alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.4

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 Dominos, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 10, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. David Mounts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant
to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:



| | 1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ L. David MountsL. David MountsChief Financial Officer


Dated: October 9, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Dominos, Inc. and will be retained by Dominos, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
# L_2005011EN.01002401.xml

| 14.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 11/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 11/24

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 49/2005

of 13 January 2005

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the import of sorghum issued in Regulation (EC) No 2275/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003, on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction from third countries in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2275/2004 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction from third countries in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2275/2004 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified to make no award. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified to make no award.

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 7 to 13 January 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on imported sorghum issued in Regulation (EC) No 2275/2004.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 January 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 January 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 396, 31.12.2004, p. 32.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial
statements and notes thereto included in the Company's Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000906768
<NAME> MRS TECHNOLOGY, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,094,636
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  883,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,045
<INVENTORY>                                  5,643,432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,677,288
<PP&E>                                       3,893,884
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,716,914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,884,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,051,930
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,381
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,763,911
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,884,222
<SALES>                                      5,265,075
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,148,110
<CGS>                                        6,275,561
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,657,818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             109,345
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,142,940)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,142,940)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.75)
        

</TABLE>
#### Willie C. JACKSON and James E. Jackson, Appellants, v. Dr. W. Richard ANDERSON, Appellee.

No. 69-77.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Jan. 9, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1970.

Fred G. Minnis and C. Bette Wimbish, of Minnis & Williams, St. Petersburg, for appellants.

James E. Tribble, of Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

The complaint dismissed by the order appealed from alleges breach of express warranty and negligence. After a difficult time culminating with the birth of her third child, the defendant recommended and performed an operation said to sterilize Mrs. Jackson. Later, Mrs. Jackson conceived and bore a healthy child after an uneventful pregnancy, a fact not pleaded but admitted at the hearing on the motion. The physician whose breach and negligence are charged contends that a normal birth of a healthy child precludes recovery, on grounds of public policy. We disagree.

If the appellee’s contention is rect it results in an anomalous situation. It is uncontroverted that *prior*to the normal delivery of the child an action would lie.l A contract to perform an operation sterilizing the patient is not contrary to public *pol*icy. Christensen v. Thornby, 1934, 192 Minn. 123, 255 N.W. 620, 93 A.L.R. 570. Should plaintiffs in this situation file immediately and push for final hearing before delivery? Could a dilatory defendant defeat recovery? Should we recognize a cause of action defeasible upon the happening of a condition subsequent? Even if we treat the order dismissing the complaint as a final summary judgment — which, since it takes into account an admitted fact not pleaded, fits more neatly into our conceptual pigeonholes — the fallacy in appellee’s argument is clear: he suggests as vitiating liability a fact which mitigates damages.

We have no way of telling what damages the -jury will assess, but if the plaintiffs can prove their case the jury is entitled to assess them. This child is not to be thought of as unwanted or unloved,but as unplanned. It is too early to express a judicial opinion on questions of damages, and we do not imply agreement or disagreement with those parts of the complaint directed to this question. On the basic question, however, we hold that these actions will lie. A California court, in Custodio v. Bauer, 1967, 251 Cal.App.2d 303, 59 *504Cal.Rptr. 463, discusses the principles involved and collects the authorities. Pinkney v. Pinkney, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 52, is irrelevant. Vilord v. Jenkins, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 245 involved the same factual situation but the question was not presented.

Reversed and remanded.

LILES, A. C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
Exhibit (g)(1)

**MASTERCUSTODIANAGREEMENT**

 

This Agreement is made as of March 22, 2007, betweenEACHREGISTEREDINVESTMENTCOMPANYIDENTIFIEDONAPPENDIXAHERETO(each such registered investment company, and each registered investment company made subject to this Agreement in accordance with Section 18 below, referred to as the “***Fund***”), and STATESTREETBANK and TRUSTCOMPANY, a Massachusetts trust company (the “***Custodian***”),

 

**WITNESSETH:**

 

WHEREAS,the Funds are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("the ***1940 Act***") and each Fund has appointed the Custodian to act as its custodian;

 

WHEREAS,each Fund may or may not be authorized to issue shares of common stock or shares of beneficial interest in separate series, with each such series representing interests in a separate portfolio of securities and other assets;

 

WHEREAS,each Fund so authorized so intends that this Agreement be applicable to each of its series set forth on Appendix A hereto (such series together with all other series subsequently established by the Fund and made subject to this Agreement in accordance with Section 19 below, shall be referred to as the “**Portfolio(s)**”);

 

WHEREAS,each Fund not so authorized intends that this Agreement be applicable to it and all references herein to one or more “Portfolio(s)” shall be deemed to refer to such Fund(s); and

 

NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

| SECTION 1. | EMPLOYMENTOFCUSTODIANANDPROPERTYTOBEHELDBYIT |
|------------|----------------------------------------------|

 

Each Fund hereby employs the Custodian as the custodian of its assets of the Portfolios,  including securities which the Fund, on behalf of the applicable Portfolio, desires to be held in places within the United States (“***domestic securities***”) and securities it desires to be held outside the United States (“***foreign securities***”).  Each Fund, on behalf of its Portfolio(s), agrees to deliver to the Custodian all securities and cash owned by it (excluding assets held elsewhere pursuant to Rule 17f-6 of the 1940 Act), and all payments of income, payments of principal or capital distributions received by such Portfolios with respect to all securities owned by it from time to time, and the cash consideration received by it for such new or treasury share of beneficial interest of each Fundrepresenting interests in its Portfolios (“**Shares**”) as may be issued or sold from time to time. The Custodian shall not be responsible for any property of a Portfolio held or received by the Fund and not delivered to the Custodian.  With respect to uncertificated shares (the “***Underlying Shares***”) of registered investment companies (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “***Underlying**********Portfolios***”), the holding of confirmation statements that identify the shares as being recorded in the Custodian’s name on behalf of the Portfolios will be deemed custody for purposes hereof.

 

----
AMPT-DM-SUMMARY
[VERSION]
1

[SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION]
! Project name, device name, device software version, operator, target temperature, or any other test related information
Project X
MyDeviceName
Operator: Felipe Pivetta

Other supplementary information

[SPECIMEN INFORMATION]
Dimensions, conditioning time, properties or any other specimen related information

[SPECIMEN IDENTIFICATION]
! Specimen identification number (maximum 80 characters)
Dummy_1

[FIELD SEPARATOR]
! 0=Comma (“,”), 1=Space (“ “)," 2=Tab (""	"")"
! If comma and space are used together, please select 0 (Comma)
! If Tab and space are used together, please select 2 (Tab)
0

[UNIT]
! 0=US Units," 1=SI Units"""
! US: Dynamic Modulus in ksi, Temperature in F, Pressure in psi
! SI: Dynamic Modulus in MPa, Temperature in C, Pressure in kPa
1

[DYNAMIC MODULUS TEST DATA]
! Frequency (Hz), Dynamic Modulus (MPa or ksi), Phase Angle (Degrees), Average temperature (C or F), Average confining pressure (kPa or psi), Peak to Peak Average Strain (micro-strain), Load drift (%), Load standard error (%), Average deformation drift (%), Average deformation standard error (%), Deformation uniformity (%), Phase uniformity (Degrees)
10,7083,21.76,20.1,0.3,62,0,4.7,-156.4,6.1,19.6,1.3
1,3899,27.97,20.1,0.2,59,-0.8,3,-240.1,4.9,11.9,0.9
0.1,1903,32.41,20.1,0.3,59,-0.4,2.5,-280.4,3.4,9.8,1.3
#### Lloyd DAMSEY, M.D., P.A., d/b/a the Medical Clinic, Appellant, v. James W. FORSTER, M.D., Appellee.

No. 76-1675.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 23, 1977.

Nathan Kurtz, Miami, for appellant.

A. M. Schwitalla, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of *Damsey v. Mankowitz,*339 So.2d 282 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. den. 345 So.2d 421 (Fla.1977).
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-201.26 

________________________________________________________________________ 

MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA and BULGARIA 

Signed at Sofia September 19, 2007 

with 

Annex 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 BULGARIA 

 Mutual Legal Assistance 

Agreement signed at Sofia September 19, 2007; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate January 22, 2008 (Treaty Doc. 110-12, 

 110th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 July 29, 2008 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-13, 

 110th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 September 23, 2008; 

Ratified by the President December 11, 2008; 

Exchange of Instruments of Ratification at Sofia 

 May 21, 2009; 

Entered into force February 1, 2010. 

With annex.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of OXiGENE, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2012, as amended (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 29, 2013 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Peter J. Langecker 
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Peter J. Langecker     
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: April 29, 2013 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Barbara Riching    
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Barbara Riching        
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32

CEO/CFO Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bank Building Corporation,
certifies that to the best of his knowledge and belief the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bank Building Corporation at the dates and for
the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to
update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                  |  |                                                                                      
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 1, 2006 |  | /s/ Worth Harris Carter, Jr.                                                         
|                  |  | Worth Harris Carter, Jr.                                                             
|                  |  | Chairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28094]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Meeting of the Defense Environmental Response Task Force (DERTF)

AGENCY: Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of business meeting and hearing.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of a 
business meeting and hearing of the Defense Environmental Response Task 
Force (DERTF). The DERTF is charged with studying and providing 
findings and recommendations on environmental response actions at 
military installations being closed or realigned. This meeting is a 
follow-up to the June 17-19, 1997 meeting. The DERTF will discuss 
issues related to natural and cultural resources at BRAC installations, 
optimization of long-term operation and maintenance of cleanup 
remedies, information management for BRAC properties, Superfund reform, 
other matters related to cleanup at closing military installations, and 
the DERTF's 1998 Report to Congress. The DERTF will also be briefed on 
the cleanup program at Williams Air Force Base, Arizona. The business 
meeting and hearing will be open to the public. Public witnesses 
desiring to speak before the DERTF should contact Shah Choudhury, 
Executive Secretary, and prepare a written statement that can be 
summarized orally before the DERTF at the time to be fixed for public 
witnesses. Written statements must be received by the close of 
business, December 19, 1997, at the Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Environmental Security).

DATES: January 27, 1998; 9:30 a.m. to 8 p.m.; January 28, 1998; 9 a.m. 
to 4:30 p.m.; January 29, 1998; 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: A public comment period is scheduled for January 
27, 1998, from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., at the Arizona State 
University--East Campus in Mesa, Arizona.

ADDRESS OF MEETING SITE: The business meeting will be held in the 
Embassy Suites Hotel, 1515 N. 44th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Shah Choudhury, Executive 
Secretary, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
(Environmental Security), 3400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-
3400; telephone (703) 697-7475; e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#086b60677d6c607b6948696b7926677b6c26656164"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="83e0ebecf6e7ebf0e2c3e2e0f2adecf0e7adeeeaef">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 16, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-28094 Filed 10-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 59754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29121]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


SES Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the membership of the OPM SES 
Performance Review Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Lynn Horst, Office of Human 
Resources and EEO, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-2165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314 ( c ) ( 1 ) through ( 5 ) of 
Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with 
regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or 
more SES performance review boards. The board reviews and evaluates the 
initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the 
supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointment authority 
relative to the performance of the senior executive.

Office of Personnel Management.
Janice R. Lachance,
Acting Director.
    Following are the regular members of the SES Performance Review 
Board for the Office of Personnel Management:

William F. Flynn, III, Associate Director, Retirement and Insurance 
Service
Richard A. Ferris, Associate Director, Investigations Service
Mary Lou Lindholm, Associate Director, Employment Service
Carol Okin, Associate Director, Office of Merit Systems Oversight and 
Effectiveness
Leigh M. Shein, Acting Chief of Staff
Rose M. Gwin, Director, Office of Human Resources and EEO

[FR Doc. 97-29121 Filed 11-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-P