alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of SEDONA Corporation on Form
10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Anita M.
Primo, Chief Financial Officer of SEDONA Corporation certify, pursuant Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
         (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
SEDONA Corporation.


Dated: November 14, 2005             /s/ ANITA M. PRIMO
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Anita M. Primo
                                     Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial Officer)
#### § 434.501 General.

501.1 Subpart E permits the use of the Building Energy Cost Compliance Alternative as an alternative to many elements of subpart D. When this subpart is used, it must be used with subpart C and subpart D, 401.1, 401.2, 401.3.4 and in conjunction with the minimum requirements found in subsections 402.1, 402.2, and 402.3., 403.1, 403.2.1-7, 403.2.9 and 404.

501.2 *Compliance.* Compliance under this method requires detailed energy analyses of the entire Proposed Design, referred to as the Design Energy Consumption; an estimate of annual energy cost for the proposed design, referred to as the Design Energy Cost; and comparison against an Energy Cost Budget. Compliance is achieved when the estimated Design Energy Cost is less than or equal to the Energy Cost Budget. This subpart provides instructions for determining the Energy Cost Budget and for calculating the Design Energy Consumption and Design Energy Cost. The Energy Cost Budget shall be determined through the calculation of monthly energy consumption and energy cost of a Prototype or Reference Building design configured to meet the requirements of subsections 401 through 404.

501.3 Designers are encouraged to employ the Building Energy Cost Budget compliance method set forth in this section for evaluating proposed design alternatives to using the elements prescribed in subpart D. The Building Energy Cost Budget establishes the relative effectiveness of each design alternative in energy cost savings, providing an energy cost basis upon which the building owner and designer may select one design over another. This Energy Cost Budget is the highest allowable calculated energy cost for a specific building design. Other alternative designs are likely to have lower annual energy costs and life cycle costs than those used to minimally meet the Energy Cost Budget.

501.4 The Energy Cost Budget is a numerical reference for annual energy cost. Its purpose is to assure neutrality with respect to choices such as HVAC system type, architectural design and fuel choice by providing a fixed, repeatable budget that is independent of any of these choices wherever possible (*i.e.,* for the prototype buildings). The Energy Cost Budget for a given building size and type will vary only with climate, the number of stories, and the choice of simulation tool. The specifications of the prototypes are necessary to assure repeatability, but have no other significance. They are not necessarily recommended energy conserving practice, or even physically reasonable practice for some climates or buildings, but represent a reasonable worst case of energy cost resulting from compliance with the provisions of subsections 401 through 404.
Subpart 1502.1 - Definitions

Parent topic: PART 1502 - DEFINITION OF WORDS AND TERMS

1502.100 Definitions.

Chief of the Contracting Office (CCO) means the Office of Acquisition Management Division

Directors at Headquarters, Research Triangle Park and Cincinnati. For purposes of ratification

authority only, CCO also includes Regional Acquisition Managers. (See 1501.602-3(b)(3) for the

criteria for this ratification authority).

Commercial supplier agreements (CSAs) mean terms and conditions customarily offered to the

public by vendors of supplies or services that meet the definition of “commercial item” set forth in

FAR 2.101 and intended to create a binding legal obligation on the end user. CSAs are common in

information technology acquisitions, including acquisitions of commercial computer software and

commercial technical data, and they may apply to any supply or service. CSAs may apply regardless

of the format or style of the document (for example, a CSA may be styled as standard terms of sale

or lease, Terms of Service (TOS), End User License Agreement (EULA), or another similar legal

instrument or agreement, and may be presented as part of a proposal or quotation responding to a

solicitation for a contract or order). CSAs may also apply regardless of the media or delivery

mechanism used (for example, a CSA may be presented as one or more paper documents, or may

appear on a computer or other electronic device screen during a purchase, software installation,

product delivery, registration for a service, or other transaction).

Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) means the Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) means the Director, Office of Acquisition Management.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

In the Matter of the Extradition of )

)

MARIA del ROSARIO MORENO-VAZQUES ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv761-MEF

a/k/a MARIA COONLEY )

ORDER

Now pending before court is the United States’ motion for leave to file amended

exhibit list (doc. # 28) and the respondent’s motion for hearing (doc. # 29). The court held

an evidentiary hearing on June 11, 2008. Accordingly, upon consideration of the motions,

and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion for leave to file amended exhibit list (doc. # 28) be and

is hereby GRANTED and the respondent’s motion for hearing (doc. # 29) DENIED as moot.

Done this 12th day of June, 2008.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 36 Filed 06/12/2008 Page 1 of 1
exv10w53






Exhibit 10.53




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION

AUSTRALIAN EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN




     WHEREAS, Peabody Energy Corporation (the “Company”) previously adopted the Peabody Energy
Corporation Australian Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”) as a mirror plan to the Company’s
United States employee stock purchase plan (the “U.S. Plan”);



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.1 of the Plan, the Company has the power to amend the Plan,
subject to certain limitations set forth therein, and has delegated certain amendment authority to
designated officers of the Company;



     WHEREAS, recently issued final regulations under Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) Section 423
require certain modifications to the U.S. Plan, and the Company desires to amend the Plan so that
it continues to mirror the U.S. Plan;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended, effective January 1, 2010, as follows:



     1. Section 4.1(b) is amended to read as follows:




     (b) Except as limited in (e) and (f) below, the number of shares of Stock
subject to the option will equal the number of shares of Stock that can be purchased
at the exercise price specified in Section 4.2 with the aggregate amount credited to
the Employee’s Option Account as of the Termination Date.



     2. Section 4.1 is amended to add a new paragraph (f) that reads as follows:




     (f) The number of shares of Stock that any Employee may purchase during an
Offering Period shall not exceed the aggregate number of shares of Stock set forth
in Section 1.5(a) of the Plan.



     3. The Plan shall otherwise remain unchanged and in full force and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION

 	 
	 	/s/ Sharon D. Fiehler
 	 
	 	Sharon D. Fiehler 	 
	 	Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
#### Joe’s Pier 52 Seafood Corp., Petitioner, v. Donald S. Hostetter et al., Constituting the New York State Liquor Authority, Respondents.

Determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated March 12, 1969, directing the cancellation of petitioner’s liquor license, modified in the exercise of discretion to the extent of reducing the penalty to the issuance of a letter of warning, and as so modified confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We find substantial evidence to uphold the determination of a technical violation. Inquiry on the argument revealed the fact the State Liquor Authority did not wish a remand for the purposes of ascertaining the source of the funds used for the alterations. In the circumstances, we find the penalty imposed excessive. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Eager, McGivern, McNally and Steuer, JJ.
PGI Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

PGI Part 205 - PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

PGI Part 206 - COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

PGI Part 207 - ACQUISITION PLANNING

PGI Part 208 - REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

PGI Part 209 - CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

PGI Part 210 - MARKET RESEARCH

PGI Part 211 - DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS

PGI Part 212 - ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL

SERVICES

Parent topic: PGI Subchapter B - ACQUISITION PLANNING
### Aeromagnetic map of the Long Beach 1:100,000 scale-quadrangle, California

By: V. E. Langenheim**R.C. Jachens

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr96287

#### Links

- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

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.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

#### § 4.549 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 4.550, no qualified disabled person shall, because the agency's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by disabled persons, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the agency.
Editorial Note on Part 26
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear at 87 FR 71455, Nov. 22, 2022.

§ 26.157 Procedures. ( a ) HHS-certified laboratories shall develop, implement, and maintain procedures specific to this part that document the accession, receipt, shipment, and testing of specimens.
( b ) [Reserved]
[87 FR 71459, Nov. 22, 2022]
Exhibit 8.1

**MATERIAL SUBSIDIARIES**

Our operations are conducted principally by Ambev, and, in the case of our CAC, Latin America South and Canadian operations, by direct and indirect subsidiaries of Ambev.  The following is a list of the significant companies that Ambev controlled, either directly or indirectly, as of December 31, 2015:  

·         The Company, directly and indirectly, owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Ambev Luxembourg (incorporated in Luxemburg) which owns 100% of Labatt Brewing Co. Ltd. (incorporated in Canada).  These entities explore the production of beer in Canada.

·         The Company indirectly owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Linthal ROU S.A., which, through its subsidiaries, produces and sells beer and soft drinks in Uruguay and other South American countries.

·         The Company, directly and indirectly, owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Arosuco Aromas e Sucos Ltda. (incorporated in Brazil), which produces concentrates for our soft drinks and crowns.  

·         The Company directly owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Eagle Distribuidora de Bebidas S.A. (incorporated in Brazil).  

·         The Company indirectly owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Jalua Spain S.L. (incorporated in Spain).  

·         The Company indirectly owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Monthiers S.A. (incorporated in Uruguay).  

·         The Company, directly and indirectly, owns 99.9% of the economic and voting interests in CRBS S.A (incorporated in Brazil), which produces and sells beer and soft drinks in Brazil.

·         The Company indirectly owns 55.0% of the economic and voting interests in Cervecería Nacional Dominicana S.A. (incorporated in Dominican Republic).

·         The Company indirectly owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Cerveceria Y Malteria Quilmes Saica Y G (incorporated in Argentina).

·         The Company indirectly owns 85.7% of the economic and voting interests in Cerveceria Boliviana Nacional S.A. (incorporated in Bolivia).

·         The Company, directly and indirectly, owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Cervejaria Reunidas Skol Caracu S.A. (incorporated in Brazil).

·         The Company indirectly owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Cerveceria Chile S.A. (incorporated in Chile).

·         The Company indirectly owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Companhia Cervecera Ambev Ecuador S.A. (incorporated in Ecuador).

·         The Company indirectly owns 50% of the economic and voting interests in Industrias Del Atlántico, Sociedad Anónima (incorporated in Guatemala).

 

----
LiDAR Drone Services, LLC

Company Protocol

1. All participants are required to call out “Safety First” it they spot a problem or danger.

2. The Company expects and requires all individuals to be sober of mind and body.

3. A zero tolerance for all Drugs and Alcohol will be applied to everyone on location

representing Company and any other participants.

4. All Company crew and staff involved with any and all UAS services are expected to have

thoroughly reviewed the project, schedule and project list prior to project.

5. All Company Employees are expected to follow all Company protocols and Checklists.

6. Be on location on time and communicate breaks and lunch.

7. Communicate all of the time with everyone involved in flight operations.

8. Always make Safety First and have First Aid Kit at all operation locations.

9. Never leave UAS batteries spent, charged or otherwise at any location and properly

dispose of all failed batteries through proper channels.

10. Company staff and personnel must always maintain a high degree of professionalism,

meaning following the Operations and Protocols as presented by the PIC and or Location

Director.

11. Never leave locations until area has been fully policed and all trash, debris and disorder

has be cleaned and the location readied for the next visitor.

12. Report any unlawful or illegal activity immediately to Company directors and or

authorities.

13. Inspect, clean, organize, package and take inventory of all UAS Company equipment at

the completion of project.

14. Never leave fuel, matches, or any combustibles at locations.

15. Report lost or questionable misplaced equipment, supplies or other Company items of

importance such as documents, logs, maps, etc.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Chief financial Officer Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned officer of First National Lincoln Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32),this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

Date: November 8, 2006

 

/s/ F. Stephen Ward

F. Stephen Ward

Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

First National Lincoln Corporation

 

 

Page 1
H. Res. 307 

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

June 8, 2005. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Ms. Wasserman 

Schultz. 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE: Mr. Moore of Kansas. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
**FOUNTAIN        POWERBOAT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

**EXHIBIT        32 **

**CERTIFICATIONS        **

**Pursuant        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 **

|                                          |                                           |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
| Date: November                  13, 2007 | /s/                  Reginald M. Fountain, Jr. |
|                                          | Reginald                  M. Fountain, Jr.     |
|                                          | Chief                  Executive Officer       |
|                                          |                                           |
| Date: November                  13, 2007 | /s/                  Irving L. Smith           |
|                                          | Irving                  L. Smith               |
|                                          | Chief                  Financial Officer       |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          14,833
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             650
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   160
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     62,695
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          57,498
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        387,193
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,012
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 538,294
<DEPOSITS>                                     451,001
<SHORT-TERM>                                    14,683
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,967
<LONG-TERM>                                     15,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,616
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 538,294
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 16,289
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,624
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   231
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                20,144
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,948
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,645
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,499
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      992
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  76
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,830
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    917
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         917
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       506
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.16
<LOANS-NON>                                        516
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,071
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,289
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      382
<RECOVERIES>                                       113
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,012
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,585
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            427


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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 21, 1977 and October 4, 1977, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. Defendant was charged, *inter alia,*with assault in the first degree as a result of a stabbing incident. The defendant testified in his own defense and, on cross-examination, the prosecutor repeatedly tried to have him state that a police witness was a liar. On summation, the prosecutor commented that if the defendant stuck to his story "he would be calling Detective Doyle a liar”. Thereafter, he proceeded to vouch for the officer’s testimony. This court has repeatedly condemned such questions and comments by the prosecution as prejudicial (see, e.g., *People v Yant,*75 AD2d 653; *People v Diaz,*73 AD2d 604; *People v Lopez,*73 AD2d 676). Besides improperly questioning the defendant as to whether the police were lying, the prosecutor’s vouching for the police officer’s testimony constituted improper bolstering (see *People v Perez,*69 AD2d 891; *People v Webb,*68 AD2d 331). In addition, the prosecutor’s denigration of the defense witnesses’ testimony was improper (see *People v Shanis,*36 NY2d 697; *People v Webb, supra).*The fact that defense counsel failed to object to some of the prosecutor’s questions or comments does not preclude this court from ordering a new trial as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see *People v Butler,*57 AD2d 931). In addition, we note that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined the defendant’s character witness as to his actual knowledge of particular acts of misconduct (see *People v Kennedy,*47 NY2d 196; *People v Alamo,*23 NY2d 630, cert den 396 US 879) and the trial court improperly questioned the defendant and made comments concerning an alleged eyewitness (cf. *People v De Jesus,*42 NY2d 519; *People v Bell,*38 NY2d 116). Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.