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 Joshua Gold Resources Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dino Micacchi, hereby 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 as of the date and for the periods expressed in the Report.  /s/ Dino MicacchiDino MicacchiChief Financial OfficerApril 15, 2013
    The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.   1
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John Morris FINKS, Appellee.

No. 72-1216.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 12, 1973.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Orange County.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Louisiana Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEXANDRIA LAND AND LUMBER COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 4427.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Sept. 28, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 2, 1973.

*154Crowell, Owens & Tudor, by Richard L. Crowell, Alexandria, and Madison, Files, Garrett, Brandon & Hamaker, by Merwin M. Brandon, Jr., Bastrop, for defendants-appellants.

D. Ross Banister, Chester E. Martin, Jesse S. Moore, Jr., La. Dept, of Highways, Baton Rouge, and Edward Kaplan, Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before SAVOY, CULPEPPER, and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellee, Department of Highways, moved to dismiss the devolutive appeal of defendants-appellants, Alexandria Land and Lumber Company, Inc. and International Paper Company, contending that the trial court judgment is a non-appeal-able interlocutory judgment. .LSA-C.C.P. 2083. We dismiss the appeal.

Defendant International Paper Company leases from defendant Alexandria Land and Lumber Company, Inc. a tract of land, part of which plaintiff Department of Highways is seeking to expropriate under Louisiana’s “quick taking” statute LSA-R.S. 48:441 et seq.

In the trial court defendants filed motions to dismiss and other exceptions to the Order of Expropriation, all of which, insofar as is here pertinent, are based on the Highway Department’s alleged improper procedure in filing a single appraisal and making a single deposit rather than making separate appraisals and deposits for lessee and lessor.

The trial court signed a judgment dismissing defendants’ motions and exceptions from which judgment they perfected this devolutive appeal.

An appeal may be taken only from a final judgment or an interlocutory judgment which may cause irreparable injury. LSA-C.C.P. art. 2083.

A judgment which neither disposes of issues applicable to the merits nor finally affects the merits nor deprives defendant of benefits to which he may be entitled at final hearing is a non-appealable interlocutory judgment. Waters v. Waters, 264 So.2d 275 (La.App. 4 Cir., 1972); LSA-C.C.P. arts., 1841 and 2083.

The trial court’s judgment disposes of no issues on the merits. The petition *155for the devolutive appeal does not allege irreparable injury, and we see none.

The appeal is dismissed at appellants’ costs.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62112-62113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30557]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service


Modification of National Customs Automation Program Test 
Regarding Reconciliation

AGENCY: Customs Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of additional comment period.

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

SUMMARY: A notice published in the Federal Register on September 30, 
1997, announced changes to Customs prototype test of Reconciliation. 
Public comments were requested by November 14, 1997. This document sets 
an additional comment period for submitting comments on that notice.

DATES: Written comments regarding the notice of September 30 , 1997, 
are now being accepted through December 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Ms. Shari McCann, 
Reconciliation Team, U.S. Customs Service, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW, Mailstop 5.2A, Washington, D.C. 20229-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Shari McCann at (202) 927-1106 or 
Mr. Don Luther at (202) 927-0915.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A document published in the Federal Register (62 FR 51181) on 
September 30, 1997, notified the trade community of changes to the 
prototype National Customs Automation Program test of reconciliation, 
set forth the policy which makes the NCAP prototype the exclusive means 
to reconcile entries pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1484(b) and announced that 
the prototype will henceforth be referred to as the Automated 
Commercial System (ACS) Reconciliation Prototype. That notice invited 
public comments concerning any aspect of the planned test, informed 
interested members of the public of the requirements for voluntary 
participation, and established the process for developing evaluation 
criteria.
    Public comments were requested by November 14, 1997. Due to a 
public meeting (see notice published in the Federal Register (62 FR 
58769) published on October 30, 1997) which included discussions of the 
Prototype, an additional comment period is being granted to allow 
persons to comment with these discussions in mind. Comments are now 
being requested by December 15, 1997.


[[Page 62113]]


    Dated: November 17, 1997.
John Durant,
Director, Mod Act Task Force.
[FR Doc. 97-30557 Filed 11-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.A

                           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-Q/A for the period
ending March 31, 2003, of El Paso CGP Company (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
L. Kuehn, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, certify (i)
that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                               /s/ RONALD L. KUEHN, JR.
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                   Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr.
                                                Chairman of the Board and
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                              (Principal Executive Officer)

                                          June 25, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to El Paso CGP Company and will be retained by El Paso CGP Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INTERNATIONAL INC.
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14 OF
 THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I,   Isa Odidi, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Intellipharmaceutics International  Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:
 
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and;
 
 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the  annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: May 31, 2010
 
 By:
/s/ Isa OdidiIsa Odidi

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
----

----

| DIRECTOR_________________________________[Director’s Name]Grant Date:                                _____________________RSU Shares:                                _____________________ | COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATIONBy__________________________________    Michael W. Laphen    Chairman, President andChief Executive Officer  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30879]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


Deposting of Stockyards

    Notice is hereby given, that the livestock markets named herein, 
originally posted on the dates specified below as being subject to the 
Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), no 
longer come within the definition of a stockyard under the Act and are 
therefore, no longer subject to the provisions of the Act.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Facility No., name, and location of                                   
               stockyard                         Date of posting        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS-115, Concordia Livestock Auction,     May 7, 1952.                   
 Concordia, Kansas.                                                     
MD-119, Kolb's Sale Barn, Woodsboro,     June 3, 1996.                  
 Maryland.                                                              
NC-138, Wells Livestock Market, Inc.,    July 10, 1959.                 
 Wallace, North Carolina.                                               
NC-150, Jefferson Stockyard & Grill,     Nov. 22, 1978.                 
 Inc., Jefferson, North Carolina.                                       
TX-162, El Paso Livestock Auction Co.,   Nov. 15, 1967.                 
 Inc., El Paso, Texas.                                                  
VA-110, Southside Livestock Markets,     Mar. 20, 1961.                 
 Inc., Farmville, Virginia.                                             
WA-121, Sunnyside Livestock Market,      Oct. 5, 1959.                  
 Inc., Sunnyside, Washington.                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is in the nature of a change relieving a restriction 
and, thus, may be made effective in less than 30 days after publication 
in the Federal Register without prior notice or other public procedure. 
This notice is given pursuant to section 302 of the Packers and 
Stockyards Act ( 7 U.S.C. 202) and is effective upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Done at Washington, DC this 14th day of November 1997.
Daniel L. Van Ackeren,
Director, Livestock Marketing Division Packers and Stockyards Programs.
[FR Doc. 97-30879 Filed 11-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3210-KD-P
ORIGINAL 

3Jn tbe Wniteb ~tates ~ourt of jf eberal ~laims 

No. 17-173C 

(Filed October 18, 2017) 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

************************ 

* 

* 

RONALD FRANCIS CROTEAU, * 

* 

Plaintiff, * 

V. * 

* 

THE UNITED STATES, * 

* 

Defendant. * 

* 

************************ 

ORDER 

FILED 

OCT 1 8 2017 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

On October 2, 2017, the Clerk's office received a document submitted by Mr. 

Croteau, styled "MOTION TO REDUCE TO JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS." This 

document was filed, notwithstanding that Mr. Croteau's case was dismissed for lack 

of subject-matter jurisdiction in an opinion issued September 22, 2017, and that this 

case was accordingly closed on September 25, 2017. 

On the off-chance that Mr. Croteau's document could be considered a motion 

for relief from judgment under Rule 60 of the Rules of the United States Com·t of 

Federal Claims (RCFC), the government has responded to the paper, arguing that 

the Court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction 

pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(l). But Mr. Croteau's paper does not mention t he opinion 

dismissing his case, and instead merely repeats the arguments made in his previous 

filings. It is likely that this document was created and mailed before Mr. Croteau 

was aware of the September 22 opinion, as he signed and mailed the document on 

the same date (September 25, 2017) that the opinion was delivered to his prison. 

The document, thus, appears to be a motion for summary judgment under RCFC 56, 

which is DENIED as moot. 

In the alternative, were the paper to be construed as a motion for 

reconsideration under RCFC 59, or for relief from judgment under RCFC 60, it is 

nevertheless DENIED for lack of a proper ground for such relief. See RCFC 

59(a)(l), 60(b). Merely reiterating previously rejected legal arguments is not 
sufficient under these rules. See Res Rei Dev., Inc. v. United States, No. 15-1256C, 

2017 WL 280890, at *1 (Fed. Cl. January 23, 2017); Delpin Aponte v. United States, 

No. 05-1043C, 2014 WL 3725933, at *1 (Fed. Cl. July 23, 2014). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

- 2 -
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1981 

To require the Comptroller General to submit a report on the transfer 

of student debt functions from the Department of Education to the 

Department of the Treasury, including costs of such a transfer and 

the mitigation of the duplication of duties by Federal agencies, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2021 

Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To require the Comptroller General to submit a report on 

the transfer of student debt functions from the Department of Education to the Department of the Treasury, 

including costs of such a transfer and the mitigation 

of the duplication of duties by Federal agencies, and 

for other purposes. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1981 IH

1 SECTION 1. REPORT BY GAO ON TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS 

2 OF THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL STUDENT AID 

3 TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY. 

4 (a) STUDY.—The Comptroller General of the United 

5 States shall conduct a study on the impact of transferring 

6 the functions, in whole or in part, of the Office of Federal 

7 Student Aid from the Department of Education to the De8 partment of the Treasury, which shall include— 

9 (1) the potential impact of such transfer on the 

10 Federal Government, including— 

11 (A) any change in cost of administering 

12 the program; and 

13 (B) the duplication of duties by Federal 

14 agencies; 

15 (2) an analysis of how the responsibilities and 

16 operations of the Office of Federal Student Aid of 

17 the Department of Education overlaps with relevant 

18 responsibilities and operations at the Department of 

19 Treasury; 

20 (3) an analysis of whether the employees of the 

21 Department of Treasury possess the necessary ex22 pertise and experience to manage and oversee the 

23 functions of the Office of Federal Student Aid of the 

24 Department of Education; and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1981 IH

1 (4) the potential impact of such transfer on ad2 ministrative costs and staff necessary for carrying 

3 out such functions. 

4 (b) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the study under 

5 subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United 

6 States shall consult with stakeholders, including institu7 tions of higher education, financial aid administrators, 

8 and existing entities that contract with the Office of Fed9 eral Student Aid of the Department of Education, that 

10 may be impacted by the transfer studied under such sub11 section. 

12 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date 

13 of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of 

14 the United States shall complete the study under sub15 section (a) and submit a report to the House Committee 

16 on Education and the Workforce and the Senate Com17 mittee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions that 

18 includes the results of such study. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1888 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require a Federal medical 

assistance percentage of 100 percent for Indian health care providers, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2021 

Mr. RUIZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require 

a Federal medical assistance percentage of 100 percent 

for Indian health care providers, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Improving Access to 

5 Indian Health Services Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1888 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF FULL FEDERAL MEDICAL ASSIST2 ANCE PERCENTAGE TO INDIAN HEALTH 

3 CARE PROVIDERS. 

4 Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 1396d) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a), by amending paragraph 

7 (9) to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(9) clinic services furnished by or under the 

9 direction of a physician, without regard to whether 

10 the clinic itself is administered by a physician, in11 cluding— 

12 ‘‘(A) such services furnished outside the 

13 clinic by clinic personnel to an eligible indi14 vidual who does not reside in a permanent 

15 dwelling or does not have a fixed home or mail16 ing address; and 

17 ‘‘(B) such services furnished outside the 

18 clinic by any Indian Health Service facility, a 

19 health program or facility operated by a tribe or 

20 tribal organization under the Indian Self-Deter21 mination Act (Public Law 93–638), or an 

22 urban Indian organization receiving funds 

23 under title V of the Indian Health Care Im24 provement Act;’’; and 

25 (2) in subsection (b), by inserting after ‘‘Papa 

26 Ola Lokahi under section 8 of such Act’’ the folVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:35 May 14, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1888.IH H1888

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1888 IH

1 lowing: ‘‘; the Federal medical assistance percentage 

2 shall also be 100 per centum with respect to 

3 amounts expended as medical assistance for services 

4 which are received by an Indian Health Service facil5 ity, a health program or facility operated by a tribe 

6 or tribal organization under the Indian Self-Deter7 mination Act (Public Law 93–638), or an urban In8 dian organization receiving funds under title V of 

9 the Indian Health Care Improvement Act’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.28
Non-Employee Director Compensation
The following is a summary of the retainers and meeting fees payable to non-employee directors effective July 1, 2017:
	
		
	Retainers
	 

	Annual Board Retainer
	$65,000

	Annual Retainers (in addition to Annual Board Retainer):
	 

	Independent Chairman of the Board
	$75,000

	Audit Committee Chair
	$25,000

	Compensation and Management Development Committee Chair
	$20,000

	Corporate Governance Committee Chair
	$15,000

	Finance Committee Chair
	$15,000

	Risk Committee Chair
	$15,000

	Science and Technology Committee Chair
	$15,000

	Audit Committee Member (other than Chair)
	$5,000

	Meeting Fees
	 

	Board of Directors Meetings (per meeting day):
	 

	In-person attendance
	$2,500

	Telephonic attendance
	$1,500

	Committee Meetings (per meeting attended in person or telephonically)
	$1,500

	Attendance at Annual Science and Technology Committee Portfolio Review (per day)
	$1,500

	Special service fee (for each full day of service other than in connection with Board or Committee meetings)
	$1,000