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


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    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

I, Chris E. Perkins, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Per-Se Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2005, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission: (i)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information contained in such Quarterly
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


                                             By: /s/ CHRIS E. PERKINS
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Chris E. Perkins
                                                 Executive Vice President and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 6, 2005
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel Cutting-Edge Basic Research Awards (CEBRA).                    

*Date:*                         November 20, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sheila Pirooznia, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Review, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, MSC 6021, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9350,                         *sheila.pirooznia@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 25, 2023.

David W. Freeman, 

Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-23942 Filed 10-30-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 11, 2019

No. 04

- 17

- 00430

- CR

San Juan GARCIA

, Appellant

- s

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

- s

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR3674

Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins , Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

The Court has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration En Banc and the

motion is DENIED.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 11th day of January, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 2, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134473 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Marilyn Kelly 

Plaintiff-Appellant, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, v SC: 134473 Justices COA: 245099 

Van Buren CC: 00-011976-FC 

JUNIOR FRED BLACKSTON, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 24, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action. MCR 

7.302(G)(l). At oral argument, the parties shall address: (1) considering that the grounds 

for evidentiary error that defendant asserted at trial, citing MRE 613, differ from the 

grounds he now advances upon appellate review, whether the Court of Appeals applied 

the correct standard of review when addressing admissibility under MRE 806 and MRE 

403; (2) whether the trial court could properly exclude two witnesses’ inconsistent 

statements, which were made after they had testified in the defendant’s first trial but 

before the defendant’s second trial; (3) whether exclusion of this evidence, if error and if 

the claim of error was properly preserved, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and 

(4) whether exclusion, if error but the claim of error was not preserved through a 

sufficient objection at trial, is plain error requiring reversal. The parties may file 

supplemental briefs within 28 days of the date of this order, but they should not submit 

mere restatements of their application papers. 

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense 

Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups 

interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court 

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would deny leave to appeal. 

p1030 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 2, 2007 

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,632,315
<SECURITIES>                                 9,737,929
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,480,626
<ALLOWANCES>                                   324,699
<INVENTORY>                                  6,817,980
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,874,133
<PP&E>                                       3,910,262
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,627,406
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,965,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,138,852
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    79,101,745
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,979,255
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,965,014
<SALES>                                     12,320,574
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,320,574
<CGS>                                        6,935,796
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,329,124
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (726,346)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,218,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (12,218,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,218,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 58829.

protest 236347-K (New York).

#### Air Express International Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It appearing from the papers that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely. (Section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.)
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00537-CV

Ninfa Castaneda and Eloy Castaneda

v.

Wilma Garza Chapa, Independent Executor of the Estate of Ninfa Rivas McKinzie, and 

as Trustee of the Samuel Garza Trust

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 2 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018PR-00266-2A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 16, 2024
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 12


                              PAGING NETWORK, INC.

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Three Months Ended
                                                           March 31,
                                                   ------------------------
                                                       1997          1996
                                                   ----------    ----------
<S>                                                <C>           <C>        
Earnings:
  Net loss .....................................   $  (39,914)   $  (12,106)
  Fixed charges ................................       43,213        34,463
                                                   ----------    ----------
      Earnings .................................   $    3,299    $   22,357
                                                   ==========    ==========


Fixed charges:
  Interest expense .............................   $   35,108    $   28,452
  Amortization of deferred financing costs .....        2,471         1,283
  Interest portion of rental expense ...........        5,634         4,728
                                                   ----------    ----------
      Fixed charges ............................   $   43,213    $   34,463
                                                   ==========    ==========


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges .............         --            --
                                                   ==========    ==========

Deficiency of earnings available to cover
  fixed charges ................................   $  (39,914)   $  (12,106)
                                                   ==========    ==========
</TABLE>
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 189 ) ll-E-14 9 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:09 AM

Sheet 189 of 264P. 2 04/16/9 8 07:5 2 FA X 614286797 5 CAMBRIDG E JACKS N 14100 2

CONTAC T REPOR

T From : Kevin J . ODay , Cambridge Industries , Inc . Date : April 16,199 8 To : Melanie Proctor , Pacific Environmenta l Services , Inc . 

## OC

T 

## 2 2 m EP A AI R DOCKE T Contac t Summary : Mr . ODa y confirme d tha t Cambridge Industries , Inc . (Jackson , Ohi o Plant) use s closed/covere d mixin

g vessel s fo

r mixin g o f A - an d B-side pastes . H e explained tha t during th e mixin

g process , no visible gap s ar e eviden t in th e sealin

g are abetwee n th e mi

x tank an d th e lid . On

e thre e (3" ) inc

h diamete r ven t i n th e lid of

th e mixe r exhaust s into th e roo mwhen ingredient s are added whic h displac e ai

r an d vapor s abov e th e materia

l level . A tw o inc h (2" ) diamete

r vacuu mlin e als o exist s i

n th e mixe r li d fo r th e purpos e o f drawing avacuu

mo n th e mixe

r i n orde r t o remove entrained ai

r fromth e paste ; however , thi s featur e i s no t bein g used a

t thi s time , an

d there ar e n o plan s t o d o s o i

n th e future . Wit h regar d t o th e facility' s shee

t moldin g compoun

d (SMC ) manufacturing operation , Mr . ODay indicate d tha

t Cambridge-Jackson use s aco-extrude d nylo n film, an d hea t seal s and/or fold s th e edge s o f

th e SMC . H e added tha

t th e facilit y doe s no t us e close d o r covere d docto r

boxes .
INFORMATION I S ACCURAT E 

# 4©S k <j-P. 3

/•« / AU / O O Ul.il l r/\ A UitAOU l »/ u I/AHLDKIUIJE I OAV/Aai N IglUU l 

## A 9 4 5 7 

## IhE- , ^ 

# CAmBHIDG E Where SolutionsTake

Shape JACKSON , OHI O FA X TRANSMISSIO N 

### DATE : 4J>16°9 & 

### TO : ^A £L> ^

& ^r^oc-Tb ^ 

# 5*r. s

FRO M 

## ¥- 74 o 2fe£>-H^2>4 . MESSAG E MELAvAte i - 

### ^Sg^uS^ r <pug. g^p^GA.troo . C1AIA ~ IO/^O Y gg3KA,, 

### ^'SUT* S »« • CoSltoO^ . V<^gu< J 

### NUMBE R O F PAGE S NO T COUNTIN G COVE R PAG E Fo r transmissio n problem s pleas e contac tSu e a t74 0 -286-792 4 Fo r return fa

x 74 0 286-797 5 Mailin g Address c 104 0 Eas t Mai n Street Jackson , Ohi o 4564 0 ^
## EPA Reg. No. 68338-20004
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 103 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 434
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 103

                          [Report No. 106-755]

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 
 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the People's Republic 
                               of China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2000

Mr. Rohrabacher (for himself, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Burton of 
Indiana) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

                             July 18, 2000

 Reported adversely from the Committee on Ways and Means, committed to 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered 
                             to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 
 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the People's Republic 
                               of China.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress does not approve 
the extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade 
Act of 1974 recommended by the President to Congress on June 2, 2000, 
with respect to the People's Republic of China.

                                                 Union Calendar No. 434

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 103

                          [Report No. 106-755]

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 
 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the People's Republic 
                               of China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 18, 2000

 Reported adversely from the Committee on Ways and Means, committed to 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered 
                             to be printed.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 96-20361

_______________

MARATHON OIL COMPANY, MARATHON INTERNATIONAL OIL COMPANY,

and MARATHON PETROLEUM NORGE A/S, Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees,
VERSUS A.G. RUHRGAS, Defendant-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant.

_________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

_________________________ June 25, 1999
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before KING, Chief Judge, POLITZ , JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

This court, sitti ng en banc, reversed and remanded the judgment of the district court. S ee Maratho n Oil Co. v. A.G. Ruhrgas , 145 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of this court. See Ruhrgas AG2

v. Marathon Oil Co. , 119 S. Ct. 1563 (1999). This matter is REMANDED to the panel that originally decided it. S ee Marathon Oil Co. v. Ruhrgas, A.G. , 115 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 1997). The motion to recall mandate is DENIED as unnecessary.
The motion to expedite appeal is CARRIED WITH THE CASE, for consideration by the panel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,949
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   89,048
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,191
<INVENTORY>                                     57,112
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,705
<PP&E>                                          47,838
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,886
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 465,837
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,948
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           192
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,251
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   465,837
<SALES>                                        288,048
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               288,048
<CGS>                                          184,542
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  255,053
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,882
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   389
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,309
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,574
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,735
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,735
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42


</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

April 10, 1962

No. 66687.

#### Sears, Roebuck and Co. *v.*United States,

protest 61/4512-11767 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

December 18, 1962

No. 67278.

protest 62/14995 (New York).

#### Rifkin Textiles Corp. *v.*United States,

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This protest relates to a certain commodity that is described on the invoices as “Braided Wool Piece Goods” and which was assessed with duty at 37% cents per pound, plus 60 per centum ad valorem, under paragraph 1109(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 55285, as woven fabrics weighing more than 4 ounces per square yard, wholly or in chief value of wool, and valued at not over $2 per pound. Plaintiff claims that the merchandise is properly dutiable at only 42% per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 1529(a), as modified by T.D. 54108, for articles including fabrics, in part of braid made by hand or on a braiding machine, and not suitable for making or ornamenting bonnets, hats, or hoods, “(except materials and articles provided for in paragraph 915, 920, 1006, 1111, 1504, 1505, 1513, 1518, 1523, or 1530(e), or in Title II (free list), or in subparagraph (b) * * *), by whatever name known, and to whatever use applied, and whether or not named, described, or provided for elsewhere in this Act, when composed wholly or in chief value of filaments, * * (Tariff Act of 1930.)

When the case was called for trial, counsel for the respective parties stipulated that the merchandise in question (plaintiff’s exhibits l-A(l) through 1-A(9)) “consists of woven fabrics in the piece, in chief value of wool, having securely sewn along one edge thereof a strip of braid approximately *%*of an inch in total width, folded over to enclose the edge of the said woven fabric, as appears in Plaintiff’s Exhibits l-A(l) through 1-A(9) ; that said braid was manufactured on a braiding machine and is not suitable for making or ornamenting bonnets, hats or hoods; that the merchandise as imported is not in part of lace, is not ornamented, and is composed wholly or in chief value of filaments, and is in part of braid.”

The agreed facts establish for the present merchandise classification under paragraph 1529(a), as modified, *supra,*carrying a dutiable assessment at the rate of 42% per centum ad valorem, as claimed, and we so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Wright area coal lease applications:final environmental impact statement [electronic resource].**
 
v1|v2|FEIS errata|related: draft EIS|
 
SuDoc Number:I 53.59:W 93/V.1-2

Item Number:0629-E-09 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000714696

 
July 13, 2018