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








SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION


AMEREN
      ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY


(required
      by Section 906 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002)








In
      connection with the report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June
      30, 2006 of Ameren Energy Generating Company (the “Registrant”) as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
      10-Q"), each undersigned officer of the Registrant does hereby certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Registrant.








Dated:
      August 9, 2006














/s/
      R.
      Alan
      Kelley


R.
      Alan
      Kelley


President


(Principal
      Executive Officer)














/s/
      Warner L.
      Baxter


Warner
      L.
      Baxter


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

CEDRIC GREENE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

TENNESSEE BOARD OF JUDICIAL 

CONDUCT, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 17-4056 

(D.C. No. 2:17-CV-00175-BSJ) 

(D. Utah) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Cedric Greene, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 

complaint against the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct (“the Board”). 

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

In February 2017, Greene filed a complaint with the Board against a state 

court judge who had previously dismissed Greene’s civil lawsuit. Greene then sued 

the Board in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, challenging its decision. 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

July 26, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

The district court appropriately dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Greene does not argue that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

His only asserted basis for federal question jurisdiction is 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which is 

a criminal statute that does not confer jurisdiction in this civil lawsuit. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331; Clements v. Chapman, 189 F. App’x 688, 690, 692 (10th Cir. 2006) 

(unpublished) (section 1001 does not provide for private cause of action). 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF



ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



We, James P. Laurito, President, and Joseph J. Syta, Controller and Treasurer, of Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.

Dated: November 12, 2003

/s/James P. Laurito                                 James P. Laurito
         President



/s/Joseph J. Syta                                             Joseph J. Syta
        Controller and Treasurer
#### 52.214-10 Contract Award—Sealed Bidding.

As prescribed in 14.201-6(e), insert the following provision:

# Contract Award—Sealed Bidding (JUL 1990)

(a) The Government will evaluate bids in response to this solicitation without discussions and will award a contract to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government considering only price and the price-related factors specified elsewhere in the solicitation.

(b) The Government may (1) reject any or all bids, (2) accept other than the lowest bid, and (3) waive informalities or minor irregularities in bids received.

(c) The Government may accept any item or group of items of a bid, unless the bidder qualifies the bid by specific limitations. Unless otherwise provided in the Schedule, bids may be submitted for quantities less than those specified. The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit prices offered, unless the bidder specifies otherwise in the bid.

(d) A written award or acceptance of a bid mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful bidder within the time for acceptance specified in the bid shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

(e) The Government may reject a bid as nonresponsive if the prices bid are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. A bid is materially unbalanced when it is based on prices significantly less than cost for some work and prices which are significantly overstated in relation to cost for other work, and if there is a reasonable doubt that the bid will result in the lowest overall cost to the Government even though it may be the low evaluated bid, or if it is so unbalanced as to be tantamount to allowing an advance payment.

(End of provision)

[48 FR 42478, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1746, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985; 55 FR 25531, June 21, 1990; 68 FR 43857, July 24, 2003]
32.601 General. ( a ) Contract debts are amounts that— ( 1 ) Have been paid to a contractor to which the contractor is not currently entitled under the terms and conditions of the contract; or
( 2 ) Are otherwise due from the contractor under the terms and conditions of the contract.
( b ) Contract debts include, but are not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Billing and price reductions resulting from contract terms for price redetermination or for determination of prices under incentive type contracts.
( 2 ) Price or cost reductions for defective certified cost or pricing data.
( 3 ) Financing payments determined to be in excess of the contract limitations at 52.232-16(a)(7), Progress Payments, or 52.232-32(d)(2), Performance—Based Payments, or any contract clause for financing of commercial products or commercial services.
( 4 ) Increases to financing payment liquidation rates.
( 5 ) Overpayments disclosed by quarterly statements required under price redetermination or incentive contracts.
( 6 ) Price adjustments resulting from Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) noncompliances or changes in cost accounting practice.
( 7 ) Reinspection costs for nonconforming supplies or services.
( 8 ) Duplicate or erroneous payments.
( 9 ) Damages or excess costs related to defaults in performance.
( 10 ) Breach of contract obligations concerning progress payments, performance-based payments, advance payments, financing of commercial products or commercial services, or Government-furnished property.
( 11 ) Government expense of correcting defects.
( 12 ) Overpayments related to errors in quantity or billing or deficiencies in quality.
( 13 ) Delinquency in contractor payments due under agreements or arrangements for deferral or postponement of collections.
( 14 ) Reimbursement of amounts due under 33.102(b)(3) and 33.104(h)(8).
[73 FR 54002, Sept. 17, 2008, as amended at 75 FR 53149, Aug. 30, 2010; 86 FR 61030, Nov. 4, 2021]
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
  (1)
    
    This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007
(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)
    
    That the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: November 10, 2008
    /s/ Robert J. DavisRobert J. DavisChief Financial Officer
**Title III Part F, Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) Program**

**FY 2015 New Awards**

9/18/2015

Page **1** of **3**
514.270-5 Evaluation methodologies for aggregate awards. ( a ) *Definite quantity contracts without options.* For definite quantity contracts without options, the evaluated bid price is the total bid price, as adjusted for any price-related factors identified in the solicitation. This reflects the actual cost to the Government and will identify the most advantageous bid.
( b ) *Indefinite quantity contracts, requirements contracts, and options.* Indefinite quantity and requirements contracts use estimated quantities. Options involve the probability of whether and when the options will be exercised. These situations may result in unbalanced bids (see FAR 15.404-1(g)), leading to inaccurate evaluation of the projected cost and award to other than the most advantageous bid. To avoid unbalanced bids, GSA has two preferred methods for evaluating bids for aggregate awards: weight factors and price list. ( 1 ) *Weight factors method.* Assign a weight to each item in a group. The weight is based on the portion of quantities that item represents. To evaluate bids, multiply each unit price by its weight factor, then total the results.
( 2 ) *Price list method.* Establish prices for bidders to use as a base for preparing their bids. Prepare a list that identifies a base price for each item in a group. Bidders bid a percentage factor to add to or subtract from the base price.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: From Complaint to Resolution: Understanding the Child Welfare Grievance Process      

# Resource: From Complaint to Resolution: Understanding the Child Welfare Grievance Process

This fact sheet (PDF, 10 pages) provides birth, foster, and adoptive parents and other caregivers with information about the best way to resolve their differences with a child welfare service provider or other related professional. The document discusses many of the challenges experienced by families involved with the child protective services system and highlights available grievance channels. **Learn more.**
```

[111th Congress Public Law 182]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 1267]]

Public Law 111-182
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 43 Maple Avenue in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, as the ``Ann Marie Blute 
          Post Office''. <<NOTE: June 9, 2010 -  [H.R. 4017]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ANN MARIE BLUTE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 43 Maple Avenue in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Ann Marie Blute Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ann Marie 
Blute Post Office''.

    Approved June 9, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4017:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 155 (2009):
                                    Dec. 8, 10, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 156 (2010):
                                    May 25, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0577

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RUSSELL DEAN KORTAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 26, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 21 2021

06/21/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0577
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Lev, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on December 15, 1977, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). No opinion. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Lane, Markewich, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.
EPA Hearing 

Deacon Wm. Davis, 

My name is Wm Davis, My address is t·1•'1 Williamson, Joliet, IL. I 

serve as a Deacon at Mt. Zion Baptist Church on the East side of Joliet. 

Among the neighbors to the church is a dirty power plant that deposits 

its coal ash residue in the land fill with potential leaching into the water 

supply of our parishioners. 

I have testified at EPA hearings previously in Chicago and traveled to 

Washington DC to meet with legislators regarding the emission 

problems in our area and similar areas nation wide. I want to thank 

you for this opportunity to day . 

This past week our congregation held five funerals, one of which was for 

an 8 year old child. This child died of leukemia-a child who has been 

perfectly healtlhy when suddenly his parents observed a 

lump on his neck. This is not an unual occurrence in our area. 

I applaud the EPA for establishing a national standards for new power 

plants so we can anticipate a future less marred by tragedies such as 

this child's death. 

I represent the many folks who would like to be here but due to illness 

t:annoi join us. Those who sit in powerful places tend to forget the folks 

I • I I' .... l I 1'1'1 l 'I •I ,• •: • • .~ • 

,, .. nose actuat tn-e art.- --on notu nnue autuottt~:t:':-;. t:: to ~::;n,.nn._·t· ._..,_ tiEH 

. . ,:; ""' ··~o~'-'-:' ~,,;;,;: '"" ;_'; j'-'~4 '' !:;••:!,\ '""'~- '-H<:•H~~; ~;,_:;_ 
- ----------------------------------------------

Well, I am here to tell you that we are not going to get over it---we are 

going to clear the air, force all future power plants to adhere to a 

national standards and continue finding innovative ways to produce 

power. I stand before you to claim that victory. 

Thank you for this opportunity.
#### 36.300 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for the use of the two-phase design-build selection procedures authorized by 10 U.S.C. 3241 and 41 U.S.C. 3309.

[62 FR 272, Jan. 2, 1997, as amended at 79 FR 24212, Apr. 29, 2014; 87 FR 73900, Dec. 1, 2022]
#### Rudolph P. Russo, Appellant, v. Mid-Hudson Oil Co., Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Motion by respondent Mid-Hudson Oil Co., Inc., to dismiss appeal from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County, entered December 16, 1963, affirming an order of the Justice Court of the Town of La Grange, Dutchess County, New York. On the court’s own motion, the motion and the appeal are transferred to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Second Judicial Department. The appeal was erroneously taken to this court. The Appellate Term of the Supreme Court is presently vested with the jurisdiction of such appeals from the County Court (see N. Y. Const., art. VI, § 5, subd. [b] ; § 8, stibd. [d]; order of this court, No. 47, dated July 12, 1962). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 149 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service relating to ‘‘Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of 

Grizzly Bear in the North Cascades Ecosystem, Washington State’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2024 

Mr. NEWHOUSE submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to 

‘‘Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population 

of Grizzly Bear in the North Cascades Ecosystem, Washington State’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the 

4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to ‘‘En5 dangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; EstablishVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:32 May 17, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HJ149.IH HJ149

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 149 IH 

1 ment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Griz2 zly Bear in the North Cascades Ecosystem, Washington 

3 State’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 36982; published May 3, 2024), and 

4 such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### 52.222-17 [Reserved]
# C_2019131EN.01000201.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/2

---

Taking of the oath by a new Member of the Court

(2019/C 131/02)

Following his appointment as Advocate General at the Court of Justice for the period from 5 February 2019 to 6 October 2024 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 1 February 2019 (1), Mr Pikamäe took the oath before the Court on 6 February 2019.

---

(1)  OJ L 32, 4.2.2019, p. 7.

---
# C_2021143EN.01000301.xml

| 23.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

22 April 2021

(2021/C 143/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2046 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,30 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4366 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86855 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,1237 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1035 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 151,00 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,0475 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,860 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 363,52 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5567 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9274 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 9,9553 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5581 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5067 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3474 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6789 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6001 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 346,21 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,2348 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8181 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5718 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 17 515,06 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9539 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,304 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 91,3275 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,770 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,6546 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 24,0079 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 90,3940 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2046

JPY

Japanese yen

130,30

DKK

Danish krone

7,4366

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86855

SEK

Swedish krona

10,1237

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1035

ISK

Iceland króna

151,00

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,0475

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,860

HUF

Hungarian forint

363,52

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5567

RON

Romanian leu

4,9274

TRY

Turkish lira

9,9553

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5581

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5067

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3474

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6789

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6001

KRW

South Korean won

1 346,21

ZAR

South African rand

17,2348

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8181

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5718

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

17 515,06

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9539

PHP

Philippine peso

58,304

RUB

Russian rouble

91,3275

THB

Thai baht

37,770

BRL

Brazilian real

6,6546

MXN

Mexican peso

24,0079

INR

Indian rupee

90,3940

---

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

---