alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      32.1








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 Caprius, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dwight Morgan,
      President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
      as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:





(1) To
      the best
      of my knowledge, the report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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











/s/Dwight
                MorganDwight
                MorganChairman,
                President & CEODecember
                18, 2007
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1250

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000.

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

2

S 1250 ES

1 SECTION 1. GREAT APE CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE.

2 Section 4 of the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000

3 (16 U.S.C. 6303) is amended—

4 (1) in subsection (d)—

5 (A) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking ‘‘or’’

6 after the semicolon at the end;

7 (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the pe8 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

9 (C) by adding at the end the following:

10 ‘‘(6) address root causes of threats to great

11 apes in range states, including illegal bushmeat

12 trade, diseases, lack of regional or local capacity for

13 conservation, and habitat loss due to natural disas14 ters.’’; and

15 (2) in subsection (i)—

16 (A) by striking ‘‘Every’’ and inserting the

17 following:

18 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Every’’;

19 (B) in paragraph (1) (as designated by

20 subparagraph (A)), by striking ‘‘shall’’ and in21 serting ‘‘may’’; and

22 (C) by adding at the end the following:

23 ‘‘(2) APPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal

24 Advisory Committee Act (5 App. U.S.C.) shall not

25 apply to a panel convened under paragraph (1).’’.
†

3

S 1250 ES

1 SEC. 2. GREAT APE CONSERVATION FUND.

2 Section 5(b)(2) of the Great Ape Conservation Act

3 of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6304(b)(2)) is amended—

4 (1) by striking ‘‘expand’’ and inserting ‘‘ex5 pend’’; and

6 (2) by striking ‘‘$80,000’’ and inserting

7 ‘‘$150,000’’.

8 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

9 The Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 is amended

10 by striking section 6 (16 U.S.C. 6305) and inserting the

11 following:

12 ‘‘SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

13 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to the

14 Fund—

15 ‘‘(1) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006

16 and 2007; and

17 ‘‘(2) $7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008

18 through 2010.’’.

Passed the Senate September 9, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1250

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Great Ape Conservation Act of

2000.
No. 44406.

#### Protests 916346-G (B), etc., of J. Sammes (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that 10 percent allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatinous material in question.
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Charles L. McNew, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Halifax Corporation; 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 disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) (Intentionally omitted);c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sforth fiscal quarter in the case of any annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; 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 of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting        Date: 6/18/07 /s/Charles L. McNew   Charles L. McNew   Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2226 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2226

 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
  from awarding any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other 
  financial assistance under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for any 
 program, project, or activity carried out outside the United States, 
    including the territories and possessions of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 22, 2012

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
  from awarding any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other 
  financial assistance under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for any 
 program, project, or activity carried out outside the United States, 
    including the territories and possessions of the United States.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDING CERTAIN FOREIGN PROGRAMS, 
              PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES.

    Section 103 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7403) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(l) Prohibition Against Funding Foreign Programs, Projects, and 
Activities.--The Administrator shall not award any grant, contract, 
cooperative agreement, or other financial assistance under this section 
for any program, project, or activity carried out outside the United 
States, including the territories and possessions of the United 
States.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 Balchem  Corporation (the "Company")
on Form  10-Q  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2006 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis
J. Fitzpatrick,  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 to my 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 Company.

/s/ Francis J. Fitzpatrick
Francis J. Fitzpatrick
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
November 8, 2006

This certification  accompanies the above-described Report on Form 10-Q pursuant
to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the
extent  required  by such Act, be deemed  filed by the  Company for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


                                       36
Exhibit
      10.1

    


    AGREEMENT

    


    
      	Party
              A:	
              Shanxi
                Province Coking Design Research
                Institute

            


    

     

    
      	Party
              B:	
              Wuxi
                Huayang Electrical Power Equipment Co.,
                Ltd.

            


    

    


    The
      parties, after mutual discussions, enter into this cooperation agreement as
      follows:

    


    
      	 	
              1.

            	
              Party
                A shall provide the manufacturing technology relating to coking equipment
                and environmentally-sound desulfurization
                equipment.

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              2.

            	
              Party
                B shall solely finance the manufacture of the coking equipment and
                the
                desulfurization equipment.

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              3.

            	
              The
                anticipated research costs shall be mutually determined by the parties
                as
                warranted. 

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              4.

            	
              This
                Agreement shall have two copies, to be effective upon execution of
                the
                parties.

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              5.

            	
              The
                parties shall resolve any differences through mutual discussions.
                

            


    

    


    
      	Party
              A: 	
              /s/
                Shanxi Province Coking Design Research
                Institute

            


      	 	 


      	 	
              [SEAL]

            


    

     

    
      	Party
              B:	
              /s/
                Wuxi Huayang Electrical Power Equipment Co.,
                Ltd.

            


      	 	 


      	 	[COMPANY
              SEAL]


      	 	 


      	Dated:	May
              24, 2006
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov> To: "Eric Holder" <EHolder@indepmo.org> Date: 7/20/2010 2:24 PM Subject: Re: Plant ID's 06599 and 00664 Section 308 ICR Response Extension Request Attachments: pic05303.jpg

Greetings, EPA has reviewed your extension requ est for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire for the following Independence Power and Light company stations: Blue Valley Station Missouri City The deadline for your plant to submit Version 2 of the completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010. If you need assistance during the completion of the steam electric questionnaire, please contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560. Sincerely, (Embedded image moved to file: pic05303.jpg)

From: "Eric Holder" <EHolder@indepmo.org>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Leon Daggett" <LDaggett@indepmo.org>, "Paul Mahlberg" <PMAHLBERG@indepmo.org>

Date: 06/28/2010 10:47 AM Subject: Plant ID's 06599 and 00664 Section 308 ICR Response Extension Request

** High Priority   Reply Requested When Convenient **  Ms. Alicea, Pursuant to your June 18, 2010 ICR Letter for our Missouri City (ID 06599) and Blue Valley (ID 00664) Power Plants, Independence Power & Light formally requests a 45 day extension to the response period (i.e., response would be due Tuesday November 2, 2010). The extension is necessary for the following reasons:1) We are a small, municipally-owned utility with limited resources; 2) The amount of information requested is extensive requiring input from various departments; and, 3) The standard response period occurs during the summer, our busiest time of year, when our limited staff is already booked. Thank you for your kind consideration of this extension request. Regards, Eric Holder Environmental Compliance Engineer Independence Power & Light 21500 E. Truman Road Independence, MO 64051 (816) 325-7455 off (816) 325-7474 fax (816) 365-2378 cell
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          62,483
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,694
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        733
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,149
<PP&E>                                          27,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,784
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,351
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,357
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,446
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,154
<SALES>                                        139,364
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               139,364
<CGS>                                           30,952
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               103,351
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,934
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,247
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,054
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,193
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,193
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
        

</TABLE>
#### Meyer KOTLER and Helen G. Rechtschaffer, Appellants, v. MORRIS KROOP, INC., Realtors, Appellee.

Nos. 76-1721, 76-1738.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 17, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1978.

Nelson & Feldman, Miami Beach, Friedman & Britton, Miami, for appellants.

Melvin A. Rubin and Frank Nussbaum, Miami, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of a real estate broker (Morris Kroop, Inc.) against a seller (Helen G. Rechtschaffer) and buyer (Meyer Kotler) of certain real estate for a brokerage commission allegedly due based on a sale of real estate, as well as for other claims grounded upon an alleged tortious interference with the broker’s contract to sell the realty in question. We reverse the judgment appealed from because the evidence is uncontradicted that the broker herein was in no way the procuring cause of the real estate sale. The sale was separately negotiated between the seller and the buyer with no assistance from the broker who had previously worked under an expired non-exclusive listing on the property which did not preclude such a transaction. Accordingly, the broker was not entitled to a commission or any recovery on his other causes of action. *Shuler v. Allen,*76 So.2d 879 (Fla.1955); *Dixson v. Kattel,*311 So.2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); *Symon*v. *Jay Rolfe Davis, Inc.,*245 So.2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). The judgment herein is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to enter appropriate judgments in favor of the appellants herein.

Reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21050]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act. Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 4, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Genie D. Short, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. New Broadway, Inc., San Antonio, Texas; to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Broadway 
Bancshares, Inc., San Antonio, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire 
Broadway Bancshares of Delaware, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; Broadway 
National Bank, San Antonio, Texas; and Eisenhower National Bank, San 
Antonio, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 4, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-21050 Filed 8-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### In re Willie James POPE v. STATE. Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SC 2262.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 13, 1977.

This cause having been duly submitted and examined and understood by the Court, IT IS CONSIDERED AND ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 345 So.2d 1388, be, and the same is hereby, dismissed as moot. NO COSTS TAXED.

Appeal dismissed, Ala.Cr.App., 345 So.2d 1390.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21057]



[[Page 43015]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Water 
Act

    Notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United 
States v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., Civil No. 3:97-CV-01388-RNC 
(D. Conn.), was lodged with the United States District Court for the 
District of Connecticut on July 15, 1997. The proposed Consent Decree 
concerns alleged violations of sections 301(a) and 404(s) of the Clean 
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a) and 1344(s), resulting from the 
unauthorized discharge of dredged material into Long Island Sound. The 
defendant, Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, was hired by United 
Illuminating Company to perform certain dredging operations pursuant to 
a permit issued by the Corps of Engineers. The alleged violation 
occurred when an improperly loaded scow encountered rough seas prior to 
reaching an authorized disposal area and was unloaded prematurely for 
safety reasons. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company has agreed to a 
proposed Consent Decree to settle its alleged violations of the Clean 
Water Act.
    The proposed Consent Decree would require the Great Lakes Dredge & 
Dock Company to pay a $20,000 civil penalty and would permanently 
enjoin it from future violations of the Clean Water Act.
    The U.S. Department of Justice will receive written comments 
relating to the proposed Consent Decree for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Comments should be 
addressed to Ms. Sharon S. Jaffe, Assistant United States Attorney, 915 
Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT 06604, and should refer to United 
States v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., Civil No. 3:97-CV-01388-RNC 
(D. Conn.).
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, 450 Main 
Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06103.
Letitia J. Grishaw,
Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 97-21057 Filed 8-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
EXHIBIT 23(a)


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements of
NCT Group,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form S-8 (File Nos.  33-64792,  333-90297,
333-11213 and 333-47956) of our report,  which includes  explanatory  paragraphs
about the existence of substantial  doubt  concerning  the Company's  ability to
continue as a going concern and the adoption of the new accounting  standards on
goodwill and for equity instruments with characteristics of both liabilities and
equity, dated February 25, 2005, with respect to Note 27, March 31, 2005, on our
audits of the consolidated  financial statements and schedule as of December 31,
2003 and 2004 and for the years ended  December  31,  2002,  2003 and 2004 which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.



Eisner LLP


New York, New York
April 12, 2005