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



In connection with this annual report on Form
10-K of SRA International, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Stephen C. Hughes, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          |  |                                                                                                                                               
|------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: September 10, 2004 |  | /s/ STEPHEN C. HUGHES                                                                                                                         
|                          |  | Stephen C. Hughes Senior Vice President of
Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# L_2005011EN.01002101.xml

| 14.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 11/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 11/21

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 46/2005

of 13 January 2005

derogating from Regulation (EC) No 1282/2001 as regards the final date for submitting harvest and production declarations for the 2004/05 wine year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (1), and in particular Article 73 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1282/2001 (2) requires wine growers to submit harvest and production declarations no later than 10 December, with a view to knowing the volume of Community wine production in good time. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1282/2001 (2) requires wine growers to submit harvest and production declarations no later than 10 December, with a view to knowing the volume of Community wine production in good time.

| (2) | The central computer system of one Member State suffered a technical problem a few days before that deadline. The producers no longer have access to the system and so cannot submit their declarations by the deadline. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The central computer system of one Member State suffered a technical problem a few days before that deadline. The producers no longer have access to the system and so cannot submit their declarations by the deadline.

| (3) | To resolve the problem, which is not the fault of the producers, and pending the normal relaunch of that central computer system, those producers should be granted an extension for the submission of harvest and production declarations. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

To resolve the problem, which is not the fault of the producers, and pending the normal relaunch of that central computer system, those producers should be granted an extension for the submission of harvest and production declarations.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Notwithstanding Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1282/2001, the declarations referred to in Articles 2 and 4 of that Regulation may be submitted for the 2004/05 wine year up to 15 January 2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 10 December 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 January 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1795/2003 (OJ L 262, 14.10.2003, p. 13).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 176, 29.6.2001, p. 14.

2

---
SCWC

- 18

- 0000691

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

STATE OF HAWAI  I,

Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee/Cross

- Appellant,

vs.

LORRIN Y. ISHIMINE,

Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant/Cross

- Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP

- 18

- 0000691; CASE NO. 2PC161000679

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ.,

and Circuit Judge Nacino, in place of Pollack, J., recused)

Petitioner Lorrin Y. Ishimine’s Application for Writ

of Certiorari, filed on June 9 , 2020, is hereby accepted

.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no oral argument will be

heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant

to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai  i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move

for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, July 22, 2020

.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Edwin C. Nacino Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000691

22-JUL-2020

10:44 AM
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 773
99FGS01 MapHome | Acronyms | Contents | Navigation | Profiles | Logs | Metadata | Software | Metadata | Software | Index Page
Click on the line name below to view the printable profile image.

Location Map | 99FGS01 | 99FGS02
Figure 3. Detailed trackline map of digital subbottom profile data collected during USGS field activity 99FGS01, from Orchid to Jupiter, FL (refer to figure 1 for location). Home | Acronyms | Contents | Navigation | Profiles | Logs | Metadata | Software| Metadata | Software | Index Page
AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/773/html/99fgs01.htmlPage Contact Information: GS Pubs Web ContactPage Last Modified: Thursday, July 18, 2013, 04:53:47 PM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS ON PAGES
F-2 THROUGH F-4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K/A FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 25, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-25-1997
<CASH>                                          12,148
<SECURITIES>                                        89
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     59,503
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,731
<PP&E>                                         218,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (77,289)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 522,641
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,948
<BONDS>                                        295,204
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,882
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   522,641
<SALES>                                      1,020,056
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,020,056
<CGS>                                         (760,329)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (235,032)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (23,619)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (30,182)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29,106)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,535
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (19,571)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (19,571)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 32005M3668 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32005M3668

**Commission Decision of 03/02/2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3668 - DIFA / INVESTKREDIT / JV) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the German text is authentic) **

*

*

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3668 — DIFA/Investkredit/JV)

(2005/C 42/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 3 February 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

- from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

- in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3668. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

--------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
conjunction with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of International Fuel
Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”),
 
 I,
Jonathan R. Burst, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (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 Company.
 
  Dated: 
      May 7, 2009
              
              By.
              /s/
      Jonathan R. BurstName:
              Jonathan
      R. BurstTitle:
              Chief Executive
      Officer
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT SAMUEL LEE MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D21-1075 September 2, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Keith P. Spoto, Judge. Samuel Lee Mitchell, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and C. Todd Chapman, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. MORRIS, C.J., and KHOUZAM and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.2 __________________________ Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Exhibit 32


            CERTIFICATION OF BLAIR R. COUEY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       AND ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned officer of Evans Systems, Inc. ("ESI") hereby certify that (a)
ESI's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ESI.


/s/ Blair R. Couey
--------------------------------------
Blair R. Couey
President and Chief Executive Officer
January 13, 2005



/s/ Blair R. Couey
--------------------------------------
Blair R. Couey
As Acting Chief Financial Officer
January 13, 2005







A signed original of this written statement has been provided to ESI and will be
retained by ESI and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### William James DARDEN, Jr., Petitioner, v. Thomas J. MALONEY and Signa Maloney, Respondents.

No. 39740.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 30, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 234 So.2d 422.

ERVIN, C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3552 

To amend the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020 

to allow qualified tax-exempt organizations to claim the employee retention credit for employers affected by qualified disasters against Medicare 

hospital insurance taxes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. KENNEDY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief 

Act of 2020 to allow qualified tax-exempt organizations 

to claim the employee retention credit for employers affected by qualified disasters against Medicare hospital 

insurance taxes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CREDIT AGAINST MEDICARE HOSPITAL INSUR4 ANCE TAX. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 303(d) 

6 of the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act 

7 of 2020 is amended by striking ‘‘tax imposed by section 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3552 IS

1 3111(a)’’ and inserting ‘‘taxes imposed by subsections (a) 

2 and (b) of section 3111’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subparagraph (A) 

4 of section 303(d)(3) of the Taxpayer Certainty and Dis5 aster Tax Relief Act of 2020 is amended by striking ‘‘tax 

6 imposed by section 3111(a)’’ and inserting ‘‘taxes imposed 

7 by subsections (a) and (b) of section 3111’’. 

8 (c) TRANSFERS TO TRUST FUNDS.—Paragraph (5) 

9 of section 303(d) of the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster 

10 Tax Relief Act of 2020 is amended by inserting ‘‘, the 

11 Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund established under 

12 section 1817 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i),’’ after ‘‘(42 

13 U.S.C. 401)’’. 

14 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply as if included in the enactment 

16 of section 303 of the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax 

17 Relief Act of 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
13 August 2012 Telephone C onversation with Carlos E. Davis, Certainteed, Kansas City, KS
Susan Fairchild, project lead at EPA, contacted Carlos Davis of Certainteed to get clarification of Mr. Davis’ statements in 2011 regarding the chromium content of the K2 furnace refractory versus the information submitted by Certainteed in the 114 information response in 2011

- 12.
Mr Davis reiterated that over 90% of the refractory is chrome bearing, or what EPA may refer to as ‘chromium compounds’, but that only a percentage of the chromium compounds are actually the element chromium. (For instance, Cr2O3 is chromite; the element chromium is 40% of the mineral chromite). Thus, when the statement on the 114 response of the chromium

- content of the refractory was give n by the facility, this should be interpreted as the percentage of the element chromium in the total chromium bearing constituents of the refractory product. This their interpretation of the 114 request questions regarding chromium content of the furnace r efractory.
Regarding the K2 furnace, if each brick of the furnace is examined, over 90% of the refractories would contain chrome. When you look at each piece, however, the chrome content will vary. The varying percentage of chrome in the refractory is bas ed upon it’s purpose. Specifically, at t he metal / glass line

this area has to be very resistive due to the corrosivity and errosivity of the glass melt in the furnace. The metal line is at the top of the ‘cool’ of the glass. The superstructure (entire furnace) will also have chromium containing refractories, but the chromium content above the metal/glass line is generally l ower in chrome content

. Regarding the K2 furnace, that furnace will not re

- start until it is rebuilt. The nature of that reconstruc tion will be identical to the furnace at Chowchilla, which is a different design than the K2 is now. The Chowchilla furnace can meet the limits; in fact it emits chromium at about 1% of the proposed limit for chromium compounds.
Regarding the K1 furnace, that furnace meets the proposed limits now.

If a furnace is built using chromium refractories, it will last longer. T herefore it will cost less when amortize d over the life of the furnace; the longer the furnace lasts, the less the total amortized cost. H igh chromium refractories are needed anywhere that contacts glass to achieve this furnace life. This is a minimum of a 10

- year vs. a 6

- year furnace design.
Regarding the new K2 furnace design, the only way for K2 to meet the proposed limit is to reconstr uct. The new design will still have high chrome refractories in contact with the glass. Look at the emissions of chromium and the Chowchilla furnace : this has an emissions rate at about 1% of the proposed limit.
#### Leo DRISCOL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-369.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 16, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
---

Exhibit 13.1

|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                    
|---------------------------------------------
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350                       
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Rouge Resources Ltd. on
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2011 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to her knowledge:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: June 3, 2011

|ROUGE RESOURCES LTD.                   | 
|-------------------------------------- | 
|                                       | 
|/s/ Linda Smith                        | 
|                                       | 
|Linda Smith,                           | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer. | 

---
NIHSeniorHealth: Transcript "Keep a Copy of Your Treatment Summary and Care Plan"

file:///C|/Users/mames/Downloads/Keep_a_Copy_of_your_Treament_Summary_and_Care_Plan.htm[2/25/2014 8:53:56 AM]

Transcript: "Keep a Copy of Your Treatment Summary and Care Plan"

The new message for individuals who are treated for cancer is that when they finish therapy, it's very important for

them to have two documents.

The first is a treatment summary. This is details about the kind of cancer they had, the tumor type, the stage, etc., as

well as all of the treatments they received and who provided them.

This then can guide the second document, which is a care plan after cancer. The type of treatment you received tells us

what kind of follow-up will be necessary, how often you need to see a provider to look for signs that the disease might

be coming back or to prevent another kind of complication of the disease from occurring going forward.

The care plan also looks at what are the problems that somebody still has after treatment ends--perhaps fatigue or pain

or emotional problems that need to be addressed--and what to look for as a possible complication of cancer and its

treatment into the future.

This document is so helpful to have because many of us see multiple providers for our health and well-being, and

those individuals need to be informed about what your cancer experience was like and how that will affect your health

and behavior and care going forward.
#### In the Matter of Cynthia DRUMMOND, Terry Drummond and Sherry Drummond, Minors.

No. 70-111.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 12, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1971.

Herbert L. Kaplan, and Paul R. Marcus, Miami Beach, for appellant.

*167John Drummond, in pro. per.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon the authority of In re Adoption of Corcuera, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 493; Smith v. Lyst, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 921.

PEARSON, Chief Judge

(dissenting).

This is an appeal by a mother who strenuously resisted the adoption of her three children by her former husband and his new wife. It seems to me that this presents a most serious situation and that therefore the trial judge’s finding that the interest of the children would best be served by the adoption is not an adequate legal basis for removing the parental rights of the mother who is not found to have abandoned her children. On this theory I dissented in In re Adoption of Layton, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 784. I would not hold that a mother can be stripped of her three children in later years after bearing and partially raising them simply because the trial judge holds that an adoption is in the best interest of the children. See Torres v. Van Eepoel, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 735.