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

I, Walter A.
Shephard, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Zygo Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009, as
filed 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 that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Zygo Corporation.

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

| |                                            | 
| | ------------------------------------------ | 
| | Dated: May
 11, 2009                       | 
| |                                            | 
| | /s/ Walter
 A. Shephard                    | 
| |                                            | 
| | Walter A.
 Shephard                        | 
| | Vice
 President, Finance,                  | 
| | Chief
 Financial Officer, and Treasurer of | 
| | Zygo
 Corporation                          | 

---
SNET Stay Bonus Program



1.   Purpose.  It is essential that Southern New England
Telecommunications Corporation ("SNET") be managed and
operated efficiently and effectively during the transition
period relating to SNET's acquisition by SBC Communications
Inc. ("SBC").  It is natural for persons to be concerned
about their careers and consider changes during times of
uncertainty.  To assure that SNET is able to retain
employees needed to discharge its commitments to customers
during the extended transition process, SNET has implemented
the SNET Stay Bonus (the "Program").

2.   Effective Date.  The Program shall be effective as of
January 5, 1998 (the "Effective Date").

3.   Definitions.  The following terms as used herein have
the meanings set forth below:

(a)  "Base Salary" means an Eligible Employee's annual basic
wage rate (or its full time equivalent for part time
employees) in effect on the Payment Date.

(b)  "Bonus" means an Eligible Employee's target bonus
opportunity in effect on the Payment Date or such higher
bonus amount actually earned by an Eligible Employee as of
the Payment Date.

(c)  "Eligible Employee" means each Salary Band 4 and Above
Executive of SNET who is on the active payroll or on a leave
of absence with a re-employment guarantee.  "Eligible
Employee" shall not include individuals who are at the
Payment Date classified by SNET as independent contractors
or "leased employees" as defined in Section 414(n) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

(d)  "Merger Agreement" means the Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated as of January 4, 1998 by and among Patriot,
Silver and Silver Ventures, Inc.

(e)  "Payment Date" means the earlier of the Effective Time
as defined in the Merger Agreement or the date of
termination of the Merger Agreement.

(f)  "Stay Bonus" means the sum of an eligible employee's
Base Salary and Bonus.

4.   Benefits.  The Company shall pay, in a cash lump sum
net of any applicable withholding or employment taxes, the
applicable Stay Bonus to each Eligible Employee who is
employed by the Company on the Payment Date.  An Eligible
Employee who is not employed by the Company on the Payment
Date shall not be entitled to receive the Stay Bonus that
otherwise would be due.

5.   Rights of Employees.  The Program is for the benefit of
each Eligible Employee and his or her heirs and
representatives and shall be enforceable by them in
accordance with its terms.  The Program is not a contract of
employment between the Company and the Eligible Employee and
shall not be construed to create a right of an Eligible
Employee to continued employment with the Company.

6.   Amendment and Termination.  SNET, through action of its
Board of Directors, may amend, modify or terminate the
Program for any or no reason.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(A) OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
             8




---



##### 



Date: June 30, 2011
    /s/ Robert H. DonehewName:
    Robert H. DonehewTitle:
    President (Principal Executive Officer) and
Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer) 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY HIGH

 428

 404

 386

 363

 376

 401

 372

 390

 402

 447

 404

 408

 369

 379

 356

 335

 321

 377

 344

 304

 317

 332

 328

 312

 312

 335

 342

 324

 342

 337

 329

 325

 321

 315

 309

 304

 308

 308

 310

 285

 268

 303

 264

 282

 292

 291

 288

 282

 282

 284

 283

 284

 284

 287

 287

 288

 366

 356

 347

 340

 337

 333

 326

 329

 335

 343

 335

 335

 318

 321

 307

 303

 301

 310

 300

 290

 291

 294

 294

 292

 291

 298

 299

 297

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 1, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY 

AVG

MEAN

 5,760

 5,629

 5,516

 5,422

 5,338

 5,254

 5,160

 5,072

 4,999

 4,943

 4,887

 4,840

 4,776

 4,721

 4,662

 4,609

 4,563

 4,533

 4,496

 4,453

 4,418

 4,383

 4,342

 4,291

 4,247

 4,210

 4,191

 4,167

 411

 402

 394

 387

 381

 375

 369

 362

 357

 353

 349

 346

 341

 337

 333

 329

 326

 324

 321

 318

 316

 313

 310

 307

 303

 301

 299

 298

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

JERSEY POINT TOP ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
### subpart 8—[Repealed]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Subpart 8 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which comprised this subpart, was originally added to Pub. L. 89–329, title IV, by Pub. L. 99–498, title IV, §401(a), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1352, and amended by Pub. L. 100–50, June 3, 1987, 101 Stat. 335; Pub. L. 102–325, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 448. Subpart 8, which related to learning anytime anywhere partnerships, was set out as having been added by Pub. L. 105–244, title IV, §411, Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1671, without reference to those intervening amendments because of the extensive revision of subpart 8 by Pub. L. 105–244.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 267

 266

 266

 267

 288

 307

 304

 294

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 310

 261

 257

 257

 261

 261

 262

 263

 260

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 280

 264

 263

 263

 264

 269

 279

 285

 278

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 292

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 9, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

FARRAR PARK AT DUTCH SLOUGH
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 268

 262

 261

 257

 253

 248

 247

 247

 245

 245

 243

 241

 241

 239

 239

 239

 240

 239

 242

 244

 240

 240

 241

 239

 241

 240

 241

 242

 242

 241

 239

 238

 238

 237

 236

 235

 229

 232

 235

 236

 236

 235

 232

 233

 234

 236

 236

 235

 234

 233

 232

 231

 231

 228

 232

 232

 233

 226

 224

 232

 252

 250

 248

 247

 243

 241

 238

 238

 239

 239

 239

 238

 236

 236

 237

 238

 238

 237

 236

 236

 235

 234

 234

 234

 235

 235

 235

 235

 233

 234

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 9, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

HOLLAND TRACT ON OLD RIVER
August 3, 2015

Mr. Marcus Batton

Aerial Playground LLC

3950 North Creasy Springs Road

Columbia, MO 65202

Dear Mr. Batton:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 15, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1695), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5307 

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

115 Nicol Avenue in Thomasville, Alabama, as the ‘‘Postmaster Robert 

Ingram Sr. Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 5, 2019 

Ms. SEWELL of Alabama introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 115 Nicol Avenue in Thomasville, Alabama, 

as the ‘‘Postmaster Robert Ingram Sr. 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. POSTMASTER ROBERT INGRAM SR. POST OF4 FICE. 

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

6 Postal Service located at 115 Nicol Avenue in Thomasville, 

7 Alabama, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Post8 master Robert Ingram Sr. Post Office’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5307 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Postmaster Robert 

5 Ingram Sr. Post Office’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
### SUBTITLE I—HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Titles I and II of act June 17, 1930, ch. 497, 46 Stat. 590, 672, which comprised the dutiable and free lists for articles imported into the United States, were formerly classified to sections 1001 and 1201 of this title, and were stricken by Pub. L. 87–456, title I, §101(a), May 24, 1962, 76 Stat. 72. The Revised Tariff Schedules, which were classified to section 1202 of this title, were stricken by Pub. L. 100–418, title I, §1204(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1148, and were replaced by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. See Publication of Harmonized Tariff Schedule note set out under section 1202 of this title.

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

#### Change of Name

United States Tariff Commission renamed United States International Trade Commission by Pub. L. 93–618, title I, §171, Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 2009, which is classified to section 2231 of this title.

#### Enactment of Harmonized Tariff Schedule

Pub. L. 100–418, title I, §1204(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1148, provided that: "The Tariff Act of 1930 [this chapter] is amended by striking out title I and inserting a new title I entitled 'Title I—Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States' (hereinafter in this subtitle [subtitle B, §§1201 to 1217, of title I, see Tables for classification] referred to as the 'Harmonized Tariff Schedule') which—

"(1) consists of—

"(A) the General Notes;

"(B) the General Rules of Interpretation;

"(C) the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation;

"(D) sections I to XXII, inclusive (encompassing chapters 1 to 99, and including all section and chapter notes, article provisions, and tariff and other treatment accorded thereto); and

"(E) the Chemical Appendix to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule;

all conforming to the nomenclature of the Convention and as set forth in Publication No. 2030 of the Commission entitled 'Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes' and Supplement No. 1 thereto; but

"(2) does not include the statistical annotations, notes, annexes, suffixes, check digits, units of quantity, and other matters formulated under [former] section 484(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1484(e) [now see 19 U.S.C. 1484(f)]), nor the table of contents, footnotes, index, and other matters inserted for ease of reference, that are included in such Publication No. 2030 or Supplement No. 1. thereto."

[For effective date of Harmonized Tariff Schedule as Jan. 1, 1989, see section 1217(b) of Pub. L. 100–418, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3001 of this title.]

#### Tariff Classification Act of 1962; Adoption of Revised Tariff Schedules; Administrative and Savings Provisions

Titles I and II of Pub. L. 87–456, May 24, 1962, 76 Stat. 72–75, as amended by Pub. L. 87–794, title II, §257(g), Oct. 11, 1962, 76 Stat. 882; Pub. L. 100–418, title I, §1213(b), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1155, provided for adoption of Revised Tariff Schedules of the United States and administrative and saving provisions.
389 P.2d 405

#### Jose D. GALLEGOS, Petitioner, v. The STATE of New Mexico, Respondent.

No. 54 HC.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Feb. 26, 1964.

COMPTON, Chief Justice, and CARMODY, CHAVEZ, NOBLE and MOISE, Justices, concurring.

Ordered that free process be and the same is hereby granted, and the petition for writ of habeas corpus be and the same is hereby denied.
Editorial Note on Part 25
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear by T.D. ATF-437, 66 FR 5478, 5479, Jan. 19, 2001.

§ 25.262 Restrictions and conditions on processes of concentration and reconstitution. ( a ) *Conditions on concentration.* A brewer may not employ any process of concentration which separates alcohol spirits from any fermented substance.
( b ) *Conditions on reconstitution* — ( 1 ) The process of reconstitution of beer will consist of the addition to the concentrate of carbon dioxide and water only.
( 2 ) A brewer may not employ any process of concentration or reconstitution unless the beer upon reconstitution will, without the addition of any substance other than carbon dioxide and water, possess the taste, aroma, color, and other characteristics of beer which has not been concentrated.
( 3 ) The process of reconstitution shall provide for the addition of sufficient water to restore the concentrate to a volume not less than, and an alcohol content not greater than, that of the beer used to produce the concentrate.
(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1315, as amended, 1388, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5002, 5401))
###### Editorial Note on Part 28

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear by T.D. ATF-477, 67 FR 18087 through 18090, Apr. 15, 2002.

#### § 28.222 Claim, Form 1582-B (5130.6).

Claim for allowance of drawback of internal revenue taxes on beer brewed or produced in the United States shall be prepared on Form 1582-B (5130.6), in quadruplicate, as required by this part. Each Form 1582-B (5130.6) shall be given, by the person initiating the form, a serial number beginning with “1” for the first day of January of each year and running consecutively thereafter to December 31, inclusive.

(72 Stat. 1335; 26 U.S.C. 5055)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 31, 2018

No. 04-18-00446-CV

IN RE PHOENIX SERVICES, LLC; Pruitt’s Fract Tanks, LLC; and Jose Jaime Jacquez

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

On July 3, 2018, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus, the real party in interest 

responded, and relators replied. After reviewing the petition, the response, and the reply, we 

conclude relators are entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, the petition for writ of 

mandamus is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c).

The Honorable Gloria Saldana is ORDERED to, within fifteen days from the date of this 

order, withdraw her “Order on Defendants’ Motion to Conduct Neuropsychological Examination,”

and enter an order requiring Fernando Martinez, Jr. to submit to a neuropsychological examination 

on reasonable and appropriate terms and conditions. The writ will issue only if we are notified 

that Judge Saldana has not complied within fifteen days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on October 31, 2018.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of October, 2018.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 17-01-33870-MCV, styled Fernando Martinez, Jr. and Jose Javier Cisneros 

v. Phoenix Services, LLC, et al., pending in the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas. The Honorable 

Gloria Saldana, retired, signed the order at issue here.
### §2541. Functions of Trade Representative

#### (a) In general

The Trade Representative shall coordinate the consideration of international trade policy issues that arise as a result of, and shall develop international trade policy as it relates to, the implementation of this subchapter.

#### (b) Negotiating functions

The Trade Representative has responsibility for coordinating United States discussions and negotiations with foreign countries for the purpose of establishing mutual arrangements with respect to standards-related activities. In carrying out this responsibility, the Trade Representative shall inform and consult with any Federal agency having expertise in the matters under discussion and negotiation.

#### (c) Cross reference

**For provisions of law regarding general authority of the Trade Representative with respect to trade agreements, see section 2171 of this title.**

(Pub. L. 96–39, title IV, §411, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 243; Pub. L. 103–182, title III, §351(b)(2), Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2122; Pub. L. 104–295, §21(b)(1), (2), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3529, 3530.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–295, §21(b)(1), amended directory language of Pub. L. 103–182, §351(b)(2). See 1993 Amendment notes below.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–295, §21(b)(2), substituted "Trade Representative" for "Special Representatives".

1993—Pub. L. 103–182, §351(b)(2)(B), as amended by Pub. L. 104–295, §21(b)(1), substituted "Trade Representative" for "Special Representative" in section catchline.

Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 103–182, §351(b)(2)(A), as amended by Pub. L. 104–295, §21(b)(1), substituted "Trade Representative" for "Special Representative" wherever appearing.
(No. 5998

#### Wilma Walkowitz a/k/a Wilma Walkowicz, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed July 12, 1973.*

John D. Dempsey and Rosemary Duschene, Attorneys for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Perlin, C. J.

Claimant seeks recovery of $25,000 for injuries she sustained on November 7, 1969, when she caught her foot in a hole and fell while crossing Touhy Avenue in the Village of Skokie.

The parties have stipulated that the highway in question was under the auspices and control of the State of Illinois at the time and place of the occurrence.

*11Claimant was the only witness to testify in the proceedings. She stated that she crossed the street in question on her way to lunch at noon. She was crossing Touhy Avenue in an area generally used by the public as a crosswalk to cross from Teletype Corporation where claimant worked, to the restaurant. Claimant testified that she stepped in a hole in the street approximately six inches in diameter and four or five inches deep and fell forward on her knees, shoulder and head, sustaining a fracture of the left patella, bruises and contusions to her shoulder, head, and knee and back strain. Claimant introduced photographs over the objections of respondent, purporting to show the hole in question.

Claimant contends that there was no evidence of contributory negligence. It is difficult, however, to understand why claimant was unable to see and avoid the alleged defect. Claimant further contends that respondent did not introduce evidence to show that it conducted regular inspection of that area of the roadway "as ordinary care would require.” *(City of Peru v. Frence,*55 Ill. 3, 7, etc.) Claimant further argues that the color of the sides of the hole, plus the smooth edges demonstrate that it had existed for a long time.

Respondent argues that in order for claimant to recover on the basis of an alleged defect, she must show that the State had either actual or constructive notice of the defect. *(Weygandt v. State of Illinois,*22 C.C.R. 478) In denying recovery to the claimant who had injured himself in the case of *Palmer v. State of Illinois,*25 C.C.R. 1, the Court stated:

> "The mere fact that a defective condition existed, if, in fact, it did exist, is not in and by itself sufficient to constitute an act of negligence on the part of Respondent.”

In absence of any testimony or other witnesses *12which would establish the Respondent either knew or should have know of the existence of the hole, claimant has failed to show that Respondent was negligent and, therefore, recovery must be denied.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 172

 173

 173

 166

 166

 164

 175

 190

 188

 223

 220

 199

 198

 215

 213

 196

 198

 196

 198

 198

 205

 196

 203

 200

 193

 200

 200

 199

 201

 196

 160

 159

 155

 155

 159

 153

 160

 169

 166

 173

 190

 189

 185

 184

 185

 187

 186

 186

 188

 188

 188

 184

 188

 190

 189

 190

 191

 189

 187

 187

 165

 164

 161

 160

 163

 160

 167

 177

 172

 190

 195

 195

 192

 199

 197

 190

 192

 192

 193

 195

 197

 191

 192

 193

 191

 194

 195

 194

 193

 190

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2002 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 9, 2002

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

GREENS LANDING ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER