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

                    MAXUS REAL PROPERTY INVESTORS-FOUR, L.P.

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Quarterly  Report of Maxus Real Property  Investors-Four,
L.P. (the  "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 29, 2004
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, John W. Alvey,  Vice  President,  Chief  Financial and Accounting
Officer of Maxus Capital Corp.,  General  Partner of the  Partnership,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (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 the
Partnership as of February 29, 2004 (the last date of the period  covered by the
Report).


/s/ John W. Alvey
-----------------------------
John W. Alvey
Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer of
Maxus Capital Corp.,
General Partner of the Partnership
April 9, 2004
#### Jonah D. Decker, *Respondent, v.*John Kitchen, *Appellant*.

Order modified by reducing the item for printing points to thirty-five dollars and twenty cents, and as so modified affirmed; without costs to either party.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               3
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    32759
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                      44693
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 83797
<PP&E>                                          262882
<DEPRECIATION>                                   48012
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  352353
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            68512
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                        7379
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    352353
<SALES>                                         355636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                355636
<CGS>                                           319792
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   319792
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               25555
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3244)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       439
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3683)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3683)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 28.65 Termination of unsafe operations. ( a ) A Coast Guard Boarding Officer may direct the master or individual in charge of a vessel, with the concurrence of the District Commander, or staff authorized by the District Commander, to immediately take reasonable steps necessary for the safety of individuals on board the vessel if the Boarding Officer observes the vessel being operated in an unsafe manner and determines that an especially hazardous condition exists. This may include directing the master or individual in charge of the vessel to return the vessel to a mooring and remain there until the situation creating the especially hazardous condition is corrected or other specific action is taken.
( b ) Hazardous conditions include, but are not limited to, operation with— ( 1 ) An insufficient number of lifesaving equipment on board, to include serviceable Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs), serviceable immersion suits, or adequate survival craft capacity.
( 2 ) An inoperable Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) or radio communication equipment when required by regulation. There should be at least one operable means of communicating distress. When both are required, then at least one must be in operable condition to avoid termination of the voyage;
( 3 ) Inadequate firefighting equipment on board;
( 4 ) Excessive volatile fuel (gasoline or solvents) or volatile fuel vapors in bilges;
( 5 ) Instability resulting from overloading, improper loading or lack of freeboard;
( 6 ) Inoperable bilge system;
( 7 ) Intoxication of the master or individual in charge of a commercial fishing vessel. An individual is intoxicated when he/she is operating a commercial fishing vessel and has an alcohol concentration of .04 percent, or the intoxicant's effect on the person's manner, disposition, speech, muscular movement, general appearance or behavior is apparent by observation;
( 8 ) A lack of adequate operable navigation lights during periods of reduced visibility;
( 9 ) Watertight closures missing or inoperable;
( 10 ) Flooding or uncontrolled leakage in any space; or
( 11 ) A missing or expired certificate of class, as required by 46 U.S.C. 4503(1), for a fish processing vessel.
( c ) A Coast Guard Boarding Officer may direct the individual in charge of a fish processing vessel that is missing a Load Line Certificate, or that does not comply with the provisions of the Load Line Certificate issued by the American Bureau of Shipping or a similarly qualified organization, to return the vessel to a mooring and to remain there until the vessel obtains such a certificate.
[CGD 96-046, 61 FR 57273, Nov. 5, 1996, as amended at CGD 96-046, 62 FR 46676, Sept. 4, 1997; USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58344, Sept. 30, 2004]
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2174 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

18 Main Street in Howland, Maine, as the ‘‘Clyde Hichborn Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2009 

Mr. MICHAUD (for himself and Ms. PINGREE of Maine) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 18 Main Street in Howland, Maine, as the 

‘‘Clyde Hichborn Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CLYDE HICHBORN POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 18 Main Street in Howland, 

6 Maine, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Clyde 

7 Hichborn Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2174 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Clyde Hichborn Post 

3 Office’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending June 30, 2007

|Filer               | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                         | End of Comment Period                          
|------------------- | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|FIFTH THIRD BANCORP | * 4c8       | Fifth Third Bancorp, Cincinnati, Ohio, to acquire 100 percent of R-G Crown Bank, FSB, Casselberry, Florida, pursuant to section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act | Newspaper:07/08/2007Federal Register:06/29/2007
|Newspaper:          | 07/08/2007 
|Federal Register:   | 06/29/2007 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending September 16, 2006

|Filer                      | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                             
|-------------------------- | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|MARLBOROUGH BANCSHARES MHC | * 3A1* 3A3    | Application by Marlborough Bancshares, MHC and Marlborough Bancshares, Inc., both of Marlborough, Massachusetts, to become a mutual bank holding company and stock bank holding company, respectively, by acquiring Marlborough Savings Bank, Marlborough, Massachusetts, pursuant to sections 3(a)(1)and 3(a)(3)of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:10/12/2006
|Newspaper:                 | Not available
|Federal Register:          | 10/12/2006   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending June 16, 2007

|Filer                 | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                                 
|--------------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------
|LANDSBANKI ISLANDS HF | FBSEA          | Landsbanki Islands hf., Reykjavik, Iceland is applying to establish and maintain a branch in New York. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:            | Not available 
|Federal Register:     | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### DOMINICK IOCOBELLI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. NIAGARA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Decided November 4, 1929.

Before Justices Teen chard, Kalisch and Lloyd.

Eor the appellant, *Milton M. Unger (Leonard J. Emmergliclc,*of counsel).

Eor the respondent, *Harry B. Binslty (Samuel Wollman,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

The facts, as developed by the testimony taken in the cause, before the judge of the District Court sitting without a jury, are, in substance, as follows: The plaintiff-appellee was the owner of an automobile. On March 4th, 1928, the appellant’s son, with the consent of his father, drove the automobile to his sister’s house at No. 123 Park avenue, Newark. This was about eleven-thirty o’clock in the morning. He parked the car on the right-hand side of the street in front of his sister’s house, and locked it, and at the time observed another car parked in front of it, at a distance of twenty or twenty-five feet away.

At about one o’clock he left his sister’s house, and discovered the car was not where he had left it, and upon investigation, found it two blocks away, on the left-hand side of the street, smashed against a tree.

*944Before he entered his sister’s house he locked the ear. Upon examination of the car he discovered blood on top of the radiator, and “the outside door was forced out,” and that “the lock was forced out, and the other lock on the car was locked.” It further appeared, that the lock of the right door of the car had been tampered with.

The plaintiff-appellee had a policy of insurance in the appellant-company, in which the automobile in question was insured among other things, against damage, by reason of theft, robbery and pilferage.

The appellant, denying its liability; the plaintiff-appellee brought an action against it in the said District Court, to recover compensation for the. damage done to the automobile, which action resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff-appellee, against the defendant company, for the sum of $500 with costs.

There was a motion for a nonsuit and a motion for a finding for the appellant, upon the ground that there was no proof of larceny committed, and hence, the damage sustained by the car was not the result of any theft.

The trial judge overruled both motions. This judicial action was proper, since it is manifest from the facts in the case that the car had been removed by someone from the place where it had been parked; that the lock of the door had been tampered with, and .these circumstances by themselves give rise to a reasonable inference that a theft was being perpetrated, but was frustrated by the car coming in contact with a tree or pole.

Judgment is affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Columbia Futures Fund and is qualified in its entirety to reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       9,376,307
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,689<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,121,077<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,121,077<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,586,054<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               723,987
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                862,067
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            862,067
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   862,067
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $31,689.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net
unrealized gain on open contracts of $713,081.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $30,954, accrued
management fees of $33,222 and accrued administrative expenses of
$85,883.
<F4>Total revenues include realized trading revenue of $1,192,374,
net change in unrealized of $101,330 and interest income of $292,350.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 502.114 Serving documents in Commission proceedings. ( a ) Except where a different method of service is specifically required by the rules in this Part, all pleadings, documents and papers of every kind (except requests for subpoenas under § 502.131, documents served by the Commission under § 502.113, and documents submitted at a hearing or prehearing conference) in proceedings before the Commission, when delivered to the Commission or the presiding officer for filing, must show that service has been made upon all parties to the proceeding and upon any other persons required to be served by the rules in this Part. Such service must be made by delivering one copy to each party; by email; in-person hand delivery; or United States mail service, and be properly addressed with postage prepaid; by courier; or by facsimile. Service should be made in the same manner in which any pleading or document is filed with the Commission. For example, if a pleading is filed by email pursuant to § 502.2(f)(3), service should also be made by email.
( b ) When a party has appeared by attorney or other representative, service upon each attorney or other representative of record will be deemed service upon the party, except that, if two or more attorneys of record are partners or associates of the same firm, only one of them need be served.
[80 FR 57306, Sept. 23, 2015, as amended at 81 FR 93836, Dec. 22, 2016]
#### § 35.40-15 Fire hose stations—TB/ALL.

At each fire hose valve there shall be marked in not less than 2-inch red letters and figures: “FIRE STATION 1,” 2, 3, etc.
§ 327.26 Evidence supporting a claim. ( a ) The claimant shall present any evidence in the claimant's possession that supports the claim. This evidence shall include, if available, statements of witnesses, accident or casualty reports, photographs and drawings.
( b ) Notwithstanding anything in the regulations in this subpart, the claimant shall provide such additional reasonable documents and evidence as requested by the Maritime Administration with respect to the claim. Failure to respond to reasonable requests for additional information and documentation can result in a determination that a valid claim has not been submitted.
Argued and submitted January 26,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration in part; otherwise affirmed March 6, 1996

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Zane E. Phillips, Claimant. Zane E. PHILLIPS, *Petitioner, v.*John HAMMOND and SAIF Corporation, *Respondents.*

(94-10158; CA A89161)

912 P2d 430

Meagan A. Flynn argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the brief was Pozzi Wilson Atchison.

Julene M. Quinn, Special Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*508PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board in which it determined the amount of his permanent partial disability by applying rules that create a formula for the purpose. Claimant argues that the rules are invalid to the extent that they assign a value of zero to the adaptability factor in the formula when the claimant has returned to the claimant’s previous work; as a result they prevent any consideration of the statutory factors of age and education. ORS 656.214. In *Carroll v. Boise Cascade Corp.,*138 Or App 610, 910 P2d 1111 (1996), we held under a different version of the rules that such a provision was invalid. The rules involved in this case are subject to the same defect that we identified in *Carroll*and are invalid for the same reasons. As a consequence, claimant’s award must be recalculated.

Claimant’s arguments concerning the rate at which he is to receive permanent partial disability are premature, as the Board has not yet determined that he is entitled to any particular rate. *See Hamlin v. Salem Area Transit,*137 Or App 497, 501, 905 P2d 245 (1995). His remaining arguments do not require discussion.

Award of permanent partial disability reversed and remanded for reconsideration; otherwise affirmed.