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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael W. Zellner, hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer of PMC-Sierra, Inc. (PMC), that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of PMC on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 28, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PMC.



|                        |  |     |  |                                                         
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 25, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael W. Zellner                                  
|                        |  |     |  | Michael W. Zellner                                      
|                        |  |     |  | Vice President                                          
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 10.10

[Letterhead of Registrant]

                                                                   March 8, 2006

Mr. David W. Miller
Chief Operating Officer
Lancy Technology Limited
Godiva Place Coventry, CV1 5PN
United Kingdom


Dear David:

Pursuant to the attached agreement dated August 4, 2003, Twain Associates
("Twain") has certain rights to develop the Japanese market for the products of
Ovation Products Corporation ("Ovation"). Lancy Technology Limited (previously
Lancy Water Technology Limited and hereafter "Lancy") was granted worldwide
rights to sell certain industrial products in a Distribution Agreement dated
December 16, 2002 and on March 8, 2006, Ovation and Lancy amended their
Distribution Agreement and Ovation granted Lancy exclusive distribution rights
to the Impregnation Market through-out the world.

This letter memorializes our agreement that if Twain sells Impregnation Products
in Japan independent of Lancy, Ovation will pay Lancy a sales commission of 5%
of such sales.


                                                   Sincerely,

                                                   /s/ Robert R. MacDonald
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   Robert R. MacDonald
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

Signed and Agreed:

LANCY TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

/s/ David W. Miller
--------------------------------------------
BY: David W. Miller, Chief Operating Officer
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 08704

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name Description

x 08704\08704_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08704\08704_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

08704\08704_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 08704\08704_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08704\08704_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08704\08704_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08704\08704_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08704\08704_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

08704\Certification Statement Plant ID 08704.pdf Plant certification statement

08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Bed ash AESWarriorRun 8704.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Bed ash2 AESWarriorRun 8704.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Flyash AESWarriorRun 8704.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Flyash2 AESWarriorRun 8704.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Follow up Email.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Follow Up Questions.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Follow Up Response Ash Disposal Cost.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Follow Up Response Outfall Data.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_WaterBalance AESWarriorRun 8704.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
### SUBCHAPTER II—INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
#### Thomas J. Segreto, Appellant, v Town of Oyster Bay, Respondent.

In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 14, 1978, which denied the application. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and application granted. Serious injuries were sustained by the appellant, then 18 years old, when he fell on a street in the early morning hours of November 24, 1977. He claims he fell "in a pot hole”. He believed that the accident occurred on property on which there was located a gasoline service station and a garage. In fact, the property on which he fell is a "marginal road” that belongs to the Town of Oyster Bay. This he learned after he consulted an attorney about the accident for the first time on March 21, 1978. Counsel moved for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to subdivision 5 of amended section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. The appellant indicates that at the time of the motion&emdash;which the respondent claims was when it received its first notice of any claim&emdash;the condition existed as it had at the time of the accident and that the respondent could have investigated at that time. Instead, the respondent repaired the street. The purpose of the amendments to the statute was to provide greater flexibility in permitting late notices of claim, where a consideration of all relevant factors warranted permission (see *Matter of Beary v City of Rye,*44 NY2d 398). A particular consideration was to be whether or not the public corporation acquired "actual knowledge of the essential facts” within 90 days "or within a reasonable time thereafter” (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd 5). Among other relevant factors, which are not exclusive, was whether the delay in serving the notice of claim "substantially prejudiced the public corporation in maintaining its defense on the merits” (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd 5). In our view, this is a case in which permission to file a late notice should be granted. The respondent had "actual knowledge of the essential facts” at the time the *797motion was returnable, on April 25, 1978, which is clearly within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day limitation. Therefore, the respondent has not been substantially prejudiced in its defense, especially when one considers that if the street was repaired, knowledge that it needed repair must have existed. We have considered, in addition, that at the time of the accident the appellant was a very young adult, that he consulted an attorney within a reasonable time (three months after he came out of the hospital for the second time, four months after the accident) and that the attorney, in turn, promptly moved to serve the notice of claim. Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We have issued our report dated August 11, 2008, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Handleman Company on Form 10-K for the year ended May 3, 2008. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the RegistrationStatements of Handleman Company on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-69389, effective December 21, 1998; File No. 333-72622, effective January 11, 2001; File No. 333-72624, effective January 11, 2001; and FileNo. 333-120485, effective November 15, 2004). 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

Southfield, Michigan 

August 11, 2008
### SUBCHAPTER III—CANOLA AND RAPESEED
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: U.S.-Chinatrade data: a montly summary**
 
2012:Dec
2013:Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct (N/A) | Nov| Dec
2014:Jan | Feb | Mar
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.2:C 44/T 67/4/
Item Number:1089 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001057278
 
May 30, 2018
#### Anna Holmes, appellee, v. Bertha M. Carra, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,215.

Suit for conversion by defendant of certain household goods. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles P. McKinley, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

*Certiorari*denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Affirmed on remittitur; otherwise reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed April 13, 1925.

Rehearing denied April 27, 1925.

Henry L. Kane and Rose & Symmes, for appellant.

Porest Garfield Smith, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Johnston

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 2002.32 CUI cover sheets. ( a ) Agencies may use cover sheets for CUI. If an agency chooses to use cover sheets, it must use CUI EA-approved cover sheets, which agencies can find on the CUI Registry.
( b ) Agencies may use cover sheets to identify CUI, alert observers that CUI is present from a distance, and serve as a shield to protect the attached CUI from inadvertent disclosure.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 5, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128730 Michael F. Cavanagh 

& (14) Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 128730 

 COA: 261522 

Wayne CC: 03-011706-01 

TERRENCE WESLEY JONES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 10, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to add issue is 

DENIED. 

KELLY, J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan, lv gtd 472 Mich 

881 (2005). 

l1128 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 5, 2005 

Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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 on Form 10-Q/A of
Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Stevan R. Schott, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, 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 his 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WITNESS the due execution hereof this 24th day of March, 2005.



/s/ Stevan R. SchottStevan R. SchottSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### O’NEILL v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

1. Negligence—Actions—Pleading—Bill of Particulars.

In an action for personal injuries defendant is entitled to a bill of particulars as to the injuries which plaintiff alleged she believed were permanent, and as to the length of time during which she was confined to her home.

Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.

Action by Rose Ann O’Neill against the Interurban Street Railway Company. From an order denying its motion for a bill of particulars, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and JENKS, WOODWARD, HIRSCHBERG, and HOOKER, JJ.

Arthur Ofner, for appellant.

Benjamin F. Norris, for respondent.

GOODRICH, P. J.

The action is to recover damages for personal injuries alleged, to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The latter appeals from an order denying its motion for a bill of particulars as to the injuries which the plaintiff alleged that she believed were permanent, and as to the length of time during which plaintiff was confined to her home. Cavanagh v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 70 App. Div. 1, 74 N. Y. Supp. 1107, and Curtin v. Same, 65 App. Div. 610, 72 N. Y. Supp. 580, are authority that under a similar complaint the defendant is entitled to a bill of particulars specifying what injuries the plaintiff claims to be permanent; and Steinau v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 63 App. Div. 126, 71 N. Y. Supp. 256, is au*506thority'that the defendant is entitled to a statement of the length of time the plaintiff was confined to her home as a result of her injuries.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, so as to require the plaintiff to furnish the two items herein referred to, without costs. All concur.
#### Arthur Johnson, appellee, v. Clarence M. Bills, appellant.

Gen. No. 7,434.

Assumpsit for breach of contract. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Henry county; the Hon. William T. *659Church, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 27, 1925.

Bartlett S. Gray, for appellant.

Andrews & O’Connor, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §§51 to 57. Repealed. Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, §53, 70A Stat. 641

Section 51, act Aug. 5, 1882, ch. 395, 22 Stat. 299, related to pay of master amorer at Springfield Armory.

Section 52, act June 23, 1874, ch. 486, 18 Stat. 282, related to pay of clerks at Springfield Armory.

Section 53, R.S. §1665, required an annual account of expenses of national armories, together with an account of arms made and repaired thereon.

Section 54, acts Aug. 18, 1890, ch. 797, §2, 26 Stat. 320; Aug. 7, 1946, ch. 770, §1(52), 60 Stat. 870, related to accounts of cost of type and experimental manufacture of guns and other articles.

Section 55, R.S. §1666, authorized Secretary of War to abolish useless or unnecessary arsenals.

Section 56, R.S. §1669, provided for forfeitures by reason of misconduct of workmen in armories.

Section 57, R.S. §1671, exempted from jury duty all artificers and workmen employed in armories and arsenals, of the United States.
Order filed July 10 , 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00529

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF S .J.N., AND R.L.N., C HILDREN

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 03363J



### ORDER This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue. The judgment was signed May 24, 2018

. 1 The notice of appeal was due within 20 days, which was June 13,
2018

. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), 28.4(a). Appellant S.N. , however, filed his notice of appeal on June 25 , 2018 , a date within 15 days of the due date for the notice of

1 The notice of appeal states, “The order being appealed is entitled Decree for Termination dated June 6, 2018.” No such decree signed on that date appears in the clerk’ s record. The record contains only one order signed June 6, 2018. It grants S.N.’s trial counsel’s motion to withdraw and appoints appellate counsel

.appeal.

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when the perfecting instrument is filed within 15 days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an ext ension may be implied, appellant is still obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd. , 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).

Accord ingly, we ORDER appellant S.N . to file a proper motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal by July 20 , 2018 . See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM
§ 2.4 Designation of participating programs. ( a ) Pilot programs may be nominated by a DoD Component Head or Component Acquisition Executive for participation in the Defense Acquisition Pilot Program. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology shall determine which specific programs will participate in the pilot program and will transmit to the Congressional defense committees a written notification of each defense acquisition program proposed for participation in the pilot program. Programs proposed for participation must be specifically designated as participants in the Defense Acquisition Pilot Program in a law authorizing appropriations for such programs and provisions of law to be waived must be specifically authorized for waiver.
( b ) Once included in the Defense Acquisition Pilot Program, decision and approval authority for the participating program shall be delegated to the lowest level allowed in the acquisition regulations consistent with the total cost of the program (e.g., under DoD Directive 5000.1,[3] an acquisition program that is a major defense acquisition program would be delegated to the appropriate Component Acquisition Executive as an acquisition category IC program)
( c ) At the time of nomination approval, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology will establish measures to judge the success of a specific program, and will also establish a means of reporting progress towards the measures.
Footnotes -
2.4
[3] Copies may be obtained, at cost, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29147]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Pediatric and Obstetric Pharmacology and Therapeutics.
    Date: January 15, 2021.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Dianne Hardy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 6175, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-
1154, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#583c313936363d7630392a3c2118363130763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dabeb3bbb4b4bff4b2bba8bea39ab4b3b2f4bdb5ac">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 29, 2020.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-29147 Filed 1-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### SUBCHAPTER II—OATH OF OFFICE
§ 28.200 Agency and legislative liaison. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 28.100 (a), does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement if the payment is for agency and legislative liaison activities not directly related to a covered Federal action.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, providing any information specifically requested by an agency or Congress is allowable at any time.
( c ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the following agency and legislative liaison activities are allowable at any time only where they are not related to a specific solicitation for any covered Federal action: ( 1 ) Discussing with an agency (including individual demonstrations) the qualities and characteristics of the person's products or services, conditions or terms of sale, and service capabilities; and,
( 2 ) Technical discussions and other activities regarding the application or adaptation of the person's products or services for an agency's use.
( d ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the following agencies and legislative liaison activities are allowable only where they are prior to formal solicitation of any covered Federal action: ( 1 ) Providing any information not specifically requested but necessary for an agency to make an informed decision about initiation of a covered Federal action;
( 2 ) Technical discussions regarding the preparation of an unsolicited proposal prior to its official submission; and,
( 3 ) Capability presentations by persons seeking awards from an agency pursuant to the provisions of the Small Business Act, as amended by Public Law 95-507 and other subsequent amendments.
( e ) Only those activities expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
[55 FR 6737, 6752, Feb. 26, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 57 FR 6199, 6200, Feb. 21, 1992]