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**

** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alamo Group Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, DanE. Malone, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The Form 10-Q fully complies withthe requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
-  The information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Date:   August 6, 2010 | /s/ Dan E.  Malone                                      |
|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                             | Dan E.  Malone                                          |
|                             | Executive  Vice President & Chief Financial Officer |
|                             | (Principal  Financial Officer)                          |
§ 470.303 Eligible parties. ( a ) Any Federal agency, or groups of two or more Federal agencies, eligible to propose demonstration projects under 5 U.S.C. 4701(a)(1) and 4701(b) may conduct demonstration projects after approval by the Office of Personnel Management and required Congressional and public review.
( b ) While only a Federal agency may propose and conduct a demonstration project, the agency may be assisted in the development and evaluation of the project under contract or agreement with public or private institutions and organizations.
Grafton,

Dec., 1897.

#### Palmer, *Adm’r, v.*Bass.

An administrator who makes the party adverse to him a witness in respect to facts which occurred in the lifetime of the deceased may be called and examined generally by such adverse party.

Assumpsit, by an administrator, to recover upon promissory notes payable to his intestate. Trial before a referee. The administrator did not elect to testify to any facts occurring in the lifetime of the deceased. Subject to the defendant’s exception, the defendant was called as a witness by the administrator and compelled so to testify.

*William F. Westgate*and *Samuel B. Page,*for the plaintiff

*Bingham, Mitchell*<#■ *Batchellor*and *Chapman &■ Lang,*for the defendant.

Parsons, J.

“ Where one party to a cause is an . . . adminis-. trator . . . neither party shall testify in respect to facts which occurred in the lifetime of the deceased . . . unless the . . . administrator . . . elects so to testify.” P. S., *c.*224, *s.*16. If in such cases the administrator elects to testify in respect to the excepted facts, it is clear that both parties are competent witnesses and neither party is excused or excluded as a witness to any relevant fact. This is not questioned, but the defendant claims that the administrator could not, without making himself a witness thereto, compel the party adverse to him to testify in respect to the facts excepted by the statute. Whether this claim can be sustained is not now decided, since the contention, if sound in law, would not sustain the defendant’s exception. Por if it be conceded that under the statute the administrator could not, without making himself a witness as to the same matters, *301compel the defendant to testify in respect to facts which occurred in the lifetime of the deceased, his requirement of such testimony of the defendant would be a waiver of his right of objection to being himself made a witness by the defendant if he had such right. Such a waiver would be an election by the administrator to testify, within the meaning of the statute. If the administrator had not the right to require the defendant’s testimony unless himself willing to testify, his insistence upon such testimony was an announcement of his own willingness to testify, and he could not object if called by his opponent. The finding of fact in the case that the administrator did not elect to testify cannot overcome or control the legal effect of what he did.

The immateriality or incompetency on other grounds of any testimony which the administrator might be able to give could not deprive Mm of his power of election, if such election is necessary to entitle him to examine the defendant.

It does not appear that the administrator refused to submit to cross-examination, or that the defendant desired to examine him.

*Case discharged.*

All concurred, Carpenter, C. J., expressing the opinion that either party could compel the other to testify.
§ 1501.13 Conduct of hearings. ( a ) Not less than three members of a panel of the Board shall be present at all hearings. The Board shall conduct its hearings in such manner as to protect from disclosure information affecting the national security. The chairman of the panel shall preside and be responsible for the maintenance of decorum and order in the hearing.
( b ) Attendance at hearings shall be limited to the applicant or employee, his attorney or representative, the panel of the Board assigned to the case, Board members, Board staff employees participating in the case, the witness who is testifying, and such other persons as in the opinion of the panel are required for the proper presentation of the case. Representation for an applicant or employee shall be limited to one attorney or representative and one bona fide assistant, both representing the applicant or employee only.
( c ) Hearings shall begin with the reading of the interrogatory. The applicant or employee shall thereupon be informed of his right to participate in the hearing, to be represented by counsel, to present witnesses and other evidence in his behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses offered in support of the derogatory information.
( d ) Testimony shall be given under oath or affirmation.
( e ) Strict legal rules of evidence shall not be applied at the hearings, but reasonable bounds shall be maintained as to competency, relevancy, and materiality and due allowance shall be made for the effect of any nondisclosure to the individual of information or the absence of any opportunity to cross-examine persons who supplied information but who do not appear and testify. Both the Government and the applicant or employee may introduce such evidence as the panel may deem proper in the particular case.
( f ) A complete verbatim stenographic transcript shall be made of the hearing, and the transcript shall constitute a permanent part of the record.
( g ) Applicants and employees must pay their own travel and subsistence expenses incident to attendance at hearings, except that the Board may authorize the payment of travel and subsistence expenses to applicants or employees when the hearing is held at a place other than the place outside the continental limits of the United States where the employee works, or the applicant resides, and such payment is considered in the interest of good administration and funds are available for this purpose.
[18 FR 6371, Oct. 7, 1953, as amended at 21 FR 5249, July 14, 1956]
01/21/201 0 13:33 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 0001/00 3 

SERVED DECEMBER 28,2009 RECEIVED 

lAO^ . 5 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOKi r- A t>.... ^ ^ 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ^^CARING DOCKET 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

RECURRENT TRAINING CENTER, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. (CP09GL0008) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. (FAA-2009-0971) 

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING 

COMES NOW Respondent, RECURRENT TRAINING CENTER, INC., by and through 

its counsel, BARNETT LAW OFFICES, P.C, pursuant to 14 CFR §13.213 and 14 CFR §13.221 

hereby files this MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING in the instant matter which is 

scheduled for Januaiy 14 and 15,2010 in Chicago, Illinois. The basis for this motion is that 

Respondent's principal officer, John Killeen, will be out of the country beginning on or about 

January 2, 2009 until on or about February 28, 2010. A portion of Respondent's travels include 

time spent iu Antarctica. 

Counsel for the Respondent has conferred with the Agency's counsel as to the availability 

of dates during the months of March and April 2010. All conconed would be available during 

the entire months of March and April with the exception of tbe week of March 29, 2010 when 

Respondent's counsel will be out of the state. Further, it may become necessary to conduct 

: : J 

: I 
01/21/2010 13:33 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 0002/003 

additional discovery upon Mr. Killeen's return to the United States. Accordingly, Respondent 

would like to reserve the first three weeks of March to do soCounsel for the Administrator has radicated that she has no objection to the request for a 

continuance. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent asks diis Court to grant the instant Motion For Continuance 

Of Hearing and that the hearing be scheduled no earlier than April 5, 2010. 

Dated: December 28,2009 

Respectfully ^bmitted, 

Charles R. Bamett, III 

BARNETT LAW OFFICES, P.C. 

1664 Moorland Lane 

Crystal Lake, Illinois 60014-2985 

(815) 356-8647 

(815) 356-7042 (FAX) 

Attorney: 

Recurrent Training Center, Inc. 
01/21/201 0 13:3 3 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS @!003/003 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Motion For Continuance Of Hejuing was 

served via facsimile and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested as follows: 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administiation 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000 

FAX: 202^93-5142 

ONE COPY 

Briana Morgan, Complainant's Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7M 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018^696 

TEL: 847-294-7713 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E, 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Dated this 28* day of December, 2009. 

Charles! 

Attorney for Respondent
Exhibit 13.2



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 States Code), the undersigned officer of LATAM
Airlines Group S.A. (“the Company”), herby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year
ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: April 29, 2016



| | /s/ Andrés Osorio Hermansen
| | ---------------------------
| | Andrés Osorio Hermansen    
| | CFO LATAM
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Gregory D. Casciaro, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of XTENT, Inc. on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial conditionand results of operations of XTENT, Inc.

 
| Date: August 12, 2008 |                                            |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                            |   |
| By:                        | /s/ Gregory D. Casciaro                         |   |
|                       | Gregory D. Casciaro                             |   |
|                       | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |   |
|                       | (Principal Executive Officer)                   |   |

 

----
### Draft - Summary Wood/Pellet Stoves 8/11/2010

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 40 41+ Number of Manufacturers Number of Models



### No. of Models per Manufacturer

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 40 41+ Number of Manufacturers Number of Models



### No. of Catalytic Wood Stove Models per



### Manufacturer 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 40 Number of Manufacturers Number of Models 

### No. of Pellet Stove Models per Manufacturer

0 10 20 30 40 1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 40 41+ Number of Manufacturers Number of Models 

### No. of Non - Catalytic Wood Stove Models per

Manufacturer
# L_2017008EN.01002801.xml

| 12.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 8/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 8/28

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 192/2015

of 10 July 2015

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2017/32]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Decision 2014/746/EU of 27 October 2014 determining, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage, for the period 2015 to 2019 (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Decision 2014/746/EU of 27 October 2014 determining, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage, for the period 2015 to 2019 (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Decision 2014/746/EU repeals Commission Decision 2010/2/EU (2), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement and which is consequently to be repealed under the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Decision 2014/746/EU repeals Commission Decision 2010/2/EU (2), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement and which is consequently to be repealed under the EEA Agreement.

| (3) | Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The text of point 21alb (Commission Decision 2010/2/EU) of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement is replaced by the following:

‘
  32014 D 0746: Commission Decision 2014/746/EU of 27 October 2014 determining, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage, for the period 2015 to 2019 (OJ L 308, 29.10.2014, p. 114).’

Article 2

The text of Decision 2014/746/EU in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 11 July 2015, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 10 July 2015.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Atle LEIKVOLL

---

(1)  
  OJ L 308, 29.10.2014, p. 114.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 1, 5.1.2010, p. 10.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Abatement Order filed May 29 , 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00287

- CV

____________ RICHARD ALAN HAASE A ND AUDREY LOIS HAASE , Appellant s
V.

SANTANDER CONSUMER U SA, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12

- DCV

- 197259



### ABATEMENT ORDER
According to information provided to this court, this appeal is from a judgment signed January 10, 2014 . Appellant s filed a notice of appeal on April 14,
2014

. On May 8, 2014 , a ppellant s filed a motion to proceed as indigent in this

court. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (h)

. On May 16, 2014 , the district clerk and the

court reporter filed a contest to appellants ’ motion

.If an affidavit of indigence is filed in an appellate court, and a contest is

filed, the court may refer the matter to the trial court with instructions to hear evidence and grant the appropriate relief. Te x. R. App. P. 20.1(h)(4).
Accordingly, we refer the matter to the trial court and direct the trial court to hold a hearing and make written findings as to whether appellant s are entitled to proceed without payment of costs.
The court reporter shall file a reporter ’ s record from the hearing and any exhibits admitted at the hearing on the contest to appellants ’ claim of indigence.
The record of the hearing and the trial court’s written findings shall be filed with
the clerk of this court on or before 30 days from the date of this order.
The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court ’ s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court ’ s active docket when the
trial court ’ s ruling on indigenc e has been completed. The co urt will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by any party. It is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule a hearing in compliance with thi s court’ s or der. If the parties do not request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties of such date.

PER CURIAM
s.

BCD 00-28

EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION q 7 2000

Meridian Southern Railway, L.L.C. (MDS)

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning the

status of the Meridian Southern Railway, L.L.C. (MDS) as an employer under

the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231, el seq.) and the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. § 351, et seq.).

By authority of a Surface Transportation Board decision on March 29, 2000

(STB Finance Docket No. 33854), MDS began operations as a class III railroad

carrier on April 1, 2000. MDS acquired by purchase from the Kansas City 

Southern Railway Company (KCS) (Ba No. 1806) approximately 54.5 miles of

rail line between Meridian, MS and Waynesboro, MS. MDS now owns and

operates the freight line formerly operated by KCS and interchanges with KCS.

Section 1(a)(1) of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231 (a)(1)), insofar as

is relevant here, defines a covered employer as:

(i) any carrier by railroad subject to the jurisdiction ofthe

Surface Transportation Board under Part A of subtitle IV of Title

49, United States Code.

Section 1 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act contains the same

definition.

The evidence of record establishes that MDS is a rail carrier operating in

interstate commerce. Accordingly, it is determined that MDS became an

employer within the meaning of section l(a)(l)(i) ofthe Railroad Retirement

Act (45 U.S.C. § 23 l(a)(l)(i)) and the corresponding provision ofthe Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act effective March 29, 2000, the date as ofwhich

employees were first compensated. Cf. Rev. Rul. 82-100, 1982-1 C.B. 155.

|j piV. M. Speakman, Jr.

BA# 5579
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Documentation and Applications of the ReactiveGeochemical Transport Model RATEQ (NUREG/CR-6871, Draft Report for Comment)

This NUREG-series publication was issued for public comment, and the comment period is now closed.

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6871 (PDF - 5.01 MB)

For information about how the NRC handles your comments, see our Privacy Policy.

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**March 2005**Date Published:**June 2005

**Prepared by:** Gary P. Curtis Water Resources Division U.S. Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Road, Mail Stop 465 Menlo Park, California 94025

J.D. Randall, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:** Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission >Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code Y6462

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The computer program RATEQ implements a numerical method for simulating reactive transport in porous media. For RATEQ simulations, groundwater flow is simulated using MODFLOW-2000. The reactive transport simulations in RATEQ are built on MT3DMS. RATEQ is intended for a wide range of applications involving biogeochemical reactions governed by rate- or equilibrium-controlled reactions. This report documents the input requirements and the output capabilities of RATEQ. The report also presents a number of example simulations illustrating the capabilities of RATEQ. The example simulations include five benchmark simulations that compare results obtained with RATEQ with results obtained independently. Simulations of U(VI) transport at the UMTRA site near Naturita, CO, are also described. Finally, several addition simulations are included that illustrate the application of RATEQ to problems with immobile zones, redox-controlled reactive transport, and biogeochemical transport.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
### §11278. Performance standards

#### (a) Establishment of performance standards

Not later than 1 year after October 8, 2008, the Secretary shall issue rules that specify performance standards for public and nonprofit private entities and agencies that receive grants under sections 11211, 11221, and 11261 of this title.

#### (b) Consultation

The Secretary shall consult with representatives of public and nonprofit private entities and agencies that receive grants under this subchapter, including statewide and regional nonprofit organizations (including combinations of such organizations) that receive grants under this subchapter, and national nonprofit organizations concerned with youth homelessness, in developing the performance standards required by subsection (a).

#### (c) Implementation of performance standards

The Secretary shall integrate the performance standards into the processes of the Department of Health and Human Services for grantmaking, monitoring, and evaluation for programs under sections 11211, 11221, and 11261 of this title.

(Pub. L. 93–415, title III, §386A, as added Pub. L. 110–378, §8, Oct. 8, 2008, 122 Stat. 4071.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 5732–1 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**Statement explaining how earnings per share information was calculated in this annual report**

The calculation of theearnings per share attributable to the equity holders of the Company for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 is based on the profit attributable to the equity holders of the Company for the year of RMB6,488,908,000,RMB3,230,450,000 and RMB2,372,985,000 and on the 4,918,400,000 shares in issue, during each of the three years. 

The earnings per ADS have been calculatedbased on the profit for the relevant periods and on one ADS, being equivalent to 10 H shares. The equivalent H shares to one ADS have been changed from 50 to 10 H shares from June 27, 2008. The new ADS were distributed to ADS holders onJuly 3, 2008. The comparative figures of 2007 and 2006 have been adjusted accordingly. 

No diluted earning per share has been presented as there areno dilutive potential shares in issue during the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006.