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


      The undersigned hereby 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
undersigned's best knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership I-E ("Issuer") for the period ending
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (b)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 29th day of March, 2006.

                                   GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                   PARTNERSHIP I-E
                                   ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)
No. 85-6804.

#### Love *v.*Young, Superintendent, Waupun Correctional Institution.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
August 8, 2016

Mr. David Fields

Accurate Aerial Applications

4111 W. 122nd Street

Perkins, OK 74059

Re: FAA–2016–1024

Dear Mr. Fields:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst
<PAGE>   1

Exhibit 24



                              POWER OF ATTORNEY


        We, the undersigned directors of Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") hereby appoint E. Thomas Arington and Timothy J. Holt or either of
them, with full power of substitution, our true and lawful attorneys and
agents, to do any and all acts and things in our names and on our behalf as
directors of the Company which is said attorneys and agents, or either of them,
may deem necessary or advisable to enable the Company to comply with the
securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any rules, regulations or
requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in connection with the
filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1996 including, without limitation, signing for us, or any of us,
in our names as directors of the Company, such Form 10-K and any and all
amendments thereto, and we hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorney and
agents, or either of them, shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the rules and regulations thereunder, this Power of Attorney has
been signed below by the following persons in the capacities indicated as of
the 27th day of March, 1997.



/s/ E. Thomas Arington                 Chairman of the Board
------------------------------
E. Thomas Arington


/s/ George W. Baughman                 Director
------------------------------
George W. Baughman


/s/ Derek G. Layton                    Director
------------------------------
Derek G. Layton


/s/ Stanley L. Morgan                  Director
------------------------------
Stanley L. Morgan


/s/ S. Sundararaman                    Director
------------------------------
S. Sundararaman
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7989

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY WAYNE EDDINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (0:07-cr-01149-CMC-1; 0:11-cv-02859-CMC)

Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: May 2, 2013

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Wayne Eddington, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Claude 

Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Wayne Eddington seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Eddington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

although we grant Eddington’s motion to amend his informal 

brief, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, 

deny his motion for permission to file a successive § 2255 

motion, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 
3

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED
P.1 

OAR Box 1865 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

142) VI-B-7 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 12/3/2008 3:22:20 PM Sheet 142 of 198 
P.2 

^xtGY ARID EftMROIXIMENlAL AlMAIY8I8> EXfC. 

1B55 NORTH PORT MYER DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209 703/528-1900 

A-83-27 

VI-B-7 

— %V 

December 30, 1988 

Mr. Al wane 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 

Dear Al: 

Pursuant to our phone conversation yesterday with Fred, John Holmes drafted 

the attached discussion. 

i 

; Regards, 

WfckJ. 6.W^ W 

Michael 0. Lerner 

President 

MOL/ki* 

i 

Attachment 

MANAGEMENT / ECONOMICS / ENGINE ERINO 
P.3 

EEA 12/29/88 

QUESTION,: Vill 0.3% sulfur residual fuel oil for a Hawaiian boiler market: 

require the use of a heated barge? 

Whether or not 0.3% fuel oil needs heating depends on the way in which the 

0.3% specification is achieved. Several options exist; 

! 

(1) Straight run vacuum resid from certain Indonesian crudes are below 

J0.3% S. They are waxy and would require heating. (This appears to be 

what HECO has in mind.) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Vacuum resid from Alaskan and Californlan crudes (@1.5 Co 2.0% S) could 

jbe cracked and hydrotreated to produce a fuel oil below 0.3% which 

requires no heating. 

i 

[Resid could be hydrotreated with minimal cracking to produce a low 

sulfur product which still would need to be heated. 

i 

;0ne could "top" (remove light components) from a low sulfur crude such 

|that the remaining mixture of gas oil and residual oil did not require 

heating. 

(5) barge heating could also be avoided for any of these approaches if the 

product were produced and heated at the local refinery and barged hot 

for a short distance. For example, fuel oil used to fuel vessels in 

i 

ithe San Francisco Bay area is heated before the barge is loaded and the 

oil is transferred to the vessel before it cools. On the other hand, 

i 

residual oil barges moving up and down the West Coast all have steam 

boilers and use steam coils to maintain temperature of the fuel oil in 

transit. 
P.4 

* ,' 

We know of no Coast Guard regulation which precludes barge oil heating per se, 

but it!may be that certain existing barges are not adequately equipped for 

heating. 

Lastly i we find it curious that HECO claims that they now use 2.0% S "resid" 

which requires no heating. Any true vacuum residual fuel oil requires 

heating. We suspect one of two things is occurring. Either the 2.0%S oil is 

being loaded onto the barge hot and is transported a very short distance (from 

Oahu to the out islands) or the independent refinery on Oahu is simply 

"topping" crude oil (Alaskan perhaps) leaving enough gas oil in it to make its 

pour point and viscosity low enough to avoid heating.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9295-9296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3695]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7799]

Determination With Respect to Foreign Governments' Efforts 
Regarding Trafficking in Persons--Burma

    Pursuant to section 110 of Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 
2000 (Division A, Pub. L. 106-386), as amended (the ``Act''), and the 
Presidential memorandum of delegation signed on February 3, 2012, I 
hereby determine, consistent with sections 110(d)(4) and 110(f) of the 
Act, that provision to the Government of Burma of all programs, 
projects, or activities of assistance described in sections 
110(d)(1)(B) of the Act would promote the purposes of the Act or is 
otherwise in the national interest of the United States.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register, and 
copies shall

[[Page 9296]]

be transmitted to the appropriate committees in Congress.

    Dated: February 6, 2012.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-3695 Filed 2-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-02-P
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6006** 

KEVIN P. RIVERA , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; TRACY RAY, Offender Management Services; JAMES PARKS, Offender Management Services; KAREN BROWN, Chairman of the VA Parole Board , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:15

- c v - 00143

- RAJ

- DEM )

Submitted : June 23 , 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ , KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kevin P. Rivera, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kevin P. Rivera seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismi ssing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substa ntial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s a ssessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rivera has not made the requisite showing with respect to the first claim for relief in his § 2254 petition
. Furthermore, because Rivera’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition of the remaining claims presented in his petition, Rive ra has forfeited appellate review of that portion3 of the court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because t he facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 21

                  Subsidiaries of BestNet Communications Corp.

                           Subsidiaries of Registrant

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        State of Incorporation      Percent of Ownership by
           Subsidiary                      of Jurisdiction        BestNet Communications Corp
           ----------                      ---------------        ---------------------------
<S>                                       <C>                       <C>
International Environment Corporation          Delaware                   100% Services

Interpretel (Canada) Inc.                 Province of Ontario                 100%

Interpretel, Inc.                               Arizona                       100%

Telplex International                           Arizona             100% Communications, Inc

BestNet Travel Inc.                             Arizona                       100%
</TABLE>
Derrick JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3746

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4619-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

California; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of California (FEMA-4619-DR), dated September 12, 2021, 
and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued December 14, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of California is hereby amended to include the following 
area among the area determined to have been adversely affected by the 
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of 
September 12, 2021.

    Lake County for debris removal and emergency protective measures 
(Categories A and B) under the Public Assistance program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-02265 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAY-21-2000
<PERIOD-START>                     AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                 14,544
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                         644,646
<ALLOWANCES>                          (20,000)
<INVENTORY>                           242,665
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      901,855
<PP&E>                                255,203
<DEPRECIATION>                       (138,117)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     29,636,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               1,938,950
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                             1,144
<COMMON>                              928,022
<OTHER-SE>                         37,480,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       29,636,631
<SALES>                               173,122
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      173,122
<CGS>                                  93,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          93,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      974,391
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     18,680
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (913,049)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (913,049)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                         (913,049)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (0.06)



</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-11324 Conference Calendar

LARRY DEWAYNE YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BRENDA L. BAXLEY; D. BIERA, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:99-CV-199-R

-------------------- June 14, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Larry Dewayne Young, Texas inmate #579131, moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP). “To proceed on appeal [IFP], a litigant must be economically eligible, and his appeal must not be frivolous.” Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t , 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). The district court did not err in its denial of Young’s postjudgment motion seeking leave to amend his complaint. A dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) does not provide the procedural protection of opportunity to amendNo. 99-11324 -2- before dismissal. See Graves v. Hampton , 1 F.3d 315, 318 n.12 (5th 1993). To the extent that Young challenges the district court’s dismissal for frivolousness, his notice of appeal is untimely as to the district court’s judgment. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(1)(A). Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction over the matter. See Nelson v. Foti , 707 F.2d 170, 171-72 (5th Cir. 1983). Leave to appeal IFP is DENIED. This appeal is frivolous and therefore is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal and the dismissal of the complaint as frivolous by the district court each count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5 th Cir. 1996). We caution Young that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
<PAGE>   1
                                   Exhibit 15





Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20549


Commissioners:


We are aware that our report dated August 3, 2000 on our review of interim
financial information of Acme Metals Incorporated (the "Company") as of and for
the period ended June 25, 2000 and included in the Company's quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated by reference in its
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-17235, 33-19437 and 33-308471) and
in its Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-38747 and 33-59627).

Very truly yours,



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Chicago, Illinois
August 7, 2000
Jeffrey Lee FINGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-4164 1D16-4336 (Consolidated for disposition)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
No. 28,588.

#### W. V. Fitzpatrick and W. Marcus Barbee, *Appellants,*v. C. E. Bean et al., *Appellees.*

(279 Pac. 7.)

Opinion denying a rehearing filed July 6, 1929.

(For original opinion of reversal see *ante,*p. 347.)

*Thomas F. McGlynn, P. W. Croher*and *Joseph Taggart,*all of Kansas City, for the appellants.

*James F. Getty,*of Kansas City, for the appellees.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The petition stated a cause of action for recovery of money paid on a claimed sale of patent right made- by the vendor without complying with the state statute relating to such sales. The answer was a general denial. A demurrer to plaintiffs’ evidence was sustained, and they appealed. In this court defendant made no suggestion that his answer or his demurrer to evidence raised any question regarding constitutional validity of the state statute; and defendant made no suggestion that in ruling on the demurrer to evidence the district court passed on validity of the statute. In this court defendant made no contention that the statute is invalid. The contention was that the contract was one of appointment of an agent, and not one of sale of a patent right. In a petition for rehearing defendant contends the statute is invalid. He is not entitled to raise that question in this appeal.

Other questions presented by the petition for rehearing were determined by the original opinion, to which the court adheres.

The petition for rehearing is denied.