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

 

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

 

I, Robert J. Zatta,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofRockwood Specialties Group, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended June 30,2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in suchQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc.

 
| Date: August 12,  2005                         |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ ROBERT J. ZATTA                                 |   |
| Robert J. Zatta                                     |
| Senior Vice President  and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
STATE OF DELAWARE
                             CERTIFICATE FOR RENEWAL
                             AND REVIVAL OF CHARTER

         MAXNET, INC., a corporation  organized under the laws of Delaware,  the
charter of which was  forfeited  for failure to obtain a registered  agent,  now
desires to procure a restoration, renewal and revival of its charter, and hereby
certifies as follows:

         1. The name of this corporation is MAXNET, INC.

         2. Its  registered  office in the State of  Delaware is located as 1013
Centre Road, City of Wilmington,  Zip Code 19805,  Count of New Castle, the name
and  address of its  registered  agent is THE COMPANY  CORPORATION,  1013 Center
Road, Wilmington, DE 19805.

         3. The date of filing of the original  Certificate of  Incorporation in
Delaware was October 26, 1982.

         4. The date when  restoration,  renewal,  and revival of the charter of
this company is to commence is the 19th day of February,  1999, same being prior
to the date of the  expiration  of the charter.  This renewal and revival of the
charter of this corporation is to be perpetual.

         5. This  corporation  was duly  organized  and carried on the  business
authorized by its charter until the 20th day of February,  A.D.,  1999, at which
time its  charter  became  inoperative  and  forfeited  for  failure to obtain a
registered  agent and this  certificate  for  renewal  and  revival  is filed by
authority of the duly elected  directors of the  corporation in accordance  with
the laws of the State of Delaware.

         IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,  and in compliance with the provisions of Section
312 of the  General  Corporation  Law of the  State  of  Delaware,  as  amended,
providing for the renewal, extension and restoration of charters, Henry Val, the
last and acting authorized officer hereunto set his/her hand to this certificate
this 14 day of May, 1999.


                              BY:      HENRY VAL
                                       ---------------------------
                                       Authorized Officer

                              Name:    Henry Val
                                       ---------------------------
                                       Print or Type

                              Title:   CEO
                                       ---------------------------
(Reap. Dec. 10156)

#### Roberts, Reilly & Johns et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 900330, etc.

(Decided January 30, 1962)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiffs.

*William B. Orriolc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LawreNCe, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made a part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain plastic injection moulds, imported from Canada during the years 1950,1951, and 1952.

The cases were submitted for decision upon a stipulation of fact in which it was agreed in substance that, on the dates of exportation of said merchandise, there was neither foreign, export, nor United States value for such or similar merchandise and that cost of production is the proper basis of appraisement. It was further agreed by the parties that said cost of production is as indicated in schedule A, attached to and made a part of this decision.

Based upon the agreed statement of facts, the court concludes as a matter of law that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(f)), is the proper basis of appraisement of the instant merchandise and that said value is as indicated on the aforementioned schedule A.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v PAUL E. FORSTER, Seaman Apprentice, U. S. Navy, Appellant

13 USCMA 162, 32 CMR 162

No. 15,629

June 22, 1962

*Captain Frederick D. Clements,*USMC, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Earl Munson,*USNR.

*Lieutenant (jg) Conrad Alexander Buhler,*USNR, argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Captain James W. Grant,*USN.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

We granted accused’s petition for review in this case on issues dealing with the providence of his pleas of guilty to charges of larceny, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121,10 USC § 921, and wrongful possession of an armed forces liberty pass, with intent to deceive, in violation of Code, supra, Article 134, 10 USC § 934. It appears from the record below that the board of review carefully considered accused’s allegation concerning his plea to the offense of larceny in light of the record of trial and the post-trial affidavits filed in the proceedings. We are satisfied that it had a sound basis for its conclusion that accused providently entered a plea of guilty to this charge and that his protestations on appeal are ill-founded. With respect to the pass offense, the board modified the findings of guilty to eliminate the alleged and found intent to deceive. It approved only the lesser disorder of wrongful possession of an armed forces liberty pass.

Before us, the accused urges that he merely found the pass and retained it in his possession because he feared being charged with an offense if he turned it in to his superiors. On the other hand, an additional affidavit has been filed by the Government before this Court *163which indicates that the accused made a pretrial statement in which he declared that his retention of the instrument was motivated by its possible usefulness in the future. See United States v Blue, 3 USCMA 550, 13 CMR 106; United States v Alberico, 7 USCMA 757, 23 CMR 221; United States v Hayes, 8 USCMA 627, 25 CMR 131; and United States v Bridges, 12 USCMA 96, 30 CMR 96.

In order to eliminate any possible doubt concerning the matter, we remand the case to the board of review for consideration of accused’s contention of complete innocence as opposed to the board’s finding of a disorder, in light of all the information which has now been presented.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for reference to, and further consideration by, the board of review.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 4, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50986 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KANDY ALLEN JACKEL, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-60-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Kandy Allen Jackel raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582-84 (5th Cir. 2000), which held that Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not render 21 U.S.C. § 841 unconstitutional on its face. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 56466.

protest 153191-K (Norfolk).

#### New Holland Metals Company Division of New Holland Machine Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The testimonial record satisfactorily established that the involved merchandise consisted of articles of which metal was the component material of chief value and did not consist of ores or concentrates or crude metal. Uncontradicted evidence was introduced to the effect that the articles were imported to be used in remanufacture by melting and that they have been used in remanufacture by melting. An examination of the papers in the *422case disclosed that affidavits have been filed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 869, *supra.*Upon the record presented, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*and is properly entitled to free entry.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v MICHAEL A. FAMIGLIETTI, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

15 USCMA 152, 35 CMR 124

No. 18,095

November 27, 1964

*Colonel Joseph L. Chalk*and *Major George O. Taylor, Jr.,*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused. '

*Colonel Edwin G. Sehuck, Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper,*and *Captain Barrie G. Sullivan, II,*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The record of trial shows that a pretrial statement by the accused, admitted into evidence against him, was obtained without proper preliminary advice as to his rights under Article 31, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 831. United States v Williams, 2 USCMA 430, 9 CMR 60.

The petition for review is granted. The decision of the board of review affirming accused’s conviction by general court-martial of larceny of a man’s suit, in violation of Article 121, Code, supra, 10 USC § 921, is reversed and the findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside. A rehearing may be ordered.
NO. 12-14-00352-CR

NO. 12-14-00353-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DAVID LYNN SELLERS, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEALS FROM THE 173RD 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MMMMMEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to dismiss these appeals. The motion is 

accompanied by a document signed by Appellant in which he authorizes his counsel to file a 

motion to dismiss the appeals. No decision has been delivered in these appeals. Accordingly, 

Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeals are dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.2(a).

Opinion delivered January 21, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JANUARY 21, 2015

NO. 12-14-00352-CR

NO. 12-14-00353-CR

DAVID LYNN SELLERS,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeals from the 173rd District Court 

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. B-20,857; B-20,858)

THESE CAUSES came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to 

dismiss the appeals herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED 

and DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeals be 

dismissed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Hoyle, J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7383

HARRY N. CHARLES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF; FLORENCE COUNTY;

CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden of Kershaw

Correctional Institution,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(2:07-cv-00573-DCN)

Submitted: January 15, 2008 Decided: February 6, 2008

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry N. Charles, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, SOUTH

CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Harry N. Charles seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Charles that failure to timely

file specific objections to this recommendation could waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. 

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Charles has waived appellate review of the

magistrate judge’s conclusion regarding the timeliness of his

habeas corpus petition by failing to lodge that specific objection

to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper

notice of the consequences of the failure to object. 

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
- 3 -

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
June 27, 1955

Reap. Dec. 8459.

#### *Globe Shipping Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

REHEARING MOTION GRANTED

Motion by plaintiff.
C:\Users\tlk2\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\JOXMQJYL\Agenda CCI BART Issues 

Meeting 08-09-06.doc 

Taconite BART – CCI Indurating Furnaces Meeting 

Handouts: 

 Template Report (without tables) 

Tables for Each Facility (HTC, NMC, UT) 

 Info Packet on technologies: RSCR 

 Low Temperature Oxidation (LoTox®) 

 Water Injection Low NOx Burners 

Issues 

New information supports a conclusion that RSCR, Low Temperature Oxidation, and 

Water Injection Low NOx Burners (LNB) are not “available” technologies 

 MPCA will likely push back on availability 

 RSCR below $12,000/ton threshold for HTC Lines 1-3, Utac Line 1 

 RSCR at wood-fired utility boilers, pilot study on taconite plant in Sweden; 

 LoTox status 

 Inability to commit to an emission limit (BART = limit) 

 How to handle reversal with MPCA (verbal heads up, written heads up, notify in 

report) 

Water Injection LNB 

 May be promising, advantageous 

 Next steps, responsibilities 

Public and Political Ramifications 

 Willing or not to reduce 

 Willing or not to study 

 Possible limits on future development 

 Public relations strategy 

Process Improvements with NOx CEMS or other Parametric Monitoring 

 Process improvements have already been made and are site specific 

 Fine tuning is at research stage, similar to above technologies 

Economic Feasibility 

 $ per ton pollutant removed 

 BACT level is $8,000 -12,000 per ton 

 New development ≠ Retrofit 

o New development can choose not to proceed due to implications 

o Implications of retrofit –will this impact viability? 

Economic Feasibility ≠ Affordability 
C:\Users\tlk2\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\JOXMQJYL\Agenda CCI BART Issues 

Meeting 08-09-06.doc 

Affordability 

 $900 per ton is affordable for power industry 

 Industry to consider documentation for plants 

Cost Confidentiality 

 Consider sensitivity to cost information in cost spreadsheets 

 Also consider sensitivity to confidentiality in affordability arguments 

Propose BART – Emission Limits and Compliance Monitoring 

 Existing Emissions vs More Reductions 

 NOx reductions – possibly solid fuel on kilns 

 SO2 reductions – possibly control solid fuel (improve existing scrubber, 

secondary wet scrubber, or WWESP 

 Continuous Compliance Demonstration (process or emissions monitoring)
[Cite as Zernhel v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 2, 2011-Ohio-2755.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

DAN ZERNHEL 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 2 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-12192-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

{¶ 1} On November 29, 2010, plaintiff, Dan Zernhel, filed a complaint against 

defendant, Department of Transportation. Plaintiff asserts due to defendant’s 

negligence his farm flooded. Consequently, plaintiff had to hire a contractor to repair 

damage to highway tiles damaged by defendant. Plaintiff submitted a bill from Sheeks 

Farm Drainage & Excavating dated August 6, 2008. 

{¶ 2} On January 20, 2011, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. In support of 

the motion to dismiss, defendant stated in pertinent part: 

{¶ 3} “On August 6, 2008, the plaintiff, Dan Zernhel, had a contractor fix some 

field tile after his field kept flooding. The work done by the State of Ohio, almost two 

years earlier, on the corner of SR 18 and Weston Road cut off the farm tile and caused 

water problems on the farm. Plaintiff started calling Harry Bare at the Bowling Green 

Office on December 16, 2009, to seek reimbursement of his $200.00 invoice (See 

Exhibit A). 

{¶ 4} “Since the work had been done more than two years before, the contractor 
Case No. 2010-12192-AD - 2 - ENTRY

is no longer liable. On November 29, 2010, Plaintiff Zernhel filed a complaint with the 

Court of Claims of Ohio seeking reimbursement of repair costs from defendant. 

{¶ 5} “Defendant asserts plaintiff has failed to file his complaint in a timely 

manner.” 

{¶ 6} Ohio Revised Code Section 2743.16(A) in pertinent part states: 

{¶ 7} “Subject to division (B) of this section, civil actions against the state . . . 

shall be commenced no later than two years after the date of accrual of the cause of 

action or within any shorter period that is applicable to similar suits between private 

parties.” (Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 8} Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on August 6, 2008. Plaintiff had until 

August 6, 2010, pursuant to R.C. 2743.16(A), to file a complaint. Plaintiff did not file 

until November 29, 2010. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute of 

limitations. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s case is 

DISMISSED. The court shall absorb the court costs of this case. 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Dan Zernhel Chester T. Lyman, Jr. 

22867 Deshler Road, SR 18 Department of Transportation 

Deshler, Ohio 43516 1980 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43223 

DRB/laa 

2/22 

Filed 3/10/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 5/27/11
#### In the Matter of Victor K. Thomas, Appellant, v David J. Swarts, as Clerk for Erie County Closed Criminal Records, Respondent.

[635 NYS2d 556]

—Motion for permission to proceed as poor person denied. Memorandum: There is no merit to the appeal. A CPLR article 78 proceeding is not a proper means for seeking a transcript related to a pending criminal appeal. Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Balio, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
#### John H. Hintermister, *Appellant, v.*William F. Lane, *Respondent*

Motion denied.
No. 56500.

protest 174242-K (New York).

#### Halperin Shipping Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the issue and merchandise herein are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Axel Stokby et al.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358), except that in the liquidation of the entries covered by the instant protests, an allowance was made for gelatinous substance equal to 10 percent of the content of the tins, whereas there should have been a larger percentage allowed for the gelatinous substance. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited the merchandise was held dutiable at *3%*cents per pound under paragraph 703, Tariff Act of 1930, upon the basis of the net weight of the contents of the cans, less such percentage allowance for the gelatinous substance contained in the respective tins, as set forth in the decision.
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

I, Robert J. Zatta, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that Amendment No. 1
to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc.

|Date: June 28, 2005                                                                 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ROBERT J. ZATTARobert J. Zatta
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 23.2**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8(333-34746, 333-38020, 333-84958 and 333-121331) of our report dated March 29, 2005, with respectto the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Grant Prideco, Inc., as of, and for thetwo years ended December 31, 2004, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2005.     /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLPHouston, Texas