alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 microHelix, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"),
I, Terrence A. Rixford, Senior Vice President and 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.   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.


Date: April 14, 2004
                                           /s/ TERRENCE A. RIXFORD
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Terrence A. Rixford
                                           Senior Vice President and Chief
                                           Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Moses Steele, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 58817;

First District (3rd Division)

June 20, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

DEMPSEY, J., took no part.

*880James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (David Hirschboeck and Ronald P. Alwin, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Alan L. Fulkerson, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
#### § 3510.21 What terms and conditions apply to fringe acreage leases and lease modifications?

Your fringe acreage lease is a new Federal lease. Therefore, we may impose terms and conditions different from those in your original Federal lease. A modified lease will be subject to the same terms and conditions as in the original Federal lease.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 23-0005 APR 0 4 2023 IN RE THE MOTION OF NANCY BEDFORD PEDERSEN FORADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Bovv,-.T Ck , eme Coun air
. ,-,tana ORDER

Nancy Bedford Pedersen has filed a motion for admission to the Bar ofthe State of Montana pursuant to Rule V ofthe Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar Admissions Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the Commission on Character and Fitness has certified that Pedersen has provided the necessary documentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion under Rule V. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions Administrator,Nancy Bedford Pedersen may be sworn in to thepractice oflaw in the State ofMontana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office ofthe Clerk ofthe Montana Supreme Court. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis order to Petitioner and to the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this

-1 day ofApril, 2023.
ChiefJustice


## (,? 04/04/2023

Case Number: PR 23-0005Justices
all_density.xls 6/1/00 9:34 AM

Winter Run Density - Not Clipped

2000

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.014

0.016

0.018

0.020

0.022

0.024

1/1/001/6/00

1/11/001/16/001/21/001/26/001/31/00

2/5/00

2/10/002/15/002/20/002/25/00

3/1/003/6/00

3/11/003/16/003/21/003/26/003/31/00

4/5/00

4/10/004/15/004/20/004/25/004/30/00

5/5/00

5/10/005/15/005/20/005/25/005/30/00

6/4/00

Winter Run/acre-foot

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Pumping X 100 af 

SWP Density CVP Density SWP Pumping Total Pumping
### §94. Repealed. Dec. 16, 1930, ch. 14, §1, 46 Stat. 1028

Section, act Apr. 30, 1908, ch. 153, 35 Stat. 71, related to purchase of supplies, advertisement therefor, and supplies for irrigation works.
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

 155

 159

 165

 153

 150

 132

 145

 142

 139

 135

 134

 123

 117

 121

 117

 119

 126

 118

 105

 102

 129

 138

 135

 140

 157

 168

 163

 167

 159

 157

 146

 152

 152

 147

 113

 112

 125

 134

 134

 130

 119

 104

 101

 101

 102

 106

 108

 99

 92

 87

 102

 122

 127

 131

 136

 146

 149

 146

 147

 149

 152

 155

 158

 150

 138

 118

 137

 139

 137

 133

 128

 117

 109

 106

 108

 112

 116

 111

 100

 96

 113

 128

 131

 134

 142

 152

 153

 152

 152

 152

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 2, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
From:Mathias, Scott

Sent:Monday, January 26, 2015 9:52 AM

To:Szabo, Aaron

Cc:Pepple, Karl

Subject:RE: EO 12866_13563 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Final Rule

Attachments:1-26-15 EO12866_Ozone SIP Req_2060-AR34_Final_PreambleRule_20141006

- contains edits from OMB_clean rlso.docx

Aaron,

The attached redlined version of the Ozone SIP Requirements SRR contains the following 

edits:

1)Edits resulting from the written comments OMB provided to EPA. These are labeled with

comment bubbles as:

a.OMB general comments,

b.OMB specific comments, and

c.OMB typographical comments;

2)Nearly all edits necessary to reflect the results of the recent NRDC decision 

regarding the

2012 ozone implementation rule’s treatment of attainment dates and revoking the 1997

NAAQS for purposes of transportation conformity only (see note below);

3)Edit to Table 1 acknowledging that another nonattainment area has been redesignated to

attainment

4)Edits resulting from discussion with OMB and inter-agency partners on 1/23/15

regarding EPA’s responses to the prior written comments.

5)Edits from an additional December 2014 review by EPA OGC staff.

Note: This version does not yet contain a new preamble (perhaps section III.Y) and

accompanying regulatory text changes to 40 CFR 51.1103 to establish the attainment 

deadlines

consistent with the recent NRDC decision. That language will be added after further 

internal

EPA discussions with counsel.

Scott Mathias | Associate Director, Air Quality Policy Division | U.S. EPA, RTP, NC 

27711 |

919.541.5310
#### Augusta J. Hart et al., Appellants, v. Samuel M. Morgenstern et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.; Martin, P. J., dissents.
#### In the Matter of Kenneth Jewell.

A refusal to adjourn an inquisition for a reasonable lime, that the party *imay*make the necessary preparation for trial, when he has been prevented from making that preparation by the day naniejl in the notice, is good .ground for setting aside the inquisition.

•On motion to set aside inquisition.

*Mr. T. Q. Lytle,*for the motion.

*,Mr. J. F. ILageman,*contra.

The Chancellor.

Application is made to set aside the inquisition in this •case, by which Kenneth Jewell was found to be an habitual •drunkard, and to be incapable of managing his estate, and to be wasting it. The notice of taking the inquisition was ■served on Jewell, on the 8th of June. He was then confined in the lunatic asylum near Trenton. The inquisition was to take place on the 16th of June. On the 9th, he wrote to the commissioners, from the asylum where he was still confined, that he would be ready for trial on the day appointed, and on the same day he wrote to two counsellors-at-law of Princeton, *299requesting them to appear and act for him on the inquisition. They did not, however, for some reason, receive the letter until the morning of the 16th. They appeared before the commissioners at the time and place specified in the notice, and asked an adjournment of the inquisition for two weeks, in order that they might make the necessary preparation for the trial. The motion was denied, and the inquisition proceeded. Jewell was still in the asylum. The counsel cross-examined the witnesses produced before the inquest. The action of the commissioners in refusing the adjournment, is good ground for setting aside the inquisition. Under the circumstances, the application was most reasonable, and a postponement for a reasonable time should have been granted. *Whitenack’s ease,*2 *Green’s Gh. R.*252. The inquisition will be set aside, and a new commission will be ordered.
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

31

DAY ELEV

 2,330.09

 2,329.74

 2,329.44

 2,329.08

 2,328.76

 2,328.45

 2,328.10

 2,327.64

 2,327.30

 2,326.90

 2,326.52

 2,326.07

 2,325.62

 2,325.21

 2,324.81

 2,324.38

 2,323.99

 2,323.52

 2,323.12

 2,322.70

 2,322.31

 2,322.04

 2,321.67

 2,321.29

 2,320.88

 2,320.45

 2,320.04

 2,319.66

 2,319.24

 2,318.86

 2,318.49

 1,846.8

 1,842.0

 1,837.9

 1,833.0

 1,828.6

 1,824.4

 1,819.6

 1,813.4

 1,808.8

 1,803.3

 1,798.2

 1,792.1

 1,786.1

 1,780.6

 1,775.2

 1,769.4

 1,764.2

 1,758.0

 1,752.6

 1,747.1

 1,741.9

 1,738.3

 1,733.4

 1,728.4

 1,723.0

 1,717.3

 1,711.9

 1,707.0

 1,701.5

 1,696.5

 1,691.7

STORAGE

-4.8

-4.8

-4.1

-4.9

-4.4

-4.2

-4.8

-6.2

-4.6

-5.4

-5.1

-6.1

-6.1

-5.5

-5.4

-5.8

-5.2

-6.3

-5.3

-5.6

-5.2

-3.6

-4.9

-5.0

-5.4

-5.7

-5.4

-5.0

-5.5

-5.0

-4.8

CHANGE

289

293

677

458

627

545

208

173

449

203

87

-198

66

222

123

15

123

-228

184

176

322

339

61

259

259

70

32

211

88

254

320

INFLOW

 2,579

 2,578

 2,622

 2,816

 2,680

 2,523

 2,512

 3,166

 2,630

 2,789

 2,519

 2,807

 2,995

 2,863

 2,694

 2,795

 2,620

 2,464

 2,824

 2,890

 2,857

 2,047

 2,409

 2,661

 2,868

 2,804

 2,610

 2,592

 2,727

 2,633

 2,629

POWER

 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

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 376

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 137

 133

 125

 125

 148

 152

 100

 156

 144

 147

 155

 59

 123

 138

 134

 122

 134

 90

 47

 98

 74

 97

 117

 128

 116

 116

 139

 127

 131

 123

 119

C.F.S.

 .34

 .33

 .31

 .31

 .37

 .38

 .25

 .39

 .36

 .37

 .39

 .15

 .31

 .35

 .34

 .31

 .34

 .23

 .12

 .25

 .19

 .25

 .30

 .33

 .30

 .30

 .36

 .33

 .34

 .32

 .31

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .30

 .18

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2007 TRINITY LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: August 7, 2007

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -160.1 6,707 83,203 0 376 3,754 9.53 .48

ACRE-FEET -160,100 13,303 165,033 0 746 7,446

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 165,033

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 746

 165,779

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .48

JULY 1, 2007 .48

 1,851.6

(1) (1)
#### § 3271.13 How do I obtain approval to build pipelines and facilities connecting the well field to utilization facilities not located on Federal lands leased for geothermal resources?

Before constructing pipelines and well field facilities on Federal lands leased for geothermal resources, you as lessee, unit operator, or facility operator must submit to BLM a utilization plan and facility construction permit addressing any pipelines or facilities. Do not start construction of your pipelines or facilities until BLM approves your facility construction permit.
### **[Subchapter W—Repealed]**
§ 3217.12 What does BLM need to approve my communitization agreement? For BLM to approve a communitization agreement, you must give us the following information: ( a ) The location of the separate tracts comprising the drilling or spacing unit;
( b ) How you will prorate production or royalties to each separate tract based on total acres involved;
( c ) The name of each tract operator; and
( d ) Provisions for protecting the interests of all parties, including the United States.
#### In the Matter of Herbert Zarnikauer, an Attorney, Respondent. Brooklyn Bar Association, Petitioner.

Present — Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally

disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may

be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is

ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 9/10/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM T. RICKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. No. 95-3147

 (D.C. No. 93-CV-2545) 

XEROX CORPORATION, a New York (D. Kan.)

corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.**

Plaintiff William T. Ricks appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment

in favor of Defendant Xerox Corporation on Plaintiff’s claim of employment

discrimination in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 12101 to 12213. See Ricks v. Xerox Corp., 877 F. Supp. 1468 (D. Kan. 1995). 

Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuinely disputed material issues
-2-

of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c). We review a summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party. Ball v. Renner, 54 F.3d 664, 665 (10th Cir. 1995). 

Upon careful consideration of the record, the briefs of the parties, the district court’s

order, and the applicable law, we find no reversible error and affirm for substantially the

reasons stated in the district court’s order.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1135

OLAITAN MICHAEL OLANIYI

,

Petitioner

,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : January 25, 2022 Decided: February 8, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judge , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Olaitan Michael Olaniyi , Petitioner Pro Se. Jessica R. Lesnau

, Office of Immigration Litigation, U NITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in thi s circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Olaitan Michael Olaniyi , a native and citizen of Nigeria , petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing h is appeal from the

Immigration Judge’s decision denying h is request for deferral of r emoval under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT)

. We have thoroughly reviewed the record , including

the transcript of Olaniyi ’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude th at

the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual

findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s

decision, see Dankam v. Gonzales , 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007 ).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

See In re Olaniyi (B.I.A. Dec. 16, 2020). We deny Olaniyi’s motion for stay pending

appeal and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequ ately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
### PART IV—DEDUCTION FOR DIVIDENDS PAID

Sec.
561.
Definition of deduction for dividends paid.
562.
Rules applicable in determining dividends eligible for dividends paid deduction.
563.
Rules relating to dividends paid after close of taxable year.
564.
Dividend carryover.
565.
Consent dividends.
1

Njo, Heather

From: Schaeffer, John

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:22 PM

To: bhinnant@charkit.com

Cc: Lewis, Paul; Mattheisen, Mike; Njo, Heather

Subject: FW: 127-68-4 Directions for Compliance -- continued

Attachments: 98-56-6 Letter of Exemption Sec 4 98-56-6_10162013.pdf; 98-56-6 HPV3 Letter of Intent to 

Test EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112-0088[1].pdf; HPV3 final rule published.21oct11.pdf

Brian, 

I was happy to talk with you this morning. If you need additional time to send your response due to the upcoming 

holidays, please send me an email with that request with the amount of extra time that you think you will need. 

Along with the instructions for submitting an exemption request, I’ve attached some additional documents that may be 

useful or of interest to you (example exemption request, example letter­of­intent to test, and a copy of the final rule.) 

Some quick instructions: 

Applying for an Exemption 

EPA’s Procedures Governing Testing Consent Agreements and Test Rules (40 CFR part 790), provide for exemptions from 

test rules (40 CFR part 790, subpart E) only on the basis of data adequacy (i.e., data fulfilling the required testing 

endpoints is, or will become available, through testing under the test rule by another test sponsor). 40 CFR § 790.87. 

Conditional exemptions are granted to a company that agrees to pay fair and equitable reimbursement to the company 

upon whose data the granting of my application is based. See, 40 CFR § 790.99. Your request, however, is not based on 

data availability and no other company has agreed to conduct the testing. An exemption, therefore, is not warranted. 

An exemption request must contain the following information (see 40 CFR 790.82) 

a) The identity of the test rule, the chemical identity, and the CAS No. of the test substance on which the application is 

based. 

(b) The specific testing requirement(s) from which an exemption is sought and the basis for the exemption request. 

(c) Name, address, and telephone number of applicant. 

(d) Name, address, and telephone number of appropriate individual to contact for further information. 

(e)(1) If required in the test rule to establish equivalence: 

(i) The chemical identity of the test substance on which the application is based. 

(ii) Equivalence data specified in § 790.85. 

(2) If a test rule requires testing of a single representative substance, EPA will consider all forms of the chemical subject 

to that rule to be equivalent and will not require the submission of equivalence data as described in § 790.85. 

The exemption request must also contain the statement of agreement of reimbursement (40 CFR 790.99) 

Hope this helps, enjoy your Holidays. 

John 

John Schaeffer 

Senior Biologist 

USEPA/OPPT/CCD/CITB 
2

1201 Constitution Ave, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Mail Code: 7405M 

Phone: 202­564­8173
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Bucyrus International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Timothy W.
Sullivan, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Craig R. Mackus, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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/ T. W. Sullivan                                                    
|Timothy W. Sullivan President and Chief Executive
Officer May 10, 2007



|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|/s/ C. R. Mackus                                                  
|Craig R. Mackus Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary May 10, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.