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 Corporation (Duke Energy) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David L. Hauser, Group Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Duke Energy, 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.



|                     |  |                         
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2004 |  | /s/ DAVID L. HAUSER     
|                     |  | David L. Hauser         
|                     |  | Group Vice President and
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51300 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN CARLOS AVILA-MIRANDA, also known as Juan Carlos Miranda-Avila, also known Nelson Amaya Coca, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-83-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Carlos Avila-Miranda raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
05/18/2012 12:28 FAX 

# BRIGGS

[?,RIGGS Ntl BRII313S&MORI3AN

2200 IDS Center 80 South Blh Street Minneapolis MN 55402-2157 tel612.977.6400 fax 612.977.13650 

### Ia! OOS/005

!) \' li. ' I , 

### 8 I: May 16, 2012 Timothy R. TIJornton (612) 977-8550 pvolk@briggs.com VIA U.S. MAIL AND 

### FACSIMILE HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 

### 2WIOOO Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Re: l'n the Matter of Great Lakes Aviation, FAA Case No. 2011NM210022 

### FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0204 Dear I

### -Ieating Docket Clerk: I enclose for filing the original and one copy of Great Lakes Aviation's Answer to Complaint. 

## <: ::::;':- .._
TRT/pv Enclosure cc: Honorable Richard C. Goodwin (w/encl.) 

### K. Lomazow (w/encl.)
46S0762vl Timothy

### R. Thornton

Briggs and Morgan,ProfessionalAssociation Minneapolis I St. Paul I www.brlggs.c:om Member· Lex Mundi, aGlobal Associ.ltu)rl**r.>llndep~:nd~·~t** Ldw Firms05/18/2012 12:28 FAX

In the Matter of: BRIGGS&MORGAN

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS

WASHINGTON,

### D.C.

Great Lakes Aviation, LTD. FAADOCKET CP Unassigned FAA Case No. 2011NM210022**-------~-----------'** Judge Unassigned GREAT LAKES AVIATION. 

### LTD.'S (GLA) ANSWER 1. Generally denies except as admitted or qualified; 2. Admitparagraphs I; II, 1; II,2; II,3; II,4:**II.6~** and II,7. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

### Ill 004/005

3. The FAA knew about, condoned, and approved GLA's QEC paper work

### procedures~ and when the FAA asked GLA to change the practices that were then in place GLA promptly responded. WHEREFORE. GLA requests that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that no civil penaltybe imposed. Dated: 

### May 16,2012

4602337v3

# ~~~t;p;;: Tilllti1yR:Trnton pvolk@Briggs.com BRIGGS AND MORGAN, P.A. 2200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2l

### 57 Telephone: (612) 977-8400 Facsimile: (612) 977-8650 Attorneys for Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd.05/18/2012 12:28 FAX BRI613S&MORGAN !g) 005/005



### AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND FACSIMILE STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 

### ) ss. 

### ) FAA Case No. 2011NM2J0022 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Paula Volk, being first duly 

### sworn, deposes and states that 

### on the 16th day 

### ofMay, 2012, she 

### served the attached Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd.'s Answerupon: Kyle E. 

### Lomazow Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel**Northw(~St** 

### Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, W A 

### 98057 Fax No. 

### 425-227-1007

### _....--"--~- ,.,...,. (which is 

### the 

### Jnst known address 

### and fax 

### number of 

### saidattorney) y depositing a 

### true and correct copy thereofin the United States mail, postage prepaid and 

### by ·ansmitting via facsimile. / '

/ 

### Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1 

### th day ofMay 012. 

# (

4643349vl
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**LAVONDA OAKS,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 245 EAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 19th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**

**Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration o r decision of this matter.**
#### Lee Schulman et al., Respondents, v. Glenwood Construction Corp. et al., Appellants.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied on condition that appellants be ready to argue or submit the appeal at the October Term, beginning October 3, 1960, for which term the appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar. The record and appellants’ brief must be served and filed on or before September 1,1960. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of McEwen Mining Inc., a Colorado corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of our 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.

 
| Dated:   June 30, 2014 |                 |
|-----------------------------|----------------------|
|                        |                 |
|                        | MCEWEN   MINING INC. |
|                        |                 |
|                        |                 |
|                        | By:                  | /s/   Robert R. McEwen |
|                        |                 | Robert   R. McEwen, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer |
|                        |                 |   |
|                        |                 |   |
|                        | By:                  | /s/   Perry Y. Ing |
|                        |                 | Perry   Y. Ing, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors Cyanotech Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement Nos. 33-63789, 33-55310, 333-42484,333-141911, and 333-141912 on Form S-8 and 333-42486and 333-101401 on Form S-3 of Cyanotech Corporation of ourreports dated August 15, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balancesheets of Cyanotech Corporation and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2007 and2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years inthe three-year period ended March 31, 2007, and the relatedfinancial statement schedule, which reports appear in the March 31, 2007annual report on Form 10-K of Cyanotech Corporation.

Our reports refer to a change in the method ofaccounting for share based payments in 2007.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Honolulu, HawaiiAugust 15, 2007

----
[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: 2020-29144]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; 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: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Using the Science of Science to Document and Accelerate 
Progress in Treating Alzheimer's Disease.
    Date: February 12, 2021.
    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Joshua Jin-Hyouk Park, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 
National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building 2W200, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-6208, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b717468736e7a356b7a69702f5b757273357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89e3e6fae1fce8a7f9e8fbe2bdc9e7e0e1a7eee6ff">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 29, 2020.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-29144 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>
### Simulated effects of ground-water development on the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer, west-central Florida

By: W.E. WilsonJ. M. Gerhart

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1217

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Simulated effects of ground-water development on potentiometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer, west-central Florida(1980)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                         144,507
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  456,025
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               605,216
<PP&E>                                       7,157,546
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,527,446
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,311,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          607,622
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       479,764
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,223,614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,311,000
<SALES>                                        707,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               724,849
<CGS>                                          758,803
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  758,803
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,930
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,810)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,810)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,810)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Agnes Grudzien, Plaintiff, v. County Line Stone Company, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Genesee Explosive Sales & Service, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Same decision and like cause of action as in companion case of *Doktor*v. *County Line Co.*(16 A D 2d 877).
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 June 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Rogers, Chief Executive 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/    JAMES E.
ROGERS 
|James E. Rogers        
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 12, 2009
Order entered July 9 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 13
- 00626
- CV ABEL TINOCO, Appellant
V.
DEUT S CHE BANK NATIONAL TR UST COMPANY , AS TRUSTEE FOR AMERI QUEST MORTGAGE SECUR ITIES, INC., ASSET
- BACKED PASS
- THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005
- R5 , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 12
- 06315
- A


### O RDER This Court has dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution. Accordingly, we DENY as moot appellant’s M ay 13, 2013 expedited motion for leave to file a notice of appeal.

/s/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,958
<SECURITIES>                                    14,115
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,472)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,314
<PP&E>                                          79,398
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,986)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,548
<BONDS>                                         85,313
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           26,265
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,356
<OTHER-SE>                                    (29,756)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,726
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,715
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (15,133)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (8,019)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (4,278)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (8,177)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,892)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,892)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    187
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,705)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.17)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.17)
<FN>
<F1>COMMON SHARES OF BENEFICIAL INTEREST EQUIVALENTS WERE ANTI-DILUTIVE. THE
FIGURES PRESENTED ABOVE ARE SIMPLE EPS AND INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF STOCK
DIVIDENDS, DISCOUNTS AND ACCRETION OF DISCOUNTS ON REDEEMABLE CONVERTIBLE
PREFERRED STOCK.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard Lombard, Appellant.

Order, entered on March 15, 1961, denying, after a hearing, defendant’s *coram nobis*application to vacate a judgment of conviction, rendered in the Court of Special Sessions in 1926 for petit larceny, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, and the matter remitted to the Criminal Court of the City of New York for a further hearing and further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Defendant predicates his claim for relief on assertions that he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 1926 and that he was not then advised of his right to counsel nor was he represented by counsel at any stage of the proceedings. The only evidence introduced at the hearing, in opposition to defendant’s application, was the Special Sessions docket book, which was silent on the question of representation by counsel, and a certificate from the County Clerk that all papers in the case *649had been destroyed except the docket book. In *People*v. *Page*(12 A D 2d 984) although there was no direct, affirmative testimony contradicting the defendant’s claim that he was not advised of his right to counsel, there was proof by the Clerk of the court of the standard procedure in the court at the time of the conviction with regard to inquiry as to whether a defendant had counsel or wanted counsel to be assigned. In *People*v. *Conklin*(19 A D 2d 536) a hearing was ordered to require the People to come forward with some proof to sustain the regularity of the conviction, or to show the unavailability of such proof, or to prove the contemporaneous practice of apprising every defendant of his right to counsel. We have concluded that there must be other sources or records, i.e., records of the penitentiary to which defendant was sentenced, from which defendant’s contention that there was no trial but that he pleaded guilty, could be rebutted. Moreover, even though the records of Special Sessions other than the docket book have been destroyed, there should be no difficulty in obtaining testimony as to the contemporaneous practice, if it existed, regarding notification to defendants of their right to counsel. Even though the conviction attacked herein is of long standing, and the record made by defendant on the instant appeal may not be sufficiently strong to overcome the presumption of regularity, it would seem that a new hearing should be had, in the interest of justice, to permit the People to explore other areas for further proof as suggested hereinabove. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### § 210.1 Purpose.

This part establishes policies pursuant to the requirements of DoD Directive 6055.4,[1] “Department of Defense Traffic Safety Program,” November 7, 1978, and to authority delegated to the Secretary of Defense under Enclosure 1 for the enforcement, on DoD military installations, of those state vehicular and pedestrian traffic laws that cannot be assimilated under U.S.C., Title 18, section 13.

[46 FR 58306, Dec. 1, 1981, as amended at 56 FR 13285, Apr. 1, 1991]

###### Footnotes -
  210.1

[1] Copies may be obtained, at cost, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.