alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32


                    Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SLS International, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John Gott,
Chief Executive Officer, and Michael L. Maples, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby 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 results of operations
          of the Company.



/s/ John Gott
-------------------------
John Gott
Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2006


/s/ Michael L. Maples
--------------------------
Michael L. Maples
Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2006


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
qtnt-ex104_328.htm


 

Exhibit 10.4

Second Amendment to the Development Agreement

Between

STRATEC Biomedical AG (“STRATEC”) Gewerbestr. 37, 75217 Birkenfeld, Germany

and

Quotient QS IP Ltd. (“QBD”), PO Box 1075,  Elizabeth House, 9 Castle Street, St Helier JE4 2QP, Jersey, Channel Islands

(hereinafter referred together as “Parties”)

WHEREAS on January, 7st 2014 the Parties have signed a Development Agreement (“Development Agreement”) and on March 3rd, 2014 the Parties have signed a First Amendment to the Development Agreement (“First Amendment”).

NOW, THEREFORE STRATEC and QBD hereby agree to amend the Development Agreement and the First Amendment in the following way:

2.2 a Payments by QUOTIENT: 

The MILESTONE SCHEDULE and specifically the Milestones 6-8 shall be amended to read as follows:  

 


	
MS
	
Development Milestone
	
Payment

	
1
	
Execution of Agreement
	
[***]

	
2
	
Completion of phase 1 and mutual sign-off of PDR, Reliability Program Plan, Acceptance criteria and Shipping criteria / breadboard testing
	
[***]

	
3
	
Approval of Hardware Design Specification Documents
	
[***]

	
4
	
Completion of phase 2 and delivery of first Prototypes for assay integration
	
[***]

	
5
	
Acceptance of Prototypes
	
[***]

	
6-1
	
Design Review with approval of build of Validation Instruments
	
[***]

	
6-2
	
Delivery of first Validation Instrument
	
[***]

	
6-3
	
Completion of Phase 3
	
[***]

	
7-1
	
Acceptance of Validation Instruments
	
[***]

	
7-2
	
Complete receiving of all ordered Validation Instruments
	
[***]

	
8-1
	
Delivery of first Series Units
	
[***]

	
8-2
	
Completion of Phase 4
	
[***]




All remaining terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement that are not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the Second Amendment Effective Date.

 


	
STRATEC Biomedical AG
	
 
	
Quotient QS IP Ltd

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
/s/ Marcus Wolfinger
	
 
	
/s/ Paul Cowan

	
Name: Marcus Wolfinger
	
 
	
Name: Paul Cowan

	
Title: CEO
	
 
	
Title: CEO

	
Date: August 24th, 2015
	
 
	
Date: August 25th, 2015




 

1

[***] CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION
#### STATE of Louisiana In the Interest of Mary Lynn PIERCE, a minor.

No. 60786.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1977.

In re: Helen Pierce, wife of/and Nolan Pierce applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 349 So.2d 379.

Denied.
Description of Bonuses



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 On August 28, 2007, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation (the “Company”) approved the granting of cash bonuses under the Fiscal 2007 Bonus Plan in
the amount of $78,750 to each of Michael D. Stern, Co-President and CEO of the Company, and Edward A. Stern, Co-President and CFO of the Company.
KIMBERLY HARTFIELD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-5229

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 10, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Thomas Dannheisser, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant; Kimberly Hartfield, pro se, Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, OSTERHAUS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
**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**

| (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                Partnership. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    |   | /s/                  Freddie M. Kotek                                    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  |   | Freddie                  M. Kotek                                        |
| Title: |   | Chief                  Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner |
| Date:  |   | May                  12, 2006                                            |
##### 



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
  (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 of the Company as of the dates indicated and results
of operations of the Company for the period indicated.
 Dated: November 8, 2007/s/ William J. CardenWilliam J. CardenPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 29
Subject: Relationship Between Ozone 8-hour Design Values and W126 Design Values 

From: David Mintz OAR/OAQPS/AQAD/AQAG 

To: Ozone NAAQS Review Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076) 

Memo to Docket 

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize a simple analysis describing the 

relationship between the primary and secondary standards proposed on January 6, 2010 

(http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html#jan10s). The 2007-2009 ozone data 

were obtained from EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS). Three-year design values for the 

primary (8-hour) standard and the secondary (W126) standard were computed for each 

monitor in accordance with the data handling procedures in the proposed 40 CFR Part 50 

Appendix P (http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/fr/20100119.pdf). The county 

maximum design values for each standard are displayed in the scatter plot shown below. 

Empirical observation of the plot reveals that the range of W126 design values associated 

with a given 8-hour design value level is relatively broad. For example, counties with 

maximum 8-hour design values of 0.065 ppm can have maximum W126 design values 

ranging from 3 to 9 ppm-hours. 

Comparison of Proposed Ozone Primary and Secondary Standards 

8-hour design value (2007-2009) vs. W126 3-year average (2007-2009) 

8-hr Design Value (ppm)

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

W126 3-year (ppm-hours)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

EPA Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

n=684 counties, color-coded by EPA Region 

August 16, 2010
Order filed September 12, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00652-CR

____________

MONZELLE LAVAN STEPTOE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 149th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 58852

ORDER

This appeal is from an order signed July 29, 2019. The notice of appeal was 

filed August 26, 2019. The State has filed a motion to dismiss for want of 

jurisdiction. Before reviewing the State’s motion, we must review a portion of the 

record to determine our jurisdiction. Accordingly, we enter the following order. 

The Brazoria County District Clerk is directed to file a partial clerk’s record 

on or before September 27, 2019, containing (1) the court’s order that is being 

appealed; (2) any post-judgment motion, and the court’s order on the motion; and 

(3) the notice of appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Hassan.
!(2

294 QR 1314 QR

294 QR 294 QR

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet /

Apalachia Reservoir

Land Management Plan

Tile: C10

Jul 24, 2008

\\alismurphy\home\mprlm\projects\landplan\Maps\Apalachia_land_plan\Apalachia_land_plan_for_Web.mxd
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20891]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Application for a License To Export Nuclear Material

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70 (b) ``Public notice of receipt of an 
application'', please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission has received the following application for an export 
license. Copies of the application are on file in the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room located at 2120 L Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C.
    A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be 
filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene 
shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the 
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, D.C. 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S. 
Department of State, Washington, D.C. 20520.
    In its review of the applications for licenses to export nuclear 
grade graphite and heavy water as defined in 10 CFR Part 110 and 
noticed herein, the Commission does not evaluate the health, safety or 
environmental effects in the recipient nation of the material to be 
exported. The information concerning the application follows.

                     NRC Export License Application                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of applicant, date of                                           
  application, date received,    Description of Items to    Country of  
        application No.                be exported          destination 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cambridge Isotope Labs, 07/14/   Heavy Water to Canada    Canada        
 97, 07/16/97, XMAT0395.          for upgrading and                     
                                  return to U.S..                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dated this first day of August 1997 at Rockville, Maryland.
Ronald D. Hauber,
Director, Division of Nonproliferation, Exports and Multilateral 
Relations, Office of International Programs.
[FR Doc. 97-20891 Filed 8-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
#### Samuel T. Dale, by his next Friend Carter Dale, Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*Bryant N. Patterson, Defendant in Error.

1. *Bill of exceptions*— Failure *to file during time agreed on after*adjournment.— Where a party fails to file liis bill of exceptions within the time allowed him after adjournment of court, the judgment will be affirmed.

*Error to Clay Circuit Court.*

*James E.*Lincoln, for Plaintiff in Error.

*J. C. Merryman & D. C. Allen,*for Defendant in Error.

Napton, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

There is no bill of exceptions in this case properly in the record according to the settled rule of this court. The plaintiff was allowed twenty days within which to file his bill of exceptions after *99the adjournment of court, which occurred on the 12th November, and the bill was not filed till the 5th day of December. (See West vs. Fowler, 59 Mo. 40.)

The judgment must therefore he affirmed.

The’ other judges concur, except Judge Tories, who is absent.
#### Frank WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1894.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 13, 1977.

*178Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Karen Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Ira N. Loewy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, NATHAN and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Spinkeilink v. State,*313 So.2d 666 (Fla.1975); *Gordon v. State,*312 So.2d 809 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); *Wetherington v. State,*263 So.2d 294 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); *Matera v. State,*218 So.2d 180 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); *Dennis v. State,*214 So.2d 661 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); and *Eizenman v. State,*132 So.2d 763 (Fla.3d DCA 1961).
## Draft Proposal CA-9

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC). Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/ commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/



## Continuous Air Barrier Complia nce Path Continuity (CA-9)

Objective: Clarify the language pertaining to the sealing of penetrations in the building thermal

envelope associated with continuous air barriers so that all three compliance options associated with air

barriers are equivalent.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Revise Sections C402.4 and C402.4.1.2 and Delete Section C402.4.1.2.3 as follows:

C402.4 Air leakage (Mandatory). The thermal envelope of buildings shall comply with Sections

C402.4.1 through C402.4.8. Alternatively the building th ermal envelope shall be permitted to be tested in

accordance with ASTM E779 at a pressure differential of 0.3 inches water gauge, or an equivalent method

approved by the code official, and deemed to comply with the provisions of this section when the tested

air leakage rate of the building thermal envelope does not exceed 0.40 cfm/ft 2 . When compliance is based

on such testing the building shall also meet the provisions of Sections C402.4.5, 402.4.6 and 402.4.7.

C402.4.1.2 Air barrier compliance options. A continuous air barrier for the opaque portions of the

building thermal envelope shall comply with Secti on C402.4.1.2.1, or C402.4.1.2.2. or C402.4.1.2.3

.

Reason: The current code lists three options for meeting the provisions of the opaque building

envelope. Clearly the first two that deal with the opaque components only are valid and allow

compliance based on either the materials used or the assemblies of the envelope. The test is also a valid

way of addressing air leakage on a performance basis. Unfortunately a whole building test includes

fenestration such that the test cannot address only opaque sections of the envelope as is the case with

the other two options. All three options should be comparable and have the same scope. For this

reason the text has been more appropriately rearranged. One approach maintains the approach of

prescriptively addressing the particular components of the building thermal envelope and their

construction and installation as well as individual air leakage properties. The other provides a more

performance oriented approach that is based on the testing currently allowed because when tested, all

possible means of air leakage through the envelope are measured.

Cost Impact: There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change.
EXHIBIT 32.2

   CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 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  accompanying  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
Global  Wataire  Inc.  for the quarter ending May 31, 2006, I, Edmund J. Gorman,
Chief  Financial  Officer  of Global Wataire Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief,  that:

     1.  Such  Quarterly  Report  on  Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending May 31,
2006,  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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the  quarter ending May 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Global  Wataire  Inc.

Dated: July 20, 2006.

                                      /s/ Edmund J. Gorman
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Edmund J. Gorman, Chief Financial Officer
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Maria Rawlins, <br><br>against<br><br>Charles Santana, Respondent, and MVAIC, Respondent-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Respondent MVAIC, as limited by its briefs, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered May 1, 2018, which granted petitioner leave to commence an action against MVAIC.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered May 1, 2018, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs. </p><p>Civil Court properly granted petitioner's renewed application for leave to commence an action against MVAIC. Petitioner sufficiently pleaded all of the requirements of Insurance Law ยง 5218 for commencing an action against MVAIC (<i>see Matter of Osorio v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.</i>, 112 AD3d 831, 833 [2013]). In support of the application, petitioner provided, inter alia, a copy of the police accident report, which indicated that she was struck by a vehicle while crossing the street, and that the vehicle left the scene, but was identified in the report as a green Ford van with a specified license number. Petitioner also demonstrated that she commenced an action against the owner of said van, one Charles Santana, and that action was dismissed for lack of proof. </p><p>Having now exhausted her remedies against Santana, petitioner's renewed application for leave to sue MVAIC was properly considered (<i>see Matter of Acosta-Collado v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.</i>, 103 AD3d 714, 716 [2013]; <i>Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co.,</i> 244 AD2d 528, 529 [1997]). Moreover, since the proof established that "the hit-and-run accident was one in which the identity of the owner and operator of the offending vehicle was unknown or not readily ascertainable through reasonable efforts" (<i>Matter of Troches v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.</i>, 171 AD2d 873 [1991]), the application was properly granted.</p><p>We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.</p><br>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.<br>I concur I concur I concur<p>Decision Date: April 02, 2019</p><br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1339 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1339

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program 
                              Act of 1994.

    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 ``Junior Duck Stamp Reauthorization 
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    The Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994 
(16 U.S.C. 719 et seq.) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating the first section 6 (16 U.S.C. 719c), 
        relating to authorization of appropriations, as section 7 and 
        moving the section so as to appear at the end of the Act; and
            (2) in section 7 (as redesignated by paragraph (1)) by 
        striking ``2001 through 2005'' and inserting ``2006 through 
        2010''.

            Passed the Senate September 9, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1339

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program 
                              Act of 1994.
```