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 Quarterly Report of MISONIX, INC. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Zaremba,
      Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of
      the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
      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.





Dated:
      May 10, 2007





/s/
                Richard ZarembaRichard
                ZarembaSenior
                Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
                Treasurer
                  and Secretary




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to MISONIX, INC. and will be retained by
      MISONIX, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service | Veterinary Services | 1 

1. Disease Information

1.1 General Disease and Pathogen Information: The Deformed wing virus (DWV) is a

viral species (Iflavirius aladeformis) that commonly infects European honey bees (Apis 

mellifera L.) and is widely distributed across the world, except for Australia. However, 

recent findings have revealed that DWV has expanded its host range to include 

various flower-visiting insects such as other bees, wasps, beetles, ants, and hoverflies, 

indicating a broader impact of DWV on pollinators. DWV causes covert as well as 

overt infections in honey bees and can be transmitted vertically and horizontally

between bees in a colony. The combination of DWV and the parasitic mite Varroa 

destructor has been identified as a significant factor contributing to the global decline 

in honey bee populations. Within the DWV species complex, there are three main 

variants known as DWV-1, DWV-B, and DWV-C. The discovery of DWV-C in the 

United Kingdom in 2016 marked the identification of a distinct variant, different from 

the previously characterized types A and B, as determined by nucleotide sequence 

analysis. Notably, collapsing honey bee colonies in the UK exhibited high titers of 

DWV-C. However, the extent of prevalence and impact caused by this specific DWV 

variant remains unknown.

1.2 Clinical Signs: DWV predominantly persists as a latent infection, often without 

displaying noticeable disease symptoms. The horizontal transmission via Varroa mite 

vector is believed to be associated with acute symptomatic infection. During acute 

infections, distinct signs become evident, including twisted and shriveled wings, 

bloated abdomens, reduced body size, and discoloration.

2. Laboratory Criteria

2.1 Agent Isolation and Identification: Although the enzyme-linked immunosorbent

assay (ELISA) test is an option for laboratory diagnosis, the detection of DWV infection 

is typically achieved by directly identifying the viral nucleic acid, specifically RNA, using 

Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) assay. The DWV can be 

detected across various castes and developmental stages of honey bees, including 

eggs, larvae, pupae, adult workers, drones, and queens. 

2.2 Agent Characterization: DWV replicates extensively within the body of honey bees, 

spreading to various tissues such as the wings, head, thorax, abdomen, legs, 

hemolymph, and gut. Additionally, DWV is capable of replicating within Varroa mites.

2.3 Serology: NA.

3. Case Classification

3.1 Suspect Case: honey bees with compatible clinical signs.

Case Definition

Deformed Wing Virus (DWV) 

(Monitored) December 2023
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service | Veterinary Services | 2

3.2 Confirmed Positive Case: a suspect case with a positive ELISA or RT-PCR test.

4. Reporting Criteria1

: DWV is a U.S. monitored disease that is reportable monthly under the 

APHIS National List of Reportable Animal Diseases (NLRAD).

1 DWV is not a WOAH listed disease.
RSM Path A 

 Monitor using only serial release

data every 30 months

 15 year daƟng maximum Qualify or requalify in host

animals

Is the Product Legacy or Modern? Legacy if...  Licensed prior to January 1, 2011 No major manufacturing changes that

required reclassificaƟon to modern

 Granted legacy status during licensure

for some other reason (i.e., fallout oflegacy product)

Start Here! 

RSM Path A.Firm may choose to use

It is Legacy 

Conduct a 

DegradaƟon 

Thaw (FDF

It is Modern 

Must use RS

It is non‐frozen 

(product storage) 

It is frozen Is the MR stored 

frozen or non‐

frozen? 

Must use RSM Path D 

If it fails FDFT

RSM Path B  Monitor with RSM assays and serial release data every 30 months Prior to RSM plan approval and while validaƟng RSM assays:

‐ DaƟng in 5 year increments based on progress toward approval 

 of RSM plan and RSM assay validaƟon 

‐ Required to qualify/requalify in host animals once to have  monitoring using validated RSM assays from Ɵme 0 

 AŌer RSM plan approved, RSM assays validated and Ɵme 0 tesƟng

concurrent with host animal qualificaƟon:

‐ Future qualificaƟon in vitro ‐ Indefinite daƟng 

RSM Path C 

Companion Overview for 800.211 Guidance for Master Reference QualificaƟon, Re

(RSM = Reference Stability Monitoring) 

See VSM 800.211 for further details
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Miguel COWLES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-7162.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 29, 2005.

Decided Oct. 11, 2005.

Michael Miguel Cowles, Appellant pro se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Michael Miguel Cowles seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), as untimely and an unauthorized successive motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cowles has not made the requisite showing. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).

Finally, in accordance with *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003), we construe Cowles’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an implied motion for authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2245 (2000), to file a successive habeas corpus motion. To obtain permission to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion, a movant must show that his claim: (1) “relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” or (2) relies on newly discovered facts that tend to establish the movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. We conclude that Cowles has not satisfied either standard.

Accordingly, we deny Cowles’ implicit application for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, deny Cowles’ motion for 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          97,569                  97,569
<SECURITIES>                                    87,870                  87,870
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,329                  49,329
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,205                   1,205
<INVENTORY>                                     20,493                  20,493
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               286,275                 286,275
<PP&E>                                         104,848                 104,848
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,199                  39,199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 440,002                 440,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,542                  26,542
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       337,838                 337,838
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,897                  72,897
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   440,002                 440,002
<SALES>                                         66,863                 127,042
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,863                 127,042
<CGS>                                           24,907                  47,868
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,264                  82,809
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,334                  49,377
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,689                  16,294
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,645                  33,083
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,645                  33,083
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24                    0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22                    0.41
        

</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 of
Belden & Blake 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 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)
    
    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(c)
    
    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
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: May 11, 2011
    By:
    /s/ James M. VanderhiderJames M. Vanderhider, President, ChiefFinancial Officer and Director
**Exhibit 15.2**

 

May 1, 2006 

 

The Board of Directors 

Education Management Corporation and Subsidiaries 

 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-20057, 333-20073, 333-31398, 333-76096, 333-76654, 333-85518, 333-106270, 333-106271, 333-110706) pertaining toEducation Management Corporation and Subsidiaries’ Deferred Compensation Plan and Retirement Plan of our reports dated April 21, 2006, February 6, 2006 and November 8, 2005 relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interimfinancial statements of Education Management Corporation and Subsidiaries that are included in its Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2006, December 31, 2005 and September 30, 2005. 

 

/S/ ERNST &YOUNG LLP 

 

Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania
H. Res. 411 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 10, 2015. 

Whereas section 135(h)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as enacted by section 2 of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, defined the term ‘‘agreement’’ 

as meaning ‘‘an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran that includes the United States, commits 

the United States to take action, or pursuant to which 

the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take 

action, regardless of the form it takes, whether a political 

commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether it is 

legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive 

plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any 

other parties, and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, 

technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the 

agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the 

future.’’; 

Whereas section C(14) of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of 

Action requires Iran to implement the ‘‘Roadmap for 

Clarification of Past and Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran’s Nuclear Program’’ (referred to as the 

‘‘Roadmap’’) which was agreed to with the IAEA; 
2 

•HRES 411 EH 

Whereas the Roadmap identifies two separate, confidential 

agreements between the IAEA and Iran, one to address 

remaining outstanding issues related to ‘‘Possible Military Dimensions’’ of Iran’s nuclear program, and another 

‘‘regarding the issue of Parchin’’; 

Whereas both of those agreements constitute side agreements 

within the meaning of section 135(h)(1); 

Whereas section 135(a)(1)(A) requires the President to 

transmit the agreement, including any side agreements, 

as defined by section 135(h)(1) to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership; 

Whereas the Executive Communication numbered 2307 and 

captioned ‘‘A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a letter 

and attachments satisfying all requirements of Sec. 

135(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 

(Pub. L. 114–17), as received July 19, 2015’’, did not 

include the text of either side agreement with the IAEA; 

and 

Whereas the President has not subsequently transmitted to 

the appropriate congressional committees and leadership 

the text of the separate agreements identified in the 

Roadmap: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That— 

(1) the President has not complied with section 2 

of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 because the communication from the President did not 

constitute the agreement as defined by section 135(h)(1) 

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; and 
3 

•HRES 411 EH 

(2) the period for review by Congress of nuclear 

agreements with Iran under section 135(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 has not commenced because the 

agreement has not yet been transmitted to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
# C_2019213EN.01003402.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Lupu v EUIPO — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Djili DS)

(Case T-558/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Djili DS - Earlier national word mark DJILI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 213/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: P. Acsinte, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Dulovo, Bulgaria) (represented by: C.-R. Romițan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 June 2018 (Case R 2391/2017-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Lupu and Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Victor Lupu to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Victor Lupu to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.

---
Annex 26

GLOSSARY

[...]

***~~DEATH~~***

~~means the irreversible permanent loss of all vital functions brain activity demonstrable by the loss of brain stem reflexes. This may be confirmed through a combination of criteria such as dilated pupil and absence of corneal reflex, cardiac activity and breathing.~~

***EUTHANASIA***

means the killing of an animal ~~act of inducing death~~ using a method that causes a rapid and irreversible loss of consciousness with minimum pain and distress ~~to animal~~.

***SLAUGHTER***

means the~~any~~killing~~procedure that causes the death of an animal by bleeding~~ of an animal~~s~~primarily intended for human consumption.

***STUNNING***

means any ~~mechanical, electrical, chemical or other~~ procedure that causes ~~rapid~~~~immediate~~ loss of consciousness for the purpose of killingwithout ~~minimal~~ avoidable distress, fear and pain ~~and other types of~~~~and suffering for the purpose of killing~~~~; when used before slaughter, the loss of consciousness lasts until death from the slaughter process.; in the absence of slaughter, the procedure would allow the animal to recover consciousness~~**.**

[...]

___________________________

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission / February 2023	1

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/February 2023	1
# C_2020215EN.01002701.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — easyJet Airline v Commission

(Case T-8/18) (1)

(State aid - Aviation sector - Aid granted by Italy in favour of Sardinian airports - Decision declaring the aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Imputability to the State - Beneficiaries - Advantage for co-contracting airlines - Market economy operator principle - Effect on trade between Member States - Adverse effect on competition - Recovery - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 215/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (Luton, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Willis, Solicitor, and J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA 33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI) (OJ 2017 L 268, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders easyJet Airline Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders easyJet Airline Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.

---