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 OMI Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kathleen C. Haines, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
|

|Date: |  | May 10, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/Kathleen C. Haines  
|----- |  | ------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|      |  |              |  |     |  |                        
|      |  |              |  |     |  | Kathleen C. Haines     
|      |  |              |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, 
|      |  |              |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
|      |  |              |  |     |  | and Treasurer          

A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OMI Corporation and will be retained by OMI Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon
request.

---
•;.•

dismissal for failure to state a claim, accepting all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all inferences in favor of the plaintiff).

As we explained in State Board of Parole Commissioners v. Morrow, 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 224, 230 (2011), no constitutional due process protections apply during parole hearings because inmates do not have a liberty interest in being paroled. 1And as appellant has not identified any liberty interest at stake in a Psychological Review Panel hearing, he has not demonstrated a right to constitutional due process in such hearings. Cf. id. at , 255 P.3d at 228-29 (recognizing that the Psychological Review Panel does not afford certain due process protections in its hearings). Further, the Psychological Review Panel was not required to provide appellant with a copy of the considered documents under Nevada's open meeting law because those documents were designated confidential. See NRS 241.020(5)(c) (explaining that a public body does not have to provide copies of supporting material to the public if those materials are confidential); NDOC AR 813 (1.8.1) (July 23, 2009) (designating all documents considered by the panel confidential pursuant to NRS 213.1075). Finally, while appellant argues that the Psychological Review Panel respondents had a statutory duty under NRS 179A.100(7)(b) to provide him with a copy of his file because it is a record of criminal

'As in Morrow, no statutory due process protections applied during appellant's parole hearing because appellant's parole hearing took place on June 3, 2009, during the Legislature's temporary suspension of the statute's due process protections. See Morrow, 127 Nev. at , 255 P.3d at 227 (describing when Nevada's statutory due process protections were ineffective); see also American Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Cortez Masto, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1260 

### (D. Nev. 2008).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2

### history, he did not allege that he had complied with NRS 179A.100(7)(b)

by requesting a copy of that file. 2See 

### NRS 179A.100(7)(b) (providing that a record of criminal history "must be disseminated by an agency of criminal justice, upon request, 

### to . . . Nile person who is the subject of the record of criminal history. . .") (emphasis added). Thus, the district court properly concluded that appellant failed to state a claim for the violation of his due process rights. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3

, J. Hardesty

Parraguirre

ChRA Cherry

cc: Hon. Richard Wagner, District Judge Michael McCormick Attorney General/Carson City Pershing County Clerk

2 

### Because appellant failed to allege that he had requested a copy of his file, as required under NRS 179A.100(7)(b), we need not address whether the Psychological Review Panel is an "agency of criminal justice" or whether an inmate's parole file is a "record of criminal history."

3 

### In light of this order, we need not consider appellant's arguments regarding respondents' qualified and absolute immunity.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A
4)5 ' 

### 3
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

81-15 

May 28, 1981 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041(a) Termination by Plan Administrator. Filing of Notice of Intent to Terminate 

OPINION: 

 In response to your telephone conversation with * * * of this office on May 19, 1981, concerning the * * * and *

* * Pension Plan, PBGC agrees to consider your notice of intent to terminate the plan as withdrawn. The reason for this

decision is as follows. 

On December 26, 1979, PBGC received a notice of intent to terminate the plan effective February 29, 1980. You

have informed us that no further action was taken to terminate the plan and that the plan continues to be operated as an

on-going plan. Thus employers continue to make, and the plan accepts, contributions pursuant to their collective

bargaining agreements; and plan participants continue to receive credit under the plan for service with contributing

employers. Therefore, the plan has not terminated. You indicated to that you considered it appropriate to withdraw the

notice of intent to terminate, subject to PBGC's approval. Under the circumstances you have described, it is consistent

with Title IV of ERISA to permit the withdrawal of your notice of intent to terminate the plan. 

On September 26, 1980, Congress amended ERISA by the Multiemployer [*2] Pension Plan Amendments Act of

1980, Pub. L. 96-364, 94 Stat. 1208. These amendments, which substantially altered the law with respect to

multiemployer plans, will apply to your plan. If you have further questions concerning this matter, please contact * *

* at (202) 254-4873. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 7323]

The U.S. National Commission for UNESCO will hold a meeting in closed session on Thursday March 10, 2011, from 1 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. EST. Commission members will convene in closed session in order to discuss applications for the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Laura W. Bush Traveling Fellowship, a fellowship funded through privately donated funds. This session will be closed pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) because it is likely to involve discussion of information of a personal nature regarding the relative merits of individual applicants where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

From 1:30 p.m. to 2 p.m. on Thursday March 10, 2011, the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO will meet in open session, with public participation by telephone. The open session will feature a discussion about the Commission's upcoming programmatic schedule, during which the Commission will accept brief oral comments or questions from the public or media. The public comment period will be limited to approximately 10 minutes in total, with 2 minutes allowed per speaker.

                    For more information or to arrange to participate in the open portion of the meeting, individuals should contact Eric Woodard, Executive Director of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, Washington, DC 20037. Telephone (202) 663-0026; Fax 202-663-0035; E-mail                     *DCUNESCO@state.gov.*

Dated: February 24, 2011.

Eric Woodard,

Executive Director, U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2011-4715 Filed 3-2-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-19-P
#### Hege and Company *v.*Tremain.

[No. 12,490.

Filed November 17, 1925.]

From Industrial Board of Indiana.

Proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act between Hege and Company and Bert Tremain. From the award rendered, the former appeals. *Affirmed.*By the court in banc.

A. C. *Caldwell*and *Turner, Adams, Merrell & Locke,*for appellant.

*Tremain & Turner,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Award affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 25, 2010 

p0517 

Order 

 

May 25, 2010 

140438 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140438 

 COA: 287911 

Wayne CC: 08-002462-FC 

WILLIAM BRIAN HURT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 HATHAWAY, J., not participating. Justice Hathaway recuses herself and will not 

participate in this case as she was the presiding trial court judge. See MCR 2.003(B).
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                          CENTERPOINT PROPERTIES TRUST
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of CenterPoint Properties Trust on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-95792, 33-99858,
333-18235 and 333-49359), Form S-8/S-3 (File Nos. 333-05087 and 333-34687) and
Form S-8 (File No. 333-05141 and 333-62887) of our reports dated February 9,
1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedules of CenterPoint Properties Trust and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 1998, which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.
 
                                             PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
 
Chicago, Illinois
March 12, 1999
 
                                      F-34
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50884 Conference Calendar

BENTON G. MILEY, III, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CAROLE KEETON RYLANDER, Comptroller of Public Accounts, State of Texas, in Her Official Capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-99-CV-452-JN

-------------------- February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Benton G. Miley III, TDCJ #775702, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Texas drug tax was a punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The claim is not cognizable in a § 1983 action unless the challenged conviction has been invalidated because the action necessarily implies the invalidity of the conviction. See Edwards v.No. 99-50884 -2- Balisok , 540 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Clarke v. Stalder , 154 F.3d 186, 190 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 1052 (1999). Miley’s appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED as such. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Miley is warned that the dismissals of his claim by the district court for failure to state a claim and of his appeal by this court as frivolous count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996)(“[D]ismissals as frivolous in the district courts or the court of appeals count [as strikes] for the purposes of [§ 1915(g)].”). We caution Miley that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
#### § 100.113 Independent expenditures.

An independent expenditure that meets the requirements of 11 CFR 104.4 or part 109 is an expenditure, and such independent expenditure is to be reported by the person making the expenditure in accordance with 11 CFR 104.4 and part 109.
§ 115.35 Specialized training: Medical and mental health care. ( a ) The agency shall provide specialized training to DHS or agency employees who serve as full- and part-time medical practitioners or full- and part-time mental health practitioners in immigration detention facilities where medical and mental health care is provided.
( b ) The training required by this section shall cover, at a minimum, the following topics: ( 1 ) How to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse;
( 2 ) How to respond effectively and professionally to victims of sexual abuse,
( 3 ) How and to whom to report allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse, and
( 4 ) How to preserve physical evidence of sexual abuse. If medical staff employed by the agency conduct forensic examinations, such medical staff shall receive the appropriate training to conduct such examinations.
( c ) The agency shall review and approve the facility's policy and procedures to ensure that facility medical staff is trained in procedures for examining and treating victims of sexual abuse, in facilities where medical staff may be assigned these activities.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-95792, 33-99858, 333-18235 and 333-49359),
Form S-8/S-3 (File Nos. 333-05087 and 333-34687) and Form S-8 (File
No. 333-05141, 333-62887 and 333-55986) of CenterPoint Properties Trust of our
report dated February 22, 2001 relating to the financial statements and
financial statement schedules which appear in this Form 10-K. We also consent to
the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 22, 2001 relating to
the financial statement schedules, which appears in this Form 10-K.

                                          PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 15, 2001

                                      F-37
§ 158.614 Salary limitations. ( a ) The salary system, described in § 158.610, has the following limitations on maximum rates of salary that apply within the CTMS salary range described in § 158.613 of this part: ( 1 ) The annual rate of basic pay for GS-15, step 10 under the General Schedule (excluding locality pay or any other additional pay as defined in 5 CFR chapter 1);
( 2 ) The annual rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule;
( 3 ) The annual rate of basic pay for level II of the Executive Schedule;
( 4 ) The annual rate of basic pay for level I of the Executive Schedule; and
( 5 ) The total annual compensation payable to the Vice President under 3 U.S.C. 104.
( b ) The Department may establish additional limitations on maximum rates of salary for the salary system.
( c ) The salary system incorporates each limitation on maximum rates of salary described in this section into each salary structure established under § 158.611.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, *v.*Johnny Grayle, Petitioner-Appellant.

(No. 59805;

First District (1st Division)

November 18, 1974.

*82Paul Bradley and Gordon H. Berry, both of State Appellate Defenders Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and John F. Brennan, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE GOLDBERG.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          38,161
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                       272
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,555
<PP&E>                                         662,275
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,352
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 699,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,564
<BONDS>                                        270,735
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                     387,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   699,055
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,588
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,436
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (108)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,359
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39


</TABLE>
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-73 

June 2, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4022(a) Benefits Guaranteed. Type of Benefits Guaranteed 

OPINION: 

 In response to your request the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") has reviewed its determination

that the severance benefit provided by * * * (the "Plan") is not a benefit guaranteed under Title IV of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act"). We have reexamined the information upon which the PBGC's

initial decision was based in light of your presentation at our meeting of May 17, 1976. As a result of this review, the

PBGC has reaffirmed its prior determination. 

The Plan provides that an employee with five or more years of credited service who terminates employment for any

reason is eligible for a severance benefit in lieu of all other benefits under the plan. The benefit is computed by

accumulating an annual service credit at 2% interest compounded annually and the full amount is payable upon

application by the former employee. The severance benefit also functioned, in part, as a post-retirement death benefit.

As you know, a pension plan may offer a variety of nonforfeitable benefits, which a participant will receive if there

are sufficient funds available in the plan to pay for [*2] those benefits. Under Title IV of the Act, the PBGC guarantees

the payment of certain pension benefits after termination of a plan to which Title IV applies, but the statute does not

authorize the PBGC to guarantee payment of all vested benefits provided by a covered plan. See Act, § 4022(a). 

The PBGC Regulation on Guaranteed Benefits, 40 Fed. Reg. 43509 (1975) (the "Regulation"), states that to be

guaranteed by the PBGC, a benefit must qualify as a pension benefit, the participant must be entitled to it, and it must

be nonforfeitable, as those terms are defined in the Regulation. If a participant of the Plan terminated employment with

five or more years of credited service, the severance benefit is a nonforfeitable benefit to which the participant is entitled.

However, the benefit is not a pension benefit and therefore is not guaranteed. 

 A pension benefit is defined as "a benefit payable as an annuity, or one or more payments related thereto . . ."

Regulation § 2605.2. Here, the severance benefit is payable only as a lump-sum, and that lump-sum is not related to

the Plan's normal retirement benefit payable as an annuity. The benefit is payable upon termination of employment [*3]

and not deferred until retirement age. In short, the severance benefit did not provide a pension upon retirement; it

provided a lump-sum payment upon termination of employment or death. 

We regret that as a result of the Plan's termination without sufficient funds to cover all vested benefits, participants

will not receive their severance benefit. However, the PBGC is precluded by § 4022(a) of the Act from paying such

benefits. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### §1790. Nondiscriminatory provision

It is not the purpose of this subchapter to discriminate in any manner against State-chartered credit unions and in favor of Federal credit unions, but it is the purpose of this subchapter to provide all credit unions with the same opportunity to obtain and enjoy the benefits of this subchapter.

(June 26, 1934, ch. 750, title II, §211, formerly §210, as added Pub. L. 91–468, §1(3), Oct. 19, 1970, 84 Stat. 1015; renumbered §211, Pub. L. 95–147, §2(c)(2), Oct. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1228.)