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

I, Georgina Martin, hereby 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2010 (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 Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd.                                                         

Dated: March 31, 2011

| | /s/ Georgina Martin
Georgina Martin
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 
Officer)
Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd.
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd. and will be retained by Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### In the Matter of Paul C. Morgan Sr., Appellant, v Robert G. Lyman et al., Respondents.

— Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered August 14, 1991 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, to declare invalid the designating petition naming various respondents as the Conservative Party candidates for certain Albany County offices in the September 12, 1991 primary election.

Petitioner contends that because the September 30, 1990 organizational meeting of the County Committee of the Albany County Conservative Party did not take place at the location designated in the notice sent to all of the County Committee members, the actions of the County Committee *965taken at that meeting, including the election of the members of the Executive Committee, were null and void. Petitioner therefore contends that when the Executive Committee met on July 23, 1991 to designate the five respondent candidates for various Albany County offices, it was acting without authority.

We disagree, the record reveals that at some time after the notices were sent, the site of the organizational meeting became unavailable due to repairs. Not only was this occurrence unanticipated, but reasonable steps were taken to ensure that each County Committee member who planned to attend the September 30, 1990 organizational meeting did in fact do so. Significantly, there is an absence of any claim by petitioner that anyone who wished to attend was unable to do so due to the relocation of the meeting. Consequently, we find that the relocation of the meeting was in all respects proper and the election of the Executive Committee members was valid.

Yesawich Jr., J. P., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
# D.1. IMPROVE Monitoring Site Map and Description (IMPROVE/Protocol Network in year 2002) 1



# State National Parks Referenced in TSD Utah Bryce Canyon (51), Canyonlands (50), Capitol R eef (52), Zion (49) Nevada Great Basin (116), Jarbidge Wilderness Area (68) California-Oregon Border Crater Lake (86), Lava Bed s National Monument (87) Idaho Craters of the Moon (69), Sawtooth (70) Montana Cabinet Mountains (75), Gates of the Mounta ins (74), Sula Peak (71) Wyoming Bridger Wilderness (65), North Absaroka Wil derness (67), Yellowstone (66) 

# IMPROVE Monitoring Program Overview The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Envi ronments (IMPROVE) program is a cooperative measurement effort governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from Federal and regional-state organizations. The IMPROVE monitorin g program was established in 1985 to aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas ( 156 national parks and wilderness areas) as stipulated in the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The objectives of IMPROVE include: (1) establishing current visibility and aerosol con ditions in mandatory class I areas; and

1 

## http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Overview/IM PROVENetworkExp.htm .

IMPROVE Sites (1-110) Protocol Sites (111-163) 2 1 125 126 4 128 129 127
3 130 131 132

133 135

5 137 136 138 8 6

7 22 25 23 24

139 140

14
30 29

27 28 26

21

141 9 10 13

11 12 15
16 17 142

20 18
19 106 105 103 102 111 108
107 31 32 36 37 42 38 33 34 35 41

39 40 120 122 123 44 121 43

45 46 47 48 124 117 49 51 52 50

201 54 55 53 56 57 58 114 116

101 100 99 93 94 118

98 110 109 92 96 97 95 91 104 90 68 88 87 89 86 76 84 85 112 79 78 83 80 82

81

134

77
69 70 202

71

75 72 73 74 64 63 62 61

59 60

119 65 67 66

143 144



### QA Sites (201-202)

159

158 157 156 155 154 153 152

151 150 149 148 147 146

145 160

161

162 163

# (2) identifying chemical species and emission sourc es responsible for existing man-made visibility

impairment. The particulate monitoring portion of the IMPROVE p rogram measures the concentration of the fine (PM 2.5 

# ) particles for mass, optical absorption, major and trace elements, organic and elemental carbon, and nitrate and of PM 10 

# particles for mass. Prior to 2000, IMPROVE sites collect two samples per week, on Wednesday and Saturday. With the implemen tation of the Regional Haze Rule the IMPROVE program changed to a 1-in-3 day schedule. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Overview/Ov erview.htm
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Craig P. Keller, 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.

Craig P. Keller
-----------------------
Craig P. Keller
Chief Financial Officer
March 12, 2004
# C_2013252EN.01002901.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-358/08) (1)

1

(Cohesion Fund - Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Project for the drainage of Saragossa - Partial cancellation of financial assistance - Public procurement - Concept of work - Article 14(10) and (13) of Directive 93/38/EEC - Splitting of contracts - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons - Time-limit for the adoption of a decision - Determination of financial corrections - Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94 - Proportionality - Limitation)

2013/C 252/45

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and subsequently A. Rubio González, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3249 of 25 June 2008 concerning the reduction of the assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund to the Kingdom of Spain in respect of Project No 96/11/61/018 — ‘Saneamiento de Zaragoza’ by Commission Decision C(96) 2095 of 26 July 1996

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

1

---
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 29, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 26, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 158 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-143, CP2024-149.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-28743 Filed 12-28-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### 1080 Warburton Corp., Respondent, v Harton Realty Corp. et al., Appellants.

— In an action for a judgment declaring the plaintiff’s 1959 easement on the defendants’ land valid, to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the easement, and to recover damages for interference with that easement, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered January 24, 1990, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment, *inter alia,*declaring that the plaintiff’s 1959 easement is extinguished.

The plaintiff and the defendants are the respective owners of two neighboring parcels on Warburton Avenue in Yonkers. By an agreement dated November 4, 1959, the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest was granted an easement for ingress and egress to its parcel over the neighboring parcel, then owned by the defendants’ predecessor in interest. This agreement precisely delineated the location of the easement across the defendants’ property. In or about 1965, the defendants’ predecessor in interest constructed a six-story building, together with a 25-foot retaining wall, which wall completely *918and permanently obstructed any possible use thereafter of the easement for ingress and egress. In addition, a portion of the easement was paved over and used as a parking area by the defendants’ predecessor in interest. In 1977, the defendants acquired the servient parcel, improved with the building, the retaining wall and the parking lot. In December 1986 the plaintiff acquired title to the dominant parcel. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff’s president demanded that the defendants remove the "violations” to the easement. The defendants refused, and, in 1989, this action ensued.

Summary judgment should have been granted to the defendants *(see, Spiegel v Ferraro,*73 NY2d 622, 626-627; *see also,*1 Rasch, New York Law and Practice of Real Property § 18:82 [2d ed]). The plaintiff’s claim that the defendants have not demonstrated that their use of the easement was adverse is without merit. The construction and maintenance of the retaining wall and parking area in such a way as to entirely destroy the easement’s usefulness to the plaintiff and its predecessor for more than the prescriptive period clearly satisfied the requirements for extinguishing the easement *(see, Spiegel v Ferraro, supra,*at 627-628; *see also,*1 Rasch, New York Law and Practice of Real Property § 18:82 [2d ed]).

The parties’ other contentions are either without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Hooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
# C_2008272EN.01003703.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/37

---

Action brought on 12 August 2008 — G. & C. v Commission

(Case T-326/08)

(2008/C 272/74)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: G. & C. Srl (Licata, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.

Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c

Commission

---
# C_2008285EN.01002701.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 8 September 2008 — Base NV, Euphony Benelux NV, Mobistar NV, Uninet International NV, T2 Belgium NV and KPN Belgium NV v Ministerraad, other party: Belgacom NV

(Case C-389/08)

(2008/C 285/44)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Base NV, Euphony Benelux NV, Mobistar NV, Uninet International NV, T2 Belgium NV and KPN Belgium NV

Applicants:

Defendant: Ministerraad

Defendant:

Other Party: Belgacom NV

Other Party:

Question referred

Can Article 12 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (1) be interpreted as allowing the competent legislature of a Member State, acting in the capacity of the national regulatory authority, to determine generally and on the basis of the calculation of the net costs of the universal service provider — previously the sole provider — that the provision of universal service may represent an ‘unfair burden’ for those undertakings designated as universal service providers?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.

1

---
#### Cecil Francis MASSEY, Petitioner, v. Robert R. RAINES, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-12770.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 3, 1959.

*734Cecil Francis Massey, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus filed by Cecil Francis Massey to obtain his release from the state penitentiary.

The record before this court shows that petitioner was convicted of the crime of Manslaughter, 1st degree, on the 5th day of September, 1953, in the county of Tulsa, State of Oklahoma. He appealed from the judgment and sentence and said case was affirmed by this court on January 12, 1955. Thereafter, on the 7th day of May, 1959, petitioner filed in this court his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner advances three reasons why he should be released from confinement and a discharge from prison. First, that the conviction for which he is imprisoned was obtained by perjured testimony used by the state during the course of his trial. That the state failed to present two witnesses who were present at the place where the crime was committed, and that the prosecution presented a malicious prosecution activated by a hostile and vindictive motive and did not confine himself to the facts as shown by the evidence, and that the sentence imposed was excessive. Under previous decisions of this court none of these contentions constitute the basis for release by habeas corpus. They are, however, matters that are to be reviewed upon direct appeal.

The records of this court reveal that petitioner appealed his case to this court and as reported in Massey v. State, 279 P.2d 383, a review of that cáse shows that these same matters with the exception of the contention of perjured testimony, were considered by this court upon direct appeal and a decision rendered therein adverse to the petitioner.

 This court has held in the case of *In*re Vassar, Okl.Cr., 338 P.2d 359.

> “The Court of Criminal Appeals will not issue writ of habeas corpus where accused has appealed his judgment of conviction, the judgment is affirmed and question raised in habeas corpus proceedings were in existence and known to petitioner at time of appeal and were matters which properly should have been presented by appeal.”

Also see In re Yarbrough, Okl.Cr., 295 P.2d 826.

The writ of habeas corpus is therefore denied.
##### 



PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE COMPANIES
STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHT GRANT AGREEMENT
 THIS STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHT
   W I T N E S S E T H
 Grant
  Vesting Date
    
    Percent VestedFebruary 7, 2011
    
    100%




---



##### 



Legends
 Delivery of Shares
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Employment . Nothing in the Plan or in this Agreement shall confer upon
the Grantee any right to be continued as an employee of the Company or interfere in any way with
the right of the Company to remove the Grantee as an employee at any time for any cause.
 Binding Effect
 The Plan
  PHILADELPHIA CONSOLIDATED HOLDINGS CORP.By:
    
    James J. Maguire, Jr.ACKNOWLEDGEDChristopher J. MaguireGRANTEE
 - 3 -
#### Rose M. Romano, Respondent, v Joseph Romano, Appellant.

— In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated November 24, 1986, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), dated January 23, 1990, which denied his motion to vacate an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court dated October 13, 1989.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*830In a prior appeal to this court, the appellant sought a determination of certain equitable distribution issues, including the rights of the plaintiff wife in his pension. This court determined that issue in *Romano v Romano*(133 AD2d 680 [republished 139 AD2d 979]), and the issue cannot now be relitigated on this appeal. We note that the appellant’s contention that the order and judgment dated October 13, 1989, was made ex parte is without merit, since the order and judgment was submitted for approval to the appellant’s counsel, as well as to the counsel for the pension plan. Kunzeman, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings

  No committee meetings were held.
```