Videtich Amy Zimpfer **External Stakeholders** See attached.
#### Larsen, Appellant *v.*Larsen.

*Divorce*— Sterility—Impotenoy—Proof—Act *of March IS, 1815, 6 Sm. L. 286.*

Proof that libellant bore a child prior to her marriage with the respondent, and that the marriage relations sustained with the respondent for over eight years have not resulted in conception, without proving that the respondent is either sterile or incapable of procreation, does not satisfy the requirements of the Act of March 13, 1815, 6 Sm. L. 286. The incapacity under the Act must be general. It is not satisfied by simple proof that that marital relations with the libellant do not result in conception.

Argued April 14, 1926.

Appeal No. 188, April T., 1926, by libellant!, from decree of C. P. Erie County, February T., 1926, No. 12, in the case of Nielsine Mathea Larsen v. Carl Alfred Larsen.

Before Porter, *99P. J., Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn, Gawthrop and. Cunningham, JJ.

Affirmed.

Libel in divorce. Before Hirt, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The libel was dismissed. Libellant appealed.

*Error assigned*was the decree of the Court.

*Lytle F. Perry,*for appellant.

No appearance land no printed brief for appellee.

May 4, 1926:

Opinion by

Kelleir, J.,

The libellant based her application for divorce on the ground that respondent “was at the time of their marriage and still is naturally impotent or incapable of procreation and that the said incapacity is incurable.” The testimony produced in support of her charge is confined to proof (1) that the libellant is a normal woman and bore a child prior to her marriage with respondent; 'and (2) that marital relations susstained with respondent for over eight years have not resulted in conception, notwithstanding nothing was done by either party to prevent it.

We need not now decide whether the phrase “naturally impotent or incapable of procreation,” as used in the Act of March 13, 1815, 6 Sm. L. 286, specifies only one or two separate grounds for divorce; or whether the term “incapable of procreation” is equivalent to mere sterility. There is no proof in this case that the respondent is either sterile or incapable of procreation. The incapacity under the act must be general. It is not satisfied by simple proof that marital relations with libellant do not result in conception. It is well recognized that “although sterile with one person of the opposite sex either male pr female may be fertile with *100others.” Lydston on Impotence and Sterility, p. 102. A normal male and normal female may each he capable of procreating and yet be nnable to have issue by the other.

The learned court below committed no error in dismissing the libel.

The decree is affirmed at 'the costs of the libellant.
#### Bernhard Ulmann Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 7698.

Invoices dated Montreal, Canada, October 31, 1945, etc.

Certified October 31, 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 16, 1945, etc.

Entry No. 722181, etc.

*441(Decided April 21, 1949)

*John R. Rafter*for the plaintiffs.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues relating to the appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and ma.de a part hereof, are the same in all material respects as those decided in *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United*States, *21*Cust. Ct. 314, Reap. Dec. 7624, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of the merchandise covered by said appeals, and that such values are the appraised values less additions made by importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1



AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES



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 Annual Report of Amtech Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jong S.
Whang, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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) The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|   | 
|-- | 
|By | 
|   | 
|   | 



Date: December 22, 2003
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 134 (Monday, July 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 40708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16356]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a planning meeting the 
Oregon Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held on 
Tuesday, August 5, 2014, at the Hillsdale Library, 1525 SW Sunset 
Boulevard, Portland, Oregon 97239. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 
1:30 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 3:00 p.m. The purpose of the 
meeting is to consider a draft report on the status of civil rights in 
Oregon.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the 
Commission by September 5, 2014. The address is Western Regional 
Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, 
Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Persons wishing to email their 
comments, or to present their comments verbally at the meeting, or who 
desire additional information should contact Angelica Trevino, Western 
Regional Office, at (213) 894-3437, (or for hearing impaired TDD 913-
551-1414), or by email to atrevino@usccr.gov. Hearing-impaired persons 
who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language 
interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) 
working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Western Regional Office at the above 
email or street address. The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the 
provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Chicago, IL, July 8, 2014.
David Mussatt,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2014-16356 Filed 7-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2201 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the renewable 

energy credit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 15, 2012 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. HELLER, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. BENNET) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the renewable energy 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Energy and 

5 Job Promotion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT. 

7 (a) WIND.—Paragraph (1) of section 45(d) of the In8 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘Jan9 uary 1, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2015’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2201 IS

1 (b) BIOMASS, GEOTHERMAL, LANDFILL GAS, TRASH, 

2 HYDROPOWER, AND MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC.—Each 

3 of the following provisions of section 45(d) of the Internal 

4 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘January 

5 1, 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2015’’: 

6 (1) Clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(A). 

7 (2) Clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(A). 

8 (3) Paragraph (4). 

9 (4) Paragraph (6). 

10 (5) Paragraph (7). 

11 (6) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph 

12 (9). 

13 (7) Subparagraph (B) of paragraph (11). 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 48900.

#### Protest 99117-K of Winsor & Newton, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The record fully supported the claim of plaintiff, inasmuch as the appraiser now concedes that the paint boxes in question are similar to those involved in Abstract 46411 and therein held dutiable at 22)4 percent under said paragraph 397 and T.D. 49753. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained.
|       | Dated: March 5, 2010 |                 |      /s/ J. Allen Fine            |
|--------------------------------|----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |                 |                                                                                       |      J. Allen      Fine           |
|                                |                 |                                                                                       |      Chief Executive      Officer |
|                                |                 |
|                                | Dated: March 5, 2010 |                                                                                       |      /s/ James A. Fine,    Jr.    |
|                                |                 |                                                                                       |      James A. Fine,      Jr.      |
|                                |                 |                                                                                       |      Chief Financial      Officer |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          10,207                  32,566
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,435                 312,706
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (13,702)                (85,381)
<INVENTORY>                                        468                  15,551
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,151                 386,231
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,987,845               3,433,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,929                 350,698
<BONDS>                                      1,164,775               1,539,322
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         1,172                   1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     707,093               1,351,598
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,987,845               3,433,803
<SALES>                                        702,458                 704,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               702,458                 704,058
<CGS>                                        (186,748)               (210,034)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (186,748)               (210,034)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (529,893)               (521,934)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           (1,048,185)                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (86,948)               (103,651)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,145,958)               (129,268)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (131,111)                (35,620)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,014,847)                (93,648)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  18,151                  15,839
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (996,696)                (77,809)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (9.717)                  (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6157

JOSEPH L. HAZEL, a/k/a Joseph Hazel,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOHN PATE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(8:14-cv-04435-TMC)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph L. Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph L. Hazel seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Hazel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Hazel’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

his appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20025]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP96-213-000, et al.]


Columbia Gas Transmission; Notice of Site Visit

July 24, 1997.
    On July 30, 1997, the Office of Pipeline Regulation (OPR) will 
conduct a site visit, with representatives of Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation, of Line SM-123, part of the Market Expansion Project in 
Mingo and Wyoming Counties, West Virginia. On July 31, 1997, OPR will 
conduct a site visit of the Line V-50 Replacement portion of the Market 
Expansion Project in Mahoning County, Ohio.
    All interested parties may attend. Those planning to attend must 
provide their own transportation.
    For further information, please contact Paul McKee at (202) 208-
1088.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20025 Filed 7-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit
10.2


 


AMENDMENT TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This AMENDMENT, dated as of November 6, 2007,
between GuruNet Israel Ltd., f/k/a Atomica Israel Technologies Ltd., an Israeli
corporation (the “Company”) and
Steven Steinberg, an individual (“Employee”),
amends that Employment Agreement dated April 1, 2004 (the “Employment Agreement”).


 


1.                                       Pursuant to
this Amendment, the parties agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:


Subsection 6.1 (“TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT”) of the Employment Agreement is hereby
deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


6.1       Either party may terminate the Employee’s employment with the Company
without cause at any time upon three months notice. The Company shall have the
right, in its sole discretion, to require the Employee to continue working for
the Company during the notice period.  If
the Company terminates the Employee without cause pursuant to this Section, the
Board of Directors shall take the necessary steps so that the period during
which the Employee shall be permitted to exercise his options to purchase
shares of common stock of the Parent in accordance with the Parent’s employee
stock option plan(s) as in effect from time to time (the “Options”), shall be
extended to the shorter of (a) one (1)
year from the effective date of his termination or (b) the expiration date of
the options.


2.                                       Terms used in
this Amendment but not defined herein will have the respective meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Employment Agreement.  In the event of any conflict between the
terms of this Amendment and the terms of the Employment Agreement, this
Amendment shall control.  Except as
modified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.


 


	
  AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

  	
   

  	
  AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Steven Steinberg

  	
   

  	
  GuruNet Israel Ltd.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Signature: 

  	
  /s/
  Steven Steinberg

  	
   

  	
  Signature:  

  	
  /s/
  Robert Rosenschein

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:   Robert S.
  Rosenschein

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:     Chief
  Executive Officer