alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002           In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMDL, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Gary L. Dreher, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        August 14, 2006 /s/ Gary L. Dreher   Gary L. Dreher   Acting Chief Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1407 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the private business 

use requirements for bonds issued for lead service line replacement projects. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2023 

Mr. KILDEE (for himself, Ms. TENNEY, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. KELLY

of Pennsylvania, and Mr. PASCRELL) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the private business use requirements for bonds issued 

for lead service line replacement projects. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Financing Lead Out 

5 of Water Act of 2022’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1407 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF PRIVATE BUSINESS USE RE2 QUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN BONDS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 141(b)(6) of the Internal 

4 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following new subparagraph: 

6 ‘‘(D) CLARIFICATION RELATING TO QUALI7 FIED LEAD SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT

8 USE.— 

9 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of 

10 this subsection, qualified lead service line 

11 replacement use shall not constitute pri12 vate business use. 

13 ‘‘(ii) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of 

14 this subparagraph— 

15 ‘‘(I) QUALIFIED LEAD SERVICE

16 LINE REPLACEMENT USE.—The term 

17 ‘qualified lead service line replacement 

18 use’ means, with respect to any public 

19 water system, use of the proceeds of 

20 an issue to replace any privately21 owned portion of a lead service line 

22 connected to such system to facilitate, 

23 achieve or maintain compliance with a 

24 national primary drinking water regu25 lation for lead. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1407 IH

1 ‘‘(II) LEAD SERVICE LINE.—The 

2 term ‘lead service line’ has the mean3 ing given such term in section 

4 1459B(a)(4) of the Safe Drinking 

5 Water Act, as amended. 

6 ‘‘(III) NATIONAL PRIMARY

7 DRINKING WATER REGULATION FOR

8 LEAD.—The term ‘national primary 

9 drinking water regulation for lead’ 

10 means a national primary drinking 

11 water regulation for lead promulgated 

12 under section 1412 of such Act. 

13 ‘‘(IV) PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM.— 

14 The term ‘public water system’ has 

15 the meaning given such term in sec16 tion 1401(4) of such Act.’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to obligations issued after Decem19 ber 31, 2022. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
NIST PSCR RESEARCH INVESTMENTS BOLSTER 

GEORGIA’S ECONOMY 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Public Safety GEORGIA BY THE NUMBERS 

Communications Research (PSCR) Division is the primary federal laboratory 

focused on conducting research, development, testing, and evaluation for 

public safety communications technologies. Their mission is to accelerate 

communications innovation in support of public safety communities and the 

citizens they serve. 

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 allocated $300 Million 

from the Public Safety Trust fund to NIST PSCR to perform critical public safety 

communications R&D during a 10-year period. PSCR implemented numerous 

research mechanisms to support the development and deployment of the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network: grants, Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) contracts, prize challenge competitions, and internal research. 

These research mechanisms were housed within six research portfolios and crosscutting initiatives to maximize their impact: 

•	 User Interface/User Experience •	 Public Safety Analytics 

•	 Location-Based Services •	 Security 

•	 Mission Critical Voice •	 Resilient Systems 

While the ultimate impact of these research mechanisms is the increased safety 

of first responders and their communities through improved communications

technologies, PSCR was interested in better understanding how their R&D 

investments to date result in economic impacts that ripple outward to state 

economies. An independent analysis was conducted to demonstrate how PSCR’s 

deployment of the $300 Million from the Public Safety Trust Fund translated into 

broader impacts to the United States, including jobs, earnings, value added, and 

total economic output. PSCR’s R&D investments resulted in economic output 

in 33 of the 50 states. Results of the analysis are presented here. 

For more information, see NIST PSCR’s Economic Impact Study. 

For additional information of PSCR’s research programs, visit . 

7 Prize Challenge 

Participants 

Awards Totaling 

$0.3 Million 

4 Grant Awards 

Totaling $8.2 Million 

•	 JANUS Research Group 

•	 Georgia Tech Applied 

Research Corporation 

(3 awards) 

NIST INVESTMENT 

$8.4 Million 

OUTPUT 

$20.4 Million 

VALUE-ADDED 

$34.5 Million 

EARNINGS 

$20.6 Million 

JOBS 

324 

Output: the total value of economic 

activity circulating through the U.S. 

economy generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Value-Added: how much the 

combined U.S. state economies 

grew over a period of time due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

Earnings: the change in household 

earnings in the U.S. economy 

generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Jobs: the change in the number of 

full- and part-time jobs generated 

by each one million dollar change 

in U.S. economic activity due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

*All dollar amounts presented 

in 2022 and reflect data as of 

October 2022.

**All values are rounded; thus, the 

sum of the components may not 

sum exactly to the NIST Investment 

amount.

https://www.nist.gov/ctl/pscr
10587.

#### Dyson *v.*Sellers.

Decided November 6, 1919.

Certiorari; from Grady superior court—Judge Harrell. March 27, 1919.

*L. W. Ripley,*for plaintiff in error.

*Ira Carlisle,*contra.

Smith, J.

There is no merit in the assignment of error that the trial judge permitted a witness to testify positively that he measured certain logs and there was a certain number of feet therein. This testimony was not based on opinion from observation, but was based on facts known to the witness. The ruling is not in conflict with *Allison*v. *Wall,*121 *Ga.*822 (49 S. E. 831). The evidence amply authorized the judgment, and the court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenhins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
11101.

#### Dunson *v.*The State.

Luke, J.

1. The evidence as to the date of the alleged bigamous marriage was conflicting, one witness testifying to a date more than four years prior to the return of the indictment, another to a date within the four-year period. The accused duly requested in writing an instruction to the jury that he should be acquitted if they believed, from the evidence, that the alleged offense occurred more than four years prior to the finding of the indictment. *IE eld:*Since no exception to the general rule touching the limitation of such a prosecution was alleged or proved, the refusal to give the requested instruction was error requiring the grant of a new trial. Penal Code (1910), § 30 (3).

2. “It is not essential, in an indictment for bigamy, to allege the time when, or the place at which, the prior marriage took place.” *Murphy*v. *State,*122 *Ga.*149 (1) (50 S. E. 48) ; *Oliver*v. *State,*7 *Ga. App.*895 (1) (67 S. E. 886). Where such averments are needlessly set forth, they are surplusage, and need not bo proved. The court therefore did not err in refusing the requested charge to the contrary.

3. A marriage by a female under the age of fourteen years may, notwithstanding its invalidity, be ratified by her after she has reached that age. Civil Code (1910), §§ 2931, 2935, *Powers*v. *Powers,*138 *Ga.*65 (1) (74 S. E. 759). The court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury to the contrary, or to give a requested charge which was easily capable of conveying a different meaning.

*173Decided April 13, 1920.

Indictment for bigamy; from Forsyth superior court — Judge Morris. November 1, 1919.

*George F. Gober,*for plaintiff in error.

*John T. Dorsey, solicitor-general,*contra.

4. The evidence was conflicting, one view of it authorizing a conviction, and the other demanding an acquittal. A new trial is ordered solely because of the error pointed out.'

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, C. J. and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
#### Randles *v.*Randles.

Pleading.—Compaint.—A complaint which, purporting to be upon a promissory note, alleges a promise by defendant, on a day in blank, to pay blank dollars and blank cents, and with which no note or copy thereof is filed, is insufficient.

APPEAL from the Tippecanoe Common Pleas.

Downey, J.

The only question made in this case is as to the sufficiency of the complaint. It is as follows-:

"The State of Indiana, Tippecanoe County, ss. In the Common Pleas Court.- To the November term, 1869.

*556
      *W. D. Lee*and *P. H. Lee,*for appellant.

*W. C. Wilson,*for appellee.

*“*Peter Randles, plaintiff, complains of Benjamin Randles, defendant, and says that the defendant, on the-day of -, by his note, a copy of which is filed herewith,' promised to pay Peter Randles - dollars and - cents, which remains unpaid; and the plaintiff claims judgment for five hundred dollars. Other relief.

“W. C. Wilson, Attorney for Plaintiff.”

Neither the note nor a copy of it was filed with the complaint.

We think the complaint was insufficient.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded.
AMENDMENT TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT
                              AND ROYALTY AGREEMENT

      The Intellectual Property Assignment and Royalty Agreement dated as of the
14th day of May, 2002, between USDR AEROSPACE, LTD., a Texas limited
partnership, (hereinafter "Assignor") and U.S. GLOBAL NANOSPACE, INC. (formerly
USDR GLOBAL AEROSPACE, LTD.), a Delaware corporation (hereinafter "Assignee"),
is hereby amended by the parties pursuant to the terms thereof to add the
following provision:

            The term "sales" as used herein shall include all net revenues
      received by Assignee from any and all sales and/or licensing of products
      and/or services, including, without limitation, net revenues received by
      Assignee from licensing of intellectual property rights and from providing
      consulting services to others. This Agreement will remain in full force
      and effect in accordance with its terms notwithstanding the expiration of
      any patents, trademarks or other intellectual property rights underlying
      the Intellectual Property, as Assignee acknowledges and agrees that the
      Intellectual Property is the foundation for all of Assignee's products and
      services.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have duly executed this amendment
as of the date set forth below.

Dated: November 28, 2005

                                               USDR AEROSPACE, LTD.


                                               By:
                                                  ------------------------------
                                               Name:
                                               Title:


                                               US GLOBAL NANOSPACE, INC.


                                               By:/s/ Carl H. Gruenler
                                                  ------------------------------
                                               Name:  Carl H. Gruenler
                                               Title: Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.3


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors 
Nash Finch Company:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (no.
33-54487 and no. 33-64313) on Form S-8 of Nash Finch Company of our reports
dated March 3 ,1995, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Nash Finch
Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1994 and January 1, 1994 and the
related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows and the related consolidated financial statement schedule for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1994, which reports are
included or incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1995 annual report on
Form 10-K/A of Nash Finch Company.




Minneapolis, Minnesota                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP 
November 1, 1996
Exhibit 32.1



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 on Form 10-Q/A of Aphton
Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick T. Mooney, M.D., Chief Executive Officer and President 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 23, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Patrick T. Mooney, M.D.          
|                        |  |     |  | Patrick T. Mooney, M.D.              
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President
|                        |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 10.13


                                  AMENDMENT TO

   COMPENSATION DEFERRAL PLAN OF SUBURBAN PROPANE PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBURBAN
                                  PROPANE, L.P.
                     (AMENDED AND RESTATED JANUARY 1, 2004)

Pursuant to Section 8.8 of the Compensation Deferral Plan of Suburban Propane
Partners, L.P. and Suburban Propane, L.P., amended and restated January 1, 2004,
(the "Plan"), the Board of Supervisors of Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. (the
"Partnership"), hereby amends the Plan as follows:

1. Sections 5 and 6.5 of the Plan are hereby amended to adding the following to
the end thereof:

              Notwithstanding any other provision in the Deferral Plan to the
              contrary, effective January 1, 2005, no further deferral elections
              will be permitted under the Plan.

2. The first sentence of Section 6.1(c) is hereby amended to read as follows:

                  (c) Notwithstanding any provision in this Deferral Plan to the
         contrary, a Participant will receive payment of his or her account
         balance under the deferral Plan at such time as the Board determines
         that a Change in Control has occurred.

3. The following new Section 8.10 is hereby added:

         8.10: COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 409A OF THE CODE. To the extent
         applicable, it is intended that this Deferral Plan comply with the
         provisions of Section 409A of the Code, so that the income inclusion
         provisions of Section 409A(a)(1) of the Code do not apply to any
         Participant. This Deferral Plan shall be administered in a manner
         consistent with this intent, and any provision that would cause the
         Deferral Plan to fail to satisfy Section 409A of the Code shall have no
         force and effect until amended to comply with Section 409A of the Code
         (which amendment may be retroactive to the extent permitted by Section
         409A of the Code and may be made by the Partnership without the consent
         of the Participant). Reference to Section 409A of the Code will also
         include any proposed, temporary or final regulations promulgated
         thereunder.

4. The officers of the Partnership are authorized to take such actions as are
necessary to put into effect the foregoing amendment.

This amendment shall be effective as of the date first stated above.


                                               By:
                                                     --------------------------

                                               Date:
                                                     --------------------------
Exhibit 31.2

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)**

I, Ronald Whitter, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Warrior Energy Services Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 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 quarterly 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.

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

| Date: November 9, 2006 |   |   | /s/ Ronald Whitter                                                                        |
|------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |   |  

 

 

Ronald          Whitter

Chief          Financial Officer

  |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

 Appellant,

v.

BRENDA ISELA LOPEZ DE 

SANTIAGO, Individually and as 

Representative of the ESTATE OF 

EILEEN ARAMBULA LOPEZ, 

Deceased, and PEDRO ARAMBULA 

MERAZ

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00119-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 6

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2016-DCV1638)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellees

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see TEX.R.APP.P. 43.5, on the judgment and all 

costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### Edwina COX et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COLLINS RADIO COMPANY, a Division of Rockwell International Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Herchiel J. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLLINS RADIO CO., etc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 79-3151

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 2, 1980.

Walter L. Irvin, Dallas, Tex., for Edwina Cox, et al.

Hewett, Johnson, Swanson & Barbee, Storrow Moss Gordon, Ernest E. Figari, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Before GEE, RUBIN and POLITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 18.

. PER CURIAM:

Each of the appellants but Calahan executed a release and received consideration for it. No contention is made that any one of them acted involuntarily or without full knowledge of the facts or as a result of fraud. Calahan patently failed to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisites of Title VII. The appellants were not only represented by counsel, the releases were received in envelopes bearing their lawyer’s return address. No reason not patently insufficient is given why the dismissal of these claims was incorrect. The appeal is frivolous and it is dismissed. Appellants are taxed double costs. Fed.R.App.P. 38.

DISMISSED.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT LIONEL BRADLEY, DOC #T52652, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-450 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed December 19, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Christopher C. Sabella, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and SLEET, JJ., Concur.