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 Pioneer Financial Services, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned in the capacity and on the date indicated below hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





1.        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








May 14, 2010





/s/ Laura V. StackLaura V. Stack

Chief Financial Officer
# L_2022291EN.01005301.xml

| 10.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 291/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 291/53

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 166/2019

of 14 June 2019

amending Annex XI (Electronic communication, audiovisual services and information society) to the EEA Agreement [2022/2158]

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 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/296 of 20 February 2019 correcting certain language versions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2286 laying down detailed rules on the application of fair use policy and on the methodology for assessing the sustainability of the abolition of retail roaming surcharges and on the application to be submitted by a roaming provider for the purposes of that assessment (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/296 of 20 February 2019 correcting certain language versions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2286 laying down detailed rules on the application of fair use policy and on the methodology for assessing the sustainability of the abolition of retail roaming surcharges and on the application to be submitted by a roaming provider for the purposes of that assessment (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is added in point 5cuc (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2286) of Annex XI to the EEA Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32019 R 0296: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/296 of 20 February 2019 (OJ L 50, 21.2.2019, p. 4).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32019 R 0296: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/296 of 20 February 2019 (OJ L 50, 21.2.2019, p. 4).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/296 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 15 June 2019, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*).

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, 14 June 2019.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Claude MAERTEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 50, 21.2.2019, p. 4.

1

(*)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2203
AHMED GBADANSI MURTALA, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A72-163-325) Submitted: March 3, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel, Larry P. Cote, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ahmed Gbadansi Murtala, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Murtala’s motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003); INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Murtala , No. A72-163-325 (B.I.A. Sept. 4, 2003). 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.

PETITION DENIED
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Penge Corp (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, KC
Holmes, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                     /s/ KC Holmes
--------------------------------------------------------
          KC Holmes, Chief Financial Officer
                   November 14, 2006
#### Edwin Jaramillo et al., Appellants, v Juan Lobo et al., Respondents.

[820 NYS2d 608]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated June 20, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 *418(d), and (2) a judgment of the same court entered August 17, 2005, which, upon the order, dismissed the complaint. The notice of appeal from the order dated June 20, 2005, is deemed also to be a notice of appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Edwin Jaramillo; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Edwin Jaramillo is reinstated, and the order dated June 20, 2005, is modified accordingly; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs, payable by the defendants.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The defendants made a prima facie showing that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The proof submitted endeavored to show, inter alia, that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury and that their medical complaints were not causally related to the accident in question. The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff Denise Salazar failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury as a result of the subject accident. However, by submitting credible medical proof that the plaintiff Edwin Jaramillo suffered a tear of the meniscus of the left knee causally linked to the subject accident, along with proof indicating that before the accident his left knee was asymptomatic, a triable issue of fact was raised as to whether Jaramillo suffered a tear of his meniscus, and, if so, whether it was traumatically induced by the accident in question. Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
1 The HONORABLE HENRY L. JONES, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-4086

___________ Judy Richardson, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, * Eastern District of Arkansas. Social Security Administration, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 26, 1999 Filed: July 30, 1999

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Judy Richardson appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We affirm.

At a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), Richardson testified that she suffers from scoliosis, colitis, migraine headaches, and back pain. Following the-2-

hearing, the ALJ found that Richardson’s scoliosis did not qualify as a listed impairment, noting that Richardson’s orthopaedist had not recommended surgery. The ALJ further noted that Richardson apparently no longer suffered from colitis and migraines following a colectomy and hysterectomy. Considering the factors set forth in Polaski v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984), the ALJ discounted Richardson’s subjective complaints of disabling pain, and found that she retained the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant secretarial work.

We conclude that substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s decision. See Bates v. Chater , 54 F.3d 529, 531-32 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review). Richardson’s scoliosis, though severe, did not qualify as a listed impairment as none of her doctors indicated she suffered any motor, sensory, or reflex loss. See Marciniak
v. Shalala , 49 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (8th Cir. 1995); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P., app. 1, § 1.05(C) (1998). The medical evidence and Richardson’s testimony (inter alia, that conservative treatment measures provided some relief) do not substantiate disabling pain. See Black

v. Apfel , 143 F.3d 383, 386-87 (8th Cir. 1998); Stout v. Shalala , 988 F.2d 853, 855 (8th Cir. 1993). The ALJ also properly determined that Richardson could return to her past relevant work. See Johnston v. Shalala , 42 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 1994); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) (defining sedentary work).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Table 6. Odds ratios (a) for being married: Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: October 14, 1999

Characteristics - Covariates Model A Model B Model C Model D

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

 100 percent Sample 100 percent 100 percent

 (Both sites) (Both sites) Sacramento, CA Columbia, SC

N (unweighted) 2354 384 1179 1175

Chi-square 865.434 *** 223.774 *** 259.101 *** 216.190 ***

d.f. 8 13 7 7

 O.R. O.R. O.R. O.R.

Gender of couple

 Female/female 1.080 1.102 0.806 1.386 *

 Male/male (R) 1 1 1 1

Age of Person 1

 Less than 40 years old (R) 1 1 1 1

 40 or more years old 3.036 *** 2.810 ** 2.267 *** 3.976 ***

Age difference of Person 1 to partner

 Same age (R) 1 1 1 1

 one 5-year age group 0.580 *** 0.679 0.579 ** 0.585 **

 more than one 5-year age group 0.359 *** 0.261 *** 0.535 *** 0.254 ***

Race

 Person 1 same as partner 1.441 * 1.455 1.580 * 1.355

 Person 1 different from partner (R) 1 1 1 1

Children

 Children present 7.353 *** 10.737 *** 9.966 *** 5.468 ***

 No children present (R) 1 1 1 1

Other non-related adults

 Other non-related adults present 0.863 (NA) 0.862 0.808

 Other non-related adults not present (R) 1 (NA) 1 1

Educational attainment of Person 1

 Less than high school (NA) 1.023 (NA) (NA)

 High school degree (R) (NA) 1 (NA) (NA)

 Any college (NA) 0.261 ** (NA) (NA)

Educational attainment comparison

 between Person 1 and partner

 Same level of education (R) (NA) 1 (NA) (NA)

 Different level of education (NA) 1.479 (NA) (NA)

Employment

 One partner worked last week (R) (NA) 1 (NA) (NA)
 Both partners worked last week (NA) 0.474 * (NA) (NA)

 Neither partners worked last week 1.259

Migration

 Both partners lived at present

 residence 5 years ago (NA) 2.839 ** (NA) (NA)

 Both partners did not live at present

 residence 5 years ago (NA) 1 (NA) (NA)

Dress rehearsal site

 Sacramento, CA (R) 1 1 (NA) (NA)

 Columbia, SC 5.290 *** 4.107 *** (NA) (NA)

Intercept 0.154 *** 0.390 0.159 *** 0.768

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

 <.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

 (a) Exponentiated logistic regression coefficient.

 (NA) Not applicable/Not included in Model.

 (R) Reference Category for Regression.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In connection with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report of Superior Oil
and Gas Co. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006
(the "Report"),  I, Daniel Lloyd, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

         (2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  March 12, 2007

                                                          /s/ Daniel Lloyd
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Daniel Lloyd
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


         The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350)  and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.





                                                                    Exhibit 32.1
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 streetTRACKS® Gold Trust (the ‘‘Trust’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, James Lowe, principal financial officer of World Gold Trust Services, LLC, the sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Trust.

/s/ James Lowe*                     James Lowe** Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)May 9, 2007

|         |                                                                                                                                                              |
|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| *  | The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Sponsor’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon request. |

|          |                                                                                                                                              |
|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **  | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Lowe is signing in his capacity as an officer of World Gold Trust Services, LLC, the sponsor of the Trust. |

----
#### § 766.15 Proceeding without a hearing.

If the parties have waived a hearing, the case will be decided on the record by the administrative law judge. Proceeding without a hearing does not relieve the parties from the necessity of proving the facts supporting their charges or defenses. Affidavits or declarations, depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories and stipulations may supplement other documentary evidence in the record. The administrative law judge will give each party reasonable opportunity to file rebuttal evidence.
### §2414. Communication between Department of Veterans Affairs and medical examiners and funeral directors

(a) Required Information.—With respect to each deceased veteran described in subsection (b) who is transported to a national cemetery for burial, the Secretary shall ensure that the local medical examiner, funeral director, county service group, or other entity responsible for the body of the deceased veteran before such transportation submits to the Secretary the following information:

(1) Whether the deceased veteran was cremated.

(2) The steps taken to ensure that the deceased veteran has no next of kin.

(b) Deceased Veteran Described.—A deceased veteran described in this subsection is a deceased veteran—

(1) with respect to whom the Secretary determines that there is no next of kin or other person claiming the body of the deceased veteran; and

(2) who does not have sufficient resources for the furnishing of a casket or urn for the burial of the deceased veteran in a national cemetery, as determined by the Secretary.

(Added Pub. L. 112–260, title I, §103(a), Jan. 10, 2013, 126 Stat. 2419.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 112–260, title I, §103(c), Jan. 10, 2013, 126 Stat. 2420, provided that: "Section 2414 of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Jan. 10, 2013] and shall apply with respect to deaths occurring on or after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act."
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Mae Smith, Respondent, against Parkchester General Hospital et al., Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

Crapser, Bliss and Schenck, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., and Heffernan, J., dissent and vote to affirm on the authority of *Matter of Bergman*v. *Buffalo Dry Dock Co.*(269 N. Y. 150); *Matter of Clapham*v. *David*(232 App. Div. 458).
No. II-10-057 July 29, 2010 

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416 

NRC SCHEDULES MEETING WITH AREVA TO DISCUSS DECOMMISSIONING 

OF LYNCHBURG FUEL MANUFACTURING FACILITY 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials have scheduled a public meeting on 

Thursday, Aug. 5 with AREVA NP, Inc. to discuss the company’s plans to end fuel fabrication at 

its manufacturing facility in Lynchburg, Va. AREVA will also discuss potential future uses of 

the building. 

 The meeting is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. in the NRC’s Region II Office, 245 

Peachtree Center Avenue in Atlanta. The meeting is between the NRC and AREVA, but people 

attending will be given an opportunity to ask questions of the NRC staff after the business 

portion of the meeting. 

 A telephone conference line will also be available for anyone interested in 

listening to the meeting but unable to attend. For specific information about how to call in, 

contact Mary Thomas at 404-997-4561 or marylynne.thomas@nrc.gov. 

 

### 

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II 

245 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, Suite 1200 

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov