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 2003




In connection with the Annual Report of PetroKazakhstan Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 40-F/A for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that to the best of my
knowledge:

I.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

II.      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


Date:  October 4, 2005                  /s/ Clayton J. Clift
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:   Clayton J. Clift
                                        Title:  Senior Vice President, Finance &
                                                Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to PetroKazakhstan Inc. and will be retained by PetroKazakhstan Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
[Cite as State v. Yates, 2016-Ohio-7356.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2016-A-0015

 - vs - : 

DARREN M. YATES, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Criminal appeal from the Ashtabula Municipal Court, Case No. 08 CRB 01158. 

Judgment: Appeal dismissed. 

Michael Franklin, Ashtabula City Solicitor, and Lori B. Lamer, Assistant Solicitor, 

Ashtabula Municipal Court, 110 West 44th Street, Ashtabula, OH 44004 (For PlaintiffAppellee). 

Darren M. Yates, pro se, 3703 Lake Avenue, Apt. 612, Ashtabula, OH 44004 

(Defendant-Appellant). 

COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J. 

{¶1} This matter is before this court on appellant’s February 12, 2016 pro se 

notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment of January 29, 2016. 

{¶2} Appellee, the state of Ohio, moved to dismiss the appeal on April 1, 2016. 

{¶3} The case stems from two charges brought against appellant in the trial 

court on June 27, 2008, of soliciting and possession of drugs. 

{¶4} After years of failed attempts in bringing appellant to trial, on January 29, 

2016, the state moved the trial court to dismiss the actions due to the passage of time 
 2

from the filing of complaint and since the state’s witness was no longer employed with 

the Ashtabula County Police Department. On the same date, January 29, 2016, the trial 

court dismissed both charges against appellant. 

{¶5} Appellant appealed on February 12, 2016, and he has since filed multiple 

pro se pleadings with this court which are difficult to follow. 

{¶6} In the motion to dismiss, appellee asserts that appellant appears to be 

disputing everything regarding his case “from appearances to bonds to probable cause.” 

In reviewing appellant’s pleadings, it does appear that appellant has taken issue with 

events that occurred during his underlying case. 

{¶7} “An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified or 

reversed, with or without retrial, when it is * * * [a]n order that affects a substantial right 

in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment.” R.C. 

2505.02(B)(1). The dismissal of charges in a criminal case is not a final appealable 

order. State v. Williams, 2011-Ohio-6412; Lakewood v. Pfeifer (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 

47; State v. McWilliams, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 2774. 

{¶8} Under the circumstances of the present case, we find that the appealed 

judgment does not constitute a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02. 

{¶9} Accordingly, it is ordered that appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted, and 

the appeal is hereby dismissed. 

 

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, P.J., 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., 

concur.
*June 12, 1931.*

#### Woodman State Bank, Appellant, vs. Mink and another, Respondents.

For the appellant: *J. Evans Barnett*of Boscobel and *Richmond, Jackman, Wilkie & Toebaas*of Madison.

For the respondents: *Harry E. Carthew*of Lancaster.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
#### JOHN J. ALSTON’S EX’ORS *vs.*GEORGE W. ALSTON.

In this State, only the execntors, who qualify by taking the necessary oaths, are required to join in an action for a debt or demand due to their testator. The case of *Burrow v Sellars’*Ex’ors, 1 Hay. 501, 502, cited and approved!

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Chatham County, at Spring Term, 1843, his Honor Judge Battle presiding.

This is an action of debt brought by the plaintiffs, as executors of Joseph J. Alston, deceased, against the defendant *448for a debt dne to the testator in his lifetime. It appeared that the plaintiffs’ testator had appointed several executors, w^om plaiutUTs only qualified, the others having renounced or refused or declined to qualify. The defendant on the return of the writ, pleaded in abatement/that all the executors named in the will, and now alive, are not joined as plaintiffs in the writ. To this plea the plaintiffs demurred and the defendant joined in the demurrer. The court overruled the demurrer and gave judgment that the writ should be abated. From this judgment the plaintiffs appealed.

*Manly*for the plaintiffs.

No counsel for the defendant.

Daniel, J.

The English authorities certainly sustain the Judge in his opinion. They are collected in Williams on Executors 627, and shew, that if there are several executors appointed by the will, they must all join in bringing actions even though some are infants, or have not proved the will, or have refused before the ordinary. And if one sue alone, the defendant, after oyer of the probate, may plead in abatement, that the other executor mentioned therein is alive and not named. 1 Saund. 291. (note,1.) If one executor proves the will, the proof enures to the co-executors. 10 Cond. Eng. Ch. Rep. 176. 1 Myl. & Craig, 97. But, so far as we have been enabled to learn, the law and practice of this, gtate invariably have been, for those executors only w.h'o"quamy to sue. The practice may have originated in consequence of the act of 1715, (Rev. Stat. ch. s. 4,) which Enactsthat no person do presume to enter upon the administration of any deceased person’s estate, until they have obtained !a Commission of administration or letters testamentary,-signed by the Governor, under the penalty of fifty pounds.” But as long ago as 1797, this question seems to have been judicially settled in this State, in the case of *449
      *Burrow*v *Sellar’s*Executors, 1 Hay. 501, 502. The fendant then pleaded in abatement, that there were other ex. editors not named in the writ. “Pjfr Curiam. The plea is bad — it should have been stated that those others qualified as executors and took upon themselves the burthen of executing the will.” We therefore are of opinion that the judgment must be reversed, the demurrer sustained, and a res-*pondeas ouster*awarded.

Per Curiam- Judgment accordingly.
# C_2004228EN.01003103.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/31

---

Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union

(Case C-317/04)

(2004/C 228/66)

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 July 2004 by the European Parliament, represented by R. Passos and N. Lorenz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The European Parliament claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2004/496/EC of 17 May 2004 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2004/496/EC of 17 May 2004 (1);

1

| — | order the defendant to pay all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament puts forward five pleas in support of its action.

The first two pleas challenge the legal basis of the contested decision. First, the Parliament submits that recourse to Article 95 EC is not justified, having regard in particular to the Court's recent case-law on the interpretation of that provision; indeed, Article 95 cannot be the basis for Community power to conclude the agreement, since it relates to the processing of data excluded from the scope of Directive 95/46 on the protection of personal data. Secondly, the agreement entails amendment of that directive adopted under the procedure referred to in Article 251 EC, and could therefore be concluded only after the assent of the Parliament had been obtained.

In its third plea, the Parliament takes the view that the agreement infringes fundamental rights, in particular the right to protection of personal data with regard to essential aspects of that right, and that it also constitutes an unjustifiable interference with private life, which is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The fourth plea concerns infringement of the principle of proportionality, in particular on account of the fact that the agreement provides for the transfer of an excessive amount of passenger data and those data are stored by the American authorities for too long.

Finally, the Parliament also pleads the lack of a sufficient statement of reasons for a measure having such specific characteristics, and infringement of the principle of cooperation in good faith provided for in Article 10 EC, having regard to the very unusual circumstances surrounding the adoption of the contested decision, which took place during the procedure before the Court of Justice for request for opinion 1/04 on the aspects which clearly posed questions of a legal nature.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2004/496/EC of 17 May 2004 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (OJ L 183 of 20.5.2004, p. 83)

1

---
# C_2005009EN.01000601.xml

| 13.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/6

---

Corrigendum to Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3657 — AIRBUS/SITA) — Candidate case for simplified procedure

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 321 of 28 December 2004
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 321 of 28 December 2004

(2005/C 9/09)

On page 10, in point 2, a third indent should be added as follows:

| ‘— | for undertaking OnAir: the development and provision of various in-flight passenger communication services including in-seat telephony, SMS messaging, e-mail and instant messaging, access to virtual private networks and to the internet and GSM telephony solutions.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

for undertaking OnAir: the development and provision of various in-flight passenger communication services including in-seat telephony, SMS messaging, e-mail and instant messaging, access to virtual private networks and to the internet and GSM telephony solutions.’

---
# C_2004280EN.01002801.xml

| 17.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/28

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3603 — UPS/MENLO)

(2004/C 280/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 9 November 2004, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking United Parcel Service Inc. (‘UPS’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Menlo Worldwide Forwarding Inc. (‘MWF’, USA) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 9 November 2004, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking United Parcel Service Inc. (‘UPS’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Menlo Worldwide Forwarding Inc. (‘MWF’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for UPS: worldwide package delivery, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for UPS: worldwide package delivery,

| — | for MWF: freight forwarding services. |
| --- | --- |

—

for MWF: freight forwarding services.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3603 — UPS/MENLO, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition, |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3603 — UPS/MENLO, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition,

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Date: April 23, 2015 

Meeting: Center for Methane Emissions Solutions Meeting 

Rule(s) Di~cusscd: 

Written Materials? Yes/No 

Name Organization 

n~rA lN))~ c 

-p \( \) (_ ~VD (( 

~~co-N 

~ c ,.J\ G'"' tv\~ f\ ~ 

Phone Number 

. '2 0 ?_ - 'J '-1 ? - cl f; q 1 

~~ -34-3 .qry3,b
p130044.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0044

Focus Ready Draft 11/19/2012

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ JAS

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE: 

 

OTHER USES:

 

 

 

 

Page 1
p130044.eng

Consumer Use: 

SAT (concerns) (11/06/2012):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox Related Cases:

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P2B3T2 Linear: P1B2T2 // Branched: P2B3T2.

Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb.)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

Page 2
p130044.eng

 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: 

Page 3
p130044.eng

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0044

 

Page 4
p130044.eng

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0044

 

Page 5
p130044.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0044

 

Page 6
p130044.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0044

Page 7
p130044.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 8
p130044.eng

Page 9
Docket No: FAA-2015-3987 Dir iD: 2015-NM-066-AD
# C_2004300EN.01000901.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 21 October 2004

in Case C-288/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

1

(Maritime transport - Freedom to provide services - Maritime cabotage)

(2004/C 300/17)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-288/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 9 August 2002, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Simonsson and M. Patakia) and Hellenic Republic (Agents: E.-M. Mamouna) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by regarding the Peloponnese as an island and applying to Community cruise liners exceeding 650 gt which carry out island cabotage its national rules as host State on manning conditions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 3 and 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by regarding the Peloponnese as an island and applying to Community cruise liners exceeding 650 gt which carry out island cabotage its national rules as host State on manning conditions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 3 and 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage);

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.

1

---
October 2020

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Saline and Sodic Soil Management (Code 610) 

This practice is designed to reduce or redistribute harmful

concentrations of salt and/or sodium in a saline soil. 

Practice Information 

Salinity reduction (leaching) is used in arid and semiarid

areas where rainfall is insufficient to reduce salt

concentration on or near the soil surface. The source of the

salt is generally irrigation water. Plants utilize the water, but

the salt remains in the soil where it accumulates and

causes problems. The soil is considered saline when soluble salt begins to have adverse effects on

plants. The purpose of the practice is to reduce the accumulation of salt in the soil to permit the

desired plants to grow. This practice applies primarily to irrigated land because the leaching process

depends on surface-applied water to dissolve the salt and carry it deeper into the soil profile.

Additional information including design criteria and specifications are in the local NRCS Field Office

Technical Guide. 

Common Associated Practices 

NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Saline and Sodic Soil Management (Code 610) is

commonly applied with other conservation practices such as NRCS CPSs Irrigation Water

Management (Code 449) and Drainage Water Management (Code 554). For further information,

contact your local NRCS field office.
# Events

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Events 

# Filter Events by:

### Wisconsin State Technical Committee Meeting - April 2024

The Natural Resources Conservation Service in Wisconsin will host a hybrid (in-person with Microsoft Teams video conference option) State Technical Committee Meeting on Thursday April 18, 2024 at the USDA-NRCS State Office in Madison, Wisconsin.

WisconsinAirAnimalsClimateEnergyLandPlantsSoilWaterWildlife HabitatCroplandsEasementsForestryInsects and PollinatorsOrganic AgricultureRange & PastureSoil HealthTreesUrban AgricultureWetlandsWildlifeConservation Stewardship ProgramEnvironmental Quality Incentives ProgramRegional Conservation Partnership Program

### 2024 Southern Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference

**Join us for the 2024 Southern Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference!**

Soil

### Women & Soil

Women, Land and Legacy and other partners are hosting "Women & Soil" at the Field of Dreams Movie Site, Field of Dreams Event Center, in Dyersville, Iowa, on June 8th, from 1pm to 5pm. Cost for the event is $15 in-person or $10 to tune in virtually. 

IowaClimateLandSoilCroplandsSoil Health

### 2024 North Central Regional Soil Survey Conference

**Join us for the 2024 North Central Regional Soil Survey Conference!**

Soil

### 2024 Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference

**Join us for the 2024 Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference!**

Soil

### 2024 Northeast Cooperative Soil Survey Conference

**Join us for the 2024 Northeast Cooperative Soil Survey Conference!**

Soil
# L_2015305DE.01005601.xml

| 21.11.2015 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 305/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2015

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 305/56

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) 2015/1760 der Kommission vom 1. Oktober 2015 zur Änderung des Anhangs I der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1334/2008 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates hinsichtlich der Streichung des Aromastoffes p-Mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol aus der Unionsliste

p

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 257 vom 2. Oktober 2015
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 257 vom 2. Oktober 2015

Seite 27, Titel; Erwägungsgründe 4, 5, 6 und 7; Seite 28, Erwägungsgrund 9 (zweimaliges Vorkommen) sowie Artikel 2 Absätze 1 und 2:

Anstatt:

„p-Mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol“

p

muss es heißen:

„p-Mentha-1,8-dien-7-al“.

p

Seite 29, Anhang zur Streichung des Eintrags 05.117 aus Anhang I Teil A der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1334/2008:

Anstatt:

„p-Mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol“

muss es heißen:

„p-Mentha-1,8-dien-7-al“.

---
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report
of Wilhelmina International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John P. Murray, Principal 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, 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.





April
      15, 2009
            
            /s/
      John
      P. MurrayName:
            John
      P. MurrayTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial Officer and
              Principal
      Accounting Officer)
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■ ■

■

■

★

●

● ●

●

★ ● ●

●

●