alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.0

                      DIRECT INSITE CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                 CERTIFICATIONS



            Certificate Pursuant to
             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
             as Adopted Pursuant to
             Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Direct Insite Corp.,  (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB for the  quarter  ending  September  30,  2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, James
A. Cannavino,  Chief Executive Officer,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: November 19, 2004



                                    /s/ James A. Cannavino
                                    ----------------------
                                    James A. Cannavino, Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>

                      DIRECT INSITE CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

           Certificate Pursuant to
            18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
            as Adopted Pursuant to
            Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Direct Insite Corp.,  (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB for the  quarter  ending  September  30,  2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
J. Beecher,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: November 19, 2004


                                /s/ Michael J. Beecher
                                ----------------------
                                Michael J. Beecher, Chief Financial Officer
p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1802
Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 82 ) IV-E-7 6

Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200811:58:00 AM

Sheet 82 of 117P. 2

A-9 0 IV-E-7 6

DAT E AN D TIME : Octobe r 2 ; 2:3 0 p.m
. t o 3:1 5 p.m
. Jef f Holmstead , OARmet

wit h Lesli e Ritts , Hogan & Hartson , NEDA/CAR P andfollowin g folks : Michae l Palazzolo , ALCO A Ro y Carwile , ALCO A Jerr y Fulmer , ALCO A Matthe w Frank , Boein g Debb y Rowe , DaimlerChrysle r Barbar aBankoff

, El i Lill y , ^rwv ) Berni e Paul , El

i Lill y Te dSteichen , ExxonMobi l Robert Morehouse , ExxonMobi l Matthe w Tanzer , General Electri c (b y phone ) Do n Clay , Koc h Industrie s Willia mA

. Collins , Occidental Petroleu m Davi dEmery , Phillip s Petroleu m Willia mBurkhart , Procte r & Gambl e Ma x in e Dewbury , Procte r & Gambl e Shanno n Broome , NEDA/CAR P consultan t (b y phone )

DISCUSSION : Title V Operatin g Permits , preconstructio n revie w delays an dthe complexit y o i applicabilit y determinations , complianc e monitorin g an dcomplianc e certification s an dth e 1 12(J) MAC T Hamme r

deadlines

. Also , abou t

th e nee dfo

r simplificati n an drefor

mo f NSR

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Principal Plus Fund L.P. and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       6,014,023
<SECURITIES>                                40,367,536
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,768,631<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,768,631<F2>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (1,332,776)<F3>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,589,673
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,799,938)<F4>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,799,938)<F4>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,799,938)<F4>
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash, securities and receivables, total assets include
net unrealized gain on open contracts of $380,736.
<F2>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $1,341,552, accrued
brokerage fee of $155,551, accrued administrative expenses of
$121,844, and accrued management fees of $38,888.
<F3>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $(190,005), net
change in unrealized of $(819,971), interest income of $2,648,334 and
change in valuation of Yield Pool of $(2,971,134).
<F4>Income-Pretax, Income Continuing and Net Income includes minority
interest in loss of $122,511.
</FN>


</TABLE>
March 18, 1998

19894

#### Sullivan v. Aloha Lumber Co., Inc.

Affirmed
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of XATA Corporation;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 small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuer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)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small
business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.
 December 22, 2005Signature:
    
    /s/ Craig S. FawcettName:
    
    Craig S. FawcettPrint Title:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

 Room 2530-S, STOP 0225

 Washington, D.C. 20250-0225

July 24, 2023

Mr. Erick Metzger

General Manager

National All-Jersey, Inc.

6486 East Main Street

Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068

Dear Mr. Metzger:

This letter is in reply to National All-Jersey’s (NAJ) proposals submitted in response to a 

Request for Additional Proposals relating to the pricing provisions of the Federal milk marketing 

order (FMMO) program. USDA received NAJ’s three proposals on June 14, 2023, and

subsequent modifications on June 20, 2023.

A Hearing Notice has been published in the Federal Register announcing a hearing will convene 

at 9:00 a.m. ET on Wednesday, August 23, 2023, at 502 East Event Centre in Carmel Indiana. 

Testimony and evidence will be taken on NAJ’s Proposal 1 seeking to update milk composition 

factors on a continuing annual basis. We encourage NAJ to participate in the hearing to provide 

evidence regarding why your proposal should be adopted. Please refer to the Hearing website

(www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/dairy/hearings/national-fmmo-pricing-hearing) for 

full information on how to participate. 

The Secretary has determined the hearing will be limited in scope to amendments directly 

impacting the uniform pricing formulas of all FMMOs. USDA received several proposals that 

did not relate directly to the uniform FMMO pricing formulas and are beyond the scope of the 

upcoming rulemaking. Not including the proposals in this rulemaking proceeding does not 

prevent NAJ from offering the proposals for consideration in a separate rulemaking proceeding. 

Requirements for submitting a proposal are outlined in 7 CFR 900.22 and are outlined at 

www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/DairyMarketingOrderAmendmentBrochure.pdf. 

Regarding proposals submitted by NAJ specifically, the following will not be heard:

Proposal 2

Proposal 2 seeks to amend the four FMMOs that currently use skim and butterfat pricing to use 

multiple component pricing (protein, other solids and butterfat) to price Classes II, III, and IV 

milk. This proposal seeks a regiona, not national pricing change. As this change does not seek to 

amend the uniform FMMO pricing formulas, the proposal does not fall within the scope of this 

hearing and will not be heard at this time.
Mr. Erick Metzger Page 2

Proposal 3

Proposal 3 seeks to value Class I milk on actual pounds of protein, other solids, and nonfat solids 

pooled. As some regions price manufacturing milk on a skim and butterfat basis, not on a 

component basis, this proposal is premature for consideration. Therefore, this proposal it not 

being heard at this time.

Thank you for your interest in the FMMO program. We look forward to your participation in the 

hearing process.

Sincerely,

/s/

Dana H. Coale

Deputy Administrator

USDA-AMS-Dairy Program
#### W. B. Welch, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed January 15, 1915.

1. Under the Title “An Act to Provide Punishment for the Desertion of Wife or Child,” the Legislature may punish the withholding of means of support from such dependants.

2. The word “desertion” has a broader meaning than mere physical separation.

Writ of Error to Circuit Court for Alachua County; James T. Wills, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

*Fred GuVberly*and *W. L. Hill,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*T. F. West,*Attorney General, and *G. O. Andrews,*Assistant, for the State.

Cockrell, J.

This is a writ of error to a judgment remanding to custody the plaintiff in error, who upon *habeas corpus*sought to test the constitutionality of the statute covering the offense of which he was charged.

The sole point presented is whether the title to the Act, Chapter 6183, Laws of 1913, being “An Act to Provide Punishment for the Desertion of Wife and Child or Children, or Wife when there is no Child, and for the Desertion of Child or Children” be not too restrictive to embrace within its scope a provision in the body of the act punishing the withholding of means of support from these dependents.

*22This contention attaches too narrow a meaning to the word “desertion” as confined solely to physical separation. See Rector v. Rector, 78 N. J. Eq 386, 79 Atl. Rep. 295. Moreover, this statute is amendatory of Section 3569 of the General Statutes, entitled “Desertion of Wife and Children,” which also included withholding the means of support as a sub-division of the crime.

We must assume that the Legislature is familiar with the previous legislation it is amending, and that no one can be supposed to have been misled or lulled to indifference by a title, directed so pointedly to the former legislation.

Even without the aid of the former legislation on the subject, no decision by this court would be authority for so narrow a construction as the one now contended. The case of Ex parte Knight, 52 Fla. 144, 41 South. Rep. 786, is chiefly relied on. We there decided that the punishment for removing turpentine from a tree after it had been cut was not within the purview of our act purporting to penalize only the cutting and removal of timber The word desertion conveys the idea of neglect of a duty. I desert a friend, not merely by leaving his presence, but by failing to perform a service for him that he had a reasonable right to expect of me, and a man may be said to desert his family if he withholds from it the means necessary to its support. We cannot say that withholding the means of support from a wife or child is not: fairly and reasonably included in the concept of desertion of wife and child or children.

Judgment affirmed.

Taylor, G. J., and Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis. JJ., concur.
28195

#### P.M., In re

Affirmed
Title: CVB Inspection and Compliance Policy Concerning Response to Firms and the Queue Process
Release Date: 20 May 2021 Document Number: CVB-WI-0150.02

USDA
aa

Animal and Plant

Heal tnapection CVB Inspection and Compliance Policy Concerning Response to

Veterinary Services Firms and the Queue Process

CONTROLLED//PROPIN//BASIC

Center for Veterinary
Biologics

1920 Dayton Avenue
PO Box 844
Ames, IA 50010

(15) 337-6100

Document Number: CVB-WI-0150 Revision: 02
Previous Number: ICWI0328.01

Vault: CVB-Released

Section/Area: CVB-WI-IC

Effective Date: 20 May 2021

Notes:

lon 24 May 2021, 06:37:51 pm.
Cont r r Veterinary Biologics, 515-337-6100


Title: CVB Inspection and Compliance Policy Concerning Response to Firms and the Queue Process
Release Date: 20 May 2021 Document Number: CVB-WI-0150.02
CONTROLLED//PROPIN//BASIC

CVB Inspection and Compliance Policy Concerning Response to Firms and the Queue
Process

Source Document: 5 C.F.R. § § 5 CFR 2635.501- 602,701-705.

Background: The CVB Inspection and Compliance process for response to firms is based on the
ethics of a non-competitive advantage. Executive branch employees must not use their public
office for their own or another's private gain. A first in - first out for each firm appropriately
allows the Biologics Specialist to organize their work so that the Biologics Specialist does not
inappropriately provide a competitive advantage to one firm by responding out of order to
another firm. The Biologics Specialist can, at the firm’s request, move any queue up for that firm
in priority, but unless extenuating animal health or public concerns exist, the queue remains
intact.

Mail Log:

1. The Mail Log is utilized as the means to prioritize incoming submissions from the firms (see
CVB-WI-0006, Movement of Mail Log Items in the Record Management Queues of the CVB

Mail Log System, and CVB-WI1-0139, Work Flow for Correspondence for Inspection and
Compliance: Using the Mail Log System).

2. The Biologics Specialist will respond to the incoming mail in the order received.
Exceptions:

1. Issues that may have an impact on animal health, public safety, or consumer harm warrant
high priority and are placed at the top of the queue. Incoming mail related to investigations or
regulatory actions may qualify.

2. Facility documents may be moved to the bottom of the queue for the Biologics Specialist if
the submission is not for a new facility, new construction, in response to a regulatory action, or
inspection action item. The Biologics Specialist is still responsible for obtaining response time
standards.

3. Firms may request that certain submissions take priority over their other submissions. This
will replace other submissions for that firm and will not take priority over other firms’
submissions.

CVB-WI-0150.02 Page | of 1

GR 24 May 2021, 06:37:51 pm.
Controlled by: APHIS Center for Veterinary Biologics, 515-337-6100
#### In the Matter of the Mental Condition of WARD M., Ward M., Appellant.

No. 13809.

Supreme Court of Utah.

April 4, 1975.

David E. Littlefield, Salt Lake County Bar Legal Services, Salt Lake City, for appellant.

R. Paul Van Dam, Salt Lake County Atty., Richard S. Shepherd, Deputy Salt Lake County Atty., Salt Lake City, for respondent.

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from an order of the trial court, after a full hearing, where four psychiatric doctors whose competencies never were challenged unanimously recommended hospitalization to *help,*not *dungeon*Ward M. a mental problem. Affirmed.

The record quite clearly, without equivocation, according to the clear, convincing, uncontroverted evidence reflected in the record, predicates mercy, not incarceration for the subject. Nonetheless, counsel for the County Legal Defense system asks this court on appeal, declaratorily to adjudge that the trial court erred in not laying down a rule to the effect that in a case like this, the adjudgment should be based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Who, but the judge, in a case like this, should be the Judge of the Judge, whose decision may have been based on something even superior than the test demanded by counsel for appellant?

In our opinion this appeal is some kind of a left-handed interdictory challenge to the trial judge to fabricate an unnecessary rule of evidence, where the record clearly shows he leaned over backward as almost to break his clavicle to help an unfortunate (who, strangely enough, himself appeared to agree with the judge). An argument could be advanced in a case like this, that any agency urging such issue should fold its tent and quietly steal into the desert and thus save the taxpayers’ expense for further shelter, what with dragging out Article I of the Utah Constitution, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution,- — honored in time and sense, — but dimmed here, by illogic, designed, apparently, not to help a person in need, or succor one who mired down, but only to perpetuate a mushrooming bureaucratic body of law by pleading for a rule in a case where such rule really was not in issue, or if it had been, better might be referred to an appropriate Bar Association or legislative committee for study.

ELLETT, CROCKETT, TUCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.
Document Number: Revision: 

Previous Number:

Section/Area:

 Date:

Notes:

Reviewing, Coding, and Assessing Adverse Event Reports from the 

Public in PV-Works

CVB-WI-0124 03

ICWI0119.01

CVB-WI-IC

10 Aug 2021

CVB-Released
# C_2019432EN.01004001.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2019 — Alliance Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — AxiCorp (AXICORP ALLIANCE)

(Case T-279/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark AXICORP ALLIANCE - Earlier EU word and figurative marks ALLIANCE - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Interpretation of the description of the goods reproduced in the alphabetical list accompanying the Nice Classification)

(2019/C 432/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alliance Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Chippenham, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: AxiCorp GmbH (Friedrichsdorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2018 (Case R 1473/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Alliance Pharmaceuticals and AxiCorp.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 February 2018 (Case R 1473/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Alliance Pharmaceuticals Ltd and AxiCorp GmbH, in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought before it as regards the grounds for opposition set out in Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 February 2018 (Case R 1473/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Alliance Pharmaceuticals Ltd and AxiCorp GmbH, in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought before it as regards the grounds for opposition set out in Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Alliance Pharmaceuticals for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Alliance Pharmaceuticals for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---