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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL MANAGER
  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350),
the undersigned, Francine M. Tomlinson, Principal Financial Manager of Nutrition
Management  Services Company, a Pennsylvania  corporation (the "Company"),  does
hereby certify, to her knowledge, that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  September 30, 2005 of
the Company (the "Report")  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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                             /s/ Francine M. Tomlinson
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Francine M. Tomlinson
                                             Principal Financial Manager

November 14, 2005
```
EXHIBIT 15

                         ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                  REGARDING INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REVIEW REPORT



The Board of Directors
LaserSight Incorporated:

With respect to the registration statements on Form S-8 (nos. 33-96390,
33-52170, 333-16817, 333-16823, 333-62587, 333-62591, 333-84073, 333-84075,
333-42662 and 333-75216) and on Form S-3 (nos. 333-2198, 333-25237, 333-36655,
333-36837, 333-59369, 333-68495, 333-77825, 333-35822, 333-46470, 333-62634,
333-67616, and 333-101364) of LaserSight Incorporated, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated May 6, 2003 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


/s/KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
May 15, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended June 30, 1999 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                               <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                             23,907,876
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                       1,254,121
<ALLOWANCES>                           58,316
<INVENTORY>                         1,317,758
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   26,450,539
<PP&E>                              1,766,246
<DEPRECIATION>                      1,083,010
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     31,135,082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               3,567,445
<BONDS>                               484,386
<COMMON>                              177,023
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                         26,906,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       31,135,082
<SALES>                             3,309,419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    3,309,419
<CGS>                                 953,716
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       1,479,777
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      389,693
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     1,829,642
<INCOME-TAX>                          651,270
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 1,178,372
<DISCONTINUED>                      3,595,671
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                        4,774,043
<EPS-BASIC>                            0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.27



</TABLE>
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 939 

To require the Secretary of Education to use the excess revenue generated 

from the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program to carry out 

the Federal Pell Grant Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2015 

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

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Education to use the excess 

revenue generated from the William D. Ford Federal 

Direct Loan Program to carry out the Federal Pell 

Grant Program. 

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 ‘‘Pell Grant Funding 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPLYING EXCESS REVENUE TO FEDERAL PELL 

7 GRANTS. 

8 The Secretary of Education shall— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 939 IH

1 (1) as soon as practicable after the end of a fis2 cal year, determine whether during such fiscal year 

3 the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program 

4 under part D of title IV of the Higher Education 

5 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq.) generated 

6 any revenue in excess of the amount that was nec7 essary to cover the costs of carrying out such Pro8 gram for such fiscal year; and 

9 (2) if such excess revenue was generated, use 

10 such excess revenue to carry out the Federal Pell 

11 Grant Program under subpart 1 of part A of title 

12 IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

13 1070a) for the succeeding fiscal year. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6581

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SEAN ROBERT ADDISON, a/k/a Bounce,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CR-99-659-DWS; CA-02-1327-22-3)

Submitted: August 27, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Robert Addison, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sean Robert Addison seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Addison has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply543Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Connie Miller ... (not verified)PermalinkDecember 23, 2016 - 12:42amI was in Washington DC for the first time this past Sept. 2016. I'm looking forward to a return visit in 2017. I love the place, you have very kind people and a ton of rich history!  I want to visit the haunted halls!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
***

Rule 1.19 Lawyers Acting as Lobbyists

(a) A lawyer acting as lobbyist, as defined in any statute, resolution passed or adopted by either house of the Legislature, regulation promulgated by the Executive Branch or any agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or
ordinance enacted by a local gover nment unit, shall comply with all regulation, disclosure, or other requirements of such statute, resolution, regulation or

ordinance which are consistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct.

(b) Any disclosure of information relating to representation of a client

made by the lawyer

- lobbyist in order to comply with such statute, resolution, regulation or ordinance is a disclosure explicitly authorized to carry out the representation and does not violate Rule 1.6.

(c) A lawyer whose service as a public officer o r public employee of a governmental body concludes on or after June 1, 2023, shall not act as a lobbyist, as defined in any statute, resolution passed or adopted by either house of the Legislature, regulation promulgated by the Executive Branch or any agen cy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or ordinance enacted by a local government unit

, on any matter before the governmental body with which the lawyer had been associated for one year after termination of the lawyer’s service as a public officer or publi c employee.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: REESTABLISHMENT OF THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS WI THIN THE 10 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA **: :**  **: :**  NO. 356 MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET

**AMENDED ORDER PER CURIA** **M AN**  **D NOW,**  this 11 th day of July , 2017, the Orders dated May 9, 2013 and July 3, 2013 which provide for the elimination of Magisterial District 10 -2 -08 of the 10 th Judicial District (W estmoreland County) of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania effective January 1, 2018, and the realignm ent of Magisterial Districts 10 -2 - 01, 10 - 3 -08, 10 -3 -09, and 10 -3 - 11 effective January 1, 2018 are hereby AMENDED as follows: Magisterial District 10 -2 -08 shall not be eliminated and Magisterial Districts 10 -2 - 01, 10 -3 -08, 10 -3 - 09, and 10 -3 - 11 shall not be realigned. The Orders of May 9, 2013 and July 3, 2013 shall remain in effect in all other respects. The Magisterial Districts shall be as follows: Magisterial District 10 -2 - 01 Magisterial District Judge L. Anthony Bompiani South Greensburg Borough Southwest Greensburg Borough Youngwood Borough Hempfield Township (Voting Districts Bovard, Eastview, Foxhill, Hannastown, Luxor, Maplewood, Todd, University, W eaver's Old Stand, West Point) Magisterial District 10 -2 - 08 Magisterial District Judge Michael R. Mahady Latrobe Borough Youngstown Borough Unity TownshipMagisterial District 10 - 3 - 08

Magisterial District Judge Mark Bilik Derry Borough New Alexandria Borough Derry Township Magisterial District 10 - 3 - 09 Magisterial District Judge Denise Snyder Thiel Bolivar Borough Laurel Mountain Borough Ligonier Borough New Florence Borough Seward Borough Cook Township Fairfield Township Ligonier Township St. Clair Township Donegal Borough Donegal Township Magisterial District 10 - 3 - 11 Magisterial District Judge Roger Eckels Mt Pleasant Township Mt Pleasant Borough
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                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 AmeriVision Communications, Inc. (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Loni Woodley, 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, 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.


Date:  August 16, 2002                    By:         /s/ LONI WOODLEY
                                              --------------------------------
                                                    Loni Woodley, Treasurer
                                                 and Chief Financial Officer
                                                (Principal Financial Officer)
#### The STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, Inc., Defendant, Appellee.

No. 6173.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

Dec. 3, 1963.

Alexander J. Kalinski, Asst. Atty. Gen, with whom William Maynard, Atty. Gen, and William J. O’Neil, Asst. Atty. Gen, were on brief, for appellant.

Charles F. Sheridan, Jr, Concord, N. H, with whom Sulloway, Hollis, Godfrey & Soden, Concord, N. H, were on brief, for appellee.

Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment will be entered affirming the order of the District Court on Judge Connor’s rescript, 222 F.Supp. 915.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 83200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26104]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12270]


Designation of Akram al-Ajouri as a Specially Designated Global 
Terrorist

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 
1(a)(ii)(B) of Executive Order 13224, as amended (``E.O. 13224'' or 
``Order''), I hereby determine that the person known as Akram al-Ajouri 
(also known as Akram al-`Ajuri, Akram Muhammad Salih al-Ajuri, Abu 
Muhammad al-`Ajuri, and `Abd al-Karim Ahmad Hasan) is a leader of the 
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, an entity whose property and interests in 
property are currently blocked pursuant to a determination by the 
Secretary of State pursuant to E.O. 13224.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of E.O. 13224 that 
prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might 
have a constitutional presence in the United States would render 
ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order 
because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine 
that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this 
determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United 
States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures 
authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: November 6, 2023.
Antony J. Blinken,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2023-26104 Filed 11-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
#### Frederick Hamilton WISHON, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, and/or Richard Crisp, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondents.

No. H-77-205.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 6, 1977.

ORDER MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE

The petitioner, Frederick Hamilton Wishon, was convicted in the Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CRF-74-912, of the offense of Murder in the First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1973, § 701.1, and was sentenced to death. An appeal was taken to this Court and the judgment and sentence was affirmed. *Wishon v. State,*Okl.Cr., 550 P.2d 575 (1976). Petition for rehearing was denied on June 10, 1976, and this Court ordered the petitioner to be executed on September 8, 1976. On July 6, 1976, the United States Supreme Court vacated the death sentence imposed in six Oklahoma cases. Upon remand of these cases, the sentences were modified to life imprisonment in accordance with *Woodson et al. v. North Carolina,*428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976); *Roberts v. Louisiana,*428 U.S. 325, 96 S.Ct. 3001, 49 L.Ed.2d 974 (1976); and, *Riggs v. Branch,*Okl.Cr., 554 P.2d 823 (1976). A stay of execution was then entered in this case *932(0-75-54). The petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that he is presently incarcerated under a conviction and sentence sustained upon an unconstitutional statute.

This Court finds that the judgment and sentence in Case No. CRF-74-912 should be modified to be consistent with *Riggs v. Branch,*supra.

Now, therefore, it is the order of this Court that the judgment and sentence rendered in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-74-912 be, and the same hereby is *MODIFIED*from the sentence of death to a sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor. The Clerk of this Court is directed to notify the respective parties.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, P. J.

C. F. BLISS, Jr., J.

TOM BRETT, J.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3014

_____________________________
D ONALD O STERBYE , Former Husband
, Appellant,

v.

K

AREN C ROSS f/k/a K AREN O STERBYE , Former Wife
, Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Dawn Caloca

- Johnson , Judge

. October 31, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OBERTS , W ETHERELL , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 William E. Whitlock III of William E. Whitlock III, P LLC, Tallahassee, for Appellan t

. Linda A. Bailey, Rachel H. Borntreger
, and Hunter J. Hendrix of Law Office of Linda Bailey, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Sir Walter Raleigh Relief Sculpture

One of four wreathed panels featuring framed portrait busts of early explorers.
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Francisco Iardella

Materials
    Sandstone

Year
    1824

Dimensions
    Above the "Surrender of Lord Cornwallis" Painting

Location
      
Capitol Rotunda

Above four of the large Rotunda paintings in the U.S. Capitol are decorative panels of wreaths and portraits of early explorers carved in relief into the sandstone walls. The three sculptors who decorated the Rotunda were employed during the rebuilding of the Capitol after the fire of 1814.

Between the decorative panels of wreaths and portraits, historic scenes, also in relief, circle the Rotunda walls. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
# C_2016203EN.01001601.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/16

---

Article 25

1.   A Member State notifying the existence or communicating the contents of an application for a patent or utility model relating to a subject specified in Article 16(1) or (2) shall, where appropriate, draw attention to the need to apply a given security grading for defence reasons, at the same time stating the probable duration of such grading.

The Commission shall pass on to the other Member States all communications received in accordance with the preceding subparagraph. The Commission and the Member States shall take those measures which, under the security regulations, correspond to the grading required by the State of origin.

2.   The Commission may also pass on these communications to Joint Undertakings or, through a Member State, to a person or to an undertaking other than a Joint Undertaking operating in the territory of that State.

Inventions which are the subject of applications referred to in paragraph 1 may be used only with the consent of the applicant or in accordance with Articles 17 to 23.

The communications and, where appropriate, the use referred to in this paragraph shall be subject to the measures which, under the security regulations, correspond to the security grading required by the State of origin.

The communications shall in all cases be subject to the consent of the State of origin. Consent to communication and use may be withheld only for defence reasons.

3.   At the request of the Commission or of a Member State, the Council may, acting unanimously, at any time apply another grading or declassify the information. The Council shall obtain the opinion of the Commission before taking any action on a request from a Member State.

---