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



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Annual Report of ProxyMed, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Gregory J. Eisenhauer, 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. /s/ GREGORY J. EISENHAUER, CFA

Gregory J. Eisenhauer, CFA
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
March 16, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ProxyMed,
Inc. and will be retained by ProxyMed, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
Deloitte
& Touche (M.E.)
 Bin Ghanim Tower
 Hamdan Street
 P.O.Box 990, Abu Dhabi
 United Arab Emirates
 Tel: +971 (2) 676 0606
 Fax: +971 (2) 676 0644
 www.deloitte.com
 PRIVATE
& CONFIDENTIAL
  GSE
Systems, Inc.
 1332
Londontown Blvd.
 Suite
200
 Sykesville,
MD 21784
 United
States of America
 
 28 June
2009
 
 Our ref:
R/CU/RPA/AKM
 
 Dear
Sirs,
 
  Emirates
Simulation Academy LLC
  We have
previously audited, in accordance with International Standards on Auditing, the
31 December 2008 financial statements of Emirates Simulation Academy LLC (the
"Company"). We have issued a report dated 11 February 2009 on those financial
statements. In connection with your filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, USA, you have requested us to provide us our consent to include the
financial statements of Emirates Simulation Academy LLC including our audit
report thereon.
  We are
pleased to provide our consent to GSE Systems Inc. to include the financial
statements of Emirates Simulation Academy LLC including our audit report thereon
with your filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, USA.
  Please
contact us if you need any further information or clarification.
  We are
pleased to be of service to you
  Yours
truly,
  /s/
Deloitte & Touche
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.33

                                NO. 00-J-0443-C

EVANS SYSTEMS, INC. AND      (S)   IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
WAY ENERGY, INC.,            (S)
Plaintiffs                   (S)
                             (S)
VS.                          (S)   MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS
                             (S)
AFFILIATED RESOURCES         (S)
CORPORATION,                 (S)
     Defendant               (S)   130th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

                              STIPULATED JUDGMENT

     Evans Systems, Inc. ("Evans") and Way Energy, Inc. ("Way") (jointly
referred to as "Plaintiffs") and Affiliated Resources Corporation ("ARC") and
Chemway, Inc. ("ChemWay") (jointly referred to as "Defendants") having entered
into a Settlement and Rescission Agreement and ARC having stipulated that the
Put set forth in the Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of October 30, 1998
between Synaptix Systems Corporation, a Colorado corporation, now known as
Affiliated Resources Corporation, Evans and Way has not been waived, and ARC
having failed to provide equity financing as agreed which was an obligation
secured by the Put, and Evans and Way having put 2,500,000 of ARC stock at $4.00
per share to ARC, and Evans and Way not having been paid for such stock and the
parties having agreed that the six million dollars is owed to Evans and Way for
2,500,000 shares of stock which were delivered to ARC, it is accordingly,

     ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Evans and Way, jointly and severally
have Judgment against ARC for six million dollars; it is further,

     ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the assets of Chemway shall be conveyed
to Evans and Way pursuant to a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure and such Deed in Lieu
of
<PAGE>

Foreclosure shall be the complete and sole remedy for collection of all amounts
owed pursuant to this Stipulated Judgment, it is further,

     ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that costs of Court shall be borne by the
party incurring same for which the clerk may have his execution, it is further

     ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all relief not expressly granted herein
is denied.

     SIGNED this 1st day of December, 2000.

                                             /s/ Judge Bass
                                             ___________________________________
                                             Judge Presiding

AGREED AS TO FORM
AND SUBSTANCE:


/s/ Robert L. Ketchand
_________________________________
Robert L. Ketchand
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1520
Houston, Texas  77046
(713) 960-1996 telephone
(713) 960-1517 telecopier


/s/ Peter J. Losavio, Jr.
_________________________________
Peter J. Losavio, Jr.
Losavio Law Firm
8414 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite 110
Baton Rouge, LA  70810
225/769-4200 telephone
225/769-2864 telecopier
Did You Know?

Even if you know the meaning
of the signals and the
crosswalk, dont assume
es drivers will stop for you.
#### Warren J. DIXON v. Ira J. SHOCKLEY et al.

No. 62077.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 12, 1978.

In re: Warren J. Dixon applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 356 So.2d 96.

Writ denied. The result is correct.
Case 1:05-cv-00225-MBC-SPB   Document 73   Filed 10/30/06   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:05-cv-00225-MBC-SPB   Document 73   Filed 10/30/06   Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:

of
our report dated March 16, 2005 (except for Note 21, as to which the date is April 8, 2005 and Notes 1(c) and 4(b), as to which the date is September 5, 2005),
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of NTL Incorporated, included in this Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 3, and our report dated March 16, 2005,
with respect to NTL Incorporated management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of
NTL Incorporated, included herein.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP
London, England
September 5, 2005

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                               EMERGING DELTA CORPORATION
                                               ---------------------------
                                             STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
                                             ----------------------------------

                                        FOR THE YEARS ENDED MARCH 31, 2002 AND 2001
                                        -------------------------------------------



                                                   Common Stock
                                              ----------------------   Additional   Retained
                                              Number of                 Paid-in     Earnings
                                               Shares       Amount      Capital     (Deficit)    Total
                                              ----------    ------     ---------    ---------    --------
<S>                                            <C>          <C>        <C>          <C>          <C>

BALANCE - March 31, 2000                       43,600       $43,600    $252,214     $  2,715     $298,529

NET INCOME                                         -           -          -            3,444        3,444
                                               ---------    -------    ---------    --------     --------

BALANCE - March 31, 2001                       43,600        43,600     252,214        6,159      301,973

NET INCOME (LOSS)                                  -           -           -          (6,527)      (6,527)
                                               ---------    -------    ---------    ---------     --------

BALANCE - March 31, 2002                       43,600       $43,600    $252,214     $   (368)    $295,446
                                               =========    =======    =========    =========    =========



                             The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
</TABLE>

                                                              F-5
#### Reva Joyce MONDS, Appellant, v. Lawrence N. MONDS, Appellee.

No. 69-416.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 4, 1970.

Charles J. Cullom, Orlando, for appellant.

Charles J. Cheves, Jr., of Wotitzky, Wot-itzky & Cheves, Punta Gorda, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a post-decretal order reopening the final decree of divorce for the purpose of adjudicating alimony, custody and support. No reversible error having been made to appear, we therefore affirm.

LILES, A. C. J., and PIERCE and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
#### Marcia D. WARDEN, Petitioner, v. Michael M. BENNETT, etc., Respondent.

No. 49934.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 29, 1977.

Larry G. Turner of Goldin, Turner & Cates, Gainesville, for petitioner.

James M. Blue of Smith, Young & Blue, Tallahassee, and Edward A. Turville of McClure & Turville, St. Petersburg, for respondents.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Sharyn L. Smith and Patricia R. Gleason, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for Robert L. Shevin, amicus curiae.

Arthur M. Simon of Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp, Welcher & Carrier, Miami, for *464Miami-Dade Community College, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have heard argument of the parties. Upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the cited decisions present no direct conflict as required by Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
#### Robert E. WHITEHEAD v. BARANCO COLOR LABS, INC., a corporation, et al.

SC 2253.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 29, 1977.

*794Robert E. Whitehead, pro se.

Lawrence B. Voit and Irving Silver, Mobile, for appellees.

EMBRY, Justice.

In this case, Robert E. and Carol Whitehead filed a detinue action against Baranco Color Labs, Inc., to recover certain photographic equipment. Their attorney withdrew from the case and Robert E. Whitehead announced his intention to proceed *pro se.*His motion for summary judgment was denied; also his motion for *writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum.*

Robert E. Whitehead, *pro se*and *in forma pauperis,*appeals the denial of his motions. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. That motion will be granted.

*Issues*

The issues for review as presented by appellees may be stated:

1. Whether *denial*of a motion for summary judgment is an appealable order.

2. Whether an incarcerated prisoner-plaintiff in a civil action is entitled to be brought to court pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum so that he may personally testify in his own behalf.

I

The order which *denied*summary judgment is interlocutory in nature, not made appealable by statute, and will, therefore, not support an appeal. See *Dick v. First National Bank of Birmingham,*334 So.2d 922 (Ala.App., 1976). Moreover, this appeal is not one by permission pursuant to Rule 5, ARAP.

II

Whitehead is not entitled to have himself brought from the penitentiary to testify in his own behalf. His proper remedy was to take his own testimony, either upon written questions under Rule 31, ARCP, or upon oral examination under Rule 30, ARCP. In either event that testimony could have been used at trial. See Rule 32(a)(3)(C), ARCP. An appeal will not lie to review the writ because the common law *writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum*was, in these circumstances, superseded by Tit. 45, § 60, Code (1940), which, in turn, has been superseded by the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. See ARCP, Appendix II, Statutes and Rules Superseded. Also see *Ex parte Brown,*206 Ala. 528, 91 So. 306 (1921).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

TORBERT, C. J, and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26244]


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

COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS


Visa Requirements for Textile and Clothing Products in the Second 
Stage of Integration Into the World Trade Organization

September 29, 1997.
AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori E. Mennitt, International Trade 
Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, (202) 482-3400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; 
section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
1854); the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

    The Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing provides for 
the integration of textile and clothing into GATT 1994. The second 
stage of the integration will commence on January 1, 1998 (see 60 FR 
21075, published on May 1, 1995).
    The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has 
determined that it is necessary to maintain coverage of the currently 
applicable visa systems for the products to be integrated in the second 
stage of the integration. Therefore, an export visa issued by the 
government of the country of origin will continue to be required for 
products integrated on and after January 1, 1998, before entry is 
permitted into the United States.
Troy H. Cribb,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
[FR Doc. 97-26244 Filed 10-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-F
**EXHIBIT 23.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Board of Directors ofMTM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.:

      We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in (1) the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-117549), (2) the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-123144), (3) the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-72269), and (4) the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-123147), of MTM Technologies, Inc., of our report dated November 5, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Vector Global Services, Inc., and subsidiaries as of and for the nine months ended September 30, 2004, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of MTM Technologies, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2005.

UHY LLPNew York, New YorkJune 27, 2005
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of DirectorsMTM Technologies, Inc.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated June 23, 2008 included in this Form 10-K on the consolidated financial statements of MTM Technologies, Inc. as of March 31, 2008 and for the year then
ended, into the Companys previously filed registration statements.

Registration Statements:

(1) Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-136058)
(2) Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-140357)
(3) Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-131089)
(4) Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-128434)
(5) Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-127587)
(6) Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-123144)
(7) Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-117549)
(8) Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333- 49718)
(9) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-126322)
(10) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-123147)
(11) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333- 72269)

MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLPNew York, New YorkJune 23, 2008

---
```

[113th Congress Public Law 43]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 127 STAT. 554]]

Public Law 113-43
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act. <<NOTE: Oct. 4, 2013 -  [S. 
                                1348]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Congressional 
Award Program Reauthorization Act of 2013. 2 USC 801 note.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Award Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. <<NOTE: 2 USC 808 note.>>  TERMINATION.

    Section 108 of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 808) is amended 
by striking ``October 1, 2013'' and inserting ``October 1, 2018''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect as of October 1, 2013.

    Approved October 4, 2013.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1348:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 113-109 (Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 159 (2013):
            Sept. 26, considered and passed Senate.
            Sept. 30, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sierra Resource Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul W.
Andre, Treasurer and 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, 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.



Dated: January 27, 2009




                                        By: /s/ PAUL W. ANDRE
                                            ___________________________
                                                Paul W. Andre
                                                Treasurer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
#### Richard I. REICHECK d/b/a Commercial Construction Company, Appellant, v. FLORIDA BOND AND MORTGAGE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 69-203, 69-204.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 15, 1970.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1970.

*84Richard JL. Lapidus, Miami, for appellant.

Mallory H. Horton of Horton & Schwartz, and Richard R. Paige, Miami, for appellee Florida Bond and Mortgage.

PER CURIAM.

Consolidated interlocutory appeal and appeal of a final judgment. The defendant-counterclaimant, Richard I. Reicheck, doing business as Commercial Construction Company, seeks review of an interlocutory order and of a final judgment entered by the court in favor of the plaintiff-counterdefendant, Florida Bond and Mortgage Company, as the outgrowth of a mortgage foreclosure.

The defendant-counterclaimant has failed to favor this court with his second amended counterclaim without which this court cannot make a determination, for the very essence of the review sought herein is bottomed upon the counterclaim of the defendant-counterclaimant. It is apparent that the defendant-counterclaimant discovered the error of omission of his second amended counterclaim and filed *in this court*his amended directions to clerk to include as a supplement to the record on appeal the second amended counterclaim. Rule 3.6d(l) of the appellate rules, 32 F.S.A. requires that the appellant file his directions to the *lower court clerk*for making up the record on appeal. It is obvious the defendant-counterclaimant is in violation of this rule.

It is the responsibility and duty of the appellant to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned as error. Johnson v. Town of Eatonville, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 664; Bostwick v. Bostwick, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 779; Gleim v. Gleim, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 610.

Since the record on appeal is not sufficient to review the matter assigned as error, this court must assume that the trial court ruled correctly. Johnson v. Town of Eatonville, supra.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ-, concur.
#### Mrs. Agnes M. MOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLEMONS BROTHERS LUMBER CO., Inc., George W. Smith, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 8305.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

April 19, 1971.

Fred C. Jackson, and Stephen C. Dart, of Kilbourne, Dart & Jackson, St. Francis-ville, for plaintiff-appellant.

Leon Picou, and Ben Vega, of Picou & Vega, St. Francisville, Edwin C. Schilling, Jr., of Schilling & Simpson, Amite, for defendants-appellees.

Before LOTTINGER, SARTAIN and TUCKER, JJ.

SARTAIN, Judge.

This is a possessory action brought by Mrs. Agnes Mott for alleged wrongful timber cutting on her property. After a trial on the merits, the lower court dismissed her suit based on an exception of prescription raised by the defendants. Judgment was signed on June 25, 1970, and the plaintiff did not apply for a new trial. On July 2, 1970 plaintiff filed a petition for a devolutive appeal. On July 7, 1970 the trial judge granted petitioner a devolutive appeal conditioned upon her furnishing bond in the amount of $1,000.00. Petitioner, on July 30, 1970, filed a motion to have the original bond reduced whereupon on the same date the trial judge reduced the bond to the sum *149of $262.88. However, the bond was not filed until August 17, 1970.

Article 3662 of the La.Code of Civil Procedure provides that a devolutive appeal from a judgment in a possessory action must be perfected within thirty days of the applicable date provided in La.C.C.P. Art. 2087(l)-(3). Since plaintiff did not choose to apply for a new trial, it is sufficient for this court to notice that more than thirty days passed between the filing of the petition for appeal and the filing of the bond.

We have considered the nineteen days which lapsed between July 7, 1970 when the appeal bond was set at $1,000.00 and July 31, 1970 when the bond was reduced to $262.88. The record does not disclose any delay on the part of the court in reducing the bond because the order was signed by the trial judge on the date it was presented. Since no new trial was asked for by the petitioner the thirty days available to petitioner to perfect the devolutive appeal commenced on July 2, 1970 and expired on August 2, 1970. August 2 being a Sunday petitioner had until Monday, August 3, 1970. In no event do we feel that petitioner should have been given more than four legal days following the reduction of the bond on July 31, 1970. This would have given petitioner until August 6, 1970. Absent any law pertaining to the effect of an order reducing a bond, we analogize such an order to the situation where there is an order decreeing a bond insufficient whereupon appellant is then given an additional four days under C.C.P. Art. 5124 to furnish a new or supplemental bond. Viewing the matter in as favorable a manner as possible to petitioner the bond in either instance whether it be within the thirty day requirement of C.C.P. Art. 3662 or the four day requirement under C.C.P. Art. 5124 was untimely filed.

Therefore, we must dismiss this appeal, ex proprio motu, for the reason that the same was not timely perfected and we are without jurisdiction in this cause.

Appeal dismissed.