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 of BSD Medical Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis P. Gauger, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby 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; and




(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.







/s/ Dennis P. GaugerDennis P. GaugerChief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)July 14, 2011
#### Linda Stone, Respondent, v Cabana East Associates, L.P., et al., Appellants.

[974 NYS2d 52]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered on or about October 2, 2012, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In finding that defendants failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment, the court properly determined that the open facade area of defendants’ restaurant, used as a means of entrance and exit, was a door within the meaning of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-371 (h), and *601that the step from the inside of the restaurant through the facade to the sidewalk, which exceeded 7V2 inches, violated the Administrative Code and was some evidence of negligence *(see Sweeney v Bruckner Plaza Assoc.,*57 AD3d 347, 348 [1st Dept 2008], *appeal dismissed*12 NY3d 832 [2009]), warranting denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Section 27-371 (h) does not apply only to “required” exits, as defendant’s expert opined, or to exits regularly used as exits, as defendants argue, but to “all” exits. It is uncontested that the facade area was used as an entrance/exit on the day of plaintiffs accident, and that the step exceeded the maximum height expressed in that section, *PI2*inches. Nor is this conclusion altered by Administrative Code § 27-361, which requires that exits be clearly visible and “unobstructed at all times.” Although the facade area of the restaurant was not always open, this does not mean that it was “obstructed,” but simply closed. The intent of section 27-361 is clearly that an exit, when used as an exit, must be unobstructed. Moreover, even if an exit is found to be obstructed, section 27-361 does not mean that it is no longer an exit; it means only that the owner is in violation of the mandate to keep the exit unobstructed. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Freedman and Richter, JJ
#### Watts v. N.C. Dep’t of Envt’l & Natural Res.

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 178

No. 191A07

1. Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-299)

2. AG’s NOA (Dissent)

3. AG’s PDR as to Additional Issues

1. Denied 10/11/07

2. _

3. Denied 10/11/07
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                    THE CERPLEX GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                           -------------------------------
                                                           DECEMBER 31,       DECEMBER 26,
                                                              1998               1997
                                                           ------------      -------------
<S>                                                        <C>               <C>       
Net loss available to common stockholder                     $(7,689)          $  (5,814)
ADJUSTED NUMBER OF COMMON SHARES                             =======           =========

Weighted average shares outstanding                            7,232                 685

Net loss per common share                                    $(.1.06)          $   (8.50)
                                                             =======           =========
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with Quarterly Report of IRIS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Cesar M. Garcia, Chief Executive 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; 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 12, 2005 
|                       
|/s/ CESAR M. GARCIA    
|Cesar M. Garcia        
|Chief Executive Officer



This certification shall not be deemed
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Ace. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### In re A.S. & M.J.W.

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 706

No. 140A07

1. Respondent’s (Father) NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA06-1028)

2. Guardian ad Litem’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

1. _

2. Allowed 06/27/07
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 94 (Monday, May 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11504]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1833-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


Georgia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-1833-DR), dated April 23, 2009, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 1, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of April 23, 2009.

    Calhoun, Cook, Crisp, Dodge, Irwin, Jeff Davis, Monroe, Pulaski, 
Tattnall, Telfair, Thomas, Turner, Upson, Wayne, and Wilcox Counties 
for Public Assistance.
    Brooks, Decatur, Dougherty, Lanier, Miller, Tift, Wheeler, and 
Worth Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for 
Individual Assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

Nancy Ward,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-11504 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Approved for public release, 22-415

Essential Body of Knowledge (EBK)

GEOINT Professional Certification - Imagery Science Proficiency Level II

26 June 2019

IS-II Core Competency 1 - Collection System Capablities (45%)

IS-II Core Competency 2 - Processing and Exploitation Capabilities (55%)

Approved for public release, 22-415

Ensure that credentialed Imagery Science practitioners, along a scale of proficiency, 

within the topical area of GEOINT Imagery Science, have demonstrated the 

knowledge of the facts, concepts, and principles deemed critical by experts to the 

successful execution of GEOINT mission functions. (As of 26 Jun 2019)
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

     In connection with the Annual Report of Allied Healthcare International
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Charles F. Murphy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18. U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 as at and for the year ended September 30, 2004.

Dated:  December 22, 2004
                                          /s/ Charles F. Murphy
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Charles F. Murphy
                                          Chief Financial Officer of the Company
```
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00122

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF G.Z., A.Z., H.Z.,

A.Z., A.Z., AND J.D. §

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the 322nd District Court

of Tarrant C ounty ( 322

- 682567

- 20 )

August 26, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the tr ial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<RESTATED>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                       0
<CASH>                                               0
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                      0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                  0
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                           0
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.32
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
From: The District Court of the 18th Judicial District. County of Gallatin.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. FORREST BODE, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-07-121C DECISION

On July 12,2007, the defendant was sentenced to twenty (20) years in the Montana State Prison, to run concurrently with Cause Nos. DC-06-342C and DC-06-229AXC.

On November 12, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

*74The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 12th day of November, 2009.

DATED this 25th day of November, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.
**Exhibit      13.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

|  | (i) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (ii) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company                at the dates and for the periods                presented. |
|--|------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| By:              /s/ JAIME              RIVERA |   |   |   |
| Jaime                Rivera                         |   |   |        |
| *Chief                Executive Officer*            |   |   |   |

----
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 of AFP Imaging Corporation
(the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, (the "Report"), I David
Vozick, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





/s/__David Vozick_____________
David Vozick
Chairman of the Board
Co-Principal Executive Officer
February 13, 2004
















                                       21
#### Taofik Ifafore, Respondent-Appellant, v Chris Lebron, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[976 NYS2d 44]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), *571entered March 12, 2012, which granted so much of defendant Chris Lebron’s motion as sought to amend his answer to include an affirmative defense based on Worker’s Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6), and denied so much of the motion as sought to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record establishes that defendant Lebron’s vehicle struck plaintiff, a fellow employee of Coca-Cola Company, as Lebrón arrived for work, at a predawn hour, pulled into a parking facility owned by a third party, and turned left towards an area used by Coca-Cola employees. Plaintiff was walking inside the lot, 15 or 20 feet from the entrance, having exited one building in which Coca-Cola had offices and heading east across the parking lot to reach another building in which Coca-Cola had offices. The record also indicates that the area of the parking lot in question lacked artificial illumination and was dark at the time of the accident.

Whether Lebrón was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident cannot be determined on this record. Issues of fact exist whether the area of the parking lot where the accident took place constitutes plaintiffs sole route from the building at the east side of the lot to the building at the west side of the lot, whether that area constitutes Lebron’s sole route to reach his designated parking area, and whether the lack of lighting in that area creates a special hazard for Coca-Cola employees, as distinguished from the general public, since the parking lot separates the buildings in which they regularly work and, during certain times of the year, employees working certain shifts are required to arrive before dawn *(see Ortiz v Lynch,*105 AD3d 584 [1st Dept 2013]).

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Acosta, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.
<PAGE>








                                                                  Exhibit 21.1

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


                                                        JURISDICTION OF
SUBSIDIARIES                                              ORGANIZATION

DermaQuest, Inc.                                          Pennsylvania

MK Diabetic Support Services, Inc.                          Florida

RespiFlow, Inc.                                             Florida

Steri-Pharm, Inc.                                           New York

The PromptCare Companies, Inc.                             New Jersey

The PromptCare Lung Center, Inc.                            Delaware

Transworld Home HealthCare - Nursing Division, Inc.         Delaware

Transworld Healthcare Puerto Rico, Inc.                     Florida

Health Management, Inc.                                     Delaware

Transworld Healthcare (UK) Limited                          England
         Allied Medicare Ltd.                               England
            Allied Homecare Ltd.                            England
         Omnicare plc                                       England
            Omnicare Group Ltd.                             England
               Medigas Ltd.                                 England
            Amcare Ltd.                                     England
               Amcare Services Ltd.                         England