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, Peter S. Garcia, Chief Financial Officer of Marina Biotech, Inc. (Marina Biotech), 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 Marina Biotech on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Marina Biotech.

Date: August 12, 2010



|    |  |                     |  |                        
|--- |  | ------------------- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Peter S. Garcia
|    |  | Name:               |  | Peter S. Garcia        
|    |  | Title:              |  | Chief Financial Officer

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

This certification accompanies each periodic report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Marina Biotech for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**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 Annual Report of Black Nickel Acquisition Corp. III (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Andrew Reckles, 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/ Andrew
              RecklesAndrew
              RecklesPrincipal Financial Officer
              March
                31, 2008
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 ELEV

 724.08

 724.61

 723.37

 724.02

 724.67

 722.11

 722.65

 723.14

 723.62

 724.14

 724.58

 725.03

 720.93

 721.39

 721.80

 720.58

 720.96

 721.33

 721.65

 721.97

 722.26

 721.29

 721.57

 721.87

 719.98

 720.27

 720.54

 720.78

 721.00

 721.22

 1,337

 1,358

 1,310

 1,335

 1,360

 1,263

 1,283

 1,301

 1,320

 1,339

 1,357

 1,374

 1,219

 1,236

 1,252

 1,207

 1,221

 1,234

 1,246

 1,258

 1,269

 1,233

 1,243

 1,254

 1,185

 1,196

 1,205

 1,214

 1,222

 1,230

STORAGE

+25

+21

-48

+25

+25

-97

+20

+18

+19

+19

+18

+17

-155

+17

+16

-45

+14

+13

+12

+12

+11

-36

+10

+11

-69

+11

+9

+9

+8

+8

CHANGE

14

12

2

14

14

0

11

10

11

11

10

10

-10

10

9

1

8

8

7

7

7

1

6

7

-4

7

6

6

5

5

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 26

 1

 1

 49

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 68

 1

 1

 24

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 19

 1

 1

 31

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1020

 0925

 1000

 0920

 0920

TIME

 .06

 .05

 .04

 .04

 .04

COPPER

 .30

 .30

 .30

 .29

 .31

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2009 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: August 19, 2009

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -82 205 0 241

ACRE-FEET -82 407 0 478

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 478

 478

 1,312

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L

 .003

 .002

 .002

 .002

 .002
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 Iowa First  Bancshares  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, D.
Scott Ingstad, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 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/ D. Scott Ingstad
----------------------
D. Scott Ingstad
Chairman of the Board,
President and CEO

May 14, 2004


                                       1
Editorial Note on Part 655
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

Editorial Note on Subpart L of Part 655
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart L of part 655 appear at 75 FR 10403, Mar. 5, 2010.

§ 655.1132 When will the Department suspend or invalidate an approved Attestation? ( a ) Suspension or invalidation of an Attestation may result where: the facility's check for the filing fee is not honored by a financial institution; a Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) decision reverses an ETA certification of the Attestation; ETA finds that it made an error in its review and certification of the Attestation; an enforcement proceeding has finally determined that the facility failed to meet a condition attested to, or that there was a misrepresentation of material fact in an Attestation; the facility has failed to pay civil money penalties and/or failed to satisfy a remedy assessed by the Wage and Hour Administrator, where that penalty or remedy assessment has become the final agency action. If an Attestation is suspended or invalidated, ETA will notify USCIS.
( b ) *BALCA decision or final agency action in an enforcement proceeding.* If an Attestation is suspended or invalidated as a result of a BALCA decision overruling an ETA acceptance of the Attestation for filing, or is suspended or invalidated as a result of an enforcement action by the Administrator under subpart M of this part, such suspension or invalidation may not be separately appealed, but shall be merged with appeals on the underlying matter.
( c ) *ETA action.* If, after accepting an Attestation for filing, ETA discovers that it erroneously accepted that Attestation for filing and, as a result, ETA suspends or invalidates that acceptance, the facility may appeal such suspension or invalidation under § 655.1135 as if that suspension or invalidation were a decision to reject the Attestation for filing.
( d ) A facility must comply with the terms of its Attestation, even if such Attestation is suspended, invalidated or expired, as long as any H-1C nurse is at the facility, unless the Attestation is superseded by a subsequent Attestation accepted for filing by ETA.
#### Mary Flynn, Appellant, v. New York and Long Island Traction Company, Respondent.

Judgement and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Upon a previous appeal in this case we decided that substantially the same evidence as that here presented on behalf of the plaintiff required submission to the jury of the question of defendant’s negligence. (158 App. Div. 169.) It is immaterial who gave the signal to stop the car. The evidence of plaintiff is that it did stop at Tenth street. It then became the duty of the conductor to afford plaintiff reasonable time and opportunity to alight, before giving the signal to start. The fact that the complaint alleges that such signal was given by the conductor, while the evidence may establish the fact that it was given by some one else under his authority, does not constitute a variance. (Bradbury Rules of Pleading, 8, subd. 5.) Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Stapleton, JJ., concurred.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2436

GENET LEMA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DELTA AIRLINES, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01470-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: October 13, 2022 Decided: October 17, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Genet Lema, Appellant Pro Se. Jocelyn Renee Cuttino, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, 

LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2436 Doc: 28 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Genet Lema appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in 

favor of Delta Airlines, Inc., in Lema’s employment discrimination action. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Lema v. Delta Airlines, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01470-AJT-IDD 

(E.D. Va. Nov. 19, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2436 Doc: 28 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 1600
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 60555, Dec. 21, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-12, the Bureau of Land Management removed all amendments to part 1600 made effective on Jan. 11, 2017, at 81 FR 89661, Dec. 12, 2016.

§ 1610.4-2 Development of planning criteria. ( a ) The Field Manager will prepare criteria to guide development of the resource management plan or revision, to ensure: ( 1 ) It is tailored to the issues previously identified; and
( 2 ) That BLM avoids unnecessary data collection and analyses.
( b ) Planning criteria will generally be based upon applicable law, Director and State Director guidance, the results of public participation, and coordination with any cooperating agencies and other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes.
( c ) BLM will make proposed planning criteria, including any significant changes, available for public comment prior to being approved by the Field Manager for use in the planning process.
( d ) BLM may change planning criteria as planning proceeds if we determine that public suggestions or study and assessment findings make such changes desirable.
[70 FR 14566, Mar. 23, 2005, as amended at 81 FR 89661, Dec. 12, 2016; 82 FR 60555, Dec. 21, 2017]
### §91. Repealed. Pub. L. 85–857, §14(1), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1268

Section, R.S. §4829; acts Apr. 11, 1892, ch. 40, 27 Stat. 15; Feb. 9, 1897, ch. 205, 29 Stat. 517, provided for officers of National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Jan. 1, 1959, see section 2 of Pub. L. 85–857, set out as a note preceding Part I of Title 38, Veterans' Benefits.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****SMART summary.
 
2015 | 2016
 
SuDoc Number:J 1.2:SE 9/9/
Item Number:0717 (online)
CGP System Number:001025734
 
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
August 15, 2017********
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 ELEV

 728.87

 732.29

 733.24

 734.00

 734.56

 734.99

 735.34

 735.77

 738.51

 739.54

 740.16

 739.27

 735.11

 730.52

 727.49

 727.82

 728.14

 728.47

 728.78

 729.05

 729.29

 729.53

 729.76

 729.99

 730.19

 730.39

 730.59

 730.78

 727.30

 725.68

 1,529

 1,674

 1,716

 1,749

 1,774

 1,794

 1,810

 1,829

 1,958

 2,008

 2,038

 1,995

 1,799

 1,598

 1,472

 1,486

 1,499

 1,512

 1,525

 1,536

 1,546

 1,556

 1,566

 1,576

 1,584

 1,592

 1,601

 1,609

 1,464

 1,400

STORAGE

-59

+145

+42

+33

+25

+20

+16

+19

+129

+50

+30

-43

-196

-201

-126

+14

+13

+13

+13

+11

+10

+10

+10

+10

+8

+8

+9

+8

-145

-64

CHANGE

32

73

21

17

13

10

8

10

65

25

15

10

-1

-5

-6

7

7

7

7

6

5

5

5

5

4

4

5

4

-7

0

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 62

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 32

 98

 96

 58

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 66

 32

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2021 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: December 2, 2021

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -188 351 0 444

ACRE-FEET -188 696 0 881

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 881

 881

 1,588

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4434 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4434

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
                         hydroelectric project.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project 
numbered 13287, the Commission may, at the request of the licensee for 
the project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with the good 
faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of that section 
and the Commission's procedures under that section, extend the time 
period during which the licensee is required to commence the 
construction of the project for up to four consecutive 2-year periods 
from the date of the expiration of the time period required for 
commencement of construction prescribed in the license.
    (b) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the period required for 
commencement of construction of the project described in subsection (a) 
has expired prior to the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Commission may reinstate the license effective as of the date of its 
expiration and the first extension authorized under subsection (a) 
shall take effect on the date of such expiration.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 16, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4434

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
                         hydroelectric project.
```
#### § 725.210 Duration of augmented benefits.

Augmented benefits payable on behalf of a spouse or divorced spouse, or a child, shall begin with the first month in which the dependent satisfies the conditions of relationship and dependency set forth in this subpart. Augmentation of benefits on account of a dependent continues through the month before the month in which the dependent ceases to satisfy these conditions, except in the case of a child who qualifies as a dependent because such child is a student. In the latter case, benefits continue to be augmented through the month before the first month during no part of which such child qualifies as a student.
§ 725.601 Enforcement generally. ( a ) The Act, together with certain incorporated provisions from the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, contains a number of provisions which subject an operator or other employer, claimants and others to penalties for failure to comply with certain provisions of the Act, or failure to commence and continue prompt periodic payments to a beneficiary.
( b ) It is the policy and intent of the Department to vigorously enforce the provisions of this part through the use of the remedies provided by the Act. Accordingly, if an operator refuses to pay benefits with respect to a claim for which the operator has been adjudicated liable, the Director may invoke and execute the lien on the property of the operator as described in § 725.603. Enforcement of this lien must be pursued in an appropriate U.S. district court. If the Director determines that the remedy provided by § 725.603 may not be sufficient to guarantee the continued compliance with the terms of an award or awards against the operator, the Director may in addition seek an injunction in the U.S. district court to prohibit future noncompliance by the operator and such other relief as the court considers appropriate (*see* § 725.604). If an operator unlawfully suspends or terminates the payment of benefits to a claimant, the district director may declare the award in default and proceed in accordance with § 725.605. In all cases payments of additional compensation (*see* § 725.607) and interest (*see* § 725.608) will be sought by the Director or awarded by the district director.
( c ) In certain instances the remedies provided by the Act are concurrent; that is, more than one remedy might be appropriate in any given case. In such a case, the Director may select the remedy or remedies appropriate for the enforcement action. In making this selection, the Director shall consider the best interests of the claimant as well as those of the fund.
[65 FR 80054, Dec. 20, 2000, as amended at 81 FR 24481, Apr. 26, 2016]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul Fernando SANTOS-SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50936.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*672Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Raul Fernando Santos-Sandoval raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Paul James Smith, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 73-287;

Third District

June 21, 1974.

*1004James Geis, of the State Appellate Defenders Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.

David DeDoncker, State’s Attorney, of Rock Island, for the People.

Mr. JUSTICE DIXON

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant, Paul James Smith, was indicted for unlawful possession of more than 30 grams but not more than 500 grams of cannabis under section 4(d) of the Cannabis Control Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 56% sec. 704(d)). He pleaded not guilty and was convicted of the charge after a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Rock Island County. He was sentenced to a term of not less than 1 nor more than 3 years.

The only issue presented for review is whether the indictment and conviction were based on an unconstitutional statute which violates the due process clauses of the Federal and State constitutions because the statute allows the penalty to be determined by weight unrelated to the quantity of cannabis possessed, and the penalty provisions of the statute bear no reasonable relationship to the purpose of the statute.

The issue of the constitutionality of the statute was not raised during the proceedings in the trial court.

 The question of the constitutionality of a statute is properly presented for review only when it has been raised and passed upon by the trial court. Since this was not done in the instant case, the question is not subject to review in this appeal. *People*v. *Amerman,*50 Ill.2d 196, 197; *People v.*Cooper, 17 Ill.App.3d 934, 308 N.E.2d 815, 819.

For reasons stated the judgment of the Circuit Court of Rock Island County is affirmed.

Affirmed.

SCOTT, P. J., and STOUDER, J., concur.