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

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Trans Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lisa A. Corbitt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of            2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(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 result of operations of the Company.

 

| /s/ | LISA A. CORBITT |
|-----|-----------------|

Lisa A. Corbitt

Chief Financial Officer

March 31, 2010

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon            request. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-K solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18846]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (05-143)]


NASA Advisory Committee; Notice of Renewal

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of renewal of the charter for the NASA Advisory Council.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to sections 14(b)(1)and 9(c) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), and after consultation with the 
Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, the 
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA) has determined that a renewal and amendment of the Charter for 
the Agency-established NASA Advisory Council is necessary and in the 
public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed 
upon NASA by law. In connection with this renewal, a number of 
amendments have been made to the Charter as part of the overall 
restructuring of the NASA Advisory Council. The purpose of the NASA 
Advisory Council is to provide advice and make recommendations to the 
NASA Administrator on Agency programs, policies, plans, financial 
controls and other matters pertinent to the Agency's responsibilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. P. Diane Rausch, Office of 
External Relations, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
Washington, DC 20546, 202/358-4510.

    Dated: September 14, 2005.
P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-18846 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
In the Matter of M.G., C.C-G., L.C-G.

No. COA15-1355.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed in part, Reversed and Remanded in part.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6813

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH L. LEWIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James P. Jones, Chief

District Judge. (3:00-cr-00005jpj-1)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth L. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant

United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth L. Lewis appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. United States v. Lewis, No. 3:00-cr-0005-jpj-1

(W.D. Va. May 8, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2008171EN.01001002.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Firenze (Italy)) — Nancy Delay v Università degli studi di Firenze, Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Repubblica italiana

(Case C-276/07) (1)

1

(Freedom of movement for workers - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Category of ‘exchange assistants’ - Former foreign-language assistants - Recognition of acquired rights)

(2008/C 171/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d'appello di Firenze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nancy Delay

Applicant:

Defendant: Università degli studi di Firenze, Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Repubblica italiana

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of Article 39 EC — Recognition of the acquired rights of foreign-language assistants — Assistants employed pursuant to a cultural exchange agreement with other Member States (‘exchange assistants’) — Applicability of the principles flowing from Cases C-21/99 and C-119/04

Operative part of the judgment

It is contrary to Article 39(2) EC that, when a fixed-term contract of employment as an exchange assistant is replaced by a contract of employment for an indefinite period as a linguistic associate, a person in the position of the applicant in the main proceedings should be refused recognition of the rights acquired since the date of her first recruitment, with consequences with regard to remuneration, the account to be taken of seniority and the payment, by the employer, of contributions to a social security scheme, inasmuch as a national worker placed in a comparable situation would have been entitled to such recognition. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is so in the case in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Daniel Scott BEST

No. 394P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 15, 2016.

Mr. Robert Livingston Schupp, Attorney at Law, For Best, Daniel Scott.

Ms. Kimberly Randolph, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Ernie Lee, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of October 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
----

----

**CONSENT OF QUALIFIEDPERSON**

I, Anoush Ebrahimi, confirm that:

I am the Qualified Person for theMineral Reserve section of the Annual Information Form****of NevsunResources Ltd. dated February 23, 2017 (“AIF”).

I have read National Instrument43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) and understandthese Standards as pertains to the work for which I am responsible as disclosedin the AIF.

I am a principal consultant withSRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. located at 22nd Floor, 1066 West Hastings Street,Vancouver, BC, V6E 3X2, Canada. I am a mining engineer with 24 years ofexperience in mining operation as well as mine planning and design. Thisincludes numerous base metal projects in recent years. I received a Ph.D.degree in mining engineering from University of British Columbia, Canada. I aman active member of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BritishColumbia (APEGBC).  

I am a Qualified Person asdefined in NI 43-101, having 24 years of experience which is relevant to theactivity for which I am accepting responsibility.

I have reviewed the AIF to whichthis statement of consent applies.

I am independent of Nevsun ResourcesLtd. as described by Section 1.4 of NI 43-101.

I verify that the information inthe AIF is based on and fairly and accurately reflects in the form and contextin which it appears, the information in my supporting documentation relating toMineral Reserve.

I consent to the release of the AIFand this statement of consent by Nevsun Resources Ltd.

Dated February 17, 2017.

***“Anoush Ebrahimi”***

AnoushEbrahimi,P.Eng., PhD.

----
Axel D. SPEER, Plaintiff, v. GREAT WESTERN BANK (f/k/a Tierone Bank) and Tierone Bank, Defendants.

No. COA15-553.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 1, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Betty F. Maine and Brandon Maine v. Keith B. Nichols, et al.

No. 226P16-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mrs. Betty Farmer Maine, Pro Se.

Mrs. W. Chris Parnell, Attorney at Law, For Morrison Trustee Services, LLC

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 2nd of September 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Ashe County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. John Phillip LOCKLEAR, Defendant.

No. COA16-179

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

NO ERROR.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7926

NICHOLAS WARNER JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN; M. M. WILLIAMS, the Chairman of the

Maryland Parole Commission; JANE DOE, Parole

Commissioner,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.

(CA-02-3622-L)

Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas Warner Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Nicholas Warner Jones, a Maryland prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order construing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)

action as a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), and

dismissing it without prejudice for failure to exhaust state

remedies. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2241 petition solely

on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not

issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) that jurists

of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and (2) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252

F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). 

We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons

stated by the district court that Jones has not made the requisite

showing. See Jones v. Warden, No. CA-02-3622-L (D. Md. filed Dec.

6, 2002; entered Dec. 10, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2008272EN.01002101.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/21

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Gerson v OHIM (Paint filter partly coloured yellow)

(Case T-201/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Paint filter partly coloured yellow - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 272/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis M. Gerson Co., Inc., (Middleboro, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2006 (Case R 1387/2005-2) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of a paint filter coloured yellow near the tip.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Louis M. Gerson Co., Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Louis M. Gerson Co., Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,653
<SECURITIES>                                    40,349
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,250
<INVENTORY>                                      1,667
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,725
<PP&E>                                          12,348
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,771
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,048
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            24
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,218
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,290
<SALES>                                         69,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,074
<CGS>                                           11,859
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,859
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                68,760
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   630
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,388)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (210)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,178)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,178)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.36)


</TABLE>
# C_2008022EN.01000701.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-59/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Officials - Employment in a non-Member State - Reassignment of post and post holder - Duty to respect the rights of the defence - Scope - Burden of proof)

(2008/C 22/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: L. Garofalo, avvocato)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, A. Dal Ferro, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2005 in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission by which that Court dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission decision reassigning the appellant's post at the delegation of the Commission in Luanda (Angola) to the Commission's headquarters in Brussels and a claim for damages

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 2005 in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 2005 in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

1

---
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 306/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 306/2014 of 25 March 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 306/2014                     

# of 25 March 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 March 2014.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
JARRETT v. JARRETT

354P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 27, 2016

G. Russell Kornegay, III, Attorney at Law, Preston O. Odom, III, Attorney at Law, John Paul Tsahakis, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Jarrett, William Andrew.

Catrina Jarrett, Celia Pistolis, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Jarrett, Catrina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of September 2016 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of September 2016."
# C_2008223EN.01006102.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/61

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 April 2008 — Boudova and Others v Commission

(Case F-78/07) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade - Competition published before the entry in force of the new Staff Regulations - Act adversely affecting a party - Admissibility of the action)

(2008/C 223/115)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Stanislava Boudova and Others (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M.-A Lucas, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision rejecting the requests for review of the classification in grade of the applicants, former auxiliary agents appointed officials after they passed open competitions for grades B5/B4 — Application for damages

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007, p. 42.

1

---