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


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Marvin F. Romanow,  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Nexen Inc., a Canadian  Corporation (the "Company"),  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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
     on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 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.


Date:    July 14, 2006                              /s/ Marvin F. Romanow
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                    Marvin F. Romanow
                                                    Executive Vice President
                                                    and Chief Financial Officer
#### 3009.570-1 Definitions.

“Direct Financial Interest,” as used in this section, is defined in the clause at HSAR 48 CFR 3052.209-75, Prohibited Financial Interests for Lead System Integrators.

“Lead system integrator,” as used in this section, is defined in the clause at (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.209-75, Prohibited Financial Interests for Lead System Integrators.

[75 FR 41099, July 15, 2010]
# C_2018245EN.01000201.xml

| 13.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 July 2018

(2018/C 245/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1658 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,13 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4554 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88263 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3350 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1642 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 125,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4443 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,938 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 325,28 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3272 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6588 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 5,6364 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5778 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5369 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,1494 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7240 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5889 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 312,52 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,6488 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7780 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3975 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 766,54 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7089 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,378 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,4169 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,775 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,5049 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,0857 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,8805 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1658

JPY

Japanese yen

131,13

DKK

Danish krone

7,4554

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88263

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3350

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1642

ISK

Iceland króna

125,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4443

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,938

HUF

Hungarian forint

325,28

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3272

RON

Romanian leu

4,6588

TRY

Turkish lira

5,6364

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5778

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5369

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,1494

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7240

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5889

KRW

South Korean won

1 312,52

ZAR

South African rand

15,6488

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7780

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3975

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 766,54

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7089

PHP

Philippine peso

62,378

RUB

Russian rouble

72,4169

THB

Thai baht

38,775

BRL

Brazilian real

4,5049

MXN

Mexican peso

22,0857

INR

Indian rupee

79,8805

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Chart 25653HOME | ABOUT             US | CONTACT             | REGIONAL             MANAGERSNautical             Charts & Pubs Surveys             & WrecksGIS             & Other ProductsResearch             & DevelopmentCustomer             ServiceBusiness             OpportunitiesEducation      Chart:       25653          Edition:       13          Edition       Date: December       2002          Clear       Dates: NM - 7/3/2010     LNM -       6/29/2010      Download RNCNotice ListingFind A Chart       Site-               Click the +/- buttons               and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) to zoom in and out.                             
-               Click the arrow               buttons to pan left/right and up/down.              
-               Drag the navigation               box in the upper left hand corner to move around the chart image.               This chart display or derived product can be used as a               planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational               aid. NOTE: Use the official, full scale NOAA nautical               chart for real navigation whenever possible. These are available               from authorized NOAA nautical chart sales agents. Screen captures               of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart               carriage requirements for regulated commercial vessels under               Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  Adobe Flash Player  is required to view the chart               image.Powered by  Zoomify .
Privacy  |         Disclaimer  |         NOAA's       National Ocean Service  |   NOAA  |         U.S. Department       of Commerce
Suggestions Additions to Administrative Capability Proposal 

34 CFR 668.16 

* * * 

(h) Provides adequate, accurate, and complete financial aid counseling to eligible students who 

apply for Title IV, HEA program assistance. In determining whether an institution provides 

adequate counseling, the Secretary considers whether its counseling includes information 

regarding - 

(1) The source and amount of each type of aid offered, the nature of the aid and whether it 

must be earned or repaid, and instructions and deadlines for accepting, declining, or adjusting 

award amounts; 

(2) The method by which aid is determined and disbursed, delivered, or applied to a student's 

account; and 

(3) The rights and responsibilities of the student with respect to enrollment at the institution 

and receipt of financial aid. This information includes the institution's refund policy, the 

requirements for the treatment of title IV, HEA program funds when a student withdraws 

under § 668.22, its standards of satisfactory progress, and other conditions that may alter the 

student's aid package; 

* * * 

(tbd) Accurately reports required information to postsecondary education systems maintained by 

the Department.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RELIEF

Appellate case name: Shatish Patel, M.D., Hemalatha Vijayan, M.D., Subodh Sonwalkar, 

M.D., Wolley Oladut M.D. v. St. Luke’s Sugar Land Partnership, 

L.L.P. and St. Luke’s Community Development Corporation-Sugar 

Land

Appellate case number: 01-13-00273-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-24016

Trial court: 152nd District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: December 30, 2013

Party filing motion: Appellees, St. Luke’s Sugar Land Partnership, L.L.P. and St. Luke’s 

Community Development Corporation-Sugar Land. 

The motion for en banc reconsideration of the order granting temporary relief is

DENIED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, Sharp, 

Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.

In light of this Court’s ruling denying St. Luke’s motion for en banc reconsideration of the merits 

of the appeal, Justice Keyes would dismiss St. Luke’s motion for en banc reconsideration of the 

order granting temporary relief as moot.

Justice Sharp would grant the motion for en banc reconsideration of the order granting temporary 

relief.

Date: February 11, 2014
#### 314.407 Mistakes in bids.
# C_2017257EN.01000201.xml

| 8.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 August 2017

(2017/C 257/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1797 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,78 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4384 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90435 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6175 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1480 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3800 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,116 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 303,80 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2518 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5640 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,1662 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4909 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4959 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2289 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6033 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6083 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 332,55 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,7661 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9281 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4035 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 714,78 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0532 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,526 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,8515 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,302 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6878 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,1536 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,3005 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1797

JPY

Japanese yen

130,78

DKK

Danish krone

7,4384

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90435

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6175

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1480

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3800

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,116

HUF

Hungarian forint

303,80

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2518

RON

Romanian leu

4,5640

TRY

Turkish lira

4,1662

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4909

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4959

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2289

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6033

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6083

KRW

South Korean won

1 332,55

ZAR

South African rand

15,7661

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9281

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4035

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 714,78

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0532

PHP

Philippine peso

59,526

RUB

Russian rouble

70,8515

THB

Thai baht

39,302

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6878

MXN

Mexican peso

21,1536

INR

Indian rupee

75,3005

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### Malcolm Arbuthnot and Roy F. France & Company, intervening petitioners, appellants, v. J. N. Lott et al., appellees.

Gen. No. 30,752.

Bill to foreclose mechanics’ liens. Order taxing master’s fees. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Francis S. Wilson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for first district at the October term, 1925.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 14, 1926.

Loucks, Eckert & Peterson, for appellants; Walter H. Eckert, Ira W. Hurley and William U. Bardwell, of counsel.

A. S. and E. W. Froehlich, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Johnston

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Art Shiffer, Appellant, v Bristol Myers Company et al., Defendants-Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs. Robert P. Wilson et al., Third-Party Defendants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 20, 1977, granting the motion by defendants Bristol-Myers Company and Clairol, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as *871to said defendants solely on the defense of Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on the appeal and without prejudice to an appropriate application before Special Term for leave to serve an amended complaint to interpose a cognizable claim for relief as against said defendants. We are in agreement with Special Term that the complaint, properly construed, alleges a cause of action only for injury to property rights, clearly barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations contained in CPLR 214 (subd 4). Despite the patent insufficiency of both the moving and opposition papers, by attorneys without requisite knowledge of the facts, it is evident from the face of the pleading that the only claim for relief as against Bristol-Myers and Clairol is for injury to plaintiff’s property rights. As to these defendants, the complaint alleges no fraud or breach of fiduciary obligations. This distinguishes the case from *Wilson v Bristol-Myers Co.*(61 AD2d 965), wherein we denied dismissal solely on Statute of Limitations grounds of so much of the complaint by Carole C. Wilson as sought recovery upon allegations of unjust enrichment, premised upon breach of implied contract, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint there was founded upon assertions by Carole C. Wilson that she was a coinventor and known by defendants to be the coinventor. Here, there are no similar allegations sufficient to find the existence of a fiduciary obligation which may have been breached by Bristol-Myers and/or Clairol. The claim is rather to recover for injury to plaintiffs property rights, similar to the fourth cause of action dismissed in *Wilson v Bristol-Myers Co. (supra).*Nor is the agency theory, which is relied upon by plaintiff on the appeal, properly presented by the pleaded allegations of the complaint. Nevertheless, in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to afford plaintiff an opportunity to move before Special Term for leave to serve an amended complaint, upon appropriate showing that there exists a cognizable claim for relief against either Bristol-Myers or Clairol or both. We do not pass upon plaintiffs pleaded cause of action against the remaining defendant, Carole C. Wilson. Concur—Birns, J. P., Fein, Lane, Silverman and Bloom, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,637
<SECURITIES>                                       171
<RECEIVABLES>                                      397
<ALLOWANCES>                                        46
<INVENTORY>                                        765
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,843
<PP&E>                                             960
<DEPRECIATION>                                     843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              529
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,128
<OTHER-SE>                                       (492)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,165
<SALES>                                          2,017
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,990
<CGS>                                            1,572
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (376)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (376)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (376)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1

FILED

8/17/2012

THOMAS G. BRUTON CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:9
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:10
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:11
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:12
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:14
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:15
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:16
Case: 1:12-cv-05622 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/12 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:17
239.7409 Special assembly. ( a ) Special assembly is the designing, manufacturing, arranging, assembling, or wiring of equipment to provide telecommunications services that cannot be provided with general use equipment.
( b ) Special assembly rates and charges shall be based on estimated costs. The contracting officer should negotiate special assembly rates and charges before starting service. When it is not possible to negotiate in advance, use provisional rates and charges subject to adjustment, until final rates and charges are negotiated. The CSAs authorizing the special assembly shall be modified to reflect negotiated final rates and charges.
[56 FR 36429, July 31, 1991, as amended at 71 FR 39011, July 11, 2006]
#### 1252.239-78 Validated Cryptography for Secure Communications.

As prescribed in 1239.7204(c), insert a clause substantially as follows:

# Validated Cryptography for Secure Communications (NOV 2022)

(a) The Contractor shall use only cryptographic mechanisms that comply with ___ [*Contracting Officer insert FIPS 140-2 level #*]. All deliverables shall be labeled ___ [*Contracting Officer insert appropriate label such as “For Official Use Only” (FOUO) or other DOT-agency selected designation per document sensitivity*].

(b) External transmission/dissemination of ___ [*Contracting Officer fill-in: e.g., labeled deliverables*] to or from a Government computer must be encrypted. Certified encryption modules must be used in accordance with ___ [*Contracting Officer shall insert the standard, such as FIPS PUB 140-2, “Security requirements for Cryptographic Modules.”*

(End of clause)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dominick J. Dalto, Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered January 19, 1960, convicting him, on his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a third felony offender, to serve a term of 5 to 10 years. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
36.303-1 Phase One. ( a ) Phase One of the solicitation(s) shall include— ( 1 ) The scope of work;
( 2 ) The phase-one evaluation factors, including— ( i ) Technical approach (but not detailed design or technical information);
( ii ) Technical qualifications, such as— ( A ) Specialized experience and technical competence;
( B ) Capability to perform;
( C ) Past performance of the offeror's team (including the architect-engineer and construction members); and
( iii ) Other appropriate factors (excluding cost or price related factors, which are not permitted in Phase One);
( 3 ) Phase-two evaluation factors (see 36.303-2); and
( 4 ) A statement of the maximum number of offerors that will be selected to submit phase-two proposals. The maximum number specified in the solicitation shall not exceed five unless the contracting officer determines, for that particular solicitation, that a number greater than five is in the Government's interest and is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the two-phase design-build selection procedures. The contracting officer shall document this determination in the contract file. For acquisitions greater than $4.5 million, the determination shall be approved by the head of the contracting activity, delegable to a level no lower than the senior contracting official within the contracting activity. In civilian agencies, for this paragraph (a)(4), the senior contracting official is the advocate for competition for the procuring activity, unless the agency designates a different position in agency procedures. The approval shall be documented in the contract file.
( b ) After evaluating phase-one proposals, the contracting officer shall select the most highly qualified offerors (not to exceed the maximum number specified in the solicitation in accordance with 36.303-1(a)(4)) and request that only those offerors submit phase-two proposals.
[62 FR 272, Jan. 2, 1997; 62 FR 10710, Mar. 10, 1997; 81 FR 30448, May 16, 2016; 85 FR 62489, Oct. 2, 2020]