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

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Interstate Power and Light Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Erroll B. Davis, Jr.

Erroll B. Davis, Jr.

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Chief Financial Officer

 

March 4, 2005
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES T. DAVIS, No. CIV-S-04-0886 MCE/PAN P 

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, ET AL., 

Defendants.

__________________________/

On August 18, 2005, the court dismissed this action and the

clerk of the court duly entered judgment. Plaintiff seeks relief

from that judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)provides as follows: 

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court

may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative

from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,

or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence

which by due diligence could not have been discovered

in time to move for a new trial under rule 59(b); (3) 

fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an

adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; 

Case 2:04-cv-00886-MCE -PAN Document 34 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged,

or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed

or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the

judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any

other reason justifying relief from the operation of the

judgment.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated through his untimely

Objections to Findings and Recommendations that he is entitled to

relief from the judgment.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s August 29, 2005, request is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: September 28, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:04-cv-00886-MCE -PAN Document 34 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 9,015.

#### MANDEVILLE v. RINGGOLD.

[Cited in Addison v. Duckett Case No. 77. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&18&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2017 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2017-01	&"Arial,Bold"VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 12-8-16
Last updated on Monday, January 28, 2013 http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr/facility_search.cfm

Search About the Data Glossary Error Correction Contact Us 

# Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Pollutant Loading Tool Note: The tool uses discharge monitoring report (DMR) data from ICIS-NPDES and PCS to calculate pollutant di scharge amounts. EPA has verified the accuracy of t he tool’s calculations. EPA has also performed a limited review of the underlying d ata that has focused on facilities with the largest amounts of pollutant discharges. Due to the large amount of DMR data, additional errors exist in ICIS-NPDES and PCS. Please see the User’s Guide (29 pp, 2.6MB) , Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, and Error Correction page for instructions on how to use the tool and how to correct errors in ICIS-NPDES and PCS. You can send an email to waterloadings@epa.gov with any comments or quest ions about the tool. You can sign up for our e-mail news bulletin and be notified when new data, enhancements, or training materials are available. The tool also uses wastewater pollut ant discharge data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). 

# Facility Search (DMR) Instructions. This Facility Search provides direct access to basi c facility information and top pollutant discharges for one facility at a time. Enter or select a valu e for one or more of the criteria below and click the Search button to retri eve information on a facility. The Facility Search tool will find the facility(ies) that match all of the entered criteria. If more than one facility matches, a list of facilities will be provided from which you can choose. For more information about h ow to use this search feature, refer to the User’s Guide for the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Pollutant Loading Tool (PDF) (29 pp, 2.6MB) or Frequently Asked Questions and Answers (FAQ). Select Reporting Year: 2011 Facility Name: NPDES Permit ID: FRS ID: TRI ID: CWNS ID: View Additional Search Criteria 

# Page 1 of 1 DMR Pollutant Loading Tool | US EPA

1/28/2013 http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr/facility_search.cfm
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARIN GREENE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0917 MCE DAD P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. In light of defendant Rourk’s motion for summary judgment, filed on

September 27, 2005, the court will vacate dates for the filing of pretrial statements, pretrial

conference and trial.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The February 10, 2006 deadline for the filing of plaintiff’s pretrial statement

and motion to obtain the attendance of witnesses, is vacated;

2. The February 24, 2006 deadline for the filing of defendant’s pretrial statement,

is vacated;

3. Pretrial conference set for March 3, 2006, and trial set for May 24, 2006 before

the Honorable Morrison C. England, are vacated; and

Case 2:04-cv-00917-MCE -DAD Document 66 Filed 02/16/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

4. New dates will be set, if necessary, following disposition of the pending

motion for summary judgment.

DATED: February 15, 2006.

DAD:4

gree917.vac3

Case 2:04-cv-00917-MCE -DAD Document 66 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40045

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANGELA GONZALEZ-CAPETILLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-02-CR-925-1

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Angela Gonzalez-Capetillo appeals her jury conviction and

sentence for conspiracy to possess more than five kilograms of

cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of more than

five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute. She argues

that her defense counsel had an actual conflict of interest

because he previously represented Amada Quintanilla Moralez, one

of the unindicted coconspirators in this case. Claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel cannot generally be resolved on
No. 03-40045

-2-

direct appeal unless they have first been raised in the district

court. United States v. Gibson, 55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir.

1995). Because the issue whether defense counsel had an actual

conflict of interest was not raised in the district court, the

record is not sufficiently developed and this court cannot fairly

evaluate the merits of the ineffectiveness claim at this time. 

See United States v. Kizzee, 150 F.3d 497, 503 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Gonzalez-Capetillo argues that the Government was required

to, but did not, prove that she knew of the drug type and

quantity involved in the instant offense. She concedes that the

argument is foreclosed by United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319

F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 2241 (2003),

but states that she is raising it to preserve it for possible

Supreme Court review. In Gamez-Gonzalez, this court held that

the Government does not need to prove knowledge of the drug type

or quantity. Id. at 699-700. One panel of this court may not

overrule the decision of a prior panel in the absence of an

en banc reconsideration or a superseding Supreme Court decision. 

United States v. Crouch, 51 F.3d 480, 483 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESMOND LOEB,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0547 DFL GGH P

vs.

A. COLON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On January 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions. This motion is very

similar to the sanctions motion filed by plaintiff July 1, 2005, and denied on August 9, 2005. For

the reasons stated in the August 9, 2005, order plaintiff’s motion for sanctions filed January 24,

2006, is denied.

On January 9, 2006, the court ordered defendants to show cause for their failure to

file a timely pretrial statement. On January 30, 2006, defendants filed a response to the show

cause order. Good cause appearing, the order to show cause is discharged.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 24, 2006, motion for sanctions is denied;

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00547-JAM-GGH Document 32 Filed 02/13/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

2. The January 9, 2006, order to show cause is discharged.

DATED: 2/13/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

loeb547.ord

Case 2:04-cv-00547-JAM-GGH Document 32 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 2
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENITO JULIAN LUNA,

Petitioner, No. 2:04-cv-0627 KJM GGH P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel with a petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A hearing was held before the undersigned

on April 12, 2012, and a CD was provided containing scanned images of prior habeas counsel’s

entire file for an In Camera review. The CD includes privileged correspondence between

petitioner and prior habeas counsel regarding the substance of the habeas claims that is not

relevant to the motion to dismiss that is currently pending. That CD shall be filed under seal in

the court file and neither respondent nor any other party shall be provided access to the CD

unless express permission is provided by the court.

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

1

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 47 Filed 05/25/12 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the CD shall be filed under seal in

the court file and neither respondent nor any other party shall be provided access to the CD

unless express permission is provided by the court.

DATED: May 25, 2012

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:AB

luna0627.seal

2

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 47 Filed 05/25/12 Page 2 of 2
PUBLIC LAW 108–46—JULY 14, 2003 117 STAT. 847

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 825 (S. 708):

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 149 (2003):

Mar. 26, considered and passed House.

June 25, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–46

108th Congress

An Act

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7401

West 100th Place in Bridgeview, Illinois, as the ‘‘Michael J. Healy Post Office

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

7401 West 100th Place in Bridgeview, Illinois, and known as the

Moraine Valley Post Office, shall be known and designated as

the ‘‘Michael J. Healy Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Michael

J. Healy Post Office Building’’.

Approved July 14, 2003.

July 14, 2003

[H.R. 825]
Exhibit 12

INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

(dollars in thousands)

|                                                        |  | Fiscal Year Ended |       
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------- | ------
|
|Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes |  | $                 | 15,313
|Plus: Fixed charges(1)                                  |  |                   | 33,021
|Less: Capitalized interest                              |  |                   | (385  
|                                                        |  |                   |       
|Earnings available to cover fixed charges               |  | $                 | 47,949
|                                                        |  |                   |       
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                      |  |                   | 1.45  
|                                                        |  |                   |       

---

Fiscal Year EndedMarch 2,
2002

March 3,
2001

February 29,
2000

February 28,
1999

February 28,
1998Interest expense, gross

$
22,980

$
18,269

$
16,397

$
16,519

$
17,651Rentals (interest factor)


10,041


8,905


9,047


9,200


9,503Total fixed charges

$
33,021

$
27,174

$
25,444

$
25,719

$
27,154


---

QuickLinks
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2022 ReportingSection VII  

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2022-04	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 12/1/21
**Exhibit32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of Earle M.Jorgensen Company (“EMJ”) for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Maurice S. Nelson, Jr., as Chief Executive Officer of EMJ, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) This Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of EMJ.

 

Date:  June 25, 2004

 

 
| /s/ Maurice S. Nelson, Jr.                                      |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Maurice S. Nelson, Jr.                                          |
| President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief  Operating Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to EMJ and will be retained by EMJ and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE ANDREW REED,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0936 LKK GGH P

vs.

S. HAFERKAMP, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action. On June 29, 2006, plaintiff filed his third request for the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff's previous requests were filed on May 15, 2006, and June 7, 2006. All requests were

denied. In light of those orders, plaintiff’s June 29, 2006, request is denied.

On June 29, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Pursuant to the January 20,

2006, scheduling order, discovery closed on May 5, 2006. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to

compel is denied as untimely.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 29, 2006, motion for appointment of counsel is denied;

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00936-LKK -GGH Document 51 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2. Plaintiff’s June 29, 2006, motion to compel is denied.

DATED: 8/8/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

reed0936.31t

Case 2:04-cv-00936-LKK -GGH Document 51 Filed 08/08/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10686)

#### John H. Faunce Philadelphia, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1352.

(Decided February 19, 1964)

*Sharp £ Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (See. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> *4616. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified hi schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as. returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 67827.

#### Moskatel’s, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/17221 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic butterflies similar in use to butterflies made wholly or in chief value of cellulose acetate, not artificial flowers, etc., or parts thereof, or articles made wholly or in chief value thereof, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS
AND ACCOMPANYING NOTES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1996
<CASH>                                           9,590
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,676
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,925
<INVENTORY>                                    252,275
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               472,044
<PP&E>                                         343,139
<DEPRECIATION>                                 118,743
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 832,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          285,337
<BONDS>                                        203,094
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,184
<OTHER-SE>                                     293,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   832,700
<SALES>                                        626,073
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               626,073
<CGS>                                          577,189
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  577,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   767
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,380
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (649)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (433)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (433)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
No. 49607.

#### Protests 943952-G, etc., of Fung Chong & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In view of stipulation of counsel and the cited authorities the merchandise in question was held classifiable as follows: (1) A mixture of chemical compounds found to be a flavoring mixture containing 16.75 percent salt was excluded from paragraph 5 and held dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1001, par. 1558) following *Quong Yuen Shing v. United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247); (2) bak hop (lily flowers, lily bulbs), waisan (sliced and stick form), hoi pak lien (lotus nuts), yuk chuck, sar sum, and lo hon qua, some of which were found to *258be crude and therefore held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669, and others found to be drugs, advanced, were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34, following *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) and Abstract 44821; (3) merchandise assessed as shelled almonds was held dutiable at 3 cents per pound as apricot kernels under paragraph 762, following Abstract 34104; (4) milled rice was held dutiable at *%*cent per pound on the broken content thereof, as set out in decision herein, under paragraph 727, following *United States*v. *Great Pacific Co.*(T. D. 48192).