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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Community Financial Corporation, (the
Company for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard R. Leitzel, Chief Financial Officer of 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 Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. To my knowledge, the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                      |  |     |  |                              
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: August 11, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard R. Leitzel       
|                      |  |     |  | Richard R. Leitzel           
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)



20
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeetranauth Umadat, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 744]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered August 4, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth degree, and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Cooperman, J.), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The factual findings and credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Cameron,*6 AD3d 546 [2004]). Here, nothing in the record supports the defendant’s contention that the testimony of the arresting detective at the hearing was incredible or patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections *(see People v James,*19 AD3d 617, 618 [2005]; *People v Natiello,*294 AD2d 451 [2002]; *People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials. Goldstein, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### MONROE v. MUSICA et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 22, 1915.)

Executors and Administrators (§ 367*) — Sale of Land — Marketable Title,.

Where the administrator had not obtained, under Code Civ. Proe. § 2751, a judgment for the sale of land to pay debts, title from him was not marketable, and a purchaser will not be required to carry out his bid.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. §§ 1545-1549; Dec. Dig. § 367.*]

Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.

Action by Virginia M. Monroe against Antonio Musica and others. From an order of the Special Term denying the motion of the Temple Bar Realty Company, Incorporated, to be relieved of its bid, the Company appeals.

Order reversed, and motion granted.

Argued before JENKS, P. J., and THOMAS, STAPLETON, RICH, arid PUTNAM, JJ.

Samuel A. Telsey, of Brooklyn, for appellant.

Henry M. Bellinger, Jr., of New York City (James McBrien, of New York City, on the brief), for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

The successful maintenance of an action under section 2751 of the Code of Civil Procedure was necessary to enable the administrator to apply in the Surrogate’s Court for the sale of the land to pay debts. Such an action was not brought either as regards the capacity in which the plaintiff sued or the subject-matter of the action. Whether the grandson could successfully assert an interest in the property may depend upon extrinsic facts not before us. But upon the record now appearing, the title is not marketable.

The order should be reversed, and the motion of the purchaser to be relieved of the purchase and for a return of the deposit, with such interest as it has earned, granted, together with reasonable expenses of examining the title to be approved by the court at Special Term and payable from the proceeds of any sale that shall be had on the judgment, with $10 costs and disbursements of this appeal.
228 So.2d 481

#### LURIA BROTHERS & CO., Inc. v. CAPITOL STEEL, INC., As Successor to Mike Safer Company, Inc.

No. 50132.

Dec. 11, 1969.

In re: Capitol Steel, Inc., as successor to Mike Safer Co., Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 225 So.2d 630.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.

*921I
# EUR-Lex - 31987R4001 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31987R4001

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4001/87 of 23 December 1987 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2783/75 laying down special measures for ovalbumin and lactalbumin **

*
Official Journal L 377 , 31/12/1987 P. 0044 - 0044 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 25 P. 0217 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 25 P. 0217 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) N° 4001/87

of 23 December 1987

amending Regulation (EEC) N° 2783/75 laying down special measures for ovalbumin and lactalbumin

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2658/87

of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature

and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended

by Regulation (EEC) N° 3985/87 (2), and in particular

Article 15 thereof,

Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2658/87 establishes, with effect from 1 January 1988, a combined goods nomenclature based on the Harmonized System which will meet the requirements both of the Common Customs Tariff and the nomenclature of goods for the external trade statistics of the Community;

Whereas, as a consequence, it is necessary to express the descriptions of goods and tariff heading numbers which appear in Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2783/75 (3), according to the terms of the combined nomenclature; whereas these adaptations do not call for any amendment of substance,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) N° 2783/75 is replaced by the following:

'Article 1

In trade between the Community and third countries, import duties shall be applied to the following products:

>TABLE>

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1988.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 December 1987.

For the Commission

Frans ANDRIESSEN

Vice-President

SPA:L377UMBE20.96

FF: 5UEN; SETUP: 01; Hoehe: 472 mm; 96 Zeilen; 2261 Zeichen;

Bediener: JUTT Pr.: B;

Kunde: 40800 Montan England 20

(1) OJ N° L 256, 7. 9. 1987, p. 1.

(2) OJ N° L 376, 31. 12. 1987, p. 1.

(3) OJ N° L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 104.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

723 KA 11-01263 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY RIVERA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P. Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered May 18, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree (two counts) and burglary in the third degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and one count of burglary in the third degree (§ 140.20). We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because he waived his right to appeal before Supreme Court informed him of the potential periods of imprisonment that could be imposed ( see People v Mingo , 38 AD3d 1270, 1271; see generally People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827). Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### § 706.13 Clearance of counsel.

It is recognized that clearance of counsel for the parties is sometimes desirable for proper preparation of a case even though the record is to be unclassified. Clearance of counsel makes possible their participation in any closed discussions needed preparatory to making an unclassified record. Each party is responsible for requesting clearance of its counsel well in advance so that clearance requirements will not delay the proceeding. The clearance of temporary special counsel will be terminated on completion of the proceeding.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0069 SAT Date: 11/9/2012 Print Date: 2/4/2013

Related cases : Health related cases : Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 2 3

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: IRR-E,S,L,MM, LUNG, UNCERT-SENS, AQUATOX-A,C
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0063-77 FATE: Estimations for Liquid with MP < 25 C (E) log Kow = 3.30 (E) S = Dispersible / 73.2 mg/L at 25 C (ICB / E) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) log Koc = 5.66 (E) log Fish BCF = 1.85 (E)log Fish BAF = 1.79 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is poor through the skin, moderate through the GI tract, and good through the lungs based on analogs. The PMN material is expected to be a strong irritant to all exposed tissues based on the amines and the surfactant properties of the material. There is also concern for lung effects if respirable particles are inhaled based on cationic binding to lung tissues and/or interference with the natural surfactant balance in the lungs. There is uncertain concern for sensitization for the . Moderate

concern.

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.28 daphnid 48-h LC50 0.050 green algal 96-h EC50 0.018 fish

_ chronic value 0.004 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.006

algal

_ chronic value 0.008
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for aliphatic amines and amides; SAR chemical class = aliphatic amine, amide; ; liquid; log Kow = 5.67 (EPI); S = dispersible in water at 25 C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 1

SARs aliphatic amines and amides SAR Class aliphatic amine, amide Ecotox Category Aliphatic AminesEcotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: Becky Jones
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ANDREW COLSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-10287

D.C. No. 2:03-CR-00559-RCJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19, 2010** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Andrew Colson appeals from the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm. 

Colson contends that the district court relied on impermissible factors when

FILED

AUG 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-10287

it determined that he posed a potential danger to the community. The district court

did not err when it relied on Colson’s criminal history, the nature and

circumstances of the offense, and a prison disciplinary violation. See Dillon v.

United States, No. 09-6338, 2010 WL 2400109 at *6-7 (Jun. 17, 2010); U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10, cmt. 1(B)(iii).

Colson also contends that even if the factors relied upon by the district court

were permissible, remand is appropriate so that this court may provide the district

court with guidance as to what factors it may consider when applying the

Sentencing Guidelines “Public Safety Consideration” policy statement articulated

in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Because the district court relied upon permissible factors

any guidance would constitute an improper advisory opinion. See United States v.

Kaczynski, 551 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
§ 600.205 Additions and exceptions. ( a ) For classes of grants and grantees subject to this subpart, Federal agencies may not impose additional administrative requirements except in codified regulations published in the Federal Register.
( b ) Exceptions for classes of grants or grantees may be authorized only by OMB.
( c ) Exceptions on a case-by-case basis and for subgrantees may be authorized by the affected Federal agencies.
( d ) The DOE procedural requirements for requesting additions and exceptions are specified in § 600.4.
[53 FR 8087, Mar. 11, 1988, as amended at 53 FR 8047, Mar. 11, 1988]
Editorial Note on Part 72
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 72.62 Backfitting. ( a ) As used in this section, *backfitting* means the addition, elimination, or modification, after the license has been issued, of: ( 1 ) Structures, systems, or components of an ISFSI or MRS, or
( 2 ) Procedures or organization required to operate an ISFSI or MRS.
( b ) The Commission will require backfitting of an ISFSI or MRS if it finds that such action is necessary to assure adequate protection to occupational or public health and safety, or to bring the ISFSI or MRS into compliance with a license or the rules or orders of the Commission, or into conformance with written commitments by a licensee.
( c ) The Commission may require the backfitting of an ISFSI or MRS if it finds: ( 1 ) That there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the occupational or public health and safety to be derived from the backfit, and
( 2 ) That the direct and indirect costs of implementation for that ISFSI or MRS are justified in view of this increased protection.
( d ) The Commission may at any time require a holder of a license to submit such information concerning the backfitting or the proposed backfitting of an ISFSI or MRS as it deems appropriate.
2007-1251.

#### State v. Coats.

Mercer App. No. 10-07-08. Reported at 115 Ohio St.3d 1442, 2007-Ohio-5567, 875 N.E.2d 103. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
227 So.2d 589

#### SECURITY TRANSFER COMPANY, Inc., et al. v. INSURED LLOYDS COMPANY.

No. 50085.

Nov. 10, 1969.

In re: Security Transfer Company, Inc., and Joseph Dunkley applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 225 So.2d 284.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

# A RIZONA 

# C OURT OF 

# A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
FOX JOSEPH SALERNO , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 23

- 0020 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2000

- 017362 The Honorable Scott Sebastian Minder , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Krista Wood Counsel for Respondent Fox Joseph Salerno , Limon, Colorado Petitioner FILED 5-11-2023STATE v. SALERNO Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge Angela K. Paton , and Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court

.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Fox Joseph Salerno seeks review of the superior court’s order dismissing his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is his twelfth petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not dis turb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction reli ef. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order dismissing the petition for post

- conviction and pet ition. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 693 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 693

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to 
                           childhood stroke.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2006

    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas (for herself, Mr. Owens, Mr. 
  Grijalva, Mrs. Christensen, and Mr. Kildee) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to 
                           childhood stroke.

Whereas each year stroke occurs in 10 out of 4,000 newborns and in 6 out of 
        100,000 children, and stroke can occur before birth;
Whereas 12 percent of children who experience a stroke die as a result;
Whereas over half of the children who have a stroke will have serious, long-term 
        neurological disabilities, including hemiplegia (paralysis of one side 
        of the body), seizures, speech and vision problems, and learning 
        difficulties, and may require ongoing physical therapy and surgeries;
Whereas the permanent health concerns and treatments resulting from childhood 
        stroke result in a heavy financial and emotional toll on the child, the 
        family, and society;
Whereas very little is known about the cause, treatment, and prevention of 
        childhood stroke;
Whereas only through medical research can effective treatment and prevention 
        strategies for childhood stroke be identified and developed;
Whereas an early diagnosis and commencement of treatment of childhood stroke 
        greatly improves chances for recovery and prevention of recurrence; and
Whereas it would be appropriate to observe May 7, 2006, as Childhood Stroke 
        Awareness Day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of a Childhood Stroke 
        Awareness Day; and
            (2) urges the people of the United States to support the 
        efforts, programs, services, and advocacy of the Children's 
        Hemiplegia and Stroke Association to enhance public awareness 
        of childhood stroke.
                                 <all>
```
§ 62.13 Contents of a request for emergency access: Alternatives. ( a ) A request for emergency access under this part must include information on alternatives to emergency access. The request shall include a discussion of the consideration given to any alternatives, including, but not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Storage of low-level radioactive waste at the site of generation;
( 2 ) Storage of low-level radioactive waste in a licensed storage facility;
( 3 ) Obtaining access to a disposal facility by voluntary agreement;
( 4 ) Purchasing disposal capacity available for assignment pursuant to the Act;
( 5 ) Requesting disposal at a Federal low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in the case of a Federal or defense related generator of LLW;
( 6 ) Reducing the volume of the waste;
( 7 ) Ceasing activities that generate low-level radioactive waste; and
( 8 ) Other alternatives identified under paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The request must identify all of the alternatives to emergency access considered, including any that would require State or Compact action, or any others that are not specified in paragraph (a) of this section. The request should also include a description of the process used to identify the alternatives, a description of the factors that were considered in identifying and evaluating them, a chronology of actions taken to identify and implement alternatives during the process, and a discussion of any actions that were considered, but not implemented.
( c ) The evaluation of each alternative must consider: ( 1 ) Its potential for mitigating the serious and immediate threat to public health and safety or the common defense and security posed by lack of access to disposal;
( 2 ) The adverse effects on public health and safety and the common defense and security, if any, of implementing each alternative, including the curtailment or cessation of any essential services affecting the public health and safety or the common defense and security;
( 3 ) The technical and economic feasibility of each alternative including the person's financial capability to implement the alternatives;
( 4 ) Any other pertinent societal costs and benefits;
( 5 ) Impacts to the environment;
( 6 ) Any legal impediments to implementation of each alternative, including whether the alternatives will comply with applicable NRC and NRC Agreement States regulatory requirements; and
( 7 ) The time required to develop and implement each alternative.
( d ) The request must include the basis for: ( 1 ) Rejecting each alternative; and
( 2 ) Concluding that no alternative is available.