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 Star Gas Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) and
Star Gas Finance Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard F. Ambury, Chief Financial Officer of the
Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (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 Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                          |  |                               
|-------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | ------------------------------
|               |  | STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P. 
|               |  | STAR GAS FINANCE COMPANY
|               |  |                         
|               |  | By:                      |  | KESTREL HEAT (General Partner)
|               |  |                         
|August 8, 2007 |  | By:                      |  | /s/ RICHARD F. AMBURY         
|               |  |                          |  | Richard F. Ambury             
|               |  |                          |  | Chief Financial Officer       
|               |  |                          |  | Star Gas Partners, L.P.       
|               |  |                          |  | Star Gas Finance Company
Exhibit 99


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


         In connection with the annual report of BancAffiliated, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10- KSB for the year ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Garry J.
Graham, President and Chief Executive and 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.



Date:  September 27, 2002                      /s/ Garry J. Graham
      --------------------------             -----------------------------------
                                             Garry J. Graham
                                             President, Chief Executive and
                                             Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Richard Bryant, Respondent, v Nancy Gala, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 534]

In a proceeding pursuant to *651Family Court Act article 6, the appeal, as limited by the appellant’s brief, is from so much of an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Schechter, J.), dated July 8, 1993, as, after a hearing (Cognetta, J.), awarded custody of the parties’ two minor children to the father.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The record overwhelmingly supports the Family Court’s determination, which is based upon the court’s assessment of the totality of the circumstances and all of the relevant factors, including the prior custodial arrangement, that the best interests of the children are served by awarding custody to the father *(see, Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167; *Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89; *Matter of Nehra v Uhlar,*43 NY2d 242; *Matter of Irene O.,*38 NY2d 776, 777). Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50696

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-00-CR-617-1

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

December 12, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Rodriguez-Martinez appeals the 70-month term of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of

being found in the United States after removal in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rodriguez-Martinez complains that his sentence

was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based

on his prior removal following an aggravated felony conviction. 

Rodriguez-Martinez argues that the sentencing provision violates

the Due Process Clause because it permitted the sentencing judge

to find, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a fact
No. 01-50696 

-2-

which increased the statutory maximum sentence to which he

otherwise would have been exposed. Rodriguez-Martinez thus

contends that his sentence is invalid and argues that it should

not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed

in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Rodriguez-Martinez acknowledges that his

argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but

seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of

the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). RodriguezMartinez’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

 AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### In the Matter of James Sadler, Petitioner, v William J. Bratton, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[631 NYS2d 664]

Determination of the respondent Police Commissioner dated March 30, 1994, dismissing *518petitioner from his position as a police officer, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Edward Greenfield, JJ, entered September 23, 1994), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination that petitioner, while on sick report and away from home without leave, failed to take proper action in not preventing a sexual assault was necessarily based on a determination that the complainant’s testimony, which had previously helped convict the assailant of rape and clearly constitutes substantial evidence for purposes of the instant proceeding, was more credible than petitioner’s. This Court may not find otherwise *(Matter of Pesante v Abate,*211 AD2d 504). Dismissal is an entirely appropriate penalty for a police officer who allows a friend to commit what the officer knew to be a rape. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 94781-94782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27927]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

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: November 29, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 769 to Competitive Product List. Documents

[[Page 94782]]

are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-463, K2025-460.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27927 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  9
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         6560667
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         2686516
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   73905839
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        15371782
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          15702810
<LOANS>                                      442050968
<ALLOWANCE>                                    3931150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               553063427
<DEPOSITS>                                   451573186
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           16108207
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       7737041
<OTHER-SE>                                    77644993
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               533063427
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                9191085
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1418037
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              10609122
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             5702980
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5754285
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          4854837
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   320000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              187124
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                1953592
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3244167
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     3244167
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2143076
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.06
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                    117347
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               3611150
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              3931150
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           1039750
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        2891400
        

</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases

# NRC To Hold Public Meeting To Discuss Its Authorization of Uranium Enrichment Activities at Paducah, Kentucky, Plant

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, February 04, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# TRAC-PF1/MOD1 Post-Test Calculations of the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] LOFT Experiment LP-SB-2 (NUREG/IA-0019)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0019 (PDF 4.55 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** December 1990

**Prepared by:** F. Pelayo

United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Winfrith, Dorchester Dorset, England

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment and Application Program (ICAP)

**Published by:** Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Availability Notice

## Abstract

An analysis of the OECD-LOFT-LP-SB-2 experiment making use of TRAC-PFl/MOD1 is described in the report.

LP-SB2 experiment studies the effect of a delayed pump trip in a small break LOCA scenario with a 3 inches equivalent diameter break in the hot leg of a commercial PWR operating at full power.

The experiment was performed on 14 July 1983 in the LOFT facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This analysis presents an evaluation of the code capability in reproducing the complex phenomena which determined the LP-SB-2 transient evolution. The analysis comprises the results obtained from two different runs. The first run is described in detail analysing the main variables over two time spans: short and longer term. Several conclusions are drawn and then a second run testing some of these conclusions is shown.

All of the calculations were performed at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Establishment at Winfrith under the auspices of an agreement between the UKAEA (United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority) and the Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear Espafol (CSN).

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
No. 90-6015.

#### Vinson *v.*Chapa et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
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 Galaxy Energy Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending November 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carmen Lotito, 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.


/s/ CARMEN J. LOTITO
------------------------------------
Carmen J. Lotito
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STAR GAS
PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE INTERIM PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 997
THROUGH JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001002590
<NAME> STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,551
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,435
<ALLOWANCES>                                       394
<INVENTORY>                                      7,777
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,408
<PP&E>                                         133,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,958
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 173,265
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,166
<BONDS>                                         96,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,739<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                         281<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   173,265
<SALES>                                         92,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                95,971
<CGS>                                           43,726
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,710
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   240
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,981
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,854
<INCOME-TAX>                                        19
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,835
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,835
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.79
<FN>
<F1>COMMON STOCK - REPRESENTS LIMITED PARTNER INTERESTS WHICH CONSISTS OF COMMON
AND SUBORDINATED UNITS.  THESE UNITS ARE CONSIDERED TO POSSESS THE 
CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMON STOCK AND ARE BOTH INCLUDED IN THE DETERMINATION OF 
EPS.
<F2>OTHER SE - REPRESENTS THE GENERAL PARTNER'S INTEREST IN THE PARTNERSHIP AND 
IS CLASSIFIED HERE SINCE IT DOES NOT POSSESS THE RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS OF 
EITHER COMMON OR PREFERRED STOCK.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135104 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135104 

 COA: 271064 
 Wayne CC: 06-002549-01

ANTJUAN TERREL OWENS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 11, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1217 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 8, 2008 

 Clerk
#### National Enterprises Corp., Respondent, v David C. Reback et al., Appellants.

[631 NYS2d 161]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Charles A. Ramos, J.), entered February 25, 1994, after a jury trial, and upon the trial court’s grant of plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict by increasing the damages awarded from $2,000,000 to $4,844,458.25 plus interest and costs, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial, without costs. Appeal from the order of said court and Justice, dated January 24, 1994, dismissed as subsumed within the appeal from the final judgment.

In this action premised upon allegations of fraud against the individual defendant, an attorney, and his law firm arising from an opinion letter given on behalf of the borrower in connection with the closing of a $4.4 million mortgage to Five Oceans Realty Corp. which was formed and controlled by one Abraham Sobel, also known as Abraham Srulowitz, we reverse and direct a new trial.

While the defendant may have been less than candid, the trial court’s jury instructions had the effect of a directed verdict:

> "The Court is also in possession of information, as a matter of law, that reveals that David Reback, who is an attorney at law, engaged in professional misconduct.

> "Mr. Reback represented Mr. Srulowitz in the mortgage transaction, pursuant to which the Plaintiff advanced a substantial loan of money. The client, Mr. Srulowitz, guaranteed the payment — repayment of the loan.

> *485"During the course of the Defendant’s direct examination, he admitted that prior to the transaction in question he knew that the borrower, his client, Mr. Srulowitz, was negotiating and closing the transaction in the name of an alias, Abraham Sobel; and that the Defendant never informed the Plaintiff of his true identity either orally at the closing or in the opinion letter.”

To charge, "as a matter of law”, that defendant had engaged in professional misconduct prejudges the issue. Moreover, at common law, the use of an assumed name, especially one that is a more anglicized version of the real name is not in and of itself fraud *(see,*Civil Rights Law § 65 [4]; *cf., People v Briggins,*50 NY2d 302; *People v Johnson,*96 AD2d 1083). Moreover, it seems that the so-called assumed name was known both to the plaintiff and in the Bronx real estate market.

To then conclude that the "alias” was for a fraudulent purpose and to attribute that fraudulent purpose from client to counsel and to charge the jury that it is "professional misconduct” is clearly compounded error *(cf., J. R. Loftus, Inc. v White,*85 NY2d 874, 876 [new trial required when principles involved not properly set forth for the jury]). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
No. 86-900.

#### LaBranche *v.*United States Olympic Committee.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.