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

In connection with the quarterly report of QC Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas E. Nickerson, Chief Financial 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:



| | (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: November 7, 2008



/s/ Douglas E. NickersonDouglas E. NickersonChief Financial Officer




Page 42
#### Victor Spitzer, Plaintiff, *v.*Londa Realty Corp. et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

October 29, 1958.

*246
      *Pfeiffer S Cremes (Alexander Pfeiffer*and *Boris S. Berkovitch*of counsel), for Albert Etingin and others, defendants.

*Hetkin, Jervis S Hetkin*for Londa Realty Cforp., defendant.

*Netter S Netter (Jesse R. Bacharach*of counsel), for plaintiff.

VnsrcEiTT A. Lupiano, J.

Plaintiff sues to recover brokerage commissions. He sues the seller, the buyer, the substituted broker and the corporation taking title on behalf of the real buyers, including the purported substituted broker. All defendants save the seller move for dismissal pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice.

Conspiracy to breach its own contract cannot be charged against the seller. It appears conclusively by the allegations that the seller was fully informed by the plaintiff of all the facts relating* to the proposed purchasers introduced by the plaintiff to the transaction and who, plaintiff says, were in fact, the buyers. As a result there could be no interference with or inducement to the seller to breach its contract. The complaint involves, in addition, an alleged insistence by the proposed buyers upon a ‘ ‘ kick back ’ ’. While that may have been the motivation, no liability would arise unless the motive was activated by tortious conduct. This the plaintiff attempts to supply by allegation that there was misrepresentation as to the identity of the broker. As already noted, there could not be a misrepresentation *(Goodman*v. *Kirkeby,*282 App. Div. 86). If, however, the seller were involved in the “ kick back ” as a result of the alleged conspiratorial substitution, the situation would be different.

Plaintiff alleges: ‘ ‘ That in purchasing said property from the defendant Londa Realty Corp. [owner], the defendants Albert Etingin, Alter Gochalk and Fifth-Fourth Street Associates, Inc. acted wrongfully and illegally in that the said property was purchased for their joint benefit and behoof and in that said brokerage commission, which the defendant Alter Gochalk contracted to receive, was intended by *these*defendants to enure for their own exclusive *benefit,*to the loss and detriment of the plaintiff.”

The intent is ambiguous as to the denotation of the words *“*these ” and “ benefit”. If plaintiff possesses ultimate facts whose statement would make the complaint good in this respect, he may serve an amended complaint within 20 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

The motion is granted accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6131

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

EVERETT DARNELL ARMSTRONG, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:00-cr-00158-RAJ-1) 

Submitted: June 8, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009 

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Everett Darnell Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Everett Darnell Armstrong appeals the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for a 

sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Armstrong’s contention that the district 

court attributed him with only 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base is 

contradicted by the criminal judgment’s statement that the 

district court adopted the factual findings of the presentence 

investigation report. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. United States v. Armstrong, No. 

2:00-cr-00158-RAJ-1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2008). Further, we deny 

Armstrong’s motions for preparation of transcripts at the 

government’s expense and for appointment of counsel. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.3

LOGO

June 25, 2010

Repsol YPF, S.A.

Paseo de la Castellana
278-280

28046 Madrid

Spain

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Ryder
Scott Company, L.P. consents to the references to our firm included in Repsol YPF, S.A.s annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Annual Report), and to the inclusion of our reports dated March 24, 2010
as exhibits to the Annual Report.



Very truly yours,RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L. P.TBPE Firm Registration No. F-1580/s/ Herman G. Acuña, P.E.Herman G. Acuña, P.E.Texas P.E. License No. 92254Managing Senior Vice PresidentInternationalLOGO


RYDER SCOTT COMPANY PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 12-10194 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 9:11-tp-80025-DTKH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICK CAMPBELL, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Florida

 ________________________

(December 4, 2012)

Before CARNES, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-10194 Date Filed: 12/04/2012 Page: 1 of 2 
Richard L. Rosenbaum, appointed counsel for Patrick Campbell in this

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396

(1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the revocation of Campbell’s supervised

release and his corresponding 10-month sentence are AFFIRMED. 

2

Case: 12-10194 Date Filed: 12/04/2012 Page: 2 of 2
* On February 4, 2005, Alberto R. Gonzales became the United States

Attorney General. In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedures, Mr. Gonzales is substituted for John Ashcroft as the

Respondent in this action. 

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAR 15 2005

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR SABIDO VALDIVIA,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney

General,*

Respondent.

No. 05-9501

(D.C. No. A 79-520-972)

(Petition for Review)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT**

Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

On January 20, 2005, we directed petitioner Oscar Sabido Valdivia to show

cause within fourteen days why his petition for review should not be dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction. On February 7, petitioner moved for an extension of time

to file a response to the show cause order. We granted petitioner’s motion and

petitioner’s response deadline was extended to February 28. Having received no

response, we hold that we lack jurisdiction over petitioner’s petition for review

for the reasons set out in our January 20 order. Accordingly, the petition for

review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Entered for the Court

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT      32.1 **

**Neurogen      Corporation**

**Certification      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18      U.S.C. Section 1350)**

|   | 1. | I                am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Neurogen Corporation                (the                "Company"). |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | To                the best of my knowledge: |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------|

|   | a. | The                Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December                31, 2005                accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities                and                Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements                of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the                "Exchange Act"); and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b. | The                information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:                /s/ William H. Koster |
|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   | ------------------------                 |
|   |                                     |
|   | William                H. Koster         |
|   | President                and             |
|   | Chief                Executive Officer   |
|   | Date:                March 14, 2006      |
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 361

To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate Rules and

Manual.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 26 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules and Administration

OCTOBER 3 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate

Rules and Manual.

1 Resolved, That (a) the Committee on Rules and Ad2 ministration shall prepare a revised edition of the Senate

3 Rules and Manual for the use of the 106th Congress.

4 (b) The manual shall be printed as a Senate docu5 ment.

6 (c) In addition to the usual number of documents,

7 1,400 additional copies of the manual shall be bound of

8 which—
2

SRES 361 ATS

1 (1) 500 paperbound copies shall be for the use

2 of the Senate; and

3 (2) 900 copies shall be bound (500 paperbound;

4 200 nontabbed black skiver; 200 tabbed black skiv5 er) and delivered as may be directed by the Com6 mittee on Rules and Administration.

Æ
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 the Quarterly Report of Cogent, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Kim, Chief Financial 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 my 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.

This
certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dated: August 7, 2009



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ PAUL KIM                                
|Paul Kim                                    
|Chief Financial Officer                     
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
10-013 D-1 

## Appendix D: Protocol 1 Calibration Gas CertificationsD-2D-3D-4D-5D-6D-7D-8D-9D-10
### TEST DATA REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT P-11-0234 Post-Focus Draft Revision 2 4/28/2011 ENGINEER: Arnold \ BCS PV (kg/yr): Revision Notes/Assessment Overview: SUBMITTER: USE: OTHER USES:

MSDS: Yes LABEL : N o Gen Eqpt: safety glasses, protective gloves, protective suit Respirator: N o personal respiratory protective equipment normally required Health Effects: Contact with dust can cause mechanical irritation or drying of the skin // May cause eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation. TLV/PEL : - none established CRSS: (3/14/2011):

VP: 5.0E-6 torr @ MW: Physical State and Misc CRSS Info:

Consumer Use : SAT (concerns): (3/15 / 2011): Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Migration to groundwater: Slow PBT rating: P 2 B 2 T 1

. Health: 1, Low Concern, Eco: 3, Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb), OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3B NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS :

P2 REC: EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW:P-11-0234

MFG: Number of Sites/Location: Basis: Process Description: 

## ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.



## RELEASE TOTAL kg/y r - sites



## OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis:P-11-0234

PROC/USE: Number of Sites/Location:
Basis: Process Description: 

## ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.



## RELEASE TOTAL kg/y r - sites



## OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis:
1 

### Fallon, Gail

From: Colleen Delaney <cdelaney@utah.gov> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:13 PM To: jasorkin@fs.fed.us Cc: Dave Mcneill; mberger@utah.gov; Fallon, Gail Subject: Draft Revisions to Utah's Regional Haze SIP Attachments: ITEM_VIII_SIP_XX.D.6_RegHaze.pdf; ITEM_IX_R307-110- 17and110-28.pdf; ITEM_XIb_ProgressRrt_RegHz.pdf

The Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has prepared a draft revision to the Utah Regional Haze SIP to address the EPA’s December 14, 2012 disapproval of the BART determina tions for NOx and PM for four EGUs in Southern Utah . Utah’s Air Quality Board is scheduled to propose these revisio ns for public comment at the October 1, 2014 Board meeting. DAQ has also prepared a 5-Year Progress Report for Utah ’s RH SIP as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The 5-Year Progress Report does not require formal rulemaking, but will follow the public comment process require d for a SIP revision.

Utah’s RH SIP was developed under the provisions of section 309 and therefore a formal FLM consultatio n period is not required. However, we want to accomplish the same review informally. We will be sending a letter to the Forest Service in the near future requesting your review. In the meantime, here are the drafts electronically.

The comment period for the proposed SIP revisions a nd the 5-year Pr ogress Report will be open from November 1, 2014, through December 1, 2014. A hearing on the propose d revisions to the RH SIP and the 5-Year Progress r eport has been scheduled for Tuesday, December 1, 2014, from 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM at 195 N 1950 W, Salt Lake City, Utah , in the Four Corners Conference Room (4 th Floor). The Air Quality Board is expected to consider the R H SIP for final adoption at their regularly scheduled meeting on January 7, 2015.

Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need a copy of any of the supporting informatio n. We are still compiling the technical support document for this S IP revision and plan to post all of the documents o nline prior to the start of the public comment period.



### Colleen Delaney Utah Division of Air Quality (801) 536-4248 cdelaney@utah.gov
# Publicatieblad C 123A/16 a

| | ISSN 1977-0995 |
| --- | --- |
| Publicatieblad
  van de Europese Unie | C 123A |
| | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Mededelingen en bekendmakingen | 63e jaargang16 april 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0995

Publicatieblad

van de Europese Unie

C 123A

Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal

Mededelingen en bekendmakingen

63e jaargang16 april 2020

---

| Inhoud | Bladzijde |
| --- | --- |
| | Rectificaties |
| 2020/C 123 A/01 | Rectificatie van de aankondiging van algemene vergelijkende onderzoeken — EPSO/AD/375/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Deens (DA) — EPSO/AD/376/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Grieks (EL) — EPSO/AD/377/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Frans (FR) — EPSO/AD/378/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Kroatisch (HR) — EPSO/AD/379/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Pools (PL) ( PB C 72 A van 5.3.2020 ) | 1 |

Inhoud

Bladzijde

Rectificaties

2020/C 123 A/01

Rectificatie van de aankondiging van algemene vergelijkende onderzoeken — EPSO/AD/375/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Deens (DA) — EPSO/AD/376/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Grieks (EL) — EPSO/AD/377/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Frans (FR) — EPSO/AD/378/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Kroatisch (HR) — EPSO/AD/379/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Pools (PL) ( PB C 72 A van 5.3.2020 )

( PB C 72 A van 5.3.2020 )

1

---

| NL | |
| --- | --- |

NL

---

Rectificaties

| 16.4.2020 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | CA 123/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2020

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

CA 123/1

---

Rectificatie van de aankondiging van algemene vergelijkende onderzoeken — EPSO/AD/375/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Deens (DA) — EPSO/AD/376/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Grieks (EL) — EPSO/AD/377/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Frans (FR) — EPSO/AD/378/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Kroatisch (HR) — EPSO/AD/379/20 — Juristen-linguïsten (AD 7) voor het Pools (PL)

(
  Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie C 72 A van 5 maart 2020
  )

(2020/C 123 A/01)

Bladzijde 1:

in plaats van:

“Uiterste datum voor inschrijving: 7 april 2020 om 12 uur (’s middags), Belgische tijd”,

lezen:

lezen:

“Uiterste datum voor inschrijving: 5 mei 2020 om 12 uur (’s middags), Belgische tijd”.

Bladzijde 6:

in plaats van:

in plaats van:

“U kunt zich online inschrijven op de website van EPSO http://jobs.eu-careers.eu, ten laatste op

7 april 2020 om 12 uur (’s middags), Belgische tijd”,

lezen:

lezen:

“U kunt zich online inschrijven op de website van EPSO http://jobs.eu-careers.eu, ten laatste op

5 mei 2020 om 12 uur (’s middags), Belgische tijd”.

---
#### Gavlick Unemployment Compensation Case.

Argued March 12, 1962.

Before Rhodes, P. J., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

*622
      *William A. Steclcel*and *Kenneth B. Lee,*for appellants, submitted a brief.

*Sydney Reuben,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *David Stahl,*Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

April 12, 1962:

Opinion by

Flood, J.,

This is an appeal from the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which held the claimants to be ineligible for unemployment compensation under Section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS §802(a), because of their failure to accept suitable work when offered to them.

The plant in which the claimants were working closed down and the claimants were referred to another employer. Each of them told the prospective employer that she would accept employment there but would return to her former employment in her home community if and when she was recalled. There is no claim that the proposed employment was in any way unsuitable' by reason of distance from their home community or otherwise. The board found that the statements that' they would leave the new employment if the old plant was reopened placed such conditions upon the acceptance of new employment as prevented their being hired. It concluded that this could hot be considered such a good faith acceptance of suitable work as the' act requires. This decision of the board of review is in accord with the laAV as declared by this court: *Trabold Unemployment Compensation Case,*191 Pa. Superior Ct. 485, 159 A. 2d 272 (1960).

Order affirmed.