alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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: August 9, 2006 | /s/ David A. Garrison        |
|----------------------|------------------------------|
|                 | David A. Garrison            |
|                 | Executive Vice President and |
|                 | Chief Financial Officer      |

 

 

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. and will be retained by Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

 

X-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VONNY JULIANA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71491

Agency No. A097-620-793

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 19, 2010** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Vonny Juliana, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

FILED

JUL 29 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-71491

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Wakkary v. Holder,

558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review in part, grant

in part, and remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Juliana failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if

removed to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.

In assessing Juliana’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency

only considered the incidents of harm she suffered on account of her Chinese

ethnicity, and did not consider the harms she suffered on account of her

Christianity. Because the agency has not considered the cumulative impact of

these harms in assessing relief, we remand Juliana’s asylum and withholding of

removal claims for the agency to consider in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura,

537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); see also Tampubolon v. Holder, 598 F.3d

521, 526 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A]ny reasonable factfinder would be compelled to

conclude on this record that Christian Indonesians are a disfavored group.”). 

Each party shall bear their own costs on appeal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.
Directorate Identifier: REGULATORY EVALUA nON
I 2010 -NM- 041 -AD

Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? YES ( ) explain NO (X) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

### Jsthe AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a sufustantial number ofsmall entities? YES () explain NO (X) Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation inAlaska. Is itappropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated inAlaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES () explain NO (X)
# C_2022276EN.01001702.xml

| 18.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 276/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 276/17

---

Action brought on 25 May 2022 — PC v Council

(Case T-309/22)

(2022/C 276/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PC (represented by: G. Lansky, P. Goeth and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 of 15 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions under-mining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) as well as of the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 of 15 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2) (‘Contested Acts’) — in so far as those acts concern the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 of 15 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions under-mining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) as well as of the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 of 15 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2) (‘Contested Acts’) — in so far as those acts concern the applicant; and

| — | order the Council to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging an error of assessment by the Council in including the applicant’s name in the annexes to the Contested Acts. The applicant alleges that:

| — | the Council’s reasons for listing the applicant are materially flawed; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Council’s reasons for listing the applicant are materially flawed;

| — | the Council fails to identify the individual, specific and concrete reasons why restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant, and the reasons relied on are not sufficiently detailed, contrary to the Council’s obligations; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Council fails to identify the individual, specific and concrete reasons why restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant, and the reasons relied on are not sufficiently detailed, contrary to the Council’s obligations;

| — | the evidence provided is insufficient to support the listing of the applicant by the way of the Contested Acts. |
| --- | --- |

—

the evidence provided is insufficient to support the listing of the applicant by the way of the Contested Acts.

---

(1)  OJ 2022 L 87 I, p. 44.

(2)  OJ 2022 L 87 I, p. 1.

---
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Quarterly Coal Report, January - March 2024

Table 28. U.S. coal receipts at manufacturing plants by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code

(thousand short tons)

Year to date

NAICS code January - March

2024

October -

December

2023

January - March

2023 2024 2023

Percent

change

311 Food Manufacturing 1,452 1,567 1,814 1,452 1,814 -20.0

312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Mfg. 2 2 3 2 3 -39.6

313 Textile Mills 1 1 3 1 3 -53.4

322 Paper Manufacturing 167 199 366 167 366 -54.3

324 Petroleum and Coal Products 1,172 878 1,156 1,172 1,156 1.3

325 Chemical Manufacturing 759 693 729 759 729 4.1

327 Nonmetallic Mineral Products Mfg. 1,406 1,666 1,675 1,406 1,675 -16.1

331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 227 278 264 227 264 -14.1

333 Machinery Manufacturing 17 7 25 17 25 -34.0

339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 228 206 192 228 192 18.5

U.S. Total 5,430 5,498 6,228 5,430 6,228 -12.8

* Includes coal gasification projects.

** Excludes coke plants.

- = No data reported.

Note: Total may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-3, 'Quarterly Survey of Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Coal Users.'
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14115-14116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7530]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 031797C]


Marine Mammals; Scientific Research Permit (PHF# 782-1349)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Receipt of application.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. Howard W. Braham, Director, 
National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 
NMFS, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., BIN C15700, Seattle, Washington 
98115, has applied in due form for a permit to take Dall's porpoise 
(Phocoenoides dalli) for purposes of scientific research.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for 
review upon written request or by appointment in the following 
office(s):

[[Page 14116]]

    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289); and
    Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point 
Way, NE BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070 (206-526-6150).
    Written data or views, or requests for a public hearing on this 
request, should be submitted to the Director, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 
20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the 
specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be 
appropriate.
    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine 
Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the 
authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the Regulations Governing the Taking and 
Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).
    The application requests authorization to capture, restrain, tag, 
and release up to 125 Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) and to 
unintentionally harass up to 300 Dall's porpoise during capture 
operations, in Washington and Oregon waters, over a five-year period. 
The purpose of the research is deploy, monitor, and evaluate improved 
tag designs in order to obtain movement and dive behavior information 
on Dall's porpoise.
    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that 
the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to 
prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Dated: March 18, 1997
Art Jeffers,
Acting Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 97-7530 Filed 3-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Quarterly Coal Report, January - March 2024

Table 38. Coal stocks at coke plants by census division

(thousand short tons)

Census division March 31, 2024 December 31, 2023 March 31, 2023

Percent change

(March 31)

2024 versus 2023

Middle Atlantic 502 442 538 -6.6

East North Central 737 895 914 -19.3

South Atlantic 60 65 79 -23.4

East South Central 147 150 119 23.4

U.S. Total 1,447 1,551 1,650 -12.3

Note: Total may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-3, 'Quarterly Survey of Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Coal Users.' Prior to third quarter 2014,

coke plant data was collected under Form EIA-5, 'Quarterly Coal Consumption and Quality Report - Coke Plants.'
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1995
<CASH>                                          20,712
<SECURITIES>                                     7,493
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,569
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (350)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,472
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,593
<PP&E>                                          14,856
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,166
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,878
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,157
<SALES>                                         17,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,459
<CGS>                                            7,291
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,779
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (246)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (100)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,689
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,427
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,262
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,262
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
#### John DOE Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS; University of Arkansas Board of Trustees; Donald R. Bobbitt; University of Arkansas Medical Sciences Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-2328

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Filed: March 2, 2018

John Doe, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

*526PER CURIAM.

John Doe appeals the district court’s1 pre-service denial of his motion to file suit under a pseudonym, and dismissal of his complaint alleging discrimination based on his bipolar disorder diagnosis. Having reviewed the record and Doe’s arguments on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion. See Doe v. Vill. of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 376 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard of review); Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004) (standard of review).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         266,463
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,027,551
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,799,824
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,495,935
<PP&E>                                      16,771,180
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,676,992)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,486,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,058,793
<BONDS>                                      5,375,681
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,052,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,486,520
<SALES>                                     33,006,101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            33,121,711
<CGS>                                       30,466,970
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,212,858
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             371,956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   441,883
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023063EN.01001101.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/11

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie — Slovakia) — Úrad pre dohľad nad zdravotnou starostlivosťou, Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s., Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s., Union zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s.

(Case C-204/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 267 TFEU - Concept of a ‘court or tribunal’ - Criteria relating to the constitution and function of that body - Exercise of judicial or administrative functions - Duty of cooperation of the body making the reference - Directives 89/665/EEC and 2014/24/EU - Public procurement - National regulatory body for public procurement procedures - Entitlement to act on an ex officio basis - Power to impose penalties - Decisions that are open to challenge before the courts - No dispute before the referring body - Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2023/C 63/14)

Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

Parties to the main proceedings

Proceedings brought against: Úrad pre dohľad nad zdravotnou starostlivosťou, Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s., Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s., Union zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s.

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie (Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, Slovakia), by decision of 16 March 2022, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 16.3.2022.

---
No. 11-11126.

#### Murdock *v.*Michigan.

Cir. Ct. Isabella County, Mich. Certiorari denied.
Submitted December 19, 2016,

reversed and remanded May 3, 2017

#### Kenneth THUNDERBIRD, *Plaintiff-Appellant, v.*STATE OF OREGON, by and through the Department of Corrections, *Defendant-Respondent.*

Marion County Circuit Court

15CVADM; A161291

393 P3d 743

Kenneth Thunderbird filed the brief for appellant *pro se.*

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

*332PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated, sought to file an action against the Oregon Department of Corrections and certain state employees. He requested a waiver of fees to file the action because he was indigent. The trial court denied his request based on its determination that plaintiff had filed multiple cases against the state. Plaintiff appeals the denial of his fee-waiver request. The state concedes the error.

Under ORS 30.643, a court may waive or defer fees and court costs for an inmate who seeks to file an action against a public body. Under ORS 30.645(1), a court

“may not waive or defer an inmate’s fees or court costs under ORS 30.643 if the inmate has, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated or detained in any correctional facility, filed an action against a public body in a court of this state that was dismissed on the grounds that the action:

“(a) Was frivolous or malicious;

“(b) Failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; or

“(c) Sought monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from a claim for monetary relief.”

The trial court’s denial of plaintiffs fee-waiver request appears to have been based on ORS 30.645(1). However, the state concedes that only two, of the prior six, cases filed by plaintiff qualify under ORS 30.645(1) as actions against a public body that were dismissed under the terms provided in that statute. We agree with and accept the state’s concession. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider plaintiffs fee-waiver request under ORS 30.643.

Reversed and remanded.
From: "West Martha" <Martha.West@generalshale.com>

To: Jeff Telander/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Bowles Greg" <Greg.Bowles@generalshale.com>

Date: 03/30/2011 11:19 AM

Subject:RE: General Shale Brick ICR Testing - Coosa, GA tk-2

Dear Mr. Telander,

I wanted to update you on the ICR testing at our Coosa, GA facility. Our expert is still reviewing 

the results of the testing that was performed on January 18th and so far has not found any obvious 

problems or calculation errors that would have contributed to the poor results on HF emissions. A 

second lab has verified the results. However, the expert said there could have been an error with the 

handling of the sample if this was performed by a "rookie". We are looking into that.

In the meantime, we are considering performing a retest on HF only. I am requesting quotes at 

this time. One of the companies we are getting a quote from has asked the following question:

"I just wanted to follow up with an email after our phone conversation. What I propose for 

conducting the HF testing is to use a modified Method 26 approach. This would be the same sampling 

system as Method 26A (large impingers) but sampling would be conducted at a single point near the 

center of the stack at both the inlet and outlet locations. This same approach has be used and accepted 

with many of the ICR tests conducted on sources that do not have entrained water droplets in the stack 

gas. We would also conduct Methods 1, 2, 3A and 4. Let me know if you have any questions or if you 

receive any feedback from EPA."

He will need an answer before he can quote the job for us. I greatly appreciate your help on this matter.

Thank You,

Martha

Martha West, REM

Environmental Engineer

Office: (423)952-4240

Fax: (423)952-4160

Email: Martha.west@generalshale.com

P.O. Box 3547

Johnson City, TN 37602