alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the annual report of LSB Industries, Inc. (“LSB”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tony M. Shelby, Executive Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of LSB, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of LSB.
 
 
 
 
 /s/ Tony M. Shelby
 Tony M. Shelby
 Executive Vice President of Finance and
 Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial Officer)
 
 
 March 3, 2011
 
 
 This certification is furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. §1350 subject to the knowledge standard contained therein and not for any other purpose.
### CLOTHESWASHER TEST CLOTH MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2002

9:00AM 

### - 1:00 PM DOEHQ Room 1E-245 AGENDA I. Background Historical Lot Testing Data Development ofthe original CorrectionFac:or using Lot 

### 3 asthe Baseline 11. 

### The Lot 7 Problem Initial data and correction curve Inconsistency with manufacturers' results atlow 

### g's Additional testing and analysis undertaken Introduction of 1 OOg data Enhancement ofLot 

### 3 results New Lot 

### 7correction curve (basedon originalADL batch) Accuracy check against overallLot 

### 7 data Modified Lot 7correction curveusing averaged data Accuracy comparison Continued variability in 50g data with Lot 

### 8 111. DiscussionofOptions Test Procedure Modifications "Look Up" Table forRMC atLow G's Other IV. Next Steps CLOTHES WASHER TEST CLOTH MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2002

9:00 AM - 1:00 PM DOEHQ Room IE-24S AGENDA I. Background • Historical Lot Testing Data • Development ofthe original Correction Fac:or m;ing Lot 3 as the Baseline II. The Lot 7 Problem • Initial data and correction curve • Inconsistency with manufacturers' results at low g'I) • Additional testing and analysis undertaken • Introduction of 100g data • Enhancement ofLot 3 results • New Lot 7 correction curve (based on original ADL batch) • Accuracy check against overall Lot 7 data • Modified Lot 7 correction curve using averaged data • Accuracy comparison • Continued variability in 

### SOg data with Lot 8 III. Discussion ofOptions • Test Procedure Modifications • "Look Up" Table for RMC at Low G's • Other IV. Next Steps CLOTHES WASHER TEST CLOTH MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2002

9:00 AM - 1:00 PM DOEHQ Room IE-24S AGENDA I. Background • Historical Lot Testing Data • Development ofthe original Correction Fac:or m;ing Lot 3 as the Baseline II. The Lot 7 Problem • Initial data and correction curve • Inconsistency with manufacturers' results at low g'I) • Additional testing and analysis undertaken • Introduction of 100g data • Enhancement ofLot 3 results • New Lot 7 correction curve (based on original ADL batch) • Accuracy check against overall Lot 7 data • Modified Lot 7 correction curve using averaged data • Accuracy comparison • Continued variability in 

### SOg data with Lot 8 III. Discussion ofOptions • Test Procedure Modifications • "Look Up" Table for RMC at Low G's • Other IV. Next Steps
§ 502.33 Request for hearing. ( a ) Any person desiring review of a determination referred to in § 501.32, including judicial review, shall make a written request for an administrative hearing to the official who issued the determination at the WHD address appearing on the determination notice, no later than 30 days after issuance of the notice referred to in § 501.32.
( b ) No particular form is prescribed for any request for hearing permitted by this part. However, any such request shall: ( 1 ) Be typewritten or legibly written;
( 2 ) Specify the issue or issues stated in the notice of determination giving rise to such request;
( 3 ) State the specific reason or reasons why the person requesting the hearing believes such determination is in error;
( 4 ) Be signed by the person making the request or by an authorized representative of such person; and
( 5 ) Include the address at which such person or authorized representative desires to receive further communications relating thereto.
( c ) The request for such hearing must be received by the official who issued the determination, at the WHD address appearing on the determination notice, within the time set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. For the affected person's protection, if the request is by mail, it should be by certified mail.
( d ) The determination shall take effect on the start date identified in the determination, unless an administrative appeal is properly filed. The timely filing of an administrative appeal stays the determination pending the outcome of the appeal proceedings.
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**
**FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0646** Docket Number
**2013 -**  **SW -**  **053 -** **AD** Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket - NPRM Eurocop ter Alert Service Bulletin No. AS355 - 28.00.20, Revision 0, dated June 6, 2013


### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HOURS OF:**  9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
#### § 780.500 Scope and significance of interpretative bulletin.

Subpart A of this part 780 and this subpart F together constitute the official interpretative bulletin of the Department of Labor with respect to the meaning and application of section 13(a)(14) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. This section provides an exemption from the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Act for certain agricultural employees engaged in the processing, prior to stemming, or shade-grown tobacco for use as cigar wrapper tobacco. As appears more fully in subpart A, interpretations in this bulletin with respect to provisions of the Act discussed are official interpretations upon which reliance may be placed and which will guide the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator in the performance of their duties under the Act. The exemptions provided in section 13(a)(6) of the Act for employees employed in agriculture is not discussed in this subpart except in its relation to section 13(a)(14). The meaning and application of the section 13(a)(6) exemption is fully considered in subpart D of this part 780.
#### § 780.131 Operations which constitute one a “farmer.”

Generally, an employer must undertake farming operations of such scope and significance as to constitute a distinct activity, for the purpose of yielding a farm product, in order to be regarded as a “farmer.” It does not necessarily follow, however, that any employer is a “farmer” simply because he engages in some actual farming operations of the type specified in section 3(f). Thus, one who merely harvests a crop of agricultural commodities is not a “farmer” although his employees who actually do the harvesting are employed in “agriculture” in those weeks when exclusively so engaged. As a general rule, a farmer performs his farming operations on land owned, leased, or controlled by him and devoted to his own use. The mere fact, therefore, that an employer harvests a growing crop, even under a partnership agreement pursuant to which he provides credit, advisory or other services, is not generally considered to be sufficient to qualify the employer so engaged as a “farmer.” Such an employer would stand, in packing or handling the product, in the same relationship to the produce as if it were from the fields or groves of an independent grower. One who engaged merely in practices which are incidental to farming is not a “farmer.” For example, a company which merely prepares for market, sells, and ships flowers and plants grown and cultivated on farms by affiliated corporations is not a “farmer.” The fact that one has suspended actual farming operations during a period in which he performs only practices incidental to his part or prospective farming operations does not, however, preclude him from qualifying as a “farmer.” One otherwise qualified as a farmer does not lose his status as such because he performs farming operations on land which he does not own or control, as in the case of a cattleman using public lands for grazing.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JAVIER R AM IREZ-PAC HEC O, a .k.a . Javie r Pa c he c o R am i re z , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10629

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00876-DGC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na M ark W . B e nne tt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding * * Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 23, 2014 *** B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Javie r R am ire z -Pa c h e c o a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s his guilty -ple a c onvic tion a

nd 46-m onth se nte nc e for re e ntry of a 

# FIL ED OCT 6 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble M ark W . B e nne tt, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Iowa , sitting by de signa t ion. *** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re m ove d a l ie n, in viola t ion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), R

am ire z -Pa c h e c o’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f sta ting tha t the re are n o grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

w a s c ounse l of re c ord. W e hav e provide d

R am ire z -Pa c he c o the opportunity to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d. R am ire z -Pa c h e c o ha s wa ive d his right to a ppe a l his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e . Our indepe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a

rgua ble issue a s to the va lidity of the wa ive r. Se eUnite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a c c ordingly dism iss the a ppe a l. Se eid . at 988. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. DISM I SSE D.

1 3 - 1 0 6 2 9 2
#### § 779.330 Third requirement for qualifying as a “retail or service establishment.”

The third requirement for qualifying as a “retail or service establishment” within that term's statutory definition is that 75 percent of the retail or service establishment's annual dollar volume must be from sales of goods or of services (or of both) which are not made for resale. At least three-fourths of the total sales of goods or services (or of both) (measured by annual dollar volume) must not be made for resale. Except under the special provision in section 3(n) of the Act, discussed in § 779.335, the requirement that 75 percent of the establishment's dollar volume be from sales of goods or services “not for resale” is a separate test and a sale which “for resale” cannot be counted toward the required 75 percent even if it is recognized as retail in the particular industry. The prescribed 75 percent must be from sales which are both not for resale and recognized as retail.
#### Wesley B. Porch *v.*Agnew Company.

[Decided January 5th, 1907.]

A person who files a claim with a receiver of an insolvent corporation and sustains his claim before the receiver and before this court on appeal, is not a complainant within the meaning of the ninety-first section of the Chancery act (P. *L. 1902 p. 5J/0).*and is not entitled to the allowance of a counsel fee to be included as taxable costs.

On motion for allowance of counsel fee to be included in taxed costs.

Duparquet, Huot & Monetise Company filed with the receiver of defendant, an insolvent corporation, a verified claim in which the claimant asserted a mechanics’ lien against certain real estate of the insolvent company. Clarence M. Busch, a mortgagee of the same real estate, unsuccessfully contested the claim before the receiver. Prom the receiver’s decision Busch appealed to this court under the provisions of section 78 of the Corporation act of 1896 (P. *L. 1896 p. 802),*and the decision of the receiver was here affirmed. Busch then appealed to the court of errors and appeals and the decision of this court was there affirmed. Application is now made under section 91 of the Chancery act of 1902 (P. *L. 1902 p. 5J/.0)*for ah allowance of a counsel fee for Duparquet, Huot & Moneuse Company to be included in the taxable costs.

*Mr. William M. Clevenger,*for the motion.

*Messrs. Thompson & Cole, contra.*

*320Leaking, V. C.

Section 91 of the Chancery act *(P. L. 1902 p.*540) allows a counsel fee to be fixed by the chancellor and included in a complainant’s taxable costs. In *McMullin*v. *Doughty, 68 N. J. Eq. (2 Robb.) 776,*the court of errors and appeals sanctioned the allowance, under this section, of a counsel fee to complainant in a partition cause prosecuted in this court. The allowance of a counsel fee to the present applicant should manifestly be made if authority can be found to support it; but the statute, in terms, applies only to complainants, and I am unable to discern any legislative purpose to extend the provisions of the section in question beyond the primary and natural significance of the language used. One who files a claim with a receiver, and who is afterwards obliged to support his claim before this court on appeal, occupies a position similar to a complainant in a bill in equity to the extent that he has the affirmative of an issue to sustain; but such similarity is not based upon any principles peculiar to equitable remedies. His claim-may be,‘and usually is, a strictly legal claim, with no inherent element to confer equitable jurisdiction. The claim now in question was such a claim. The procedure is purely statutory and is, by the statute, described as “summary.” It is clear that the present applicant can only be brought within the provisions of the section by treating the section as an enactment intended to apply to all successful litigants in a court of equity except defendants. I am unable to find any justification for so broad an interpretation of the section. The motion must be denied.
#### § 458.78 Rules of evidence.

The technical rules of evidence do not apply. Any evidence may be received, except that an Administrative Law Judge may exclude any evidence or offer of proof which is immaterial, irrelevant, unduly repetitious, or customarily privileged. Every party shall have a right to present his case by oral and documentary evidence and to submit rebuttal evidence.
YEAR AREA EIC EICSOU ROG 2008 PLACER COUNTY APCD 230-218-9000-0000 218-AUTO REFINISHING 0.18 estimated reduction (%) 1 24.5% emisison estimation after reduction (tpd) 0.14 Control Efficiency, CE 0.76 Rule Efficiency, RE 2 1 Rule Penetration, RP 3 0.8 Control Profile, CL, CL= (1-(1-CE)*RE*RP) 0.80

1 Reference: Sacramento Regional 8-hr Ozone Attainment Plan, Appendix C pp. C-98 2default setting 3default setting
Manufacture of new substance:

Sanitized
```

[115th Congress Public Law 276]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 4166]]

Public Law 115-276
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To provide that members of public safety agencies who died of 9/11-
related health conditions are eligible for the Presidential 9/11 Heroes 
 Medal of Valor, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Nov. 3, 2018 -  [H.R. 
                                3834]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: 9/11 Heroes 
Medal of Valor Act of 2017. 31 USC 5111 note.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``9/11 Heroes Medal of Valor Act of 
2017''.
SEC. 2. MEMBERS OF PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES WHO SUBSEQUENTLY DIED OF 
                    9/11-RELATED HEALTH CONDITIONS ELIGIBLE FOR 
                    PRESIDENTIAL 9/11 HEROES MEDAL OF VALOR.

    An individual who was a public safety officer (as defined in section 
5 of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act of 2001) who--
            (1) participated in the response at any point during the 
        period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on July 31, 
        2002, to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the 
        terrorist attack on the Pentagon, or the terrorist attack that 
        resulted in the crash of the fourth airplane in Pennsylvania; 
        and
            (2) died as a result of such participation thereafter as a 
        result of a WTC-related health condition (which term shall have 
        the meaning given such term in section 3312 of the Public Health 
        Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300mm-22) with respect to a WTC 
        responder),

shall be eligible for the 9/11 Heroes Medal of Valor referred to in 
subsection (a) of section 124 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2005, in the same manner and to the same extent as any individual who is 
otherwise eligible under such section, except that no requirement under 
such section pertaining to the death of that individual shall apply.

    Approved November 3, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3834:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Sept. 26, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 11, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,447
<SECURITIES>                                    69,768
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,435
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,099
<INVENTORY>                                     53,869
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               165,214
<PP&E>                                         383,974
<DEPRECIATION>                                  60,992
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 562,151
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,236
<BONDS>                                         78,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,087
<OTHER-SE>                                     252,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   562,151
<SALES>                                        367,673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               378,058
<CGS>                                          237,114
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  289,682
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 81,770
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,610
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             54,160
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    54,160
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.97
        

</TABLE>
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2014-0484

Directorate Identifier: 2013NM245AD

A320-57-1152 --- 6/14/10

A320-57-1152, R1 --- 12/19/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
(80 South. 895)

#### SMITH v. RUBENSTEIN.

(1 Div. 318.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 12, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Saffold Bemey, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7188

WILLIAM CLINTON BLASSINGAME,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE, Director; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH

CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CA-96-3020-08BD)

Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 10, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Clinton Blassingame, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Blassingame v. Moore, No. CA-96-3020-08BD (D.S.C. July 31,

1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Robert Kinloch, President, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Maverick Minerals Corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies, 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-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period
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; and

(2)         
 the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 22, 2008



/s/ Robert KinlochRobert
Kinloch Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---