alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Medcom USA, Inc.., (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William P.
Williams, 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 the best of 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.





MEDCOM
USA, INC.


By /s/ William P.
Williams


William
P. Williams


Chief
Financial officer


September
29, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         469,531
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               472,031
<PP&E>                                          93,959
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,250)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 813,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          560,860
<BONDS>                                        250,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,918
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,151,889)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   813,740
<SALES>                                            358
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   358
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               805,076
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,375
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (814,093)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (814,893)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (747,764)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)


</TABLE>
# L_2005261EN.01002601.xml

| 7.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 261/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 261/26

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1640/2005

of 6 October 2005

fixing the maximum export refund on oats in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005

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 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (2), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005 of 2 September 2005 on a special intervention measure for oats in Finland and Sweden for the 2005/2006 marketing year (3),

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland or Sweden to all third countries with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland or Sweden to all third countries with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005.

| (2) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should be fixed.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

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

For tenders notified from 30 September to 6 October 2005, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005, the maximum refund on exportation of oats shall be 23,89 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 October 2005.

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

Done at Brussels, 6 October 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 228, 3.9.2005, p. 5.

3

---
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                                   DYAX CORP.

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     Each of the undersigned officers of Dyax Corp. (the "Company") certifies,
to his knowledge and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2002
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


Dated:   March 27, 2003                 /s/ Henry E. Blair
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Henry E. Blair
                                        Chief Executive Officer


Dated:   March 27, 2003                 /s/ Stephen S. Galliker
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Stephen S. Galliker
                                        Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3565 

To appropriate funds for the Affordable Connectivity Program of the Federal 

Communications Commission. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2024 

Mr. WELCH (for himself, Mr. VANCE, Mr. CRAMER, and Ms. ROSEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To appropriate funds for the Affordable Connectivity 

Program of the Federal Communications Commission. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Affordable 

5 Connectivity Program Extension Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPROPRIATION FOR AFFORDABLE CONNECTIVITY 

7 PROGRAM. 

8 Section 904(i)(2) of division N of the Consolidated 

9 Appropriations Act, 2021 (47 U.S.C. 1752(i)(2)) is 

10 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3565 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘There is’’ and inserting the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(A) FISCAL YEAR 2021.—There is’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(B) FISCAL YEAR 2024.—There is appro6 priated to the Affordable Connectivity Fund, 

7 out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 

8 appropriated, $7,000,000,000 for fiscal year 

9 2024, to remain available until expended.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### BEILEY, WAGNER & ASSOCIATES INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Walter W. WAGNER, Appellee.

No. 70-460.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 14, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 3, 1970.

Paul Landy, Beiley & Bartel, Miami, for appellant.

August, Nimkoff & Gladstone, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellee, Wagner, had begun working for the corporate appellant some years ago. The corporation conducts economic studies for savings and loan associations and certain other banks, obtaining information and statistics for its clients’ use in their operations. Wagner advanced in his responsibilities and position with the corporation while working there. Toward the end of 1969, however, certain disagreements arose between Wagner and the corporation which terminated in Wagner’s withdrawal as an employee.

Subsequently, Wagner established a business of his own which directly competed with the corporation. The appellant thereafter filed a complaint applying therein for a temporary injunction to enjoin Wagner from competing in their field of business. After a final hearing on the application for the temporary injunction, the court found as follows:

> “THIS CAUSE came on for hearing before the undersigned Circuit Judge on Plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction contained in its Complaint. Plaintiff did not seek in this hearing to enforce the agreement not to compete alleged by it to be predicated upon an agreement assertedly made in a joint meeting of stockholders and directors, as to which Plaintiff concedes there is a direct conflict in testimony which will have to be resolved at a subsequent hearing with full testimony. Plaintiff sought, instead, to enjoin competition by Defendant with Plaintiff, so long as Defendant remains a director of the Plaintiff corporation; alternatively, to enjoin Defendant from doing supplemental reports and presentations for certain designated clients allegedly under contract and from interfering with the Plaintiff’s business relationship with its customers. Plaintiff’s election not to rely upon an agreement precludes this Court from entering an injunction under Fla.Stat. Sec. 542.12 (2). The Court having considered the pleadings and evidence, it is

> “ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

> “1. Plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction is denied.

> “2. This Order is without prejudice to a later application predicated upon any asserted agreement not to compete.

> “3. This Order is without prejudice to a later application based upon a showing *116of Defendant’s inability to respond to a money judgment; to require all fees earned by Defendant from clients of Plaintiff, after his termination as an employee of Plaintiff, to be placed into the Registry of Court or an interest-bearing account being maintained in this action, to abide the outcome of the final hearing herein.”

We have carefully reviewed the record and the applicable law and conclude that the chancellor committed no error when he entered his order denying the temporary injunction.

Therefore, the interlocutory order appealed is hereby affirmed.
Robinson Rancheria Tribal Transportation Program

1. Community Workshops

Conduct community workshops to receive input from tribal and local community regarding the 

update or development of reports or plans. For instance Tribal Long Range Transportation Plan, 

Tribal Safety Plan, Active Transportation Needs Assessment Plan, Roadway Safety Audit, Safety 

Action Plan, Safety Enhancement Plan.

2. Community Surveys/Questionnaires

Distribute to tribal community or place on tribal website, to collect data or suggestions from 

participants. Data collected may pertain to incidents that occurred on tribal lands that have not 

been reported, to assure the incidents make it into the state data base, Statewide Integrated 

Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Suggestions collected usually are for update or development 

of plans & reports for tribal, county or state.

3. Local Community Groups

Participate in local community group meetings to report tribal goals, projects and collect 

comments or suggestions from groups. These are usually the unincorporated, smaller 

communities governed by the county.

4. County Steering Committees

Preside on county steering committees, to assure tribal input is received. Input may pertain to 

reports, plans or projects. Lake County ATP Steering Committee, development of Active 

Transportation Master Plan. Middle Creek Restoration Project Steering Committee, is the 

restoration of the reclamation district to its’ native state.

5. Caltrans-Native American Advisory Committee

Preside and/or attend the advisory committee meetings to assure that tribal comments, 

concerns are received. Caltrans is the managers of the state highway and freeway system.

6. Robinson Rancheria Tribal Membership General Quarterly Meetings

Attend and report to the tribal membership quarterly. Reports regard goals, grants, projects, 

upcoming workshops. Also field questions and provides another avenue to distribute and collect 

surveys.

7. Transportation Injury Mapping System (Tool)

The Tribal Transportation Program will input incidents after collecting surveys/questionnaires 

into the system. Presided on the advisory committee to develop, the TIMS mapping system. 

Developed by Cal Berkley-Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (Safe TREC).
The D.C. Freeway Revolt and the Coming of Metro 

Map Gallery

The 1932 Maryland State road map included this pre-freeway image of Washington, D.C., and vicinity. 

Source: Maryland State Roads Commission 
The National Capital Park and Planning Commission published this map in 1950 showing the commission’s 

proposed Regional Thoroughfare Plan. It featured an inner loop around the central area, a middle loop called 

Fort Drive just within the city limits, and an outer circumferential in the general location of today’s Capital 

Beltway.
After designating the rural segments of the Interstate System in August 1947, Federal highway officials worked

with State highway agencies and local officials to establish the outline of urban freeways around the country. 

The routes designated in September 1955 were shown in maps published in General Location of National 

System of Interstate Highways (nicknamed The Yellow Book because of the color of its cover). The map of 

Washington, D.C., showed inner and outer loops as well as arterials in the suburban communities of Maryland 

and Virginia. With the exception of a freeway along the Potomac River into Maryland, the city’s northeast and 

northwest quadrants were free of Interstate highways, as would be the end result after two decades of 

controversy. 
The District of Columbia hired consultant Arthur D. Little, Inc., to review of the city’s transportation planning. 

The consultant’s highly critical March 1966 report, Transportation Planning in the District of Columbia 1955 to 

1965: A Review and Critique, included this map showing the proposed highway system. 

 Source: District Department of Highways and Traffic
This map shows the existing highway system as of October 1971. 
From 1975 to 1983, the District of Columbia requested withdrawal of nearly 16 miles of Interstate freeways 

under the Interstate withdrawal-substitution provision of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973. This series of 

maps shows the mileage withdrawn in each of six stages.
The Federal Highway Administration prepared this undated map for internal use. It showed the local names of 

the District of Columbia’s freeway network.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

 DCN: SE03968

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
House Calendar No. 1

105TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 105–1

IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH--

pages 1001 to 1100
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
Facilities for Pedestrians & Bicycles 3R Maintenance-Resurfacing Planning/Study

$7.7M

$1.4M

$0.5M

FLAP Obligations/Expenditures by fiscal year

FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 TOTAL

$0 $15,174 $0 $222,032 $48,543 $661,936 $947,684

FLAP Loan/Credits by fiscal year

FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 TOTAL

$0 $0 $0 $0 ($2,800,000) $2,800,000 $0

Programming Decisions Committee Members

Name Phone   E-mail Title

Andrew Austin 202-962-3353 aaustin@mwcog.org Transportation Planner, Metropolitan ...

Kyle Scott 202-671-2407 kyle.scott@dc.gov DDOT Resource Analyst

Jacinda Russell 571-434-1543 Jacinda.Russell@dot.gov Access Program Manager

Call for Projects information

Start Date End Date

No. applications

received

Total Access funds

requested

8/9/2013 11/4/2013 4 $1,254,800

1/19/2015 4/17/2015 1 $1,419,526

8/15/2016 11/15/2016 4 $13,720,000

Congressional District

N/A $10M

Total project's costs by FLMA Accessed

NPS / DOA 73%

NPS 27%

Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)

District of Columbia

Projects Programmed

5

FLAP Funds Programmed

$9.7M

Federal Lands Highway Division

EFLHD

FLAP Allocations by fiscal year

FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 TOTAL

$1,298,315 $1,308,069 $1,281,844 $1,579,049 $1,578,755 $1,241,495 $8,287,527

$16M

Local Match

16.85%
*This information is an overview of the FLAP projects information. It is subject to change at any time. For additional details or clarifications, please contact the Federal Lands Highway Division offices or visit the State FLAP 

webpage. 

Project ID Project Name- Description Improvement type Delivery Agency Delivery 

Year

DC FLAP DOT ARTTRL(1) Multi-use trail and PED bridge design and 

construction. Facilities for Pedestrians & Bicycles DDOT 2019

DC FLAP DOT STDY(1) Feasibility Bicycle Study to fill in key bicycle 

connectivity & safety gaps from 14th to 15th st. Planning/Study DDOT 2018

DC FLAP DOT NRMN(1) Resurfacing, sidewalk repair, construct BMPs, and 

culvert repair on Normanstone Drive and Fulton St. 3R Maintenance-Resurfacing DDOT 2017

DC FLAP DOT TILDN(1) Const. trail Tilden St. & crosswalk to Peirce Mill Spring 

House. Facilities for Pedestrians & Bicycles Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, FHWA 2017

DC FLAP DOT GALWY(1) Construct a trail along Galloway Street Facilities for Pedestrians & Bicycles Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, FHWA 2017
© 2018 HERE, © 2019 Microsoft Corporation

Project ID

DC FLAP DOT ARTTRL(1)

DC FLAP DOT GALWY(1)

DC FLAP DOT NRMN(1)

DC FLAP DOT STDY(1)

DC FLAP DOT TILDN(1)
#### WELLER GROCERY COMPANY and Fred W. Weller, Appellants, v. Theodora BROWN, Appellee.

Nos. 70-377, 70-381.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 26, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1971.

West, Goldman & Weisberg, Miami, for appellants.

Ronald S. Guralnick, Miami, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Lawn v. Wasserman, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 261; Austin Burke, Inc. v. Vigilant Insurance Co., Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 600; and White v. Spears, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 689.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3302 

To waive the guarantee fee for certain business loans made to veterans 

and spouses of veterans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 14 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 13), 2023 

Mrs. SHAHEEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To waive the guarantee fee for certain business loans made 

to veterans and spouses of veterans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Heroes Business Op5 portunity Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF GUARANTEE FEE FOR CERTAIN BUSI7 NESS LOANS MADE TO VETERANS AND 

8 SPOUSES OF VETERANS. 

9 Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

10 636(a)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3302 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (18)— 

2 (A) in subparagraph (A), in the matter 

3 preceding clause (i), by striking ‘‘With respect’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in subpara5 graph (C), with respect’’; and 

6 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(C) EXCEPTION.— 

8 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding 

9 subparagraph (A), the Administration may 

10 not collect a guarantee fee under subpara11 graph (A) with respect to a loan guaran12 teed under this subsection if— 

13 ‘‘(I) the loan is not made under 

14 paragraph (36) or (37); 

15 ‘‘(II) the loan is made to a vet16 eran or spouse of a veteran; and 

17 ‘‘(III) the deferred participation 

18 share of the total loan amount is not 

19 more than $1,000,000. 

20 ‘‘(ii) DEFINITION.—In this subpara21 graph, the term ‘veteran or spouse of a 

22 veteran’ means— 

23 ‘‘(I) a veteran; 

24 ‘‘(II) an individual who is eligible 

25 to participate in the Transition AssistVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:26 Nov 18, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3302.IS S3302

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 3302 IS

1 ance Program established under sec2 tion 1144 of title 10, United States 

3 Code; 

4 ‘‘(III) a member of a reserve 

5 component of the Armed Forces 

6 named in section 10101 of title 10, 

7 United States Code; 

8 ‘‘(IV) the spouse of an individual 

9 described in subclause (I), (II), or 

10 (III); or 

11 ‘‘(V) the surviving spouse (as de12 fined in section 101 of title 38, 

13 United States Code) of an individual 

14 described in subclause (I), (II), or 

15 (III) who died while serving on active 

16 duty or as a result of a disability that 

17 is service-connected (as defined in 

18 such section).’’; and 

19 (2) in paragraph (31)— 

20 (A) by striking subparagraph (G); and 

21 (B) by redesignating subparagraph (H) as 

22 subparagraph (G). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 00-827.

#### Payne *v.*Hinds.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
254 La. 932

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Edward NELSON.

No. 50265.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 1969.

In re: Edward Nelson applying for writ of mandamus.

The application is denied. Relator is not entitled to the relief sought.