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

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, David R. Callen, hereby certify that the March 31, 2010 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as filed by Ethan Allen Interiors Inc. (the “Company”), which contains the Company’s financial statements, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                | Vice President, Finance |
|---------------------|-------------------------|
| /s/ David R. Callen |                    | & Treasurer |
| (David R. Callen)   |                    |   |

 

 

May 10, 2010

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Export-Import Bank of the United States

# ACTION:

Notice of a partially open meeting of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

# TIME AND PLACE:

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.

# OPEN AGENDA ITEM:

Shipping Finance Program.

# PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The meeting will be open to public participation for Item No. 1 only.

# FURTHER INFORMATION:

For further information, contact: Office of the Secretary, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571 (Tele. No. 202-565-3957).

Peter B. Saba,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 04-23830 Filed 10-20-04; 12:28 pm]

BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 203 (Thursday, October 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23533]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 15, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Conveyor Equipment 
Manufacturers Association (``CEMA'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Conveyor 
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Naples, FL. The nature and scope 
of CEMA's standards development activities are: voluntary industry and 
ANSI standards, written for the mutual benefit of manufacturer, user, 
and distributor, associated with the proper identification, 
engineering, and application of conveyors and auxiliary equipment used 
in the material handling sector of the economy.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-23533 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6723

ERIC KEYS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate

Judge. (CA-04-535)

Submitted: October 21, 2005 Decided: November 8, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Keys, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of

the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000). 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Eric Keys seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely.*

 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000). The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find the magistrate judge’s assessment of his constitutional

claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the magistrate judge are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Keys

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2249

ARKALGUD N. LAKSHMINARASIMHA, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS; GE; EPRI; US NAVY; IBM; PUBLIC SERVICE 

ENTERPRISES; DIRECTOR OF HR AT EPRI; HARRY BERAZIN; SEN. 

FEINSTEIN; PRATT AND WHITNEY, United Technologies Corp.; PUBLIC 

SERVICE ENTERPRISE GROUP, INC.; PAUL SINGSHINSUK; RACHEL 

CAMPBELL; CLERK OF COURT; DR. M. P. BOYCE, The Boyce Consultancy; 

NC ATTORNEY GENERAL; HELEN OLIVER; GENERAL ELECTRIC; HR, 

IBM; AIRTRAN; CHITRA MURTHY; CARY TOWN HALL; WAKE COUNTY 

SCHOOL SYSTEM; EXTENDED STAY, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

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

Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00259-BR) 

Submitted: March 10, 2022 Decided: March 17, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Arkalgud N. Lakshminarasimha, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Arkalgud N. Lakshminarasimha seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 

his post-judgment motion for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice 

of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal 

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court entered its order on May 13, 2021. Lakshminarasimha filed the 

notice of appeal on October 27, 2021.*

 Because Lakshminarasimha failed to file a timely 

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the 

appeal. 

We deny Lakshminarasimha’s motions for judicial notice, to assign master, to 

conduct motion hearing; for judicial notice and emergency relief; for judicial notice; to 

consolidate cases; for an emergency show cause hearing and to compel; to stay or vacate 

prefiling injunction order; for emergency relief from emergency judge; for appropriate 

relief and remedy; and for emergency review and to answer. We dispense with oral 

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date Lakshminarasimha could have delivered the notice to jail officials 

for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 

(1988). 
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
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. 00-007

January 7, 2000

NRC PROPOSES TO ADOPT ITS WEBSITE

TO ANNOUNCE MEETINGS OPEN TO PUBLIC

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its policies to

formally adopt the NRC website (http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/meet.html) as its forum to

announce meetings open to the public.

Previously, the NRC’s policy called for such sessions to be announced primarily

via an electronic bulletin board and a telephone recording, both of which were toll-free.

However, since the NRC began to post its notice of meetings open to the public on its website,

public use of the other automated means has dropped dramatically.

For people who cannot access the NRC’s website, assistance on scheduled

meetings would be made available through Commission staff at the Public Document Room, by

calling toll-free at 1-800-397-4209.

An additional administrative policy change would enable the NRC to capitalize on

advanced computer storage technology methods. Current policy limits the announcement of

meetings to those scheduled within 60 days. This practice was established due to the limited

amount of computer storage capacity when the public meeting notice system was designed. With

advancements in computer technology, though, this restriction is no longer needed. Accordingly,

under the proposed change, the NRC would eliminate the 60-day limit so that meetings can be

announced as soon as arrangements have been finalized.

The final change would clarify the NRC’s policy regarding the announcement of

the public meetings. The current policy states that meeting announcement information is to be

provided by the staff to the meeting announcement coordinator at least ten days in advance of the

scheduled date. This policy was designed to ensure that sufficient time was given to process the

notice and to provide the public with at least one week’s notice time. It does not, however,

explicitly state when the public can expect notice of the meeting.

The Commission’s proposed policy change notes that staff meetings will be

announced as soon as definitive arrangements on the date, time and location have been made, but

generally no fewer than 10 calendar days prior to the meeting. The Commission staff believes
this policy change will clarify how far in advance the public can generally expect to receive

notification of an open staff meeting via the NRC Web site.

Interested persons are invited to submit comments within 60 days of publication

of a Federal Register notice on this subject, which is expected shortly. Written comments

should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

Comments may also be submitted via the NRC’s interactive rulemaking Web Site

at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.

###
```

                                                                                                                           Exhibit 99.1

                                                       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 Executive Officer of U.S. Can Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

1)       the Company's  Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and
         results of operations of the Company.

                                                                /s/ John L. Workman

                                                                John L. Workman
                                                                Chief Executive Officer

                                                                Dated: May 9, 2003
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 181

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 181 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93026, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 181.63 [Reserved]
§ 220.5 Contents of petition. The petition shall include the following information: ( a ) The name, telephone number, and postal and email address of the petitioner, and if appropriate, its representative in the matter;
( b ) A statement as to whether the petitioner is requesting an extension of an existing duty suspension or reduction or a new duty suspension or reduction; and if a duty reduction, the amount of the reduction;
( c ) A certification that the petitioner is a likely beneficiary of the proposed duty suspension or reduction;
( d ) An article description that meets the requirements of § 220.6 for the proposed duty suspension or reduction and identifies the permanent classification of the article in chapters 1-97 of the HTS and the Chemical Abstracts Service registry number (if applicable);
( e ) To the extent available— ( 1 ) A classification ruling of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that indicates CBP's classification of the article; and
( 2 ) A copy of other CBP documentation indicating where the article is classified in the HTS.
( f ) A brief and general description of the article and its uses, and the names of the principal countries from which it is imported.
( g ) A brief description of the industry in the United States that uses the article.
( h ) For each HTS number included in the article description: ( 1 ) An estimate of the total and dutiable value (in United States dollars) of imports of the article covered by the petition for the calendar year preceding the year in which the petition is filed, for the calendar year in which the petition is filed, and for each of the 5 calendar years after the calendar year in which the petition is filed, including an estimate of the value of such imports by the person who submits the petition and by any other importers, if available.
( 2 ) An estimate of the share of total imports represented by the petitioner's imports of the article that is the subject of the petition.
( i ) The name of each person that imports the article, if available.
( j ) The names of any domestic producers of the article, if available.
( k ) A Commission disclosure form as defined in § 220.2(d).
( l ) The names of any likely beneficiaries, and their contact information.
( m ) A certification that the petitioner has not separately filed, and has not withdrawn, a petition for duty suspension or reduction during the current filing cycle: ( 1 ) For an article that is identical to that in the current petition;
( 2 ) For an article whose article description includes the article covered by the current petition; or
( 3 ) For an article that is included in the scope of the current petition.
( n ) A certification from the petitioner that the information supplied is complete and correct to the best of the petitioner's knowledge and belief, and an acknowledgement from the petitioner that the information submitted is subject to audit and verification by the Commission.
( o ) Such other information as the Commission may require.
[81 FR 67149, Sept. 30, 2016, as amended at 84 FR 44692, Aug. 27, 2019]
#### Oscar E. Hovik et al., Respondents, v. Mamie Paul, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Ole Hovick, Deceased, et al., Defendants, and Henry Jennings, Appellant.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, the counterclaim by the owner seeks specific performance of an agreement to deliver the real property free and clear of incumbrances. Judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered after trial, reversed on the law and the *896facts, without costs, and judgment providing that the real estate be freed of the lien of the mortgage and that the mortgage instrument be satisfied and discharged of record, directed in favor of appellant, without costs. Inconsistent findings and conclusions stated informally at Special Term are reversed and new findings will be made. The mortgagees agreed to deliver the fee free and clear of incumbrances, which inevitably implies the satisfaction, cancellation, and discharge of the mortgage lien and indebtedness. The evidence establishes that the signer of the written agreement acted on behalf of both mortgagees. Neither the execution nor the sufficiency of the agreement is attacked. The purchaser performed, and full performance must be decreed. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.
#### § 1601.40 Lifecycle Funds.

The Executive Director will establish TSP Lifecycle Funds, which are target date asset allocation portfolios. The TSP Lifecycle Funds will invest solely in the funds established pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8438(b)(1)(A)-(E).

[87 FR 31675, May 24, 2022]
### §65e. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 98–63, title I, July 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 333, which provided that effective with fiscal year 1983 and each fiscal year thereafter, the expense allowance of Majority and Minority Whips of Senate could not exceed $5,000 each fiscal year for each Whip, was transferred and executed to section 31a–1 of this title. Section 31a–1 was editorially reclassified as section 6102 of this title.
#### § 192.11 Description of the AES.

The Automated Export System (AES) is the information system for collecting Electronic Export Information (EEI) from persons exporting goods from the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands; between Puerto Rico and the United States; and to the U.S. Virgin Islands from the United States or Puerto Rico. Pursuant to the Census Bureau's Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR), all commodity export information for which EEI is required must be filed through the AES. This system is the CBP-approved electronic data interchange system used for purposes of filing EEI as required by § 192.14. AES is also the system by which certain sea carriers may report required outbound vessel information electronically (*see,* §§ 4.63, 4.75, and 4.76 of this chapter). Eligibility and application procedures are found in the General Requirements section of the FTR, codified at 15 CFR part 30, subpart A. The Census Bureau's FTR (15 CFR part 30, subpart A) provides that exporters may choose to submit export information through AES by any one of three electronic filing options available. Only Option 4, the complete post-departure submission of export information, requires prior approval by participating agencies before it can be used by AES participants.

[CBP Dec. 17-06, 82 FR 32240, July 13, 2017]
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60493

Summary Calendar

PRENTISS I. GUYTON

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; KARL M. BANKS

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:08-CV-294

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Prentiss I. Guyton appeals from the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in his suit alleging constructive discharge. For the reasons given in

the district court’s memorandum opinion and order, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 11, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-60493 Document: 00511000591 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2010
NRC

NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. III-03-064 October 2, 2003

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC TO CONDUCT SPECIAL INSPECTION OF FUEL HANDLING INCIDENT AT BYRON

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection of the circumstances

surrounding a fuel handling incident which occurred September 26 during refueling activities at Unit 1

of the Byron Nuclear Power Station. The two-reactor facility near Byron, Illinois, is operated by

Exelon Generation Company.

During refueling, a fuel assembly was being moved from the reactor to the spent fuel storage

pool when it struck equipment in the fuel transfer area. 

There was no evidence of damage to the fuel assembly, which was contained inside a fuel

handling tool, and there was no release of radioactivity associated with the incident. In the refueling

process, fuel assemblies are lifted from the reactor using an overhead crane and moved underwater to

the spent fuel storage pool.

Because of an obstruction in the fuel transfer area, the refueling staff had disabled a safety

system in the overhead crane which limits the path for fuel movements to avoid possible contact with

objects that might damage the fuel.

The NRC’s special inspection is being conducted to determine the circumstances which led to

the disabling of the overhead crane safety system and other aspects of the incident.

 The report of the inspection will be publically available from the NRC Region III Office of

Public Affairs when it is issued, about 30 days after the inspection is completed. It will also be posted

on the NRC’s web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html. Use Docket

Number 05000454. Assistance in using the web reading room is available by calling the NRC Public

Document Room at 800-397-4209.

# # #