alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 of QuantRx Biomedical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter
Witoshkin, 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 to 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.





/s/ Walter WitoshkinWalter
      WitoshkinChairman
      & CEO





Date:    May
14, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
###### **EXHIBIT 32.2**

####  

#### **Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

###  

                In connection with the annualreport of Nano-Proprietary, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas P, Baker, the Chief Financial Officerof 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 complieswith the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

                2. The information containedin this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of theCompany.

| Date:       March    9,2004        | s/ Douglas P.    Baker                                         Douglas P. Baker    Chief Financial Officer |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

               

### ****
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 758 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 758

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that the federal 
excise tax on communication services does not apply to internet access 
                                service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 11, 2005

 Mr. Allen (for himself and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that the federal 
excise tax on communication services does not apply to internet access 
                                service.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Internet Tax Prohibition Act 
of 2005''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EXTENSION OF FEDERAL EXCISE TAX.

    Section 4251 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to the 
imposition of federal excise tax on communication services) is amended 
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Exception for Internet Access Services.--
            ``(1) In general.--The tax imposed under subsection (a) 
        shall not apply to any internet access service.
            ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
        term `internet access service' has the same meaning given the 
        term in section 1104(5) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 
        U.S.C. 151 note).''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 775 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

123 W. 7th Street in Holdenville, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Boone Pickens 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 13, 2005 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. COBURN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 123 W. 7th Street in Holdenville, Oklahoma, 

as the ‘‘Boone Pickens Post Office’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. BOONE PICKENS POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 123 W. 7th Street in Holdenville, 

6 Oklahoma, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Boone 

7 Pickens Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2

•S 775 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Boone Pickens Post 

3 Office’’.

Æ
#### HUGHES v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

Civil Action No. 8142.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Jan. 16, 1948.

William A. Blank, of Brooklyn, for plaintiff.

Louis J. Carruthers, of New York City (William A. Colton, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

BYERS, District Judge.

This motion has been reduced by stipulation entered into at argument, to one proposition :

Can the defendant be required to produce the statement made to the Claim Agent of the defendant by the latter’s freight conductor A. J. Carroll on October 15, 1946, prior to the institution of this suit, for examination by plaintiff’s attorney in connection with the taking of Carroll’s deposition?

It seems to me that the question should be answered in the affirmative, without intending thereby to commit the Court to an abstract rule that would automatically govern all cases in which the question may arise.

The defendant’s opposition is confined to the assertion that the Carroll statement is part of the defendant’s attorney’s “work product”, although taken prior to the filing of the complaint. This is thought not to be the decision, nor the necessary effect of Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385.

What an attorney does to prepare his client’s cause for trial, and what a Claim Agent does for his employer prior to institution of a lawsuit, and which may never be embodied in a lawyer’s file, are thought to be diverse products.

The decision of Judge Inch in Thomas v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C., 7 F.R.D. 610, will be followed, since the cases are substantially similar so far as this question is involved.

Motion to set aside and quash subpoena, to the extent left open by the said stipulation, is denied.

Settle order.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Greg Grosvenor, ChiefFinancial Officer, in connection with the Report on Form 10-Q of AM-CH, Inc.for the quarterly period March 28, 2005, hereby certify in accordance with18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

1)              Theaccompanying Report of AM-CH, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended March 28, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)              Theinformation contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of AM-CH, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ GREG  GROSVENOR                                   |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Greg Grosvenor                                        |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer                              |
|   | Dated: May      ,  2005 |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Paulet Facey, Appellant, v New York City Department of Education, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 207]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered March 22, 2012, which denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award finding petitioner guilty of certain charges, imposing a fine of $8,000 and directing that petitioner receive up to 48 hours of pedagogical training, confirmed the arbitration award and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the findings of misconduct committed by petitioner, including making a remark comparing the elementary school where she worked “to the shootings and killings of individuals in the Iraq war.” Moreover, while uttering the remark, she stood up and feigned pulling the trigger of a gun, which was worrisome to her colleagues. There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the arbitrator *(see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y.,*51 AD3d 563, 568 [1st Dept 2008]).

The arbitrator’s reference to petitioner’s miming of shooting a gun flowed naturally from the credited witnesses’ testimony, and did not go beyond what the arbitrator was authorized to hear. Furthermore, the charges preferred against petitioner specifically notified her of the misconduct that she was accused of and were sufficiently specific to permit petitioner to prepare her defense *(see Matter of Block v Ambach,*73 NY2d 323, 333 [1989]).

The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness, and in fact was well-tailored to the misconduct of which petitioner was found guilty of *(see generally Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.2


                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Sasha Afanassiev, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of QuantRx Biomedical Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)):

   (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

   (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

   (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

       5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

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


<PAGE>

         Date: November 14, 2006

                                                   /s/ Sasha Afanassiev
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   Sasha Afanassiev
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20892

spearsl@mail.nih.gov

July 2022

Back to Top
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 24871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12118]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[LLCAD00000 L19900000.AL 0000]

Meeting of the California Desert Advisory Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, in accordance with Public Laws 92-463 
and 94-579, that the California Desert District Advisory Council to the 
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, will 
participate in a field tour of BLM-administered public lands on Friday, 
June 19, 2009 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and meet in formal session on 
Saturday, June 20 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., at the Hampton Inn & Suites, 
2710 Lenwood Road, Barstow, CA 92311.
    The Council and interested members of the public will depart for 
the field tour at 8:30 a.m. from the lobby of the Hampton Inn & Suites. 
Members of the public are welcome to participate in the tour but should 
plan on providing their own transportation, lunch, and beverage.
    Agenda topics for the formal session will include updates by 
Council members and reports from the BLM District Manager and five 
field office managers. Additional agenda topics are being developed. 
Once finalized, the meeting agenda will be posted on the BLM California 
State Web site at http://www.blm.gov/ca/news/rac.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All Desert District Advisory Council 
meetings are open to the public. Public comment for items not on the 
agenda will be scheduled at the beginning of the meeting Saturday 
morning. Time for public comment may be made available by the Council 
Chairman during the presentation of various agenda items, and is 
scheduled at the end of the meeting for topics not on the agenda.
    While the Saturday meeting is tentatively scheduled from 8 a.m. to 
4 p.m., the meeting could conclude prior to 4 p.m. should the Council 
conclude its presentations and discussions. Therefore, members of the 
public interested in a particular agenda item or discussion should 
schedule their arrival accordingly.
    Written comments may be filed in advance of the meeting for the 
California Desert District Advisory Council, c/o Bureau of Land 
Management, External Affairs, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno 
Valley, California 92553. Written comments also are accepted at the 
time of the meeting and, if copies are provided to the recorder, will 
be incorporated into the minutes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Briery, BLM California Desert 
District External Affairs, (951) 697-5220.

     May 15, 2009.
Steven J. Borchard,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. E9-12118 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Written Statement of Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) The undersigned, the Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of Orbital Sciences Corporation
(the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:  (a)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarter Ended June 30,
2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Garrett E. PierceGarrett E. PierceVice Chairman and Chief Financial OfficerJuly 25, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 1

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the two Houses of Congress shall meet

3 in the Hall of the House of Representatives on Thursday,

4 the sixth day of January 2005, at 1 o’clock post meridian,

5 pursuant to the requirements of the Constitution and laws

6 relating to the election of President and Vice President

7 of the United States, and the President of the Senate shall

8 be their Presiding Officer; that two tellers shall be pre9 viously appointed by the President of the Senate on the

10 part of the Senate and two by the Speaker on the part

11 of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed,

12 as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the

13 certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the

14 electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be

15 opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical

16 order of the States, beginning with the letter ‘‘A’’; and

17 said tellers, having then read the same in the presence

18 and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the

19 votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and
 †

2

SCON 1 ES

1 the votes having been ascertained and counted in the man2 ner and according to the rules by law provided, the result

3 of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Sen4 ate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote,

5 which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declara6 tion of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice

7 President of the United States, and, together with a list

8 of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

Passed the Senate January 4, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 1

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To provide for the counting on January 6, 2005, of

dent of the United States.the electoral votes for President and Vice Presi-
The decision and order of this Court entered on August 13, 2013 (109 AD3d 415 [2013]) is hereby recalled and vacated *(see*2013 NY Slip Op 91243[U] [2013] [decided simultaneously herewith]).

#### In the Matter of Margarita Santiago, on Behalf of Herself and Her Five Minor Dependent Children, Appellant, v Elizabeth R. Berlin, as Executive Deputy Commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance of the New York State Department of Family Assistance, et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 457]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered May 16, 2012, which dismissed as moot the petition brought in a hybrid CPLR article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly determined that when, during the pendency of this proceeding, respondent formally retracted the challenged recoupment notice and retroactively restored the portion of public assistance benefits withheld pursuant to that notice, these actions mooted the petition as to both the injunctive and declaratory relief sought *(see e.g. Eve & Mike Pharm., Inc. v Greenwich Pooh, LLC,*107 AD3d 505 [1st Dept 2013]; *Duane Reade Inc. v Local 338, Retail, Wholesale, Dept. Store Union, UFCW, AFL-CIO,*11 AD3d 406 [1st Dept 2004]).

Petitioner does not raise a substantial and novel issue which the Court should reach, and the narrow exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable *(see generally Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki,*100 NY2d 801, 811 [2003], *cert denied*540 US 1017 [2003]). Petitioner claims that the New York City Human Resources Administration’s notices improperly *488set an arbitrary “effective date” as the deadline for a public benefits recipient to obtain a stay by requesting a fair hearing. However, this does not present a substantial constitutional issue since the 10-day notice period complies with due process and enables the City to automatically process the request for aid-continuing benefits for those who do meet the deadline. As explained by the City respondent, the deadline is set before the actual issuance of the first reduced check (which petitioner argues is the real effective date) so that the City’s computer system is able to process fair hearing requests, and automatically implement “aid continuing” directives, thereby avoiding interruption of benefits to those beneficiaries who do timely request a fair hearing by the effective date set in the notice letter. Federal law gives the State flexibility to set such deadlines, and the deadline set in the notice is reasonable and does not raise due process concerns. Moreover, the deadline procedure was implemented pursuant to a settlement of federal class-action litigation addressing the problem of interruption of benefits pending fair hearing decisions, and the settlement is subject to *ongoing*supervision by a federal magistrate *(see Morel v Giuliani,*927 F Supp 622 [SD NY 1995]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Richter and Gische, JJ.