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 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas) 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, David L. Hauser,
Group Executive and Chief Financial Officer of Duke Energy Carolinas, 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 results of operations of Duke Energy Carolinas.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DAVID L. HAUSER                                                  
|David L. Hauser Group
Executive and Chief Financial Officer May 14, 2007
#### § 1908.03 Contact for general information and requests.

For general information on this part or to request a declassification review, please direct your communication to the Information and Privacy Coordinator, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC 20505. Such inquiries will also be accepted by facsimile at (703) 613-3007. For general or status information only, the telephone number is (703) 613-1287. Collect calls cannot be accepted.
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated February 9, 2001 accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Michael Foods, Inc. and
subsidiaries, which are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Michael Foods, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2000. We hereby consent
to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
Statements of Michael Foods, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-31914 effective
November 21, 1989, and March 25, 1997 as amended; File Nos. 33-64076 and
33-64078 effective June 9, 1993, and March 25, 1997 as amended; File No.
33-57969 effective March 7, 1995, and March 25, 1997 as amended; and File
Nos. 333-23949 and 333-85251 effective March 25, 1997 and August 16, 1999 as
amended).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota

February 9, 2001
#### Angelina Tichio, Also Known as Angelina Lomangino, Respondent, v. Margaret Morgero, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for a stay, pending appeal, granted on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the June Term, beginning May 21, 1962; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. On the court’s own motion, the appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on appellant’s and respondent’s typewritten briefs, which shall include a copy of the opinion, if any, of the court below. The appellant and respondent are directed to file six copies of their respective typewritten briefs and to serve one copy on each other. Appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before May 11, 1962. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 109 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 109

   Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Social 
 Security should be preserved and protected for current beneficiaries, 
                  and for future generations to come.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2023

Ms. Tenney (for herself, Mr. Ciscomani, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
   Wittman, Ms. Salazar, Mr. Carey, Ms. Malliotakis, Mr. Kean of New 
    Jersey, Mr. Higgins of Louisiana, Mr. LaLota, and Mr. Smucker) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                           on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Social 
 Security should be preserved and protected for current beneficiaries, 
                  and for future generations to come.

Whereas Social Security provides essential income security through retirement, 
        disability, and survivor benefits for over 66,000,000 Americans of all 
        ages;
Whereas Social Security is essential to the dignity and security of the Nation's 
        elderly, disabled, and their families;
Whereas each payday, American workers send their hard-earned payroll taxes to 
        Social Security and in return are promised income security for 
        themselves and their families upon retirement, disability, or death, and 
        that commitment must be kept;
Whereas the policies of the Biden Administration have resulted in record 
        inflation, rising prices, and putting severe strain on Americans, in 
        particular those on Social Security; and
Whereas workers' ability to save and invest for their own retirement will 
        continue to be particularly important, especially for younger workers, 
        to enhance their own retirement security: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
Social Security should be preserved and protected for current 
beneficiaries, and for future generations to come.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135230 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135230 COA: 269157 Van Buren CC: 05-014760-FC MARK DAVID WOOD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 18, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0114 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 22, 2008

Clerk
#### De Forest Bowman, appellant, v. Elbert Clark, appellee.

Gen. No. 29,660.

Suit to recover premium on life insurance policy. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Bernard P. Bar asa, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed April 13, 1925.

John W. Bennett, for appellant; Herbert Bebb, of counsel.

Hoyne, O’Connor & Rubinkam, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
Termination Notice dated November 15, 2005 by Recycland, LLC


 Exhibit 10.08 
  
 [LOGO OF RECYCLAND] 
  
 Commercial Development · Environmental Risk Management · Acquisitions · Project Management 
  
  
 VIA FACSIMILE AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY 
  
 November 15, 2005 
  
 Rich Pulido 
 Prudential-Bache/Watson & Taylor, LTD.-2 
 Two Ravina Drive – 1400 
 Atlanta, GA 30346 
  
 w/copy to 
 Curtis B.
Toll, Esq. 
 Greenberg Traurig, LLP 
 2700 Two Commerce Square 
 2001 Market Street 
 Philadelphia, PA 19103 
  

	RE:	TERMINATION NOTICE 


	    	REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT 


	    	9244 East Hampton Drive 


	    	Capitol Heights, MD 

  
 Dear Mr. Pulido 
  
 We have regrettably determined
that a number of issues will not allow us to close on the purchase of the property known as 9244 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD. 
  
 Pursuant to Sections 4.5 and 13.4 of the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement dated November 4, 2005 between Recycland, LLC (“Buyer”) and
Prudential-Bache/Watson & Taylor, LTD.-2 (“Seller”) we hereby give written notice that Recycland, LLC is exercising its right to terminate the Real Purchase and Sale Agreement. 
  
 Pursuant to Section 3.1.2 of the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement, Village
Settlements, Inc., as Escrow Holder, is to immediately return the earnest money deposit and accrued interest. 
  
  
 Sincerely, 
 RECYCLAND, LLC 
  
  
 /s/ Stuart D.
Schooler 
 Stuart D. Schooler 
 Managing Member 
  
  

	cc:	David D. Hahn, Esq. 


	    	Dennis A. Davison, Esq. 


	    	Daniel Bernstein 


	    	Jason Robins 


	    	Lawrence Alpert 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 7801 Norfolk Avenue · Suite 200 · Bethesda, MD 20814 · (301) 656-1956 · Fax: (301) 656-8540 
 www.recycland.com
#### George E. Jenner and Florence J. Jenner, appellees, v. A. J. Schorsch and Mary C. Schorsch, appellants.

Gen. No. 29,168.

Action to recover balance claimed to be due on rescission of contract for the purchase of real property. Judgment for plaintiffs. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph S. LaBuy, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court *649for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Reversed.

Opinion filed April 29, 1925.

Theodore Johnson, for appellants.

Harold L. Feigenholtz, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Stahl Soap Corporation, Respondent, v. City of New York et al., Appellants.

In an action by a taxpayer to declare invalid and void: (1) the closing and discontinuance of a certain portion of Stamvix Street, in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York; and (2) certain agreements between the defendant City of New York and the defendant Liebmann Breweries, Inc., for a release to the latter of the land in such closed portion of the street, and for other incidental relief, all the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 13,1961, as denied their respective *933cross motions for summary judgment, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. On prior appeals the sufficiency of the complaint in this action was sustained (4 A D 2d 957, affd. 5 NY 2d 200). Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### § 241.2 Definitions.

In this part:

*Detail* means the assignment of a DoD employee to a private sector organization without a change of position; or the assignment of a private sector employee to a DoD Component without a change of position.

*DoD employee* means a Federal civilian employee of the DoD.

*Exceptional employee* means performance meets or exceeds all standards established at the fully successful level or above and makes significant contributions towards achieving the organizational goals. Participating organizations should target highly motivated, disciplined employees.

*Information technology (IT)* as defined means use of computers, ancillary equipment (including imaging peripherals, input, output, and storage devices necessary for security and surveillance), peripheral equipment designed to be controlled by the central processing unit of a computer, software, firmware and similar procedures, services (including support services), and related resources. IT includes the planning, organizing, staffing, directing, integrating, or controlling of information technology, including occupational specialty areas such as systems administration, IT project management, network services, operating systems, software application, cyber security, enterprise architecture, policy and planning, internet/web services, customer support, data management and systems analysis.

*Private sector organization* means nonpublic or commercial individuals and businesses, nonprofit organizations, academia, scholastic institutions, and nongovernmental organizations.

*Small business concern* means a business concern that satisfies the definitions and standards by the Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA) as defined by 5 U.S.C. 3703(e)(2)(A).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Benjamin Kutner, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 251 (Thursday, December 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86967-86968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28949]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Alan T. Waterman Award Committee; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science

[[Page 86968]]

Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: Alan T. Waterman Award Committee (1172).
    Date and Time: January 21, 2021; 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Place: NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 (Virtual).
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Keith Sverdrup, Program Manager, (703) 292-4671. 
National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 
22314.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations in the 
selection of the Alan T. Waterman Award recipient.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate nominations as part of the selection 
process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The nominations being reviewed include 
information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute 
unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. These matters are exempt 
under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: December 26, 2020.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-28949 Filed 12-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Docket No: FAA-2015-6545 Dir ID: 2015-NM-038-AD

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 3/4/15

Regional Airline Association 3/4/15

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 3/4/15

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 3/4/15
#### § 941.846 Individual civil penalties.

Part 846 of this chapter, *Individual Civil Penalties,* shall apply to the assessment of individual civil penalties under section 518(f) of the Act.

[53 FR 3676, Feb. 8, 1988]
April 28, 2000


Cyanotech Corporation
Hawaii Ocean Science Technology Park
73-4460 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. #102
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740

Attn:   Ronald Scott
        Executive Vice President

Re:     Project  Closeout  Costs  and  Suspension  Agreement for the Astaxanthin
        Expansion Project

This  letter  is  being  sent  as  a  follow up  to the meeting we had yesterday
regarding  the  closeout  agreement  between  Kiewit  Pacific  Co. and Cyanotech
Corporation for the Astaxanthin Expansion project.

Based  on  your  desire  to extend  our contract suspension, we are agreeable to
revising  our  previous  suspension  agreement  dated  September 17, 1999.  That
agreement addressed  the payment of the $338,335.00 balance due on the contract.
The terms of the suspension agreement will be modified as follows:

        1.      Kiewit  Pacific  Co.  agrees  to  further  suspend  work  on the
                construction contract until December 1, 2000.  In  consideration
                for  this,  Cyanotech will pay Kiewit Pacific Co. $85,000.00  of
                the  amount  remaining  due  on the contract now.  An additional
                payment  of  $85,000.00  will  be  made on or before December 1,
                2000.

        2.      In  the  event  Cyanotech  Corporation  chooses  to proceed with
                construction  on  or before December 1, 2000, Kiewit Pacific Co.
                will  be  allowed to  renegotiate the  price for  the work to be
                done.

        3.      If the parties cannot  come to agreement  for the  completion of
                the  work,  Cyanotech Corporation  may proceed with an alternate
                contractor   after  paying  Kiewit  Pacific  Co.  the  remaining
                $168,335.00 due plus interest as allowed by the contract.

If  these  provisions  are  acceptable to Cyanotech Corporation please sign this
document  and  return it  to our office.  We hope to resume construction on your
site in the near future.

Sincerely,                                      Cyanotech Corporation
/s/Jamie Wisenbaker                             By:/s/ Ronald P. Scott
--------------------                               --------------------
Jamie Wisenbaker                                Its Exec. V.P./CFO
Hawaii Area Manager                             Date: 5/1/2000
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERARDO LOPEZ, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 11-70604 Agency No. A089-394-883
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 7, 2014 ** Pasadena, California Before: TALLMAN, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Gerardo Lopez petitions this C ourt for review of his final order of removal. We exercise jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) and deny the petition. 

# FILED
OCT 17 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).Lopez claims that the proceedings underlying his final order of removal were conducted in violation of his due-proce ss rights. First, he claims that the immigration judge improperly admitted untimely submitted evidence of his prior conviction. Second, he claims that th e immigration judge improperly issued her opinion without waiting for a scheduled hearing on the admissibility of Lopez’s conviction records. Even if Lopez’s due-process claims had merit, he fails to show prejudice. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). The minute order of his prior guilty plea and conviction coupled w ith the criminal complaint irrefutably establish that Lopez was convicted of a drug-related offense. And Lopez does not contest the conviction or whether the convi ction is for a drug-related offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). He is thus ineligible for relief from deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2)(A) (providing that the Attorney General may adjust the status of an alien only when he is admissible). DENIED.

2
Unassociated Document


     

     

    Exhibit
      10o-1

     

    ROGERS
      CORPORATION

    AMENDED
      AND RESTATED

    PENSION
      RESTORATION PLAN

     

    First
      Amendment

     

    Pursuant
      to the powers and procedures for amendment of the Rogers Corporation Amended
      and
      Restated Pension Restoration Plan (the “Pension Restoration Plan”), described in
      Section 6.1 of the Pension Restoration Plan, the Compensation and Organization
      Committee of the Board of Directors of Rogers Corporation (the “Committee”)
      hereby amends the Pension Restoration Plan as follows:

     

    1.            
      Schedule
      A to the Pension Restoration Plan is hereby amended by adding the following
      thereto:

     

    
      	“Frank J. Gillern:	A supplemental amount such that when
              such
              supplemental amount is added to the amount calculated under clause
              (x) of
              Section 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 or 4.5 (as the case may be) such sum shall equal
              the
              amount that would be calculated under clause (x) of Section 4.1, 4.2,
              4.3
              or 4.5 (as the case may be) if Mr. Gillern’s service and compensation with
              Durel Corporation from the period of November 20, 2000 through September
              29, 2003 was treated as service with, and compensation from, the
              Company.”


    

     

    2.            
      Except
      as
      so amended, the Pension Restoration Plan in all other respects is hereby
      confirmed.

     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the Committee has caused this First Amendment to the Pension
      Restoration Plan to be duly executed on this 27th
      day of
      February, 2006.

     

    
      	 	 	 
	 	ROGERS
              CORPORATION
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	 	By:  	/s/ Robert
              M.
              Soffer
	 	
              

            
	 	
              Robert
                M. Soffer

              Vice
                President, Treasurer and
                Secretary
H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof * I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________________ N os . 08- 3361, 08- 3413, 08- 3758, and 08- 3759

___________________ U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ,

A ppel l ee a nd C r os s - A ppel l ant v. TAM I KA RI LEY A ND SHA RPE J AM ES A ppel l ant s and C r os s - A ppel l ees

___________________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 2- 07- cr - 00578) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. M art i ni

___________________ A r gued A pr i l 13, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge * O R D E R A M E N D I N G O C T O B E R 21, 2010 OR DE R A M E ND I NG OP I NI ON I T I S H E R E B Y O R D E R E D thatthe or deramendi ng opi ni on i n the above case, fi l ed O ct ob er 21, 20 10 , be am end ed as fo l l ow s:2

Page 15, fi r s ts ent ence of the fi r s tful l par agr aph w hi ch r ead: W hi l e i ti s true thatthe j uryconvi ct ed J ames of a s ubs t ant i ve vi ol at i on r efe r r ed t o i n one of the al t ernat i ve des cr i pt i ons of duty , 18 U . S. C . § 666 (C o u n t 4 ), d e p e n d e n ts h a v e m e t th e ir b u rd e n o f sh o w in g a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i tythatthe j uryut i l i zed the br oad def i ni t i on of an hone s ts ervi ces vi ol at i on gi ven i n connec t i on w i th the ent i r e cons pi r acychar ge. s hal l r ead: W hi l e i ti s true thatthe j uryconvi ct ed J ames of a s ubs t ant i ve vi ol at i on r efe r r ed t o i n one of the al t ernat i ve des cr i pt i ons of duty , 18 U . S. C . § 666 (C o u n t 4 ), d e f

e n d a n ts h a v e m e t th e ir b u rd e n o f sh o w in g a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i tythatthe j uryut i l i zed the br oad def i ni t i on of an hone s ts ervi ces vi ol at i on gi ven i n connec t i on w i th the ent i r e cons pi r acychar ge. BY THE C OU RT, /s/ Ja n e A . R e sta n i J u d g e D A T E D : October

27, 2010
### §320104. Jurisdiction of States in acquired land

Nothing in this chapter shall be held to deprive any State, or political subdivision of a State, of its civil and criminal jurisdiction in and over land acquired by the United States under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3259.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 320104 | 16 U.S.C. 465. | Aug. 21, 1935, ch. 593, §5, 49 Stat. 668. |

Section