alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.02



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report of Kana Software, Inc. (the
Registrant) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
certify, in accordance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 the Registrant.



|                       |  |  |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Dated: August 26, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ JOHN THOMPSON                    
|                       |  |  |  | John Thompson Chief Financial Officer



A signed original
of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
ZERO TRUST: 

PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

Zulfikar Ramzan, Ph.D

Chief Digital Officer | RSA

@zulfikar_ramzan
@ZULFIKAR_RAMZAN

NEVER TRUST
ZERO TRUST

@ZULFIKAR_RAMZAN

1976

1977

1984 2003

1994

Saltzer: 

Least 

Privilege

Thompson: 

Reflections on 

Trusting Trust Jericho Forum

De-perimeterization

RFC 1636

“Soft & Chewy Center”

Early Crypto 

Papers

Certificate 

Authorities

NOVEL NAME | ESTABLISHED CONCEPT
ALL RESOURCES ACCESSED 

IN SECURE MANNER 

REGARDLESS OF LOCATION

Strong Authentication, Risk Engine

ACCESS CONTROL IS ON A 

NEED TO KNOW BASIS AND 

IS STRICTLY ENFORCED

Least Privilege, Identity Governance 

& Lifecycle, VLANs, Software-defined 

infrastructure

INSPECT AND LOG 

ALL TRAFFIC

Monitoring Solutions (Network logs & 

packets, endpoint, cloud / SaaS / 

PaaS, IoT, etc.)

@ZULFIKAR_RAMZAN

ZERO TRUST

CONCEPTS | APPROACHES
JOURNEY OR DESTINATION?

RSA CONFIDENTIAL

ZERO TRUST

“Never Trust” seems impossible “Always Verify” seems impossible 

IS IT BETTER TO AIM FOR A MEANINGFUL REDUCTION IN THE “TRUST SURFACE”?

@ZULFIKAR_RAMZAN

DEVICES INFRASTRUCTURE
WHAT SHOULD ONE DO IN PRACTICE?

§ Some steps maybe harmful to the business

§ Example: Client-side TLS and the 

eCommerce Vendor

§ Focus on maximizing reduction in (overall) 

risk per dollar spent 

§ Example: eCommerce Vendor Browse 

versus Transact

UNDERSTAND BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS TAKE RISK-ORIENTED APPROACH

RSA CONFIDENTIAL

REDUCING TRUST SURFACE

@ZULFIKAR_RAMZAN
3

2

1

KEY

TAKEAWAYS

Zero Trust is a Mindset (not a 

product, framework, or strategy)

The Underlying Philosophy is 

Decades Old

Take Risk-Driven View to Reduce 

your Trust Surface leveraging a 

holistic portfolio of products and 

services

@ZULFIKAR_RAMZAN
<PAGE> 1

                                  EXCERPTS OF

                               MINUTES OF MEETING

                EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

                               February 22, 1996


The first order of business was to review and approve an adjustment to the
pension for R. U. De Schutter, President, Searle. Mr. De Schutter was
transferred from Monsanto to Searle in 1985. At that time, he was told his
pension would not be reduced as a result of his accepting the assignment.
Because the Searle pension plan does not provide the same retirement
benefit as the Monsanto plan, the Committee approved a supplemental
executive retirement plan (SERP) for Mr. De Schutter. This SERP will
calculate his pension under the Monsanto Pension Plan using all service at
Monsanto and Searle, less the benefit provided by the Searle Plan. If he were
to retire today, this SERP would provide an additional present value of
$640,000. If he continues to work, the difference between the Monsanto plan
and the Searle plan decreases to zero at age 65.





                                                  /s/ Teresa E. McCaslin
                                                  ----------------------

                                                  Ms. Teresa E. McCaslin
                                                  Management Liaison Officer
                                                  Executive Compensation and
                                                  Development Committee
|   | 1. | The Amendment No. 2 to Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in Amendment No. 2 to Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  April 6, 2011 | /s/ Lee W. Hendrickson                                                                                        Lee W. HendricksonChief Financial Officer |
|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**     I, Gary L. Dreher, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMDL, Inc. for the period endedJune 30, 2006     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis quarterly report;     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the small business issuer and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisquarterly report based on such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: August 14, 2006/s/ Gary L. Dreher
UNITED STATES
                SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                     WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

                           FORM 10-Q

            QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
              OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


For the quarterly period ended    December 31, 1995

Commission file number     33-24537


            CENTURY PACIFIC TAX CREDIT HOUSING FUND II
      (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


          CALIFORNIA                       95-4178283
(State of other jurisdiction of            (IRS Employer
incorporation of organization)             Identification Number)


1925 Century Park East, Suite 1760
Los Angeles, CA                            90067
(Address of principal executive offices)   (Zip Code)


Registrant's telephone number, including area code:
(800) 262-8242


No Change
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year if changed
since last report)


Indicate by a check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to
file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.


Yes  [x]          No  [ ]
[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 Annual Report of BF Acquisition Group
II, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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 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
the Company.

Dated: June 16, 2004

                   /s/ William Colucci
                   ----------------------------
                   William Colucci, President
                   BF Acquisition Group II, Inc.
MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 8 OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on December 23, 2014, the cause upon appeal to 

revise or reverse your judgment between

Joshua Zoltan Paur, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-14-00815-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 422830

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the motion to dismiss 

is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, 

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on February 23, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
#### Spencer *v.*Woollen et al.

*Practice.—Pleading.—Striking otit*Paragraph.—It is not error for the court, on motion, to strike out a paragraph of a pleading, when the evidence admissible under it may be introduced under a remaining paragraph.

*SAME.—Inspection of*Papers.—Motion.—A motion to require the opposite party' to produce a paper for inspection should show its contents, that the court may determine its relevancy. . '

APPEAR from the Jennings Circuit Court.

Pettit, J.

This suit was brought by the appellees against the appellant, on a note payable at a bank in this State to the order of D. C. Sullivan, and by him endorsed and assigned to the plaintiffs below, appellees here. Issues were formed, trial by the court, finding and judgment for the plaintiffs for the amount of the note. The case is awkwardly presented here, the plaintiffs below being placed as appellants, and the defendant below being placed as appellee, when the reverse should be their position; the defendant below having been beaten, and having appealed to this court, his .name should appear in the assignment of errors as the appellant, and his adversaries as appellees; but we have made the correction in stating the case above.

The answer was in six paragraphs. A motion to strike out the sixth paragraph was sustained, because it was the same, in substance, as the fifth paragraph of the answer, and that all the evidence that could be given under the sixth, might be given under the fifth paragraph of the answer. The errors assigned are, first, “ the striking out the sixth paragraph of the answer; second, overruling a motion of defendant to require plaintiffs to produce for inspection, and upon the trial, a certain letter referred to in the bill of exceptions.” We have examined all the paragraphs of the answer, and are clearly of the opinion that all the evidence that could be given under the sixth was properly admissible under the fifth paragraph. The fifth paragraph sets out with great certainty the facts and circumstances to constitute a fraud in procuring the note to be given, and avers that *365the plaintiffs had full notice of'these facts and circumstances before they took the assignment, but "does not use the words fraud, cheat, fraudulently, and to deceive, while the sixth paragraph uses these terms, which were not necessary, if the facts stated, as in the fifth paragraph, showed fraud and cheating in procuring the note to be given.

*y. D. New*and *‘y E. McClelland\*for appellant.

*y. Overmeyer*and *D. Overmeyer,*for appellees.

It follows that no error was committed in striking out the sixth paragraph of the answer.

■ As to the second assignment of error, we have only to say, that the motion to produce the letter does not show what its contents were, and the court could not .see that it was material to the defence. 2 G. & H. 191, sec. 306.

. We entertain no doubt, from the whole record, that the rights of the parties have been properly determined.

The judgment below is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6806

VICTOR COLLYN GREENE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARSHA MALOFF; THOMAS R. CORCORAN; JOEL N.BADGER; JEFFREY MYERS; CURTIS W. HENSON, Correctional Officer; JOHN C. STEVENS, Captain; TAMMIE L. KIEL, Correctional Officer; JESSE D.WIGGINS, Lieutenant; CRAIG W. BLANK, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-2987-JFM) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor Collyn Greene, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Greene v. Maloff , No. CA-95-2987-JFM (D. Md. Apr. 24, 1996). We also note that Appellant's Eighth Amendment claim was properlydismissed for failure to provide evidence of a serious or significant injury or a substantial risk of serious harm. Shakka v. Smith , 71 F.3d 162, 166 (4th Cir. 1995). We deny Appellant's motions for suspension of rules, remand, counsel and consolidation. 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.

AFFIRMED
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1683 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to make certain changes 

with respect to the approval of abbreviated applications for the approval 

of new animal drugs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2023 

Ms. MACE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

make certain changes with respect to the approval of 

abbreviated applications for the approval of new animal 

drugs, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Generic Animal Drug 

5 Advancement Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1683 IH

1 SEC. 2. CHANGES TO PROCESS FOR APPROVAL OF ABBRE2 VIATED APPLICATIONS FOR THE APPROVAL 

3 OF NEW ANIMAL DRUGS. 

4 Section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

5 Act (21 U.S.C. 360b) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (d)(4), in the matter pre7 ceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘section 

8 512(b)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1) or (2) of 

9 subsection (b)’’; 

10 (2) in subsection (n)(1)(F)— 

11 (A) by striking ‘‘or because the new animal 

12 drug’’ and inserting ‘‘because the new animal 

13 drug’’; and 

14 (B) by striking ‘‘manufacturers;’’ and in15 serting ‘‘manufacturers, or because the new 

16 animal drug is not shown to be bioequivalent to 

17 all of the species for which the approved new 

18 animal drug is approved for use;’’; and 

19 (3) by amending subsection (o) to read as fol20 lows: 

21 ‘‘(o) For purposes of this section— 

22 ‘‘(1) the term ‘bioequivalent’ means, in estab23 lishing whether a new animal drug is bioequivalent 

24 to an approved new animal drug— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1683 IH

1 ‘‘(A) demonstrating bioequivalence in at 

2 least one major species for which the approved 

3 new animal drug is approved for use; or 

4 ‘‘(B) in the case that an approved new ani5 mal drug is not approved for use in any major 

6 species, demonstrating bioequivalence in at least 

7 one species for which the approved new animal 

8 drug is approved for use; and 

9 ‘‘(2) the term ‘patent’ means a patent issued by 

10 the United States Patent and Trademark Office;’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
1

Public Meeting

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY’S

WORLD TRADE CENTER INVESTIGATION

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2004

10 A.M. TO 5 P.M.

NEW YORK MARRIOTT FINANCIAL CENTER HOTEL

10:00 a.m. Welcome

Review of Meeting Purpose and Procedures 

James 

Hill—Acting 

Director, 

Building 

and Fire 

Research 

Laboratory, 

National 

Institute of 

Standards 

and 

Technology 

(NIST)

10:15 a.m. Status and Overview of NIST World Trade Center Investigation Shyam 

Sunder, 

WTC Lead 

Investigator, 

NIST

10:45 a.m. Public Comment Session 

Sally Regenhard—Skyscraper Safety Campaign 

Patricia Lancaster—NYC Department of Buildings 

Jim Tidwell—International Code Council 

Robert Solomon—National Fire Protection Association 

Jack Murphy—NYC Fire Safety Directors Association 

Glenn Corbett—John Jay College of Criminal Justice 

James Quintiere—University of Maryland 

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl—University of California, Berkeley 

Lawrence Shapiro—W.R. Grace & Co. 

Tim Vellrath—Vellrath Engineering 

Colleen Delaney—NY Environmental Law & Justice Project 

12:15 p.m. LUNCH

1:15 p.m. Question and Answer Session I

1:45 p.m. Public Comment Session II
2

Monica Gabrielle—Skyscraper Safety Campaign 

John McCormick—Society of Fire Protection Engineers 

David Harris—National Institute of Building Sciences 

Donald Bliss—National Association of State Fire Marshals 

John Flynn—FDNY 

Peter Gleason—Self (retired FDNY) 

Bill Bowen—Self 

Jake Pauls—Jake Pauls Consulting Services 

Arthur Scheuerman—Self (retired FDNY) 

Zia Razzaq—Old Dominion University 

John Cole—Self 

Stephen Vassilev—Self 

Roberto Catalan—SkyscraperSafety.com 

3:15 p.m. BREAK

3:30 p.m. Question and Answer Session II

4:00 p.m. Public Comment Session for Those Who Sign Up on February 12

4:45 p.m. Wrap-up Shyam 

Sunder—

WTC Lead 

Investigator, 

NIST

5:00 p.m. ADJOURN
10784.

#### Seaboard Air-Line Railway Co. *v.*Greene.

Decided April 7, 1920.

Action for damages; from city court of Springfield — Judge Shearouse. June 24, 1919.

*Anderson, Cann, Cann & Walsh,*for plaintiff in error.

*Seabrook & Kennedy,*contra.

Jenkins, P. J.

In conformity with the recent ruling of the Supreme Court *(Ash*v. *Peoples Bank of Oliver,*149 *Ca.*713, 101 S. E. 912), to the effect that writs of error do not lie from the city court of Springfield to the Court of Appeals, the writ in this case must be dismissed.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*