alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 this Amendment No. 1 of The Monarch Cement Company (the"Company") onForm 10-K/Afor the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with theSecurities and ExchangeCommission on the datehereof (the "Report"), theundersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicatedbelow, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 The MonarchCement Company and will be retained by The MonarchCement Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

Dated:  March 18, 2009

                                                                                           /s/ Debra P. Roe                                                                                                                       Debra P. Roe, CPA                                                                                            Chief Financial Officer and                                                                                            Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
1 For our original decision, see Hexamer v Foreness , 981 F2d

821 (5th Cir. 1993).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 91-5115

____________________

MAURY HEXAMER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PATRICK FORENESS, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

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

(July 27, 1993)

Before WISDOM, JOLLY, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Following our ruling in her favor, Maury He xamer filed a

motion for attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Justice Act, 28

U.S .C. § 2412. 1 We denied her motion in an unpublished order.

Hexamer now asks us to reconsider.

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a party that prevails

against the United States is generally entitled to attorney's fees

unless the United States' position was "substantially justified" or

"special circumstances ma ke an award unjust." 28 U.S.C. §

2412(d)(1)(A). Although Hexamer is a prevailing party, she is not-2-

entitled to attorney's fees for three reasons. First, Hexamer

r epresented herself p ro se and attorney's fees simply are not

available to pro se litigants under the Equal Access to Justice

Act. S ee Demarest v. Manspeaker

, 948 F.2d 655 (10th Cir. 1991);

Sommer v. Sullivan

, 898 F.2d 895 (2d Cir. 1990); Naekel v.

Department of Transportation , 845 F.2d 976, 981 (Fed. Cir. 1988);

Merrell v. Block

, 809 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1987); Crooker v. EPA

, 763

F.2d 16, 17 (1st Cir. 1985).

Second, Hexamer is not entitled to attorney's fees because the

government's position was "substantially justified." Although the

government did not prevail in this action, that does not mean that

its position was not "substantially justified." The government's

position is substantially justified if it has a "reasonable basis

in law and fact." P ierce v. Underwood

, 487 U.S. 552, 553, 108

S.Ct. 2541, 2543 (1988). The government made reasonable,

supportable arguments and, at all times, acted in good faith. We

f ind that the government's position was clearly "substantially

justified."

Finally, assuming that Hexamer was othe rwise justified in

claiming attorney fees, we would deny her request for fees because

she did not adequately document the time she spent. Although

Hexamer did submit a handwritten list of date s she worked on the

case and the amount of time she allegedly spent on those days, she

did not attempt to explain how she spent this time. We cannot

approve an application for attorney's fees under the Equal Access-3-

to Justice Act unless we have some idea of how the attorney

justified his or her time. Obviously, the documentation does not

have to be perfect, but the documentation we have in this case is

plainly insufficient.

Any one of the foregoing reasons requires us to reject

Hexamer's claims. Therefore, Hexamer's motion to reconsider our

decision denying her attorney's fees under the Equal Access to

Justice Act is

D E N I E D.
**Exhibit99.2**

 

**Certification of**

**Chief Financial Officer**

**of Granite Broadcasting Corporation**

 

This certification is providedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies thequarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended September30, 2002 of Granite Broadcasting Corporation (the “Issuer”).

 

I, Ellen McClain, the ChiefFinancial Officer of Issuer certify that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(i)         the Form 10-Q fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

(ii)           theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

 

 
| Dated:  November 14, 2002. |   |                    |
|---------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                            | /s/    | ELLEN McCLAIN           |   |
|                            |   | Ellen McClain           |
|                            |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|                                 |        |                         |  |

 

----
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ingo K. Kozak the Vice President Finance & Administration and CFO, 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: | June 14, 2004 | /s/ Ingo K. Kozak , VP  Finance and CFO
|----- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------
|      |               |                                         
|      |               | Signature and Title                     

---
April 2020 Page 1

OSAC Preferred Terms 

Term Definition

Cognitive bias A set of influences that may affect the reliability and validity of one’s 

observations and conclusions.

Confirmation 

bias

The tendency to search for data or interpret information in a manner 

that supports one’s preconceptions, expectations or desires. 

Contextual bias A deviation in human judgment caused by exposure to information that 

is either irrelevant to the judgmental task or inappropriate for 

consideration.

Control Material of established origin used to evaluate the performance of a test 

or comparison. Or a test performed to demonstrate that a test method 

works correctly and to ensure that data are valid. Positive controls 

confirm that the procedure will produce the expected result. Negative 

controls confirm that the procedure does not produce an unintended 

result. 

CSI effect Perception of the near infallibility of forensic science in response to 

popular media. 

Forensic Related to methods, techniques and processes used to establish 

conclusions and/or opinions, facts and findings which can be used for 

legal proceedings. 

Forensic science The application of scientific principles and techniques to matters of 

criminal justice especially as relating to the collection, examination and 

analysis of physical evidence. 

Interpretation Explanations for the observations, data and calculations.

Observation Recognizing and noting an occurrence.

Opinion View, judgment, belief – takes into consideration other information in 

addition to observations, data, calculations and interpretations. 

Peer review An independent evaluation of a scientific publication or other work 

product by a qualified second party to evaluate the methods, claims, 

and conclusions, and interpretations therein before dissemination.

Reliability, 

evidentiary/legal

Credibility and trustworthiness of proffered evidence.

Reliability, 

statistical

Consistency of results as demonstrated by reproducibility or 

repeatability.
April 2020 Page 2

Result The product of the forensic service provider. This term is broad and 

includes observations, data, calculations, interpretations and opinions.

Technical review A qualified second party’s evaluation of reports, notes, data and other 

documentation to ensure there is appropriate and sufficient support for 

the actions, results, conclusions, opinions and interpretations. 

Validation A process of evaluating a system, method or component to determine 

that requirements for an intended use or application have been fulfilled.

For a complete list of forensic science terms organized by discipline, please visit the OSAC 

Lexicon.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #14132 and #14133]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Michigan (FEMA-4195-DR), dated 09/25/2014.

*Incident:*                         Severe STORMS AND FLOODING.                    

*Incident Period:*                         08/11/2014 through 08/13/2014.                    

*Effective Date:*                         11/17/2014.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         12/15/2014.                    

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         06/25/2015.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Michigan, dated 09/25/2014 is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 12/15/2014.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2014-28331 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4688 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2004 

Mr. GILCHREST (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr. 

CARDIN, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. 

CASTLE, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. PLATTS, 

Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. WYNN, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. HOYER, 

and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 

reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY PRO4 GRAM. 

5 Section 117(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

6 Act (33 U.S.C. 1267(j)) is amended by striking ‘‘2005’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘2010’’. 

Æ
9977.

#### Vandevender *v.*City of Atlanta.

Decided October 19, 1920.

Action for damages; from city court of Atlanta—Judge Reid. June 1, 1918.

In this action the plaintiff sought to recover damages from the City of Atlanta for the destruction of household goods, alleged to have been destroyed by the blowing up of the house in which they were contained, by firemen of the fire department of the city for the purpose of preventing the extension of a conflagration. It was alleged that a fireman prevented the plaintiff from removing the goods from the house, and there were allegations as to the authority of the fireman. The allegations are set out in the answer of the Supreme Court to certified questions from this court, 150 *Ga.*443. That court held, in substance, that, as against a general demurrer, the allegations were sufficient to show authority from the city for the acts of the firemen, and liability of the city, under the provisions of section 16-32 of the Civil Code (1910) as to the authority and liability of cities in such cases; and that it was immaterial whether the city, in destroying the property, was exercising a governmental or a ministerial function.

*Pettigrew & Jones,*for plaintiff.

*James L. Mayson, J. M. Wood,*for defendant.

Per Curiam.

In accordance with the rules of law governing this case, as set forth by the Supreme Court in response to questions certified to it by this court (150 *Ga.*443, 104 S. E. 227), the judgment sustaining a genera] demurrer and dismissing the case is

*Reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 of Historic Preservation Properties 1989
LP ("HPP'89") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
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 his knowledge:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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 results of operations of HPP'89.


/s/ Robert Gunn
-------------------------------------
Robert Gunn
Asset Manager
(Performing similar functions of
Financial Officer)

Date: August 10, 2006
OSAC Biology Scientific Area Committee Intent/Clarification Update

September 2, 2020

Intent of ANSI/ASB Standard 040 Standard for Forensic DNA Interpretation and Comparison Protocols

Requirement 4.3

Requirement 4.3 from ANSI/ASB Standard 040 as proposed by the Organization of Scientific Area 

Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science’s Biology Scientific Area Committee is intended to ensure that 

evidentiary data are interpreted prior to performing comparisons. The standard defines interpretation 

as the process of evaluating DNA data for purposes including, but not limited to, defining assumptions 

related to mixtures and single source profiles, distinguishing between alleles and artifacts, assessing the 

possibility of degradation, inhibition, and stochastic effects, and determining whether the data are 

suitable for comparison (Definition 3.4). See below for clarification.

Alleles versus artifacts in any samples are to be determined prior to comparison. Reference profiles will 

not be used during interpretation of evidence sample data to determine if a peak in the evidence 

sample is, or is not, an artifact.

For evidence samples with a reasonably expected contributor (assumed donor), the reference profile of 

the assumed contributor may be used as part of the evidentiary profile deconvolution process as long as 

the assumption (and assumed contributor profile) are documented in the case record (See Requirement

4.3.3). If changes are needed to the interpretation based on comparisons of reference profile(s) to the 

evidence sample, Requirement 4.4.2 may be consulted.

Samples that qualify per laboratory protocol for the use of an assumed contributor, in general, require 

the following steps to be performed and documented prior to comparison to assumed contributor 

reference profiles:

1. Data interpretation (as defined above) completed 

2. Determination of whether data are suitable for interpretation and comparison

3. Determination of assumptions that MAY be used per laboratory protocol (such as number of 

contributors, presence of an assumed contributor, etc.)

For samples where no contributors may be reasonably assumed, a reference profile will not be used to 

determine if low-level data (i.e., in the stochastic range) is suitable for comparison. Additionally, if using 

binary methods, acceptable contributor genotypes must be resolved prior to comparison to reference 

profiles. If changes are needed to the interpretation based on comparisons of reference profile(s),

Requirement 4.4.2 may be consulted.

The use of one fraction of a differential extraction to assist in the interpretation of the data from the 

other fraction of the same sample is appropriate and does not involve the use of a reference profile.

Note: This standard does not conflict with the 2017 SWGDAM Interpretation Guidelines for Autosomal 

STR Typing by Forensic DNA Laboratories.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4708 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4708

To allow workers certified to receive trade adjustment assistance under 
the Trade Act of 1974 who are rehired by the same employer to continue 
  to receive such assistance if they are subsequently unable to work 
        because of a lock-out in the course of a labor dispute.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2004

 Mr. Ryan of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To allow workers certified to receive trade adjustment assistance under 
the Trade Act of 1974 who are rehired by the same employer to continue 
  to receive such assistance if they are subsequently unable to work 
        because of a lock-out in the course of a labor dispute.

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

SECTION 1. CONTINUATION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR CERTAIN 
              WORKERS INVOLVED IN LABOR DISPUTES.

    Section 233 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2293) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) Special Rule for Certain Employees.--In any case in which an 
adversely affected worker covered by a certification under subchapter 
A--
            ``(1) is separated from employment from the firm whose 
        workers are covered by the certification,
            ``(2) is eligible to receive a trade adjustment allowance 
        under this chapter by reason of such separation,
            ``(3) is thereafter recalled to work by the firm,
            ``(4) is subsequently denied employment with the firm 
        because of a lockout by the firm in the course of a labor 
        dispute, and
            ``(5) would, but for having been recalled to work with the 
        firm, be entitled to receive such trade adjustment allowance,
such worker is eligible to receive such trade adjustment allowance, 
during the period covered by the certification, for each week during 
which the lockout continues, and the Secretary shall issue a waiver 
under section 231(c) to the worker, for a period of 6 months, of the 
requirement to be enrolled in training.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies to any adversely affected 
worker who is covered by a certification under subchapter A of chapter 
2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 that is made before, on, or 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```