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



CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906

OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q, (the Report), of Triton PCS, Inc. (the Company) for the period
ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, I, David D. Clark, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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), as appropriate, 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/ David D. ClarkName: David D. ClarkTitle: Chief Financial OfficerDate: August 9, 2004




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 Triton PCS, Inc. and will be retained by Triton PCS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filings of Triton PCS, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q,
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
# C_2016111EN.01004502.xml

| 29.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/45

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 February 2016 — Sesma Merino v OHIM

(Case F-125/13) (1)

1

(2016/C 111/57)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 28/4/2014, p. 37.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF EPIX MEDICAL, INC. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND FOR THE TWELVE MONTH
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001027702
<NAME> EPIX MEDICAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         430,124
<SECURITIES>                                13,709,980
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,355,033
<PP&E>                                       4,468,771
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,410,490)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,885,583
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,840,566
<BONDS>                                      1,957,340
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       116,803
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,647,126
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,885,583
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,144,056
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            19,078,564
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             221,781
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (16,983,153)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (16,983,153)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (16,983,153)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.47)


</TABLE>
#### State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Com., Ins. Dept.; Dougherty, In re

05/10/2016

15 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 124 A.3d 775
#### Brian J. Kavanagh, Appellant, v Julia R. Kavanagh, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 622]

In an action to set aside a stipulation of settlement which was incorporated but not merged into the parties’ judgment of divorce, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Spolzino, J), entered May 2, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The stipulation of settlement entered into by the parties, which was incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce, was drafted by the defendant’s attorney. It provided, in pertinent part, that the defendant would receive one half of the recovery of both a workers’ compensation case and a personal injury action that the plaintiff had pending. The plaintiff alleges that he was advised not to secure independent counsel and claims, inter alia, that the defendant’s attorney misrepresented the defendant’s legal right to these awards. The plaintiff commenced this action seeking to set aside the stipulation of the settlement, and the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The courts favor stipulations of settlement and do not set *689them aside lightly *(see Gilbert v Gilbert,*291 AD2d 479 [2002]); however since stipulations of settlement involve fiduciary relationships and the sanctity of the marriage relationship, they are held to a higher standard of equity. A court may, accordingly, set aside a stipulation of settlement on grounds that would be not be sufficient to set aside an ordinary contract *(see Christian v Christian,*42 NY2d 63, 72 [1977]). “[N]o actual fraud need be shown, for relief will be granted if the settlement is manifestly unfair to a spouse because of the other’s overreaching ... in its execution” *(id.*at 72-73). Moreover, while evidence that one spouse was not represented by counsel is insufficient, standing alone, to find such overreaching, it is a significant consideration when determining whether the parties entered into the stipulation freely and fairly *(see Jaus v Jaus,*168 AD2d 487, 488 [1990]; *cf. Levine v Levine,*56 NY2d 42, 48 [1982]).

Accepting the plaintiffs version of the facts as true for the purpose of opposing this motion in which the defendant established a prima facie case for summary judgment *(see Menzel v Plotnick,*202 AD2d 558 [1994]; *Blake-Veeder Realty v Crayford,*110 AD2d 1007 [1985]), he raised a question of fact as to whether the circumstances surrounding the execution of the stipulation were manifestly unfair.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenny Cruz, Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 351]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), entered on or about April 21, 2016, which adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841 [2014]). The probative value of defendant’s Static-99 score is limited because that assessment inadequately considers the underlying sex crime and the potential for harm in the event of reoffense *(see People v Rodriguez,*145 AD3d 489, 490 [2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 916 [2017]; *People v Roldan,*140 AD3d 411, 412 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 904 [2016]). The other mitigating factors cited by defendant were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument, and were outweighed by the seriousness of the underlying crime *(see People v McNeely,*124 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*25 NY3d 908 [2015]).

The hearing court’s incorrect reference to the clear and convincing evidence standard does not require a new hearing, because use of the correct preponderance of the evidence standard would not have affected the result *(see People v Corn,*128 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Oing and Singh, JJ.
1 

## ... T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2007- CI

- 00103, s t y l ed S te p p in g S to n e E n te rp rise s, In c . d /b /a S t eers & Bee rs St eak hous e and Sal oon v . As hke naz y Acqui s i t i on Cor

p. , e tal , pendi ng i n t he 16 6t h J udi ci al D i s t r i ct C o urt , B exar C o unt y , T exas, t he H o no rable M art ha T anner p res i d i ng. H o wever, t he chal l enged o rder was si gned by t he H o n o ra b le P e te r S a k a i, p re sid ing ju d g e o f t h e 2 2 5 th J u d ic ia l D istric t C o u rt, B e x a r C o u n ty, T e x a s. 

### i i i i i i



# MEM ORA ND UMOP INION No. 04-09-00189- CV IN RE ASHKENAZ Y ACQUISITION CORP ., NEW RIVERCENTER MALL, L.P., NEW RIVERCENTER GP , L.L.C., NEW RIVERCENTER MARK ET, L .P . and B ar r y LU STIG Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 

## PER C URIAM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: April 8, 2009 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On April 2, 2009, re lators filed a petition for writ of manda mus and a motion for eme rg ency stay

. T h e co u rt has consider ed re lators’ pe tition for writ of mandamus a nd is of the opinion that relators are not e ntitled to the relief soug ht. Acc ording ly , the petition f or writ of mandamus and the motion for emer g ency

stay are DENI ED. See T EX 

## . R. A PP 

## . P. 52.8(a). PER C URIAM
No. 10-6653.

#### William Martinez Santana, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1017, 131 S. Ct. 539,

178 L. Ed. 2d 396,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8335.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 361 Fed. Appx. 541.
No. 10-6604.

#### Reagan Sullivan, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1016, 131 S. Ct. 535,

178 L. Ed. 2d 394,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8331.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Telephone conversation between Craig Moore, NSF International and Alice Tome, 

Abt Associates Inc. March 11, 2011.

There are many bodies that accredit labs, what they charge and the frequency with which they 

do inspections varies. However, the standard is ISO 17025 which includes a management 

system as well as testing work. Other standards include only the testing work - the management 

system includes consistency. 

He thinks the application process for the standard is about $5,000 and then depending on how 

many test methods will be accredited cost could be $5,000 for 10 tests and $20,000 for 100 

tests (that would be very comprehensive). As an example, he said toy testing has 10 tests. 

He thought once a TPC had the initial accreditation it would cost about $10,000 every two years 

to get recertified for a set of tests - this was not specific to formaldehyde.
# Distribution Bahrain’s Team of the Quarter

/ Published April 6, 2016
MANAMA, Bahrain, 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Bahrain’s, Mapping Team has been awarded the Team of the Quarter award for their continued outstanding performance and dedication in supporting United States Navy Fifth Fleet and military services within the Central Command area of responsibility.

This six-person team is comprised of three military and 3 local national personnel and serve as the single theater mapping platform within CENTCOM providing warehousing, distribution and mapping operations supporting maritime security and stability operations for Navy Support Activity Bahrain.   The team is responsible for over 2,000 classified mapping products and more than three million mapping assets in total.  

During this period the team processed 1,400 transactions and distributed over 42,000 mapping products globally to assigned geospatial intelligence and military service customers.  They realigned mapping stockage with demand globally by redistributing more than 800 mapping products, which decreased customers wait time in half.  Additionally, they completed a quarterly classified inventory a full three days ahead of schedule improving audit readiness.  

The mapping team carried out over 105 surveillances in support of  a $13 million contractor owned and operated distribution center, confirming and upholding a 100 percent compliance to DLA standards.  They also achieved a 99 percent accountability rating for over 8,000 forward positioned stock line items valued at $72 million.  

“The DLA Distribution Bahrain Mapping Team dedication and determination consistently excels in achieving the DLA Distributions vision of Delivering the right solution on time, every time” said Navy Cmdr. Todd Wanack, director of the distribution center.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of PrincipalFinancial OfficerRequired by Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)of the Exchange Act**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanstar, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, David W. Montgomery, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)         The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.
| By:      | /s/ DAVID W. MONTGOMERY       |   |     |
|----------|-------------------------------|--------|----------|
|     | David W. Montgomery           |   |     |
| * * | *Chief Financial Officer*     |   |     |
|     | Date: November 15,  2004 |   | * * |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elliot Hankerson, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 169]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered March 16, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree because the prosecution failed to establish his identity as the perpetrator of those crimes is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hawkins,*11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; *People v Smith,*135 AD3d 970, 971 [2016]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see *People v*
      *779
      *Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor made improper comments on summation is partially unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not object to the majority of the comments he now challenges *(see People v Herring,*119 AD3d 958, 958-959 [2014]). In any event, any improper comments did not, singly or in combination, deprive the defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Bajana,*82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; *People v Garcia-Villegas,*78 AD3d 727, 728 [2010]). Defense counsel’s failure to object to allegedly improper comments made by the prosecutor on summation did not deprive the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Bajana,*82 AD3d at 1112; *People v Lopez,*69 AD3d 958, 958 [2010]).

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court gave the jury inadequate instructions regarding the burden of proof and reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Love,*37 AD3d 618, 619 [2007]). In any event, the jury instructions, taken as a whole, conveyed the correct standard *(see People v Fields,*87 NY2d 821 [1995]; *People v King,*73 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2010]; *People v Coles,*62 AD3d 1022, 1023 [2009]). Since the instructions were adequate, defense counsel’s failure to object to the challenged portions of the court’s charge to the jury did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel *(see People v Martin,*141 AD3d 734, 735 [2016]; *People v Delmas,*115 AD3d 758, 758 [2014]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2556 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2556

   To provide for an extension of the authority of the Secretary of 
   Veterans Affairs to provide for the conduct of medical disability 
                  examinations by contract physicians.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2019

  Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for an extension of the authority of the Secretary of 
   Veterans Affairs to provide for the conduct of medical disability 
                  examinations by contract physicians.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Disabled Veterans Red Tape Reduction 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO 
              PROVIDE FOR THE CONDUCT OF MEDICAL DISABILITY 
              EXAMINATIONS BY CONTRACT PHYSICIANS.

    Section 704(c) of the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 (Public Law 
108-183; 38 U.S.C. 5101 note) is amended by striking ``December 31, 
2018'' and inserting ``December 31, 2020''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 09-1378.

#### Eddie Mendiola, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 1002, 131 S. Ct. 502,

178 L. Ed. 2d 369,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8535.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 585 F.3d 1303.
No. 10-6382.

#### Corey Turner, Petitioner v. James Dzurenda, Warden.

562 U.S. 1032, 131 S. Ct. 574,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8668.

178 L. Ed. 2d 419,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 381 Fed. Appx. 41.
J

~ \ IED STyT ~

S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY $ 

# ~ Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

### z =

0 q ~ PROj

~ G
~ \ 

### J A N - 6 2010

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

Casey Gadbury Director, National TRU Program U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 Dear Mr. Gadbury: On December 17, 2009, the Department of Energy (DOE) Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) requested the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of several additional items at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to be used to perform waste characterization. Thisincludes the Central Characterization Project's (CCP) IQ3 Gamma Assay System, nondestructive assay (NDA) system as a Tier 1 change and Visual Examination (VE) of CH waste, which you believed to be a Tier 2 change. However, the Tier 2 determination is incorrect; implementation at any waste characterization site of a new technique for waste characterization has always been evaluated as a Tier l change. For example, the addition of VE at ANL-CCP for remote-handled (RH) waste was approved as a Tier 1 change in June 2008. When each these changes are considered ready to be evaluated by EPA for approval, please send relevant documentation with your request. Once we receive that information we can schedule an on-site evaluation of these changes. If you have any questions, please contact Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422 or Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462.

Sincerely, 

## Ifi t- 1- 

# ~ Tom Peake, Director Center for Waste Management and Regulations

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Papercc: Electronic Distribution

Alton Harris, DOE HQ David Moody, CBFO Vernon Daub, CBFO Ava Holland, CBFO Courtland Fesmire, CBFO J. R. Stroble, CBFO Norma Castaneda, CBFO Martin Navarrete, CBFO Dennis Miehls, CBFO Steve Zappe, NMED Allison Pangle, CTAC Wayne Ledford, CTAC
#### In the Matter of John Hamlett, Petitioner, v Mr. Raneri, as Hearing Officer, et al., Respondents.

[54 NYS3d 886]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Determination confirmed. No opinion.

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
No. 10M45.

#### Asem Eldaghar, Petitioner v. City of New York Department of Citywide Administrative Services.

562 U.S. 1028, 131 S. Ct. 587,

178 L. Ed. 2d 412,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8737.

November 8, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 10-5930.

#### Ali Sabri Jawad Al-Timimi, Petitioner v. Andrew Jackson, Warden.

562 U.S. 969, 131 S. Ct. 475,

178 L. Ed. 2d 301,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8102.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 379 Fed. Appx. 435.
No. 10-6780.

#### Brian Mizwa, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1020, 131 S. Ct. 548,

178 L. Ed. 2d 401,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8364.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 345 Fed. Appx. 834.