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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q 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, James F. Smith, Senior 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 3, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ James F. Smith                               
|                     |  |     |  | James F. Smith                                   
|                     |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                     |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          47,934
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                60,120
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    133,190
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          31,505
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            31,812
<LOANS>                                        596,504
<ALLOWANCE>                                      8,511
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 900,129
<DEPOSITS>                                     519,631
<SHORT-TERM>                                   206,113
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,665
<LONG-TERM>                                     47,920
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,218
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,795
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 900,129
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 57,992
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,600
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   804
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                69,396
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              14,980
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,149
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           39,247
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,345
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 133
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 26,189
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,795
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      12,686
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,686
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.72
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.26
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,346
<LOANS-PAST>                                       871
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 18,292
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,602
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,552
<RECOVERIES>                                       116
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                8,511
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,830
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                189
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          6,492
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Bruce L. Hollander the President and CEO, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bio-Lok International
Inc.;

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, nor 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, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flow of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for the
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have;

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

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
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regards to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: September 17, 2002               /s/ Bruce L. Hollander, President & CEO
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Signature and Title
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RANDY MURPHY, #260660, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0660-WS-C

CLARKE COUNTY JAIL, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to

the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and

Recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of

this Court. It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice, prior to service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

The Clerk is DIRECTED to send to the Commissioner of the Alabama

Department of Corrections a copy of the Report and Recommendation recommending the

dismissal of this action, this Order adopting the Report and Recommendation, and the

Case 1:09-cv-00660-WS-C Document 32 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 2
Judgment dismissing this action. 

DONE this 13th day of April, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00660-WS-C Document 32 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Trisler et al. *v.*The State.

Criminal *Law.—Separate*Trial.—By statute (2 G. & H. 416, sec. 105), where two or more defendants are indicted jointly, any defendant requiring it must be tried separately.

*Same.—New Trial.—Sill of Exceptions.—Supreme Court.—Assignment of*Errors.—The refusal of the court below to grant a separate trial, when required, to a defendant indicted jointly with others, is not one of the statutory causes for a new trial; and, hence, the_exception to such error may be saved by a bill of exceptions, and the refusal assigned for error in the Supreme Court.

APPEAL from the Decatur Circuit Court.

Downey, J.

Three persons were jointly indicted for violating the Sabbath. On being arraigned, they pleaded not guilty, and demanded to be tried.separately, which the court refused. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and the defendants were found guilty and fines assessed against them, for which judgment was rendered. There was ño motion for a new trial. The appellants assign as error, first, the refusal to grant separate' trials; and, second, in finding them guilty and assessing fines against them.

*474*C. Ewing*and *J. K. Ewing,*for appellants.

*B. W. Hanna,*Attorney General, for the State.

If the refusal to grant separate trials was an error of law occurring at the trial, there should have been a motion for a new trial, in order properly to present the question here. *Lures*v. Botte, 26 Ind. 343. ■ New trials in criminal cases may be granted for the causes mentioned in section 142, 2 G. & H. 423. The refusal to grant separate trials is not among the causes here enumerated, and hence we think the question may be saved by bill of exceptions, as was done in this case, without a motion for a new trial. It is expressly provided by statute, that “when two or more defendants are indicted jointly, any defendant requiring it, must be tided separately.” 2 G. & H. 416, sec. 105. This provision seems to us to be decisive of the question.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
#### Levi Hukill, etc., *v.*W. Bramlett.

Husband and Wife — Conveyance by Wife Must be Voluntary.

A married woman cannot be compelled to convey her interest in land, but must do so voluntarily, and a conveyance made by her in obedience to an order of court should be disregarded.

APPEAL PROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 7, 1873.

/. *T. McClintock, for appellants.*

*A. H.*Ward, *for appellee.*

OpiNion by

Judge Pryor:

Neither of the parties to this record are asking to have the contract for the sale of the land rescinded. If Hukill is willing to accept such a title as the appellee can make him and pay the purchase money he ought to be allowed to do so, either for himself or wife. The *feme covert*can not be compelled to make a conveyance for her interest in the dand unless she does so voluntarily — this she seems willing to do. There is an order of the court, however, directing this married woman to convey her interest, and if she made the deed in obedience to this order only, and not by her own free will the chancellor should disregard it. This he can ascertain through his commissioner or by having the *feme covert*in open court and' examining her in regard to her wishes on the subject. If she refuses to convey and the appellants are willing to take the balance of the land the contract should be enforced upon equitable principles to that extent. The judgment is reversed and cause re-, manded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Subject: Re: NIST CSF v2.0 - Fé

Date: Friday, May 5, 2023 12:36:43 PM
Attachments: image001.pnq

Qutlook-nabm2a00.pnq

Hi Asiya,

| have another suggestion.

The 2.0 draft includes a new section for Policies and Procedures (GV.PO). This is a great addition. | like how the
category includes a requirements that policies be established, reviewed, and applied to relevant third parties.
The one component I'm not seeing is compliance with those policies. Where in the framework should
organization's evaluate their own adherence to policies and procedures to ensure they are being effectuated?

Hope that makes sense.

Best,

Credit Union

Joshua Gregg CISSP | He/Him/His | Manager - Information Risk | Enterprise Risk Management
inion

goldeni.com

Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 11:40 AM
Subject: [External] - RE: NIST CSF v2.0 - Feedback

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your input. NIST has received your comments and look forward to your
continued support as we work on the next stage of the CSF 2.0.

Asiya

From: Joshua Gregg,

Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 4:19 PM

To: cyberframework <cyberframework@nist.gov>
Subject: NIST CSF v2.0 - Feedback

Good afternoon,

lam reviewing the CSF 2.0 draft and would like to make a few suggestions. 1) In some categories and


subcategories, the phrase “required by law, regulation, or policy” is used. I'd like to recommend a better
phrasing. Since a “law* is the umbrella term for any rule we must follow, a “statue” is a law passed by a
legislature, and a “regulation” is a law created by regulatory agencies, a better phrasing would be, “required
by statue, regulation, or policy* or, even simpler, “required by law."

Credit Union

Joshua Gregg CISSP | He/Him/His | Manager - Information Risk | Enterprise Risk Management
it Union

goldenl.com
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7521

OLUDARE OGUNDE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KELLY HARRISON, Law Library Supervisor; M. A.

SHUPE, Operations Officer, Brunswick Correctional Center; J. PERUTELLI, Correctional Officer; DANIEL BRAXTON; S. V. PRUETT, Warden;

CAPTAIN FARMER, Captain at Dillwyn Correctional Center; SERGEANT JACKSON; CAPTAIN CALL,

Captain at Buckingham Correctional Center; LEE

RANDOLPH HARRISON; ELIZABETH TAYLOR CARTER; D.

F. MOSLEY, Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-00-15-7)

Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 28, 2001

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oludare Ogunde, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Lee Randolph Harrison, Amelia,

Virginia; Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY & WINDELS, Dillwyn, Virginia, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Oludare Ogunde appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of a number of defendants, dismissing

most of Ogunde’s claims in this civil rights action, but declining

to dismiss two of Ogunde’s claims. We dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
32 .2
 
 Certification
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Imagenetix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lowell W. Giffhorn,
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, to the best of my knowledge:
 
 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.
 
 Dated:
      August 16, 2010
                /s/LOWELL W. GIFFHORNLowell
      W. GiffhornChief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 10(d)


              INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN
                          FOR
                  EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


In 1994, Mr. Olvey participated in an incentive compensation plan
which provided for a bonus equal to 1% of base salary for each
$0.01 of earnings in excess of $1.35, but not to exceed $2.35 per
share.  Mr. Peterson and Mr. Carlson participated in similar plans
which provided for a bonus equal to .75% and .55%, respectively,
of their base salary for each $0.01 of earnings in excess of
$1.35, but not to exceed $2.35, per share.  Earnings per share
were adjusted for accruals on SARs, bonus expense and
extraordinary items.  Mr. Peterson and Mr. Carlson also
participated in plans which provided for maximum bonus of 25% of
base salary upon satisfaction of individual performance objectives
established at the beginning of the year by the President and CEO,
and Mr. Carlson participated in an incentive compensation plan
based on the operating profit of the Converted Products Division
which provided for a maximum bonus of 20% of Mr. Carlson's base
salary.

During 1995, Mr. Olvey participated in an incentive compensation
plan which provided for a bonus opportunity ranging from 0% of
base salary if 1995 earnings per share were at or below $1.36 to
100% if 1995 earnings per share were at least $2.09 per share. 
Mr. Peterson and Mr. Carlson participated in similar plans which
provided for a bonus equal to 75% and 50%, respectively, of their
base salary based upon the same $1.36 to $2.09 range of earnings
per share.  Earnings per share were adjusted for accruals on SARs,
bonus expense and extraordinary items.  Mr. Peterson and
Mr. Carlson also participated in plans which provided for a
maximum bonus of 25% of base salary upon satisfaction of
individual performance objectives established at the beginning of
the year by the President and CEO, and Mr. Carlson participated in
an incentive compensation plan based on the operating profit of
the Converted Products Division which provided for a maximum bonus
of 25% of Mr. Carlson's base salary.

In 1996, Mr. Olvey will participate in an incentive compensation
plan which provides for a bonus opportunity ranging from 0% of
base salary if 1996 earnings per share are at or below $1.60 to
100% if 1996 earnings per share are at least $2.70 per share. 
Mr. Peterson and Mr. Carlson will participate in similar plans
which provide for a bonus equal to 75% and 50%, respectively, of
their base salary based upon the same $1.60 to $2.70 range of
earnings per share.  Earnings per share will be adjusted for
accruals on SARs, bonus expense and extraordinary items. 
Mr. Peterson and Mr. Carlson will also be entitled to a maximum
bonus of 25% of base salary upon satisfaction of individual
performance objectives established at the beginning of the year by
the President and CEO, and Mr. Carlson will participate in an
incentive compensation plan based on the operating profit of the
Converted Products Division which will provide for a maximum bonus
of 25% of his base salary.
#### The Board of Commissioners of Scott County et al. *v.*Smith et al.

Board of County *Commissoners,—Appeal.—Relocation of County Seai.—hxi*
      *62appeal cannot be taken from an order-of the board of county commissioners changing or relocating the county seat.

APPEAL from the Scott Common Pleas.

*W.K. Marshall, E. C. Devore,*and *G. W. Paul,*for appellants.

*J. F. Crowe,-Dunlap, W. C. Price, T. A. Hendricks,*

*O. B. Hord,*and *A. W. Hendricks,*for appellees.

Pettit, C. J.

The appellants on proper petition made' an order for the relocation of the county seat, from which order an appeal was taken to the common pleas court, and the appellees filed a petition, alleging that, notwithstanding the appeal, the board of commissioners were going on to erect the county building at the new location, and praying an injunction, etc.

A restraining order was granted on filing the petition, without notice to the board. At a regular term of the court, a motion was made by the board to dissolve the restraining order, which was overruled, and an injunction was granted against the board, forbidding the erection of the new *buildings*until the appeal should be determined. The- real and only question in the case is, can an appeal be taken from an order of the commissioners changing or relocating the county seat?

In the twice well-considered case of *Bosley*v. *Ackelmire,*39 Ind. 536, we held that no appeal lies in such a case, and we adhere to the ruling in that case.

The judgment is reversed, at the costs of the appellees, with instructions to the court below to dissolve, the injunction and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
Exhibit 32

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of Qwest on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Qwest. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit
to such Form 10-K. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Qwest and will be retained by Qwest and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

|Dated: February 28, 2005 |  | By: | /s/RICHARD C. NOTEBAERTRichard C. Notebaert
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|------------------------ |  | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 28, 2005 |  | By: | /s/OREN G. SHAFFEROren G. Shaffer
Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer     

---



QuickLinks
( d� r1-

fflniteb �tates 11Bepartment of <!Commerce 

jtlational 3Jnstitute of $5,tanbarbs anb m:etbnologp 

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Mississippi 

This laboratory bas demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metro logical traceability of its standards to the international system of units ($1), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully 

completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, and 

demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on tbfa certificate. 

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025 :2005. 

. Scope 

Mass Echelon Ill Volume Transfer, II 

20 kgfo 1 mg 100 gal to s gal 

1000 lb to 0.001 lb 

8 oz to 0.03125 oz fJvuk J 

Douglas J. Olson, Chief Weight Carts NIST Office of Weights and Measures 

6000 lb to 5000 lb 

Effective Dates: 2020-02-01 to 2021-02-01

2020 

(�ev.: March 2013)