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











THE
MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY


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 The Monarch Cement Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
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.






A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
The Monarch Cement Company and will be retained by The Monarch Cement Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.













Dated: 
May 11, 2010




/s/ Debra P.
Roe


Debra P. Roe, CPA


Chief Financial Officer
and


Assistant
Secretary-Treasurer
1

Sutton, Lisa

From: Brachtl, Megan

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:52 PM

To: Sutton, Lisa

Subject: FW: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

Attachments: McCabe letter to air directors final SSM SIP call 05-22-15.pdf

Megan V. Brachtl, Group Leader

State and Local Programs Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(919) 541‐2648

brachtl.megan@epa.gov

From: Daly, Carl  

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:51 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan

Cc: Clark, Adam

Subject: ND: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

FYI ‐ ND

Carl Daly, Director

Air Program

303‐312‐6416

From: Daly, Carl  

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:38 AM

To: Terry O'Clair

Cc: Monica Morales

Subject: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

Terry

This email is a follow‐up to my update on the SAD call about the startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) SIP call.  North

Dakota will be included in the SIP call, but EPA is partially denying the petition for North Dakota because we have

already addressed a couple of the SSM provisions that EPA was petitioned on.

The information below is from headquarters.

The EPA Administrator signed a final action today to ensure states have in place air pollution rules that apply to sources

at all times, including when the source is operating during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).  

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians concerning the

treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how those emissions are treated

in state implementation plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this action, EPA has

revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act.
2

The EPA is calling for 36 states, including your state, to make changes to their SIPs, to protect public health and ensure

consistency with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s current SSM Policy.  Your state will have 18 months to submit revisions

of your state plan to EPA. Your state’s revised SIP is due to EPA by November 22, 2016.  

As part of our notification to your state about this final SIP call, attached to this email is a letter from the EPA’s Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe. To inform you of the details on the final action, including

the specific SIP provisions your state needs to address, we have posted a pre‐publication version of the action on our

website at:  http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html.  

Carl Daly, Director

Air Program

303‐312‐6416
#### William R. Bronner, Respondent, v Deirdre B. Butterfield, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 882]

In an action, inter alia, for the partition and sale of personal property, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered June 13, 2002, as denied that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c).

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

The Supreme Court properly declined to treat the defendant’s motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c) *(see Four Seasons Hotels v Vinnik,*127 AD2d 310 [1987]; *Wiesen v New York Univ.,*304 AD2d 459 [2003]). A court’s election to treat a pre-answer motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment generally requires adequate notice to the parties *(see*CPLR 3211 [c]). The defendant’s contention that the rule does not apply in this case because the parties were deliberately charting a course for summary judgment is belied by a confusing record in which the issue of how the plaintiff expected the motion to be treated was at best unclear.

*476In light of this determination, it is not necessary to reach the parties’ remaining contentions. S. Miller, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.
No. 09-11370.

#### David Butt, Petitioner v. Steve Hartley, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1002, 131 S. Ct. 503,

178 L. Ed. 2d 370,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8537.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 822.
#### In the Matter of Akasha J.G. Children’s Village et al., Respondents; Vincent G., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[51 NYS3d 145]

Appeal by the father from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Alan Beckoff, J.), dated February 23, 2016. The order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, found that the father abandoned the subject child, terminated the father’s parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the Children’s Village and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner Children’s Village (hereinafter the petitioner) commenced this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, inter alia, to terminate the father’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment. The petition alleged that the father was only entitled to notice of the proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-c and, alternatively, that if the father’s consent for the adoption of the child was required, the father abandoned the child. After a hearing, the Family Court found that the father’s consent for the adoption of the child was required. The court also found that the father abandoned the child, terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.

Contrary to the Family Court’s finding, there was clear and convincing evidence that the father’s consent for the adoption of the child was not required *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]; *Matter of Heaven A.A. [Tyrone W.],*130 AD3d 10 [2015]; *Matter of Tanay R.S. [Robert S.*—Tanay *M.],*122 AD3d 865 [2014]; *Matter of Angelina J. [Frantz J.],*112 AD3d 932 [2013]). In any event, as the court properly found, clear and convincing evidence established that the father abandoned the child by failing to visit or maintain contact with her or the petitioner for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition to terminate his parental rights *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [a]; *Matter of Nyshawn R.V.S. [Erica M.V.],*145 AD3d 902 [2016]; *Matter of Samantha L.S. [Daniel S.],*134 AD3d 1128 [2015]; *Matter of Thailique Nashean S. [Sean L.],*105 AD3d 428 [2013]), and that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the best interests of the child.

*735The father’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Rivera, J.R, Chambers, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5980.

#### In re Joseph Ciambrone, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 825, 131 S. Ct. 363,

178 L. Ed. 2d 258,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7809.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. 10-5531.

#### Timothy Webster, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 927, 131 S. Ct. 314,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7390.

178 L. Ed. 2d 205,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 373 Fed. Appx. 867.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND THE BALANCE SHEET
AT DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,523<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,260
<INVENTORY>                                      1,738
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,475<F1>
<PP&E>                                         710,216
<DEPRECIATION>                                 349,239
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 438,472<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           85,502<F1>
<BONDS>                                        101,147
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       118,442
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,030<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   438,472<F1>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               261,775
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,810<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,709
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 56,371
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,329
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,042
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,042
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>RESTATED AS A RESULT OF THE MERGER OF BELL ATLANTIC CORPORATION AND NYNEX
CORPORATION COMPLETED ON AUGUST 14, 1997 AND ACCOUNTED FOR AS A POOLING OF
INTERESTS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-5820.

#### Daniel Shawn Newsom, Petitioner v. D. L. Runnels, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 968, 131 S. Ct. 470,

178 L. Ed. 2d 299,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8007.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 641.
#### Darnel J.P., Matter of, v Lianna Y.D.

1st Dept: 150 AD3d 406

denied
No. 10-6129.

#### Zackery Bivens, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 945, 131 S. Ct. 371,

178 L. Ed. 2d 239,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7685.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 803.
#### People v Barber-Montemayor

4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1455 (Onondaga)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)
##### 



Exhibit 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned officer and director of both EaglePicher Holdings, Inc. and
EaglePicher Industries, Inc. hereby consents to and appoints John H. Weber,
Thomas R. Pilholski and David G. Krall, and each of them, as his true and
lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents with all power of substitution, for him and
in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the 2003 fiscal year of both EaglePicher Holdings, Inc.
and EaglePicher Industries, Inc., corporations organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware and the State of Ohio respectively, and any and
all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and
all documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power
and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the same as fully to all intents and purposes
as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that
said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or either of them, or their or his
substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
thereof.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has hereunto set his hand on this 12th day
of February, 2004.

|                                   |  | 
|---------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ JOEL P. WYLER

Joel P. Wyler   |  | 
|Director and Chairman of the Board |  | 

104
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-94,108-01

EX P ARTE F RANK

IE LE E COX, Appl icant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CR 04185-A IN THE 220T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM COMA NCHE COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of eng ag ing in or g anized criminal activity and sentenced to forty y ear s’ imprisonment. The Eleventh Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Cox v. State , No. 11- 18-00189-CR ( T e x. A

p p . — E a s tl a

n d , Jun. 18, 2020) (not desig nated for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. On Aug ust 17, 2022, the trial court enter ed an order desig nating the application and order ing trial counsel to file an aff

idavit. The district cler

k proper ly forwa

rded this application to this Court under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedur e 73.4(b)( 5). Howeve r, t h e ap p lication was forwa rded befor e the trial court made finding s of fac t a nd conclusions of law. We r emand this a pplication tothe trial court to complete its evidentiar y investiga tion and make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusio n s o f l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: Oc tober 5, 2022 Do not publish
No. 09-11125.

#### George Crear, Petitioner v. Shirlee Harry, Warden.

562 U.S. 863, 131 S. Ct. 145,

178 L. Ed. 2d 86,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5894.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VALENTINA ALEXANDROVNA 

ONOUFRIENKO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-71887 

Agency No. A074-809-017 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Valentina Alexandrovna Onoufrienko, a native of the U.S.S.R. and citizen of 

Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

denying her motion to reopen her deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is 

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAY 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-71887 

motion to reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny 

in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Onoufrienko’s motion to 

reopen as untimely, where she filed the motion nearly 16 years after her final order 

of deportation and failed to show she qualifies for any exception to the filing 

deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3). 

Onoufrienko’s contention that the agency erred in denying sua sponte 

reopening for failure to demonstrate exceptional circumstances does not raise a 

legal or constitutional error to invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588

(“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte 

reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions 

for legal or constitutional error.”). 

Onoufrienko’s contention that the BIA did not consider all of the evidence in 

deciding her motion is not supported by the record. The BIA provided sufficient 

reasoning and detail in its decision denying the motion to reopen, indicating that it 

reviewed the entire record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 

2010) (the agency does not have to write an exegesis on every contention); 

Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (alien must overcome 

presumption that BIA did review all evidence where the BIA plainly stated it 

reviewed the record). The BIA was not required to address whether she is prima 
3 18-71887 

facie eligible for adjustment of status. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(a) (“The Board has 

discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a 

prima facie case for relief.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16710]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT98-52-000]


Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Refund 
Report

June 18, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 12, 1998, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, 
Inc. (Williams), tendered for filing a report of GRI refunds made to 
customers.
    Williams states that this filing is being made in compliance with 
Commission order issued February 22, 1997, in Docket No. GT97-31. The 
February 22 order directed each pipeline receiving a refund from GRI to 
credit such refunds pro rata to its eligible customers, and within 15 
days of making these credits, file a refund report with the Commission. 
Williams states that the refund report reflects refunds of $385,291 
made by Williams to its eligible firm customers on June 12, 1998.
    Williams states that a copy of its filing was served on all of 
Williams' jurisdictional customers and interested states commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before June 25, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16710 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 09-1339.

#### Nestle Purina PetCare Company, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

562 U.S. 946, 131 S. Ct. 86,

178 L. Ed. 2d 241,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7654.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of *242Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 594 F.3d 968.
# C_2015007EN.01003501.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2014 — Lumene v OHIM (THE YOUTH EXPERTS)

(Case T-484/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark THE YOUTH EXPERTS - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Examination as to the merits conditional on the admissibility of the action - First sentence of Article 59 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 007/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lumene Oy (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2013 (Case R 187/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign THE YOUTH EXPERTS as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 June 2013 (Case R 187/2013-2) as regards ‘[b]leaching preparations and other substances for laundry use [and] cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations’ in Class 3 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and ‘[s]anitary preparations for medical purposes[,] plasters, materials for dressings[,] material for stopping teeth [and] dental wax[,] disinfectants[,] preparations for destroying vermin[,] fungicides [and] herbicides’ in Class 5 of that agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 June 2013 (Case R 187/2013-2) as regards ‘[b]leaching preparations and other substances for laundry use [and] cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations’ in Class 3 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and ‘[s]anitary preparations for medical purposes[,] plasters, materials for dressings[,] material for stopping teeth [and] dental wax[,] disinfectants[,] preparations for destroying vermin[,] fungicides [and] herbicides’ in Class 5 of that agreement;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

1

---