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 Consolidated Energy, Inc. (the "Registrant") 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"), I, Robert Chmiel, Interim 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. to the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2. to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.   Date:  August 21, 2006 /s/Robert Chmiel Robert Chmiel Interim Chief Financial Officer
### **CHAPTER 1—THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY**

Sec.
1.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
2.
Comptroller of the Currency; appointment; term.
3.
Oath of Comptroller.
4.
Deputy Comptrollers.
4a.
Delegation of authority by Comptroller.
4b.
Deputy Comptroller for the supervision and examination of Federal savings associations.
5, 6.
Repealed.
7.
Chief of examining division.
8.
Clerks.
9.
Additional examiners, clerks, and other employees.
9a.
Repealed.
10.
Salaries of Deputy Comptrollers, examiners, and other employees as part of bank examination expenses.
11.
Interest in national banks.
12.
Seal of Comptroller.
13.
Rooms for Currency Bureau.
14.
Report of Comptroller.
14a.
Data standards; open data publication.
15.
Repealed.
16.
Funding of Office.
### [§§4352 to 4358. Omitted]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

See Codification note set out under section 4351 of this title.
### [§2706. Repealed. Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title X, §1061(22)(A), Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1584]

Section, added Pub. L. 99–499, title II, §211(a)(1)(B), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1724; amended Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title III, §357(a)(1), (2)(A), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1426, 1427; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title III, §§341, 342(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1536, 1537; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title X, §1001(a)–(d), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1742–1744; Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title X, §1070(b)(9), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2857; Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title III, §324(f), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 254; Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title III, §321, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2477; Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title III, §§344(a), 345, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1688; Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title III, §325, Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 1965; Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title III, §§322, 323(c)(1), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 560, 563; Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title III, §315, Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1053; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title III, §311, Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3190, related to annual reports by the Secretary of Defense to Congress regarding environmental restoration activities, environmental quality programs and other environmental activities, and the Department of Defense's environmental technology program.
# C_2006326EN.01005901.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/59

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 October 2006 — European Association of Im — and Exporters of Birds and live Animals and Others v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-209/06 R)

(Application for interim measures - Application for interim measures and suspension of enforcement - Admissibility - Urgency - None)

(2006/C 326/127)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: European Association of Im — and Exporters of Birds and live Animals (West Maas en Waal, Netherlands), Vereniging van Im- en Exporteurs van Vogels en Hobbydieren (West Maas en Waal), Plomps Vogelhandel (Woerden, Netherlands) and Borgstein Birds & Zoofood Trading (West Maas en Waal) (represented by: J. Wouters, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and M. van Heezik, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for, first, suspension of enforcement of Commission Decision 2006/522/EC of 25 July 2006 amending Decisions 2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC as regards certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and movements of certain live birds into the Community (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 28), and, second, the grant of all other necessary interim measures.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
#### § 502.20 Secretary.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of the Interior.
[Cite as State ex rel. Hayes v. Winkler, 131 Ohio St.3d 66, 2011-Ohio-6046.]

T HE S TATE EX REL . H AYES , A PPELLANT , v. W INKLER , J UDGE , A PPELLEE . [Cite as State ex rel. Hayes v. Winkler, 131 Ohio St.3d 66, 2011-Ohio-6046.] Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing co mplaint for writ of mandamus affirmed. (No. 2011-1381—Submitted November 16, 2011—Decided December 1, 2011.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-110365.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Marcus Hayes, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Ralph Winkler, to issue a judgment on certain postconviction moti ons in accordance with Civ.R. 58 and App.R. 4(A). Insofar as Hayes sought to compel Judge Winkler to rule on his motions, the judge has already done so. Mandamus will not compel a judge to rule on motions that the judge has already ruled on. State ex rel. Womack v.
Marsh , 128 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-229, 943 N.E.2d 1010, ¶ 10. And as for Hayes’s claim that he could not appeal the rulings because the clerk never served notice of the judgments on him, he had ade quate remedies in th e ordinary course of law by delayed appeal and motion for re lief from judgment to raise his claim. State ex rel. McKinney v. Defian ce Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 123 Ohio St.3d 153, 2009-Ohio-4693, 914 N.E.2d 1044, ¶ 1. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

__________________ Marcus Hayes, pro se.

______________________
### §10111. Air National Guard of the United States: composition

The Air National Guard of the United States is the reserve component of the Air Force that consists of—

(1) federally recognized units and organizations of the Air National Guard; and

(2) members of the Air National Guard who are also Reserves of the Air Force.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1661(a)(1), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2971.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 8077 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, §1661(a)(3)(A).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 1, 1994, except as otherwise provided, see section 1691 of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as a note under section 10001 of this title.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Guidance Document Database 
-  Controlled Groups 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Controlled groups

                  -  Opinion Letter 86-08
Addresses the proper method for determining withdrawal liability when the liable employer is a group of trades or businesses under common control within the meaning of section 4001.  
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 92-01
Addresses the calculation of withdrawal liability in a situation where several members of a controlled group have an obligation to contribute to the same multiemployer pension plan and are sold or liquidated in a series of transactions. 
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 85-29
Addresses whether certain corporate transactions would trigger withdrawals and discusses whether these corporate transactions may be disregarded under the evade or avoid provision of the law.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 76-09
Discusses considerations PBGC would apply in determining whether parent-subsidiary group created a single plan or multiple separate plans managed under a single trust.
-               document
# C_2006310EN.01001602.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/16

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2006 — Armacell v OHIM — nmc (ARMAFOAM)

(Case T-172/05) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application to register Community word mark ARMAFOAM - Earlier Community word mark NOMAFOAM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of products and signs - Argument concerning the similarity of goods raised for the first time before the Court of First Instance)

(2006/C 310/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Armacell Enterprise GmbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler, lawyer,)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: nmc SA (Raeren-Eynatten, Belgium) (represented by: P. Péters and T. de Haan, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2005 (Case R 552/2004-1) concerning opposition proceedings between nmc SA and Armacell Enterprise GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Armacell Enterprise GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and nmc SA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Armacell Enterprise GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and nmc SA.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.

1

---
#### STEVENSON v. PARSONS

No. 524P89

Case below: 96 N.C.App. 93

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 March 1990.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Guidance Document Database 
-  Governmental Plan 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Governmental plan

                  -  Opinion Letter 75-44
A plan maintained by a public agency or political subdivision which has been taken over from a private business is excluded from coverage.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 76-95
Employer created by state law is a political subdivision of state with authority to tax.  Plan meets the Governmental plan exemption from coverage.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 81-03
Tribal plan meets the Governmental plan  coverage exemption.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 96-03
Plan does not meet the Governmental plan exemption from coverage.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 98-02
Plan does not meet the Governmental plan exemption from coverage.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 80-01
State liability with respect to private-sector plans to which employees contribute.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 83-16
Government contractors are not excluded from PBGC coverage.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 81-30
Plan meets the Governmental plan coverage exemption.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 81-02
Plan meets the Governmental plan coverage exemption.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 81-13
A plan maintained by a company under contract to provide services for a Federal agency does not meet the Governmental plan coverage exemption.
-               document            
 

-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-   Next  
-   Last
§ 700.297 Statements of disagreement. ( a ) *Filing of statements.* If the determination of the Executive Director under § 700.295 rejects in whole or part, a petitioned for amendment, the individual submitting the petition may file with the system manager for the system containing the challenged record, a concise written statement setting forth the reasons for his disagreement with the determination of the Department.
( b ) *Disclosure of statements.* In any disclosure of a record containing information about which an individual has filed a statement of disagreement under this section occurring after the filing of the statement, the disputed portion of the record will be clearly noted and the recipient shall be provided copies of the statement of disagreement. If appropriate, a concise statement of the reasons of the Commission for not making the requested amendments may also be provided to recipient.
H. Res. 328

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 14, 1999.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 2684) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes. All points of order

against the conference report and against consideration are

waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

SEC. 2. House Resolution 300 is laid on the table.

Attest:

Clerk.
### [§196. Renumbered §4173]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                            23,123,000
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     65,919,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (5,702,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  92,129,000
<PP&E>                                            62,128,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (15,589,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   984,121,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             60,568,000
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                             424,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,104,649,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     984,121,000
<SALES>                                          146,546,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 146,546,000
<CGS>                                            103,908,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    184,660,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (1,234,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (102,800,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (102,800,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (102,800,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (3.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (3.39)



</TABLE>
IV

House Calendar No. 260

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 556

[Report No. 106–759]

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 18, 2000

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported

from the Committee on Rules.

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported on the legislative day of July 19, 2000, providing

6 for consideration or disposition of a conference report to

7 accompany the bill (H.R. 4810) to provide for reconcili-
2

HRES 556 RH

1 ation pursuant to section 103(a)(1) of the concurrent reso2 lution on the budget for fiscal year 2001, or any amend3 ment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.

House Calendar No. 260

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 556

[Report No. 106–759]

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII

with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

JULY 18, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
#### M.R.D. Corporation, a Nebraska corporation, appellant, v. City of Bellevue, a municipal corporation in the State of Nebraska, et al., appellees.

240 N. W. 2d 46

Filed April 1, 1976.

No. 40286.

*723Haney, Hansen & Katz, for appellant.

John E. Rice, for appellee City of Bellevue.

Heard before Spencer, Boslaugh, and Clinton, JJ., and Fahrnbruch and Grant, District Judges.

Fahrnbruch, District Judge.

Appellant herein filed for injunctive relief to restrain appellees from proceeding with eminent domain proceedings to acquire 6.7 square feet of appellant’s land. Appellant adduced evidence at trial and rested. The trial judge sustained a motion to dismiss appellant’s case. We affirm.

Appellant, M.R.D. Corporation, first complains that appellee City of Bellevue, a municipal corporation in the State of Nebraska, did not give proper notice by publication of a city council meeting prior to the city council voting to acquire appellant’s land. It is undisputed that appellant’s president and its attorney participated actively on behalf of appellant at the city council proceedings. Where one appears at such a hearing and takes part in the proceedings, he cannot afterward complain that he did not receive notice in a legal manner. Richardson v. Frontier County, 94 Neb. 27, 142 N. W. 528. Appellant’s first complaint is without merit.

Secondly, appellant complains that appellee City of Bellevue is attempting to condemn appellant’s land for a walkway without authority.

The eastern terminus of Elm Street in the City of Bellevue forms a circular-type cul-de-sac. Running tangentially from the closed end of the cul-de-sac to the northeast is a walkway which has been dedicated to public use. The 6.7 square feet being condemned consists of two triangular parcels of land, one on each side of the walkway tangent point. The larger curved side of each of the triangles is approximately 10 feet long *724and abut the cul-de-sac. The base of each triangle is 1.01 foot and runs in a tangent from the cul-de-sac. In short, appellee City of Bellevue is extending a portion of the right-of-way line of Elm Street at its eastern terminus.

Cities of the first class have the power of eminent domain for street purposes. § 19-709, R. R. S. 1943.

It makes no difference whether such extension in the instant case was for vehicular traffic or pedestrian traffic on a sidewalk adjacent to the portion of the street used for vehicular traffic. The word “street” as used in section 19-709, R. R. S. 1943, is a generic term. It includes the portion for vehicular traffic, the parkway, and the sidewalk. See Acton v. Wymore School Dist. No. 114, 172 Neb. 609, 111 N. W. 2d 368. See, also, Campbell v. Brandeis Investment Co., 121 Neb. 50, 236 N. W. 150; City of Beatrice v. Williams, 172 Neb. 889, 112 N. W. 2d 16.

The trial judge herein was correct on both the law and the facts.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
§ 47.3 How does a Bureau-operated school find out how much funding it will receive? The Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP) will notify each Bureau-operated school in writing of the annual funding amount it will receive as follows: ( a ) No later than July 1 OIEP will let the Bureau-operated school know the amount that is 80 percent of its funding; and
( b ) No later than September 30 OIEP will let the Bureau-operated school know the amount of the remaining 20 percent.
### [§2136. Renumbered §16136]
§ 547.15 What are the minimum technical standards for electronic data communications between system components? ( a ) *Sensitive data.* Communication of sensitive data must be secure from eavesdropping, access, tampering, intrusion or alteration unauthorized by the TGRA. Sensitive data includes, but is not limited to: ( 1 ) RNG seeds and outcomes;
( 2 ) Encryption keys, where the implementation chosen requires transmission of keys;
( 3 ) PINs;
( 4 ) Passwords;
( 5 ) Financial instrument transactions;
( 6 ) Transfers of funds;
( 7 ) Player tracking information;
( 8 ) Download Packages; and
( 9 ) Any information that affects game outcome.
( b ) *Wireless communications.* ( 1 ) Wireless access points must not be accessible to the general public.
( 2 ) Open or unsecured wireless communications are prohibited.
( 3 ) Wireless communications must be secured using a methodology that makes eavesdropping, access, tampering, intrusion or alteration impractical. By way of illustration, such methodologies include encryption, frequency hopping, and code division multiplex access (as in cell phone technology).
( c ) Methodologies must be used that will ensure the reliable transfer of data and provide a reasonable ability to detect and act upon any corruption of the data.
( d ) Class II gaming systems must record detectable, unauthorized access or intrusion attempts.
( e ) Remote communications may only be allowed if authorized by the TGRA. Class II gaming systems must have the ability to enable or disable remote access, and the default state must be set to disabled.
( f ) Failure of data communications must not affect the integrity of critical memory.
( g ) The Class II gaming system must log the establishment, loss, and re-establishment of data communications between sensitive Class II gaming system components.