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 on Form 10-KSB/A of Bioenvision, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended June 30, 2003as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David P. Luci,
Director of Finance and General Counsel 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; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




                                /s/ David P. Luci
                                ---------------------------------------
                                David P. Luci
                                Director of Finance and General Counsel
                                April 1, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15430]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Parts 216, 245, and 252

[DFARS Case 97-D027]


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Title to 
Government Property

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Director of Defense Procurement is withdrawing a proposed 
rule published in the Federal Register on October 17, 1997 (62 FR 
54008), under DFARS Case 97-D027, Title to Government Property. The 
rule proposed amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement to reduce the amount of Government-owned special tooling and 
test equipment in the possession of DoD contractors. After considering 
public comments, the Director of Defense Procurement has decided to 
withdraw the proposed rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Angelena Moy by phone at (703) 
695-1097/8, by fax at (703) 695-7569, or by E-mail (Internet) at 
M<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3dccad2d0f3d2d0c29ddcc0d79ddedadf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89e6f0e8eac9e8eaf8a7e6faeda7e4e0e5">[email protected]</span></a>. Please cite DFARS Case 97-D027.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 216, 245, and 252

    Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulation Council.
[FR Doc. 98-15430 Filed 6-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Com. v. Phu T Chim

11/16/2015

449 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1140
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128499 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128499 COA: 259876 Oakland CC: 2004-194017-FH MARTIN PAUL STEWART, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the March 2, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
Navy: Sept. 30 Is last day for blue working uniform, rank-insignia cover
 
  By Chief of Naval Personnel public affairs
  The last day of approved wear of the Navy Working Uniform Type I is Sept. 30, as this uniform has been replaced by the NWU Type III, as announced in Naval Administrative Message 174/16.
Additionally, the NWU Type III eight-point cover with the Anchor, Constitution, and Eagle, or ACE, logo replaces the eight-point cover with rank insignia. Sailors will be required to have the NWU Type III uniform and ACE cover as of Oct. 1.
Initially announced August 2016, Sailors were given 24 months, beginning Oct. 1, 2017, to purchase required NWU Type III components. During that 24-month period, active duty Sailors received an increase in their annual clothing replacement allowances to purchase the new NWU Type III uniform.
The change serves as part of a multi-phased process to streamline and consolidate the Navy's uniform requirements and ultimately improve uniformity across the force.
Navy Exchange Service Command officials encourage Sailors who still need the NWU Type III uniform to visit any worldwide NEX or call customer service at 877–810–9030 before the Oct. 1 deadline. In some cases, special orders may be needed for certain sizes, and NEX tailors require a two-week turnaround time to create and sew on name tapes.
“NEXCOM is postured to support our Sailors with a full stock of the NWU Type III in our stores and distribution centers, said Capt. John Cassani, deputy commander of Navy Uniforms for NEXCOM. “Our uniform personnel and call center are prepared to answer Sailors’ questions regarding sizing and manner of wear.”*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Joint Base San Antonio website.*
No. 12-7632.

#### Robinson *v.*Arkansas.

Sup. Ct. Ark. Certio-rari denied.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2026

To amend the Panama Canal Act of 1979 to require the payment of interest

on certain damages awarded by the Panama Canal Commission.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 19 (legislative day, APRIL 11), 1994

Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend the Panama Canal Act of 1979 to require the

payment of interest on certain damages awarded by the

Panama Canal Commission.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That (a) section 1411 of the Panama Canal Act of 1979

4 (22 U.S.C. 3771) is amended—

5 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘, including

6 interest under subsection (c),’’ after ‘‘damages’’; and

7 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub8 section:

9 ‘‘(c) Damages which are adjusted and payable under

10 subsection (a) shall include interest calculated from the
2

S 2026 IS

1 date of filing of the claim to the date of payment. Such

2 interest shall be computed at the rate the Secretary of the

3 Treasury establishes for interest payments under section

4 12 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C.

5 611).’’.

6 (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be

7 deemed to have become effective as of April 1, 1988.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,496
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,747
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,773)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,104
<PP&E>                                           3,121
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,389)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,235
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                       (253)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,450
<SALES>                                         29,453
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,586
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,876
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,309
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,489
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,661)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,626
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                965
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       965
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07


</TABLE>
#### C.L., In re Adoption of; D.L., In re

12/07/2015

429, 430 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 78
Exhibit 32.2

 

**                                                THE MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY                                                   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 The Monarch Cement Company (the"Company") onForm 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with theSecurities and ExchangeCommission on the datehereof (the "Report"), theundersigned, in the capacity and on the dateindicated below, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects,the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to TheMonarchCement Company and will be retained by The MonarchCement Company and furnishedto the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

Dated:  May 11, 2009

                                                                                              /s/ Debra P. Roe                                                                                                                      Debra P. Roe, CPA                                                                                            Chief Financial Officer and                                                                                            Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
No. 12-7445.

#### Catalano *v.*Colson, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 09-10287.

#### Dean James Delguidice, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 844, 131 S. Ct. 79,

178 L. Ed. 2d 52,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5945.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 351 Fed. Appx. 425.
No. 09-10905.

#### Margaret Musleve, Petitioner v. Jeffrey Musleve.

562 U.S. 823, 131 S. Ct. 383,

178 L. Ed. 2d 18,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6311.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 25, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
NO. 07-06-0349-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	SEPTEMBER 28, 2006

			______________________________

	ALEX MARTINEZ FLORES, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2005-409,540; HONORABLE BRADLEY UNDERWOOD, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Appellant Alex Martinez Flores appeals his conviction for the offense of possession of a controlled substance in an amount more than four grams but less than 200 grams and his punishment of 30 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

	Appellant has failed to file an adequate docketing statement as required under Rule 32.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  Instead, appellant has notified this court of his intention to seek a court appointed attorney.  However, the trial court clerk’s office has no record of appellant’s request for a court appointed attorney as of September 15, 2006.

	We now abate this cause and remand it to the 364th District Court of Lubbock County.  It is ordered that the judge of said court convene a hearing, after due notice to all parties, to determine: 

	1)    	whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; 

	2)    	whether appellant has retained counsel; or 

	3)	if appellant is not represented by retained counsel, whether appellant is indigent and, therefore, is entitled to appointed counsel and a record of the trial court proceedings free of charge.

	We further direct the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing subjects.  Should the trial court find that appellant desires to pursue his appeal, is not represented by counsel and is indigent, we then further direct the court to 1) appoint counsel to assist in the prosecution of the appeal, and 2)  issue an order requiring the preparation of a clerk's record in accordance with Rule 34.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  The name, address, phone number, fax number, and state bar number of any counsel who is appointed to represent appellant on appeal must also be included in the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Furthermore, the trial court shall also cause to be developed 1) a supplemental clerk's record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and all orders of the trial court issued as a result of its hearing on this matter and 2) a reporter's record transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the aforementioned hearing.  Additionally, the trial court shall cause the supplemental clerk's record to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before November 3, 2006.  Should additional time be needed to perform these tasks, the trial court may request same on or before November 3, 2006.

	It is so ordered.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Egypt (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Egypt (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | 0      | 2,947  | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Jossiah, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 743]

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated January 24, 2001, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of conviction of the same court rendered November 19, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

Pursuant to CPL 440.10 (2) (c), a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction *must*be denied when, although sufficient facts appear on the record to have permitted adequate review, the defendant unjustifiably failed to raise the issue on his direct appeal. On the defendant’s direct appeal, he argued, inter alia, that the People failed to prove his knowledge of the weight of the cocaine in his possession, and thus reversal was required in accordance with the then-governing rule in *People v Ryan*(82 NY2d 497 [1993]). We declined to review that unpreserved contention at the time. The same record, however, clearly presented sufficient facts from which the defendant could have raised his present claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to expressly raise the *Ryan*issue. Since this issue could have been raised on direct appeal, it could not be raised on the CPL 440.10 motion *(see People v Smith,*269 AD2d 769, 770 [2000]). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.
DEVONTA MOBLEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1702

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 19, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James C. Hankinson, Judge.

Jeffrey E. Lewis, General Counsel, and Michael Jerome Titus, Assistant Conflict 

Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
# DLA Distribution Commanding Officer's Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday message

/ Published Jan. 17, 2020
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Distribution teammates, on 20 January, we will observe the birthday of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the day of service that celebrates his life and legacy

To highlight the month, the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute created a poster that captures Dr. King’s strength and determination in promoting social justice with a call to action. In the words of Dr. King, "Life's most persistent and urgent question is, What are you doing for others?"

The national recurring theme of this holiday is “Remember! Celebrate! Act! A Day On ... Not A Day Off.” It calls on each of us to engage in public service and promote peaceful social change. Dr. King’s unfinished movement toward equality can be achieved by our united, enduring efforts.

Ms. Gonzales and I would like to thank each of you for your selfless service, your commitment to duty, your integrity and your loyalty to the DLA Distribution family. Enjoy the upcoming long holiday weekend, incorporate safety into everything you do, and I encourage you to volunteer on Monday in Dr. King’s honor.

HOOYAH Distribution!

Kevin JonesRDML, SC, USN
#### United Water New Rochelle, Inc., Respondent, v Planning Board of Town of Eastchester et al., Appellants.

[768 NYS2d 612]

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the site plan application of United Water New Rochelle, Inc., dated March 7, 1994, was deemed approved by operation of the Zoning Law of the Town of Eastchester, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, *627J.), entered November 21, 2001, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of a final order and judgment in the action dated December 2, 2002 *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order entered November 21, 2001, are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the order and judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; *United Water New Rochelle v Planning Bd. of Town of Eastchester,*2 AD3d 627 [2003] [decided herewith]). McGinity, J.P., H. Miller, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.