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

                                                                                                         Exhibit 32.2

                                                 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                                  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                                       SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant  to  Section  1350,  Chapter  63 of Title 18,  United  States  Code,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, the undersigned,  as Chief Financial  Officer of U.S. Can Corporation  (the  "Company"),  does
hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)       the  Company's  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q for the  period  ending  July 3,  2005  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  Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period  ending July 3, 2005
         fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                                 /s/ Michael M. Rajkovic

                                                                Michael M. Rajkovic
                                                                Executive Vice President and
                                                                Chief Financial Officer

                                                                Dated: August 16, 2005
```
#### § 191.25 Destruction under Customs supervision.

A claimant may destroy merchandise and obtain manufacturing drawback by complying with the procedures set forth in § 191.71 of this part relating to destruction.
---

[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 Med Gen, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), I, Paul B. Kravitz, 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 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.



December 29, 2008





|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|/s/ Jack Chien                                          
|Jack Chien,                                             
|Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
§ 18.26 Indirect exportation. ( a ) *Indirect exportation, vessels.* Merchandise that had been intended to be exported without landing from an importing vessel in accordance with § 18.25(e) may instead be transported in-bond to another port for exportation and entered for transportation and exportation in accordance with the procedure in § 18.20, upon the transmission of an in-bond application to CBP pursuant to § 18.1, via a CBP-approved EDI system. Upon acceptance of the entry by CBP and acceptance of the merchandise by the bonded carrier, the bonded carrier assumes liability for the transportation and exportation of the merchandise. If the merchandise was prohibited entry by any Government agency, that fact must be noted in the in-bond application.
( b ) *Carnets.* If merchandise to be transported in-bond to another port for exportation was imported under cover of a TIR carnet, the carnet must be discharged or canceled at the port of importation and the merchandise transported under an electronic in-bond application (see § 18.20). If merchandise to be transported in-bond to another port for exportation was imported under cover of an A.T.A. carnet, the appropriate transit voucher will be accepted in lieu of an electronic in-bond application. One transit voucher will be certified by CBP officers at the port of importation and a second transit voucher, together with the reexportation voucher, will be certified at the port of exportation.
( c ) *Transfer at selected port of exportation.* If the merchandise is to be transferred to another conveyance after arrival at the port selected for exportation pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the procedure prescribed in § 18.4(c) will be followed. The provisions of §§ 18.23 and 18.24 will also be followed in applicable cases.
( d ) *Time to export.* Any portion of an in-bond shipment entered for indirect exportation following an in-bond entry must be exported within 15 calendar days from the date of arrival at the port of exportation, unless an extension has been granted by CBP pursuant to § 18.24(a). On the 16th day, the merchandise will become subject to general order requirements under § 4.37, § 122.50, or § 123.10 of this chapter, as applicable.
( e ) *Notice and proof of exportation.* Within two business days after exportation, the in-bond record must be updated via a CBP-approved EDI system to reflect that the merchandise has been exported. The principal on any bond filed to guarantee exportation may be required by the port director to provide evidence of exportation in accordance with § 113.55 of this chapter within 30 days of exportation.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   (i)
    
    The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
 (ii)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s / Michael J. RossMichael J. RossPresident and Chief Executive Officer,
Dearborn Bancorp, Inc.
**STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE EPA**  **- HQ**  **- OW** **- 2009**  **- 0819** 
**DCN: SE**  **01986A 2**  **THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT**  **CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.**
#### Stephen WANG, Jr., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 99-70642.

Tax Ct. No. 15228-96.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 24, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, RYMER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Stephen Wang appeals pro se from the tax court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of federal income tax due for 1987 based on Wang’s failure to report income derived from payoffs Wang received for illegally furnishing insider-trading information. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo the tax court’s conclusions of law, and review for clear error its findings of fact. *Baizer v. Comm’r,*204 F.3d 1231, 1233-34 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The tax court did not err in finding the Commissioner’s notice of deficiency timely. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6501(c)(1); *Ballard v. Comm’r,*740 F.2d 659, 662 (8th Cir.1994).

The tax court properly concluded that Wang was not entitled to reduce his 1987 taxable income by claiming net operating loss carrybacks from 1988 and 1989. *See King v. United States,*152 F.3d 1200, 1201 *(9th Cir.1998)*(holding *that*taxpayer is *not*allowed deduction for loss “incurred in trade or business” due to voluntary forfeiture of revenue from illegal activity).

Wang’s contention that he should be entitled to take advantage of the computational tax benefits of 26 U.S.C. § 1341 for the tax year 1987 because of a disgorgement made in 1988 is foreclosed by our decision in *Shipley v. United States,*608 F.2d 770, 773 (9th Cir.1979).

The record supports the tax court’s assessment of penalties and interest pursu*644ant to 26 U.S.C. § 6653. *See Bradford v. Comm’r,*796 F.2d 303, 307-08 (9th Cir. 1986).

Wang’s motion for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1465 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1465

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 3, 2003

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 4832 East Highway 27 in Iron Station, North Carolina, as the 
                ``General Charles Gabriel Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4832 
East Highway 27 in Iron Station, North Carolina, shall be known and 
designated as the ``General Charles Gabriel Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``General Charles Gabriel Post 
Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 2, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Lenin GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RENDON, Lt; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-16825.

D.C. No. CV-00-00331-DFL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Lenin Garcia appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals under Fed. R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6). *Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.,*143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Garcia’s action as time-barred because he failed to file his action within California’s one-year limitations period. *See*Cal Civ. Proc.Code § 340(3); *Wilson v. Garcia,*471 U.S. 261, 276, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). Garcia’s equitable tolling argument lacks merit because he failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances beyond his control made it impossible for him to file a timely complaint. *See Lehman v. United States,*154 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir.1998).

Garcia’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### SUBCHAPTER II—SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
### §1417. Duration of licenses and permits

#### (a) Duration of a license

Each license for exploration shall be issued for a period of 10 years. If the licensee has substantially complied with the license and the exploration plan associated therewith and has requested extensions of the license, the Administrator shall extend the license on terms, conditions, and restrictions consistent with this chapter and the regulations issued under this chapter for periods of not more than 5 years each.

#### (b) Duration of a permit

Each permit for commercial recovery shall be issued for a term of 20 years and for so long thereafter as hard mineral resources are recovered annually in commercial quantities from the area to which the recovery plan associated with the permit applies. The permit of any permittee who is not recovering hard mineral resources in commercial quantities at the end of 10 years shall be terminated; except that the Administrator shall for good cause shown, including force majeure, adverse economic conditions, unavoidable delays in construction, major unanticipated vessel repairs that prevent the permittee from conducting commercial recovery activities during an annual period, or other circumstances beyond the control of the permittee, extend the 10-year period, but not beyond the initial 20-year term of the permit.

(Pub. L. 96–283, title I, §107, June 28, 1980, 94 Stat. 567.)
### §83. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 83 was editorially reclassified as section 5602 of this title.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 09, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 09, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22I0066. H.J. RUSSELL & COMPANY et al. v. MARQUITTA JORDAN et al.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 19EV004507
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. 98-42 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, March 25, 1998)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

A subcommittee of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on

Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), will meet April 17 in Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will begin at 8:30 a.m. in

Room T-2B3, of the NRC's Two White Flint North Building at 11545 Rockville Pike. The

Subcommittee on Human Factors will review the latest version of the Human

Performance and Reliability Implementation Plan.

Other aspects of the meeting, including an opportunity for public comment, will

be described in a Notice of Meeting published in a forthcoming edition of the Federal

Register.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4(f)

                AMENDMENT TO 1986 KEY EXECUTIVE STOCK OPTION PLAN

1.       Section 2(c) of the Plan is hereby revised to define "Code" as the
         Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time.

2.       Section 2(d) of the Plan is hereby revised to clarify that the
         Committee is defined as the Human Resources and Stock Options
         Committee.

3.       Section 2(h) is hereby deleted in its entirety.

4.       Section 2(j) of the Plan is hereby revised by defining shares to mean
         common shares of Franklin, $1.00 par value per share.

5.       Section 4(b) of the Plan is hereby revised to include the following:

                  "Any Shares which do not become exercisable or become
                  available for exercise for any reason including the failure to
                  achieve the performance criteria established by the Committee
                  pursuant to Section 5(d) shall be restored to the total number
                  of Shares with respect to which Options may be granted under
                  the Plan."

6.       Sections 5(b)(ii) and 5(c)(iv) should be revised to provide as follows:

         (a)      upon the death, disability or retirement (at age 65 or
                  greater) of a Grantee, the Grantee or his estate, as
                  applicable, may exercise any Shares which have become
                  available for exercise pursuant to Section 5(d)(i) for a
                  period of 36 months following the event, and

         (b)      upon the termination of a Grantee for any other reason, the
                  grantee may exercise any Shares which are exercisable pursuant
                  to Section 5(d)(iii) for a period of 3 months following the
                  termination.

7.       The parenthetical in Section 6(c)(5) is hereby deleted.

8.       Section 8 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety.

9.       The Plan as its has been amended, and as amended hereby, remains in
         full force and effect.


                                       17
§ 210.60 Designating the temporary relief phase of an investigation more complicated for the purpose of adjudicating a motion for temporary relief. ( a ) At the time the Commission determines to institute an investigation and provisionally accepts a motion for temporary relief pursuant to § 210.58, or at any time thereafter, the Commission may designate the temporary relief phase of an investigation “more complicated” pursuant to § 210.60(b) for the purpose of obtaining up to 60 additional days to adjudicate the motion for temporary relief. In the alternative, after the motion for temporary relief is referred to the administrative law judge for an initial determination under § 210.66(a), the administrative law judge may issue an order, sua sponte or on motion, designating the temporary relief phase of the investigation “more complicated” for the purpose of obtaining additional time to adjudicate the motion for temporary relief. Such order shall constitute a final determination of the Commission, and notice of the order shall be published in the Federal Register. As required by section 337(e)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the notice shall state the reasons that the temporary relief phase of the investigation was designated “more complicated.” The “more complicated” designation may be conferred by the Commission or the presiding administrative law judge pursuant to this paragraph on the basis of the complexity of the issues raised in the motion for temporary relief or the responses thereto, or for other good cause shown.
( b ) A temporary relief phase is designated more complicated owing to the subject matter, difficulty in obtaining information, the large number of parties involved, or other significant factors.
[59 FR 39039, Aug. 1, 1994, as amended at 78 FR 23486, Apr. 19, 2013
<PAGE>
                                                                Exhibit 10.14.2

                      APPLIED EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

          Amendment to Executive Deferred Compensation Retirement Plan


     The undersigned, Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), hereby refers to the Applied Extrusion
Technologies, Inc. Executive Deferred Compensation Retirement Plan, as now in
effect (the "Plan"), and, effective as of the date hereof, amends Section 8.2 of
the Plan by substituting the figure "$12,500,000" for the figure "$25,000,000"
appearing therein.

     In witness whereof, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by
its officer thereunto duly authorized.

Date: December 9, 2002

                                APPLIED EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



                                By  /s/  Amin J. Khoury
                                    Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
§ 191.102 Procedure. ( a ) *General.* Other provisions of this part relating to direct identification drawback (see subpart B of this part) shall apply to claims for drawback filed under this subpart insofar as applicable to and not inconsistent with the provisions of this subpart.
( b ) *Manufacturing record.* The manufacturer of flavoring extracts or medicinal or toilet preparations on which drawback is claimed shall record the products manufactured, the quantity of waste, if any, and a full description of the alcohol. These records shall be available at all times for inspection by Customs officers.
( c ) *Additional information required on the manufacturer's application for a specific manufacturing drawback ruling.* The manufacturer's application for a specific manufacturing drawback ruling, under § 191.8 of this part, shall state the quantity of domestic tax-paid alcohol contained in each product on which drawback is claimed.
( d ) *Variance in alcohol content* — ( 1 ) *Variance of more than 5 percent.* If the percentage of alcohol contained in a medicinal preparation, flavoring extract or toilet preparation varies by more than 5 percent from the percentage of alcohol in the total volume of the exported product as stated in a previously approved application for a specific manufacturing drawback ruling, the manufacturer shall apply for a new specific manufacturing drawback ruling pursuant to § 191.8 of this part. If the variation differs from a previously filed schedule, the manufacturer shall file a new schedule incorporating the change.
( 2 ) *Variance of 5 percent or less.* Variances of 5 percent or less of the volume of the product shall be reported to the appropriate drawback office where the drawback entries are liquidated. In such cases, the drawback office may allow drawback without specific authorization from Customs Headquarters.
( e ) *Time period for completing claims.* The 3-year period for the completion of drawback claims prescribed in 19 U.S.C. 1313(r)(1) shall be applicable to claims for drawback under this subpart.
( f ) *Filing of drawback entries on duty-paid imported merchandise and tax-paid alcohol.* When the drawback claim covers duty-paid imported merchandise in addition to tax-paid alcohol, the claimant shall file one set of entries for drawback of Customs duty and another set for drawback of internal revenue tax.
( g ) *Description of the alcohol.* The description of the alcohol stated in the drawback entry may be obtained from the description on the package containing the tax-paid alcohol.