alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2



GENAERA CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Genaera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Skolas, Executive Vice President and 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:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John A. Skolas                                  
|John A. Skolas                                      
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|May 6, 2005
H. Res. 939 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 6, 2016. 

Whereas the United States should lead the world in providing 

high-quality education and opportunities to its citizens; 

Whereas digital skills are essential for education and preparing citizens for the economy of the future; 

Whereas, on a daily basis, teachers across the country assign 

homework that requires Internet access to be completed; 

Whereas there are 5 million households with school-age children in the United States that do not have high-speed 

Internet access at home and fall into what is known as 

the ‘‘homework gap’’; 

Whereas a disproportionate number of students without highspeed Internet access at home reside in low-income and 

minority households; 

Whereas students and families in rural areas face additional 

challenges when homework requires Internet access that 

is out of reach; 

Whereas every student deserves an opportunity at 21st century success; 

Whereas participation in the classroom can be improved when 

all students are equipped with the tools to complete their 

homework; 
2 

•HRES 939 EH 

Whereas educators can increase the use of cutting-edge education technology and digital learning resources when 

those resources remain accessible during out-of-school 

hours; 

Whereas data show that students have received lower grades 

and been unable to complete their assignments because of 

their lack of Internet access at home; 

Whereas improved student access to postsecondary education 

and workforce opportunities can be made possible by increasing the ability of students to apply for employment, 

postsecondary education, and financial aid opportunities; 

Whereas leaders in the public and private sectors have recognized that the homework gap is an issue of national importance and partnered to find cooperative solutions to 

address it; and 

Whereas instilling digital skills and the knowledge to succeed 

in the 21st century economy in the Nation’s students is 

vital to the Nation’s global competitiveness: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that all students should have access to the digital tools 

necessary to further their education and compete in the 21st 

century economy. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### Billy Kay TERREL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Linda Susan TERREL, now known as Linda Susan Frandsen, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 13584.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Oct. 29, 1974.

Phillip L. Foremaster, St. George, for defendant and appellant.

Hans Q. Chamberlain, Cedar City, for plaintiff and respondent.

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from an order continuing custody of a minor child in plaintiff, awarded in a divorce matter, —the order resulting after defendant had obtained an order to show cause why such judgment should not be modified and custody awarded to her on grounds of *changed circumstances.*Affirmed, with no costs awarded.

The parties hereto were married four and one-half months before their female child was born. A year and one-half later Mr. T filed for divorce. Summons was served on Mrs. T, who, thereafter sought paid legal advice, but was not represented by answer, other pleading or counsel before a timely divorce decree was entered.

After the filing of the complaint, Mrs. T left town, and *her*mother delivered the baby to plaintiff, who then amended the complaint, seeking custody. The record reflects that Mrs. T was served and had actual notice of the complaint and amended complaint.

A divorce was awarded based not only on default, but upon evidence adduced, at a hearing where Mrs. T’s own mother testified that she felt and desired that Mr. T, her son-in-law, not her daughter, should have custody. After the divorce the parties tried reconciliation, which shortly failed.

Defendant did not appeal from the divorce decree. After such failure, however, and without haying tested the Court’s jurisdiction to enter the decree, Mrs. T took a country-lane approach by securing the order to show cause, which, of consequence, gave the Court complete jurisdiction over her and her child and her husband and the subject matter by asking the Court for relief.

As to her second, and only other point on appeal, the Court took testimony and made reference in his summing up to the recommendation of Mrs. T’s mother, that Mr. T, rather than her own daughter have custody of the child. There is ample competent evidence to sustain the Court’s finding that custody should remain with Mr. T, stating that he had to “attempt to analyze the facts which are brought out” and “decide what’s the best for the interests of the child” and that he thought “it was not for the best interests of the child for the custody to be changed.”

The judge then stated he would retain jurisdiction to determine the matter of any future change in circumstances warranting any disturbance of the existing record.

*647Under the similar facts and results of this case we are constrained to and do conclude that what is said in Hyde v. Hyde, 22 Utah 2d 429, 454 P.2d 884 (1969), is dis-positive of the instant case.

CALLISTER, C. J., and CROCKETT, ELLETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.
# C_2018427EN.01009801.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/98 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/98

---

Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Wywiał-Prząda v Commission

(Case T-592/18)

(2018/C 427/129)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Katarzyna Wywiał-Prząda (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 23 November 2017 refusing her the benefit of the expatriation allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 23 November 2017 refusing her the benefit of the expatriation allowance;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, as interpreted by the judgment of 21 June 2007, Commission v Hosman-Chevalier (C-424/05 P, EU:C:2007:367), on the ground that the period during which she resided in Belgium during the reference period with diplomatic status is comparable to a circumstance ‘arising from work done for another State or for an international organisation’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, as interpreted by the judgment of 21 June 2007, Commission v Hosman-Chevalier (C-424/05 P, EU:C:2007:367), on the ground that the period during which she resided in Belgium during the reference period with diplomatic status is comparable to a circumstance ‘arising from work done for another State or for an international organisation’.

| 2. | Second plea in law, raised in the alternative should that period not be capable of being discounted, alleging the infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, on the ground that it must be found, in any event, that she did not, during the reference period, intend to confer on her presence in Belgium, inextricably linked to her husband’s diplomatic mission, the stable character inherent in the concept of habitual residence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, raised in the alternative should that period not be capable of being discounted, alleging the infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, on the ground that it must be found, in any event, that she did not, during the reference period, intend to confer on her presence in Belgium, inextricably linked to her husband’s diplomatic mission, the stable character inherent in the concept of habitual residence.

---
# C_2020240EN.01001701.xml

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Criminal proceedings against Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures

(Case C-17/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Legislation applicable - Article 14(1)(a) and (2)(b) - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 12(1) - Article 13(1)(a) - Posted workers - Workers employed in two or more Member States - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 11(1)(a) - Article 12a(2)(a) and(4)(a) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 19(2) - E 101 and A 1 Certificates - Binding effect - Consequences - Social security - Employment law)

(2020/C 240/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(a), Article 12a(2)(a) and (4)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, and Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, must be interpreted as meaning that an E 101 Certificate, issued by the competent institution of a Member State, under Article 14(1)(a) or Article 14(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, to workers employed in the territory of another Member State, and an A 1 Certificate, issued by that institution, under Article 12(1) or Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, to such workers, are binding on the courts or tribunals of the latter Member State solely in the area of social security.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---
Exhibit 31.1
**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
I, John A. Ciccarelli, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Dayton Superior Corporation;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of Dayton Superior Corporation as of, andfor, the periods presented in this annual report;  4.  Dayton Superior Corporation’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Dayton Superior Corporation and we have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to Dayton Superior Corporation, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of Dayton Superior Corporation’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this annual report any change in Dayton SuperiorCorporation’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringDayton Superior Corporation’s most recent fiscal year that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Dayton SuperiorCorporation’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  Dayton Superior Corporation’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to DaytonSuperior Corporation’s auditors and the audit committee of Dayton Superior Corporation’sboard of directors:
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect Dayton Superior Corporation’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in Dayton Superior Corporation’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        March 31, 2005 /s/John A. Ciccarelli   John A. Ciccarelli   Chairman of the Board of Directors, President, ChiefExecutive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 240 (Friday, December 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27583]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Z-Wave Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 1, 2023, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (the ``Act''), Z-Wave Alliance, Inc. (the 
``Joint Venture'') filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Specifically, Institute of Digital Guangdong, Guangzhou, PEOPLE'S 
REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Versa Wireless Inc., Surrey, CANADA; Omar Abed 
Alkarim Darwish, Ypsilanti, MI; and Trident IoT LLC, Carlsbad, CA have 
joined as parties to the venture.
    Also, Technicolor Connected Home Rennes, Cesson-Sevigne Cedex, 
FRANCE; Technicolor Connected Home USA, LLC, Lawrenceville, GA; Control 
& More, Riyadh, SAUDI ARABIA; Smart AT For You, Teneriffe, AUSTRALIA; 
Namron AS, Oslo, NORWAY; Takacs Milan EV, Szigetmonostor, HUNGARY; and 
Octo Telematics SpA, Rome, ITALY have withdrawn as parties to the 
venture.
    In addition, an existing member, Allterco Robotics EOOD, has 
changed its name to Shelly Europe Ltd., Sofia, BULGARIA.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or the 
planned activity of the venture. Membership in this venture remains 
open, and the Joint Venture intends to file additional written 
notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 19, 2020, the Joint Venture filed its original 
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on December 1, 2020 (85 FR 77241).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 4, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on October 6, 2023 (88 FR 69672).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-27583 Filed 12-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
To learn more about avian influenza and biosecurity, contact your industry association or 

visit aphis.usda.gov/animalhealth/defendtheflock (click on “Biosecurity 101”). 

For information about avian influenza and human health, visit cdc.gov/flu/avianflu.

Poultry Owners: Report Sick Birds!

Highly pathogenic avian influenza is a deadly poultry disease that spreads quickly. 

It can strike your flock with little to no warning—sudden death, decreased food 

and water consumption, and lethargy are common signs. If you see any sign of 

illness in your birds, immediately report it to your State veterinarian or the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (1-866-536-7593).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. This publication supersedes Program Aid No. 2162, “Attention Poultry Owners: 

Biosecurity Is Important,” which was last published in April 2016. VS-22-001 | Issued March 2022

Protect Your Birds With Biosecurity

▲ Keep wild birds away from your farm! They can spread disease to your poultry. 

▲ Secure feed bins and water sources to prevent wildlife contamination.

▲ Limit access to your property and your birds. Disinfect any vehicles that enter 

your farm. 

▲ Avoid visits to other poultry farms, and don’t lend or borrow equipment. 

Bring only cleaned and disinfected items into your bird area. 

▲ Wash hands and scrub boots before and after entering a poultry area. 

Wear disposable boot covers and coveralls, if possible. 

▲ Buy birds only from National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP)-participating 

breeders, hatcheries, or dealers. 

▲ Isolate new birds and those returning from shows for 30 days before placing 

them with your flock.
# C_2020036EN.01002701.xml

| 3.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2019 — Super bock group v EUIPO — Agus (Crystal)

(Case T-648/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Crystal - Earlier national word mark CRISTAL - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 36/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Super bock group, SGPS SA (Leça do Balio, Portugal) (represented by: J.P. Mioludo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Agus sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 July 2018 (Case R 299/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Unicer-Bebidas de Portugal, SGPS SA and Agus.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Super bock group, SGPS SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Super bock group, SGPS SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.

---
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Take a Pet From One U.S. State or

Territory to Another (Interstate)

Last Modified: 

Print

When you travel with a pet, your destination State or Territory may have animal

health requirements, such as obtaining a health certificate, updating vaccinations,

diagnostic testing, or administering treatments. As soon as you know your travel

details, contact your local veterinarian to help with the pet travel process.

Find U.S. State and Territory Requirements

State Animal Health Officials
APHIS doesn't regulate the interstate movement of pets. Domestic movement

requirements are set by the receiving State or Territory.

Contact the State animal health official in your destination State or Territory if you

have questions or need clarification on any of the requirements.
Item_5.2.6.2_Use of the terms ‘fetal’, ‘foetal’, ‘fetus’ and ‘foetus’ / page 1

Annex 20

TERMINOLOGY: USE OF THE TERMS‘BOVID’, ‘BOVIDAE’, ‘BOVINE’ AND ‘CATTLE’

USER'S GUIDE

[...]

**B*. Terrestrial Code* content**

[...]

These standards assume that the agent is either not present in the importing country or is the subject of a control or eradication programme. Sections 8 to 15 each relate to the host species of the pathogenic agent: multiple species or single species of Apidae, Aves,~~Bovidae~~ Bovinae, Equidae, Leporidae, Caprinae and Suidae. Some chapters include specific measures to prevent and control the infections of global concern. Although the OIE aims to include a chapter for each OIE listed disease, not all OIE listed diseases have been covered yet by a specific chapter. This is work in progress, depending on available scientific knowledge and the priorities set by the World Assembly.

**General Comment:**Consider a more in-depth explanation of the larger family “Bovidae” and the subfamilies thereafter for clarity.  Further, this chapter might be enhanced by clarifying that the use of "bovine" in other chapters may refer specifically to certain species (e.g., *bos taurus, bos indicus*), and in those circumstances, will be clarified accordingly. 

[...]

___________________________

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

Article 1.3.2.

The following are included within the category of~~cattle~~ bovine diseases and *infections*:

[...]

___________________________

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

SECTION 11.~~BOVIDAE~~ BOVINAE

___________________________

*WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2022*

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission / September 2022	1