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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of CurrencySharesSMSouth African Rand Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for
the fiscal period ended October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joe Arruda, Chief Financial Officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust,
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, as amended; and

2. The information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.

Date:
January 14, 2010



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/S/ JOE ARRUDA               
|Joe Arruda*                  
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(principal financial officer)



|* | The Registrant is
a trust and Joe Arruda is signing in his capacity as the principal financial officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22423]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1270]


Certain Casual Footwear and Packaging Thereof; Notice of 
Correction of a Commission Opinion

AGENCY: International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (``Commission'') is correcting two typos in its confidential 
Opinion of September 14, 2023, in the above-captioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl P. Bretscher, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2382. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may 
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a7f7e736909725f564a7a4f49534e59145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1550515c46265d7079655560667c61763b727a63">[email protected]</span></a>. General information concerning the Commission may 
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on 
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 
on (202) 205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page 40, line 2 and page 43, line 13 of 
its confidential Opinion, the Commission replaces ``Amoji'' with ``La 
Modish'' for La Modish Boutique of West Covina, California, one of four 
respondents previously found to be in default. See Order No. 58 (May 
20, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (June 10, 2022).
    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and 
in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 4, 2023.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-22423 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# ORIGINA1 RLED MAY 3 0 2024 Bowen Greenwood IN THE SUPREME COURT

# Ocnisanett MONTANA No. DA 24-0260 CHOTEAU ACANTHA PUBLISHING, INC. and MONTANA FREE PRESS, Appellees/Petitioners, v. GREG GIANFORTE, in his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MONTANA; and JENNIFER STUTZ, Chair ofthe Govemor's Advisory CoUncil for theNinth Judicial District Vacancy, Appellants/Respondents.Grant ofExtension For good cause appearing, Appellant Governor Greg Gianforte's Unopposed motion to extend the deadline forAppellant's opening briefis GRANTED. Mont. R. App. P. 26(1). Appellant's opening briefshall be due on July 3, 2024. 05/30/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0260
1

Statement of the Air and Radiation Management Administration 

Maryland Department of the Environment 

For the Public Hearing Concerning the 

Implementation, Maintenance, and Enforcement of the 8-hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

State Implementation Plan 

Held on July 10, 2007 

Good morning. My name is Carl York. I am the Special Projects Manager of Air Quality 

Planning Program of the Air and Radiation Management Administration, Maryland Department 

of Environment (MDE). 

This public hearing concerns Maryland's implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 

8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard State Implementation Plan. 

This public hearing is being held pursuant to federal law found at 42 U. S. C. § 7410(a) and 40 

CFR Parts 51.102 and 251. It is also being held in conformance with the State Administrative 

Procedure Act, under the State Government Article, beginning at Section 10-101. 

Notice of this public hearing appeared in 

• The Baltimore Sun on June 1, 2007 

• The Washington Post on June 7, 2007, and 

• the Maryland Department of the Environment's website on May 30, 2007 and remained on 

the website until today's hearing. 

Copies of these notices will be submitted with the formal SIP submission package to the U.S. 

EPA. 

Copies of the proposed SIP were submitted for review to the State Clearinghouse and are also 

submitted at this time into the hearing record. Copies were also made available for public 

inspection on the Maryland Department of the Environment's website, at the Air and Radiation 

Management Administration offices in Baltimore, Cumberland, and Salisbury, and at all local 

health departments or local air quality control offices. 

The purpose of this hearing is to provide the public with an opportunity to formally comment on 

the proposed SIP document. 

Summary of Proposed State Implementation Plan 

The purpose of this document was to examine Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) and 

determine if all necessary implementation, maintenance, and enforcement measures for the 

8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) are in place. §110(a)(2) of the 

Clean Air Act provides a detailed listing of various requirements for state implementation plans 

regarding the national ambient air quality standards. In this SIP document, each subparagraph 
2

from (A) through (M) is broken down, with various provisions supporting the requirements. 

The MDE has verified its authority, through this document, to implement the NAAQS. 

CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS 

The Department will consider all pertinent comments, and revise the proposed plan if necessary, 

before making a final decision to adopt the plan and submit it to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency for approval as a Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

The comment period for this SIP ends by 5 pm today.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Andre Junior COVINGTON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-4114.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 5, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 23, 2005.

Henry M. Anderson, Jr., Anderson Law Firm, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Andre Junior Covington appeals his 420-month sentence following his jury convictions for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e) (2000). Finding no error, we affirm.

Covington maintains that under *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by declining to award him a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Because Covington did not raise this objection at sentencing, we review for plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); *United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

The Supreme Court held in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 746, 750, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), that the mandatory manner in which the federal sentencing guidelines required courts to impose sentencing enhancements based on facts found by the court by a preponderance of the evidence violated the Sixth Amendment. However, *Booker*does not preclude judicial determinations of the applicability of sentence reductions, "such as for the acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not commit plain error in declining to award Covington a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility and affirm the sentence.

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.

*AFFIRMED*
NOx Formation Project 

Improve Phase

John Hausman

March 6, 2008
1
Possible Solutions

 Predictive NOx Equation from all operating data by varying 

furnace conditions – based on 7 day NOx test.

 Install 1 CEM per line and create an equation based on the 

percentage of NOx emitted from each stack in the furnace.

2

 Install 1 CEM per line and create a predictive equation 

using that and operating data.
Solution Selected

 CCI rejected the idea to install any CEMs due to the 

maintenance and downtime...

 This leaves us only one solution to implement, a predictive 

equation based on operating conditions in the furnace. We 

will have to create a predictive equation while producing High 

3

Compression pellets as well, but we do not have any stack 

testing planned during a high compression pellet run. 
Best Subset – Stack 1

4
Best Subset – Stack 2

5
Best Subset – Stack 3

6
Best Subset – Stack 4

7
Minitab Output – Regression for Stack 1

8
-100 -50 0 50

99.9

99

90

50

10

1

0.1

Residual

P

erc

e

n

t

120 135 150 165 180

50

0

-50

-100

Fitted Value

Re

sid

u

al

Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits

Residual Plots for Stack 1

9

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40

100

75

50

25

0

Residual

Fre

q

u

e

n

cy

1 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

50

0

-50

-100

Observation Order

Re

sid

u

al

Histogram Versus Order
Minitab Output – Regression for Stack 2

10
-20 0 20 40

99.9

99

90

50

10

1

0.1

Residual

P

erc

e

n

t

80 100 120

40

20

0

-20

Fitted Value

Re

sid

u

al

Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits

Residual Plots for Stack 2

11

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

80

60

40

20

0

Residual

Fre

q

u

e

n

cy

140130120110100

90807060504030201

10

40

20

0

-20

Observation Order

Re

sid

u

al

Histogram Versus Order
Minitab Output – Regression for Stack 3

12
-30 -15 0 15 30

99.9

99

90

50

10

1

0.1

Residual

P

erc

e

n

t

60 70 80 90 100

30

15

0

-15

-30

Fitted Value

Re

sid

u

al

Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits

Residual Plots for Stack 3

13

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

80

60

40

20

0

Residual

Fre

q

u

e

n

cy

140130120110100

90807060504030201

10

30

15

0

-15

-30

Observation Order

Re

sid

u

al

Histogram Versus Order
Minitab Output – Regression for Stack 4

14
-40 -20 0 20

99.9

99

90

50

10

1

0.1

Residual

P

erc

e

n

t

50 60 70 80 90

20

0

-20

-40

Fitted Value

Re

sid

u

al

Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits

Residual Plots for Stack 4

15

Residual Fitted Value

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20

60

45

30

15

0

Residual

Fre

q

u

e

n

cy

140130120110100

90807060504030201

10

20

0

-20

-40

Observation Order

Re

sid

u

al

Histogram Versus Order
STD of Resid vs Average of NOx Conc

16
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10827]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0358; FRL-9809-8]

Notice of Final Action on Petition From Earthjustice To List Coal 
Mines as a Source Category and To Regulate Air Emissions From Coal 
Mines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action provides notice that on April 30, 2013, the Acting 
EPA Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, signed a letter denying a petition 
to add coal mines to the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111 list of 
stationary source categories. The agency denied the petition because 
the EPA must prioritize its actions in light of limited resources and 
ongoing budget uncertainties, and at this time, cannot commit to 
conducting the process to determine whether coal mines should be added 
to the list of categories under CAA 111(b)(1)(A). The letter explains 
in detail the EPA's reasons for the denial.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Allison Mayer, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4016; fax number: 
(919) 541-3470; email address: mayer.allison@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    This Federal Register notice, the petition for rulemaking and the 
letter denying the petition for rulemaking are available in the docket 
that the EPA established under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0358. 
All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web 
site. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA 
Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744 and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

II. Judicial Review

    Any petitions for review of the letter denying the petition to list 
coal mines as a source category described in this Notice must be filed 
in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by July 8, 
2013.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations.

    Dated: April 30, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting EPA Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-10827 Filed 5-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
----

            COUNCIL DECISION 2006/560/JHA

of 24 July 2006         

amending Decision 2003/170/JHA on the common use of liaison officers posted abroad by the law enforcement agencies of the Member States

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 30(1)(a), (b) and (c), Article 30(2)(c) and Article 34(2)(c) thereof,

Having regard to the initiative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Decision 2003/170/JHA shall be amended as follows:

Article 2

This Decision shall apply to Gibraltar.

Article 3

This Decision shall take effect on the 15th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 24 July 2006.

For the Council

The President

K. RAJAMÄKI            

----

(1)OJ C 188, 2.8.2005, p. 19.

(2)  Opinion of 17 March 2006 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3)OJ L 67, 12.3.2003, p. 27.

(4)OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 2.

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABIODUN M. SODIPO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

RON ROSENBERG, Chief, Administrative 

Appeals Office; UNITED STATES 

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15464

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-04856-JD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

James Donato, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2017**

San Francisco, California

Before: TASHIMA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN,*** District 

Judge.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except 

as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without 

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the Eastern 

District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAR 10 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Abiodun Sodipo applied for an employment-based visa, but did not satisfy the 

statutory requirements of a job offer, see 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A), or a Department 

of Labor certification of a labor shortage, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). The 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services declined Sodipo’s request to 

waive these requirements “in the national interest,” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i); 8 

C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii), and denied his visa application. Sodipo then filed this 

action under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging the denial of the national 

interest waiver. The district court granted summary judgment to the government

defendants, and Sodipo timely appealed.

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that “no court shall have 

jurisdiction to review . . . any . . . decision . . . of the Attorney General . . . the 

authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the 

Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). The decision to deny a national 

interest waiver is one such decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i) (“[T]he 

Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in the national 

interest, waive the requirements . . . .”); Schneider v. Chertoff, 450 F.3d 944, 948 

(9th Cir. 2006) (describing national interest waiver as “purely discretionary”). Thus, 

the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the waiver.
3 

We therefore vacate the judgment below and remand for entry of an order 

dismissing Sodipo’s action for lack of jurisdiction. Each party is to bear its own 

costs.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alfred SMITH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6835.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 27, 2005.

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

Alfred Smith, Appellant pro se.

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Alfred Smith, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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*
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER VACATING ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

GINA SIMON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BELLEVUE SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-0708RSL

ORDER VACATING ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On April 2, 2007, defendant filed

a motion for summary judgment that, taken as a whole, exceeded 50 pages in length but

did not provide a courtesy copy of the documents for chambers. On April 6, 2007, the

Court issued an order to show cause why defendant should not be sanctioned for failing

to comply with two of the Court’s prior orders. The order to show cause (Dkt. #20) is

now vacated in light of the receipt of the courtesy copy. 

DATED this 10th day of April, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00708-RSL Document 22 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 1
No. 59812.

#### E. Leitz, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 236345-K, 235810-K, and 252213-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
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




The undersigned, Rafael Abdurachmanov, the Chief Financial Officer of iGenii, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: April 18, 2012


By:
/s/ Rafael AbdurachmanovName: Rafael AbdurachmanovTitle: Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)