alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of TransAlta Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for theyear ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the dated hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian Burden, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 
| 1.     |   | The Report fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                   |   |   |
| 2.     |   | The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materials respects, the  financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |   |   |

 

 
| /s/ Brian Burden                                     |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Brian Burden                                         |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

Dated:  March 15, 2007.

 

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18U.S.C § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
### §796e–1. Payments to States from allotments

#### (a) Payments

From the allotment of each State for a fiscal year under section 796e of this title, the State shall be paid the Federal share of the expenditures incurred during such year under its State plan approved under section 796d–1 of this title. Such payments may be made (after necessary adjustments on account of previously made overpayments or underpayments) in advance or by way of reimbursement, and in such installments and on such conditions as the Administrator may determine.

#### (b) Federal share

#### (1) In general

The Federal share with respect to any State for any fiscal year shall be 90 percent of the expenditures incurred by the State during such year under its State plan approved under section 796d–1 of this title.

#### (2) Non-Federal share

The non-Federal share of the cost of any project that receives assistance through an allotment under this subpart may be provided in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, including plant, equipment, or services.

(Pub. L. 93–112, title VII, §712, as added Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, §410, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1225; amended Pub. L. 113–128, title IV, §476(c), July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1691.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 796e–1, Pub. L. 93–112, title VII, §712, as added Pub. L. 102–569, title VII, §701(2), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4451; amended Pub. L. 103–73, title I, §114(f), Aug. 11, 1993, 107 Stat. 730, related to payments to States from allotments, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 105–220.

#### Amendments

2014—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 113–128 substituted "Administrator" for "Commissioner".
### Part B—Workforce Investment Activities and Providers

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

#### Definition of "Secretary"

In this part, Secretary means the Secretary of Labor, see section 3151(b)(1)(C)(ii)(II) of this title.
§ 7.949 Exhaustion of administrative remedies. ( a ) A complainant may file a civil action following the exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Act. Administrative remedies are exhausted if: ( 1 ) 180 days have elapsed since the complainant filed the complaint and FEMA had made no finding with regard to the complaint; or
( 2 ) FEMA issues any finding in favor of the recipient.
( b ) If FEMA fails to make a finding within 180 days or issues a finding in favor of the recipient, FEMA shall: ( 1 ) Promptly advise the complainant in writing of this fact; and
( 2 ) Advise the complainant of his or her right to bring a civil action for injunctive relief; and
( 3 ) Inform the complainant: ( i ) That the complainant may bring a civil action only in a United States District Court for the district in which the recipient is located or transacts business;
( ii ) That a complainant prevailing in a civil action has the right to be awarded the costs of the action, including reasonable attorney's fees, but that the complainant must demand these costs in the complaint at the time it is filed.
( iii ) That before commencing the action, the complainant shall give 30 days notice by registered mail to the Administrator, the Attorney General of the United States, and the recipient;
( iv ) That the notice must state: The alleged violation of the Act; the relief requested; the court in which the complainant is bringing the action; and whether or not attorney's fees are demanded in the event the complainant prevails; and
( v ) That the complainant may not bring an action if the same alleged violation of the Act by the same recipient is the subject of a pending action in any court (Federal or State) of the United States.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT MINNIE R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 99-2431 KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-98-1604-5-23) Submitted: March 31, 2000 Decided: April 21, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Steven Michael Calcutt, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, John Berkley Grimball, Assistant United States Attorney, Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Chief Counsel, Teresa H. Abbot,Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Minnie R. Johnson appeals from the district court's order upholding the denial of social security disability insurance benefits. We affirm. Johnson suffers primarily from an injured back and related sciatica. After a hearing on her application for benefits, an administrative lawjudge ("ALJ") found that Johnson was impaired as a result of her disorders but that she was nonetheless capable of performing a full range of sedentary work. Based on this finding, the ALJ concluded that shewas not eligible for disability insurance benefits. The Appeals Council upheld this determination, which b ecame the final decision of the Commissioner. Johnson sought review of this decision in the districtcourt, which granted summary judgment to the Commissioner. Johnson now appeals. We find the arguments raised on appeal to be without merit. First, Johnson does not satisfy all the criteria set forth at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, § 1.05(c) (1999), and therefore was properly found not tobe disabled at the third step of the sequential evaluation process. Second, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that Johnson had no nonexertional impairments that would prevent performance of afull range of sedentary work. Accordingly, the testimony of a vocational expert was not needed, and the ALJ properly relied on the grids, which directed a finding of not disabled.We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision and that the correct law was applied. Therefore, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.174 Earthquake hazards.

When loan proceeds are used to construct a new building or an addition to an existing building, the construction must conform with the “National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (“NEHRP”) Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings” (which can be obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Publications Office, Washington, DC) or a code identified by SBA as being substantially equivalent.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 98-118 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, July 10, 1998)

NRC ORDER TO THE VIRGINIA POWER CONFIRMS FIRE BARRIER CORRECTIVE

ACTIONS AT SURRY UNITS 1 AND 2

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a confirmatory order to Virginia

Electric and Power Company confirming its commitment to complete Thermo-Lag fire

barrier corrective actions at its Surry nuclear power plant Units 1 and 2. The work is to

be completed by the end of refueling outages scheduled for October at Unit 1, and for

April 1999 at Unit 2.

In a letter to Virginia Power officials, Sam Collins, Director of the NRC’s Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, said the order was issued because of concern “that

some licensees may not be making adequate progress toward resolving the plantspecific issues, and that some implementation schedules may either be too tenuous or

too protracted.” The Surry plants, located near Newport News, Va., are among them.

Thermo-Lag is a fire barrier material manufactured and supplied by Thermal

Science, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, and has been used to provide fire resistance to

wiring and equipment at nuclear plants. The NRC has been concerned that ThermoLag 330-1 fire barrier material installed by some of its licensees may not provide the

intended level of fire protection and that licensees thus may not be meeting regulatory

requirements. Between 1992 and 1994, the NRC staff issued letters to all nuclear

utilities asking licensees to submit plans and schedules for resolving the issue. All

licensees with Thermo-Lag fire barriers have implemented around-the-clock “fire

watches,” using workers to patrol vital plant areas on a regular basis to watch for signs

of fire until corrective actions have been completed.

In his letter Collins noted that NRC has been meeting with licensees to review

their progress in completing implementation of their fire barrier programs, but has been

concerned about slow progress on resolution of the issue at certain plants.

Virginia Power was one of the licensees with which NRC has periodically held

meetings. At these meetings, the NRC reviewed the utility’s schedule for Thermo-Lag

corrective actions and concluded they are reasonable. The company formally agreed

May 22 to the terms of the confirmatory order. Thermo-Lag corrective actions are now
about 80 percent complete at Surry.

About 20 other plants have received, or are expected to receive, similar orders in

the coming months.

##

Additional information on Thermo-Lag fire barriers can be found on the NRC homepage

at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/tip/tip9826.htm
#### John Caldero, Appellant, v. Meyer Kamenstein, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 5, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20294 Summary Calendar

IBRAHIM SABAH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CV-3415

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ibrahim Sabah, Texas prisoner # 792971, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB). Sabah contends that the district court erred when it dismissed his complaint as frivolous because he has a colorable Eighth Amendment claim. This court reviews a dismissal as frivolous for an abuse of discretion. Martin v. Scott , 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5thNo. 06-20294 -2- Cir. 1998). Sabah contends that he suffered from a serious medical condition, that the prescribed medical care was delayed, and that the delay resulted in substantial harm to his eye. However, aside from conclusional allegations, he does not contend that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Specifically, Sabah does not allege that anyone at the Estelle Unit pharmacy deliberately withheld the prescribed eye drops. Further, he does not allege that anyone at the pharmacy was aware of and consciously disregarded the substantial risk of serious harm to his eye by failing to provide the eye drops in a timely manner. Sabah’s allegations amount at most to negligence. Therefore, Sabah has not shown that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed his complaint as frivolous. See Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Sabah’s appeal lacks arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH C IR . R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Sabah’s complaint and this court’s dismissal of the instant appeal count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Sabah is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated orNo. 06-20294 -3- detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.542 Third country transportation. ( a ) *General.* A good will not be considered an originating good by reason of having undergone production that would enable the good to qualify as an originating good if subsequent to that production the good undergoes further production or any other operation outside the territories of the Parties, other than unloading, reloading, or any other process necessary to preserve the good in good condition or to transport the good to the territory of a Party.
( b ) *Documentary evidence.* An importer making a claim that a good is originating may be required to demonstrate, to CBP's satisfaction, that no further production or subsequent operation, other than permitted under paragraph (a) of this section, occurred outside the territories of the Parties. An importer may demonstrate compliance with this section by submitting documentary evidence. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, bills of lading, airway bills, packing lists, commercial invoices, receiving and inventory records, and customs entry and exit documents.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 10.17

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This First Amendment to Employment Agreement ("Agreement"), made on
October 24, 2002, is entered into by and between ICO, Inc., a Texas corporation,
and its subsidiaries and affiliates (the "Company"), and Charlotte J. Fischer, a
Texas resident ("Employee").


         1. Paragraph 2.7 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended,
effective as of November 1, 2002, to read as follows:

              "During the Employment Period, in lieu of use of a Company
              vehicle, and maintenance, repair, insurance, and fuel charges
              associated therewith, the Employee shall receive a monthly vehicle
              allowance in the sum of $1,130.00 ("Vehicle Allowance"), paid in
              advance on the first payday of each month. The Vehicle Allowance
              shall be periodically adjusted to reflect inflation. As
              reimbursement for fuel and vehicle-related charges incurred by
              Employee when using Employee's personal vehicle on Company
              business, Employee shall be reimbursed at the IRS reimbursement
              rate of $0.365 per mile (or the prevailing rate)."


         2. All terms and conditions in the Employment Agreement that are not
amended or supplemented pursuant to paragraph 1 above continue to be in full
force and effect between Employee and ICO, Inc.


AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

ICO, INC.

By:  /s/  Jon C. Biro                                 /s/  Charlotte J. Fischer
----------------------------                          -------------------------
                                                      Charlotte J. Fischer
Printed Name:  Jon C. Biro

Title: CFO and Treasurer




                                      S-6
§ 209.5 Applicant eligibility. The following are eligible to apply to the State for a grant: ( a ) State and local governments;
( b ) Indian tribes or authorized tribal organizations. A tribe may apply either to the State or directly to us; and
( c ) Qualified private nonprofit organizations.
<PAGE>





                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
              (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
                            of Title 18, United Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Ener1, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief, that:

(1)      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31,
         2003 (the "Form 10-QSB") of the Company 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.



Dated:  May 20, 2003                        /s/ Ronald N. Stewart
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Ronald N. Stewart
                                            Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 29, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-29-2000
<CASH>                                           2,767
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      624
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    111,980
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,642
<PP&E>                                          93,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,328
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 173,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,812
<BONDS>                                         31,331
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           133
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   173,145
<SALES>                                         95,405
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                95,405
<CGS>                                           67,212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 579
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,671
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,240
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,431
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,431
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26




</TABLE>