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 Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael W. Rogers, 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                      
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/ MICHAEL W. ROGERS
|Chief Financial Officer
|December 14,
2005
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 559 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 559

 Disapproving of Executive Order 13688 (regarding Federal support for 
local law enforcement equipment acquisition) issued by President Obama 
                          on January 16, 2015.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2015

Mr. Trott submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Disapproving of Executive Order 13688 (regarding Federal support for 
local law enforcement equipment acquisition) issued by President Obama 
                          on January 16, 2015.

Whereas the terrorist attack in San Bernardino shows that our local authorities 
        are front and center in the fight against ISIS and other terror 
        networks;
Whereas local law enforcement officials have stated the President's plan to 
        remove these vehicles will ``leave communities at risk'';
Whereas if there is an act of terrorism or if there is an active shooter in a 
        mall or a school, local law enforcement are the first responders;
Whereas the President is making it more challenging for budget-strapped 
        authorities to respond to a potentially deadly attack in their 
        communities; and
Whereas tracked armored vehicles are used in rescue and response situations and 
        are employed in a responsible manner, only coming out when absolutely 
        necessary: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives does not favor 
Executive Order 13688 (regarding Federal support for local law 
enforcement equipment acquisition) issued by President Obama on January 
16, 2015.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.5
  RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
    CERTIFICATION
    OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC
    SERVICE COMPANY
    (required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
    Form 10-K
      Rules 13a-15(e) 15d-15(e)) Rules 13a-15(f) 15d-15(f))
  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
    registrant, 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)
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
    caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
    designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
    regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
    preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
    accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; c)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 d)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
    internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
    the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
    registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
    report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
    materially affect, the registrants internal control over
    financial reporting; and    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
    registrant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
    registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Date:
    February 29, 2008
CERTIFICATION 

**EXHIBIT 99.1**

May 13,2003

Securities and Exchange Commission  450 Fifth Street, N.W  Washington, D.C. 20549 

Ladies and Gentlemen:  The certificationset forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. This certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) accompanying this letter. 

Louis R. Tomasetta, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Eugene F. Hovanec, the Chief Financial Officer of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation, each certifies that: 

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of VitesseSemiconductor Corporation. 

|   |      |                                           |
|--------|-----------|------------------------------------------------|
|   |      | /s/ LOUIS R. TOMASETTA                         |
|   |      |                                                |
|   | **Name:** | **Louis R. Tomasetta Chief Executive Officer** |
|   |      |                                           |
|   |      | /s/ EUGENE F. HOVANEC                          |
|   |      |                                                |
|   | **Name:** | **Eugene F. Hovanec  Chief Financial Officer** |
Exhibit 10.1




  



SIXTH AMENDMENT


TO THE


BIOSIG TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2012 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN









This SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE BIOSIG TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2012 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN (this “Amendment”), effective as of July 30, 2018, is made and entered into by BioSig Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). Terms used in this Amendment with initial capital letters that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the BioSig Technologies, Inc. 2012 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).







RECITALS







WHEREAS, Section 18 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may amend the Plan at any time; and







WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of Common Stock that may be delivered pursuant to Awards under the Plan by an additional 3,500,000 shares.







NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 18 of the Plan, the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows:







1.          Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting said section in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following new Section 3(a):







(a) Stock Subject to the Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section 13 of the Plan, the maximum aggregate number of Shares that may be subject to Awards and sold under the Plan is 18,686,123 Shares, plus (i) any Shares that, as of the date of stockholder approval of this Plan, have been reserved but not issued pursuant to any awards granted under the BioSig Technologies, Inc. 2011 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2011 Plan”) and are not subject to any awards granted thereunder, and (ii) any Shares subject to stock options or similar awards granted under the 2011 Plan that expire or otherwise terminate without having been exercised in full and Shares issued pursuant to awards granted under the 2011 Plan that are forfeited to or repurchased by the Company, with the maximum number of Shares to be added to the Plan pursuant to clauses (i) and (ii) equal to 1,500,000 Shares. The Shares may be authorized but unissued, or reacquired Common Stock.







2.          Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with the provisions thereof.








[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank;


Signature Page Follows.]










































IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first written above.

































BIOSIG TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

























By:                /s/ Kenneth L. Londoner 


Name:          Kenneth L. Londoner


Title:            Chairman of the Board of Directors
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,373
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             691
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     47,376
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          20,136
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            19,920
<LOANS>                                        388,222
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 488,346
<DEPOSITS>                                     345,569
<SHORT-TERM>                                    23,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,427
<LONG-TERM>                                     30,160
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 488,346
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,582
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,175
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,757
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,493
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,330
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,427
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      200
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (59)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,476
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,676
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,676
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.89
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,546
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,926
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      152
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,975
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,975
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANIEL RAYMOND NEVARRE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 213 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# C_2019054EN.01001301.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 7 December 2018 — Caisse d’assurance retraite et de la santé au travail d’Alsace-Moselle v SJ, Ministre chargé de la Sécurité sociale

(Case C-769/18)

(2019/C 54/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caisse d’assurance retraite et de la santé au travail d’Alsace-Moselle

Defendants: SJ, Ministre chargé de la Sécurité sociale

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the social assistance for help with the expenditure associated with a disability provided for by Paragraph 35a of the Eighth Book of the Sozialgesetzbuch (German Social Code) fall within the material scope of Regulation No 883/2004? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the social assistance for help with the expenditure associated with a disability provided for by Paragraph 35a of the Eighth Book of the Sozialgesetzbuch (German Social Code) fall within the material scope of Regulation No 883/2004? (1)

| 2. | If it does, are the payment of the child-rearing allowance for a disabled child and the supplement thereto, or, in its place, the disability compensation allowance, on the one hand, and the social assistance for the integration of children and young people with mental disabilities, provided for in Paragraph 35a of the Eighth Book of the Sozialgesetzbuch (German Social Code), on the other hand, of an equivalent nature within the meaning of Article 5(a) of Regulation No 883/2004, having regard to the purpose of Article L. 351-4-1 of the French Social Security Code aimed at the taking into account of the costs inherent in raising a child with a disability for the purposes of the determination of the insurance period providing entitlement to a retirement pension? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If it does, are the payment of the child-rearing allowance for a disabled child and the supplement thereto, or, in its place, the disability compensation allowance, on the one hand, and the social assistance for the integration of children and young people with mental disabilities, provided for in Paragraph 35a of the Eighth Book of the Sozialgesetzbuch (German Social Code), on the other hand, of an equivalent nature within the meaning of Article 5(a) of Regulation No 883/2004, having regard to the purpose of Article L. 351-4-1 of the French Social Security Code aimed at the taking into account of the costs inherent in raising a child with a disability for the purposes of the determination of the insurance period providing entitlement to a retirement pension?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

---
18588

#### State v. Mara

Affirmed
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00178-CV

Kenneth Russell and Teresa Russell

v.

State of Texas and Tarrant County, 

Texas

§

§

§

§

From County Court at Law No. 2

of Tarrant County (2013-001970-2)

April 16, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gardner

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the trial court’s 

order denying Kenneth Russell and Teresa Russell’s application for temporary 

injunction is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellants Kenneth Russell and Teresa Russell 

shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Anne Gardner_________________

 Justice Anne Gardner
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      12,213,000                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               31,873,000                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                 13,515,000                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            59,056,000                       0
<PP&E>                                      39,602,000                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                            (18,267,000)                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             213,797,000                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       29,938,000                       0
<BONDS>                                     20,190,000                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        11,000                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 132,009,000                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               213,797,000                       0
<SALES>                                     75,400,000             143,958,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            75,400,000             143,958,000
<CGS>                                       56,375,000             108,466,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               56,375,000             108,466,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,086,000              28,591,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             537,000               1,064,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,624,000               6,233,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,127,000               2,867,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,497,000               3,366,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,497,000               3,366,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22                    0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22                    0.30
        

</TABLE>
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Fruit and Vegetable Name Validation

List

Last Modified: 

Print

PPQ has generated the following list of fresh fruit and vegetable genus, species,

subspecies and variety names (PG05) along with corresponding common names

(PG17). This list does not represent commodities that may or may not be admissible,

but provides the acceptable spellings for the categories listed and provides the

corresponding Integrated Taxonomic Information Systems (IT IS) Taxonomic Serial

Number (TSN).

This list is not all encompassing; if the genus, species, subspecies or variety does

not appear on this list, use the format that appears on the associated phytosanitary

certificate, and commercial invoice. PPQ will update the list as necessary and

provide the date of the most recent update. All shipments are subject to review and

inspection.

*Note that in the PG05 record identifier APHIS only collects one element beyond

species known as “Scientific Sub Species Name.” This space can be used to report a

subspecies or variety as necessary when reported on a permit or phytosanitary

certificate.

Loading...
# C_2019295EN.01002501.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Alfamicro v Commission

(Case T-64/18) (1)

(Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme - Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Enforcement decision - Recovery of a debt arising out of a grant agreement - Article 299 TFEU - Regulation (EU, Euratom) no 966/2012 - Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012 - Extrapolation of the audit findings - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 295/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. (Cascais, Portugal) (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 8839 final of 13 December 2017 concerning the recovery of a debt from the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

---
19761

#### State v. Hluboky

Affirmed
# C_2019004EN.01001601.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Haskovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 October 2018 — SZ v Мitnitsa Burgas

(Case C-652/18)

(2019/C 4/21)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Аdministrativen sad Haskovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SZ

Respondent: Мitnitsa Burgas

Question referred

Are Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community and Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law such as Article 20(1) of the Valuten Zakon (Law on Currency) which, in the case of a failure to comply with the obligation to declare under Article 3 of the Regulation, in addition to the imposition of a fine pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Law on Currency of BGN 1 000 to BGN 3 000, cumulatively provides for the full confiscation of the undeclared cash regardless of its provenance and intended use?

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 309, p. 9.

---
28635

#### State v. Smith

Affirmed
April 11, 2001

22924

#### State v. Lawrence

Affirmed