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

**CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as AdoptedPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of MERGE TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED (the “Company”)for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), Michael D. Dunham, as principal executive officer of theCompany, and Steven M. Oreskovich, as principal financial officer of theCompany, each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best oftheir knowledge:

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

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Date: August 29, 2006  | By:    |     | /s/ MICHAEL D.  DUNHAM                                               |
|------------------------|--------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |     | Michael D. Dunham                                                    |
|                   |   |     | *Chairman of the Board*                                              |
|                   |   | * * | *(principal executive officer)*                                      |
| Date: August 29,  2006 | By:    |     | /s/ STEVEN M. ORESKOVICH                                             |
|                   |   |     | Steven M. Oreskovich                                                 |
|                   |   |     | *Chief Accounting Officer, interim Secretary  and interim Treasurer* |
|                   |   | * * | *(principal financial officer  and principal accounting officer)*    |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed bythe Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2755 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2755

  To extend the requirement to staff Department of Defense Education 
    Activity schools to maintain maximum student-to-teacher ratios.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 11, 2023

 Mr. Menendez (for himself, Mr. Tillis, and Mr. Kaine) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the requirement to staff Department of Defense Education 
    Activity schools to maintain maximum student-to-teacher ratios.

    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 ``Success for Military Connected 
Students Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. STAFFING OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY SCHOOLS TO 
              MAINTAIN MAXIMUM STUDENT-TO-TEACHER RATIOS.

    Section 589B(c) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283; 134 Stat. 
3659) is amended by striking ``2023-2024 academic year'' and inserting 
``2029-2030 academic year''.
                                 <all>
```
#### CHASE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, a United States corporation, Appellant, v. The HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY, a New York corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-332.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 28, 1969.

Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellant.

Knight, Underwood, Peters, Hoeveler & Pickle, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Consolidated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ivy Liquors, Inc., Fla. App.1966, 185 So.2d 187; Roberts v. R & S Liquor Stores, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 533; and Bennett v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So.2d 788.
TS- AMID30

Attachment # 10

Pt. 2, Sec. B

Additional Information on the Absence of Water Releases during Manufacture,

Processing, and End UseTS- AMID30
Aug. 13, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11842 ProFly Drones Freefly – Alta 

This is a request for an amendment to Exemption No. 11842 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–

1148, granted to ProFly Drones. This amendment will provide for the addition of the Freefly – 

Alta sUAS to the inventory of approved aircraft for use during VLOS operations currently 

covered under Exemption 11842. 

These airframes are commercially available to the general public, as are all components used to 

complete them. In addition, all configurations of these components follow standard, wellestablished practices. No aspect of these aircraft is proprietary to ProFly Drones in design or 

manufacture. 

Freefly – Alta

WEB-ALTA_Manual_RevC_03.pdf (Uploaded to Docket)
June 11, 2015

Mr. Blake Coppinger

8751 West R Avenue Kalamazoo, MI 49009

Dear Mr. Coppinger:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 28, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1963), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.4

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
Form S-3 (No. 33-62787), Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-03107)
and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-57083, 33-57077,
33-57081, 33-64553, 333-10389, and 333-17891) of AirTouch Communications, Inc.
of our reports dated February 23, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of CMT Partners as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and
1995, which reports are included in AirTouch Communications Inc. Annual Report
on Form 10-K.



/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

San Francisco, California
March 19, 1998
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26813]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Notice of Listing of Members of the Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration's Senior Executive Service Performance 
Review Board (PRB)

    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
(SAMHSA) announces the persons who will serve on the Substance Abuse 
and Mental Health Services Administration's Performance Review Board. 
This action is being taken in accordance with Title 5, U.S.C., Section 
4314(c)(4), which requires that members of performance review boards be 
appointed in a manner to ensure consistency, stability, and objectivity 
in performance appraisals, and requires that notice of the appointment 
of an individual to serve as a member be published in the Federal 
Register.
    The following persons will serve on the SAMHSA Performance Review 
Board, which oversees the evaluation of performance appraisals of 
SAMHSA's Senior Executive Service (SES) members:

Paul M. Schwab, Chairperson
Bernard S. Arons, M.D.
William A. Robinson, M.D.
Ruth D. Sanchez-Way, Ph.D.

    For further information about the SAMSHA Performance Review 
Board, contact the Division of Human Resources Management, Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Room 14 C-24, Rockville, Maryland 20857, telephone (301) 443-5030 
(not a toll-free number).

    Dated: September 29, 1997.
Nelba Chavez,
Administrator, SAMHSA.
[FR Doc. 97-26813 Filed 10-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-M
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Otha I. RATLIFF.

No. 60092.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1977.

Peter J. Compagno, George M. Leppert, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Brian G. Meissner, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 23
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report, dated February 3, 1998, included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's 
previously filed Registration Statements Files No. 33-66624, No. 33-69990, No. 
33-70150, No. 33-85420, No. 33-96508, No. 333-00404, No. 333-03795, and No. 
333-39141.



Washington D.C.
February 19, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-02-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-04-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-02-1998
<CASH>                                          60,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,200
<INVENTORY>                                     38,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,800
<PP&E>                                         609,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 356,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 500,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          155,900
<BONDS>                                        406,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (111,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   500,000
<SALES>                                      1,146,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,146,300
<CGS>                                          329,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,080,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1
------------

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-67350), Form S-8 (No. 333-33775) and Form S-3
(No. 333-67403) of National Golf Properties, Inc. of our reports dated February
29, 2002 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of National Golf Properties, Inc. and American Golf
Corporation and Subsidiaries, respectively, which appear in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Los Angeles, CA
March 29, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 193 (Monday, October 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26379]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA, Inc. Special Committee 147; Minimum Operational Performance 
Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems Airborne 
Equipment

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a 
Special Committee (SC)-147 meeting to be held November 4-5, starting at 
9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held at the MITRE Corporation, Wilson 
Building, Room 1B02, 7798 Old Springhouse Road, McLean, VA.
    The agenda will be as follows: (1) Chairman's Introductory Remarks; 
(2) Review and Approval of Minutes of the Previous Meeting; (3) FAA 
Program Office Report; (4) Requirements Working Group Report; (5) 
Verification and Validation Presentations; (6) Review and Consideration 
of Proposed Changes to TCAS II MOPS, v. 7.0 (DO-185A); (7) Special 
Committee (SC)-186 Report: SC-186 Revised Terms of Reference; (8) FAA 
Program Office Report on the Use of ADS-B in TCAS; (9) Discussion of 
Future Work Plan for SC-147; (10) Date and Place of Next Meeting.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1020, Washington, D.C. 20036; 
(202) 833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org 
(web site). Members of the public may present a written statement to 
the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on September 26, 1997.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 97-26379 Filed 10-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### Thomas M. BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. HH-248.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 1, 1978.

*498Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Judith J. Doughtery, Asst. Public Defender and Thomas M. Bryant, in pro per. for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the judgment and sentence for three counts of petit larceny. He was charged by information with three counts of grand larceny. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. Subsequently, he appeared before the court with his attorney and requested to enter pleas of guilty to the offenses of petit larceny. The court was informed that negotiations had not been made with the State.

The court then questioned the appellant but made no inquiry relating to the volun-tariness of the pleas. The pleas were thereafter accepted.

Appellant alleges that he was induced by his court-appointed attorney to enter his pleas of guilty. He contends his attorney informed him that if he pleaded guilty to the charges, the sentences imposed would run concurrently with the prison sentence to be imposed on another charge to which the appellant had previously entered a plea of guilty. If these allegations were true, such would lead to a conclusion that the pleas were involuntary. *Cooley v. State,*245 So.2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); *Roberts v. United States,*486 F.2d 980 (5th Cir. 1973). The record does not refute the allegation that the pleas were entered due to coercion or promises. Cf. *Scarborough v. State,*278 So.2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); *Pierce v. State,*318 So.2d 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

Before accepting a guilty plea, the trial judge must satisfy himself that the plea is voluntarily entered to insure that the plea is made of the defendant’s own free will without threats or coercion. See *Williams v. State,*316 So.2d 267 (Fla.1975). If a guilty plea is induced by promises which are not kept or threats which vitiate the voluntary character of such act, the plea is void. *Machibroda v. United States,*368 U.S. 487, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962).

Since there is nothing in the record to refute appellant’s allegation, we relinquish jurisdiction of this cause and remand it to the trial court for a period of thirty (30) days in order that the court may make a determination of whether or not the pleas were voluntarily made. After a hearing, the trial court shall determine the truth of the appellant’s allegations — whether or not the appellant’s guilty pleas were induced by the aforesaid alleged representation of the Public Defender. If the trial court finds the appellant’s allegations to be true, appellant should be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas and a certified copy of the court’s order should be thereafter forthwith forwarded by the clerk of the trial court to the clerk of this court. If the trial court should find otherwise, a certified copy of *499that order should in like manner be forthwith forwarded to this court.

REMANDED with directions as aforesaid.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and SMITH, JJ., concur.
#### Ola Pearl GILNER, Appellant, v. COIN METER LAUNDRIES OF MIAMI, INC., etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 69-477.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 26, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Leslie Richard HENDRIX, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 38714.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.

ERVIN, C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, 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**





In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Technest Holdings, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
      do hereby certify, to their best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/
                Joseph P. Mackin**
              **Joseph
                P. Mackin**
            
            **/s/
                Gino M. Pereira**
              **Gino
                M. Pereira****Chief
                Executive Officer**
            
            **Chief
                Financial Officer****Date:
                November 14, 2006**
            
            **Date:
                November 14, 2006**
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25679]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 43 and 64

[CC Docket No. 90-337, FCC 96-459]


Regulation of International Accounting Rates

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission amended its rules to permit U.S. carriers to 
negotiate alternative settlement payment arrangements. Certain of these 
rules contained new and modified information collection requirements. 
These rules became effective on March 21, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments to 47 CFR Secs. 43.61 and 64.1002 became 
effective on March 21, 1997 (62 FR 5535, February 6, 1997).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn O'Brien, Attorney-Advisor, 
Policy and Facilities Branch, Telecommunications Division, 
International Bureau, (202) 418-1470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 26, 1996, the Commission adopted 
an order permitting flexibility in international accounting rate 
policies, a summary of which was published in the Federal Register. See 
62 FR 5535, February 6, 1997. Certain amendments to the Commission's 
rules imposed new or modified information collection requirements. We 
stated that ``the amendments to Secs. 43.61 and 64.1002 take effect 
either upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or 
March 10, 1997, whichever occurs later. When approval is received, the 
agency will publish a document announcing the effective date.'' The 
information collections were approved by OMB on March 21, 1997. See OMB 
Nos. 3060-0106 and 3060-0764. This publication satisfies our statement 
that the Commission would publish a document announcing the effective 
date of the rules.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 43 and 64

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Shirley S. Suggs,
Chief, Publications Branch.
[FR Doc. 97-25679 Filed 9-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P