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


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


RULE
13a-14(1) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the quarterly report of Petrosearch Energy Corporation, (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David
Collins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 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 operation of the
      company.








Date: May
15, 2008








By:
            /s/
      David CollinsDavid
      CollinsChief
      Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officerand
      Principal Financial Officer
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.V., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

CUSTOMS & BORDER PATROL, 

Santa Teresa, NM, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0131

Issued: November 30, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On November 4, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a May 8, 2019 decision of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned 

Docket No. 22-0131.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the May 8, 2019 decision was November 4, 2019. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until November 4, 2021, more than 180 days after the May 8, 

2019 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0131 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0131 is dismissed.

Issued: November 30, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT ON CONSOLIDATED INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND THE STATEMENT
OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL CONDITION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             OCT-31-2000<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                           16,400
<SECURITIES>                                    143,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                 1,489,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (11,100)
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                           14,733
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (9,345)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,351,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                       1,680,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                        171,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      117,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,351,900
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 88,100
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    22,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 12,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  1,400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               24,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  27,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (10,200)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              17,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     17,200
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
<FN>
<F1>  THE CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION IS UNCLASSIFIED;
THEREFORE, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CURRENT AND LONG-TERM ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES IS NOT AVAILABLE.
</FN>





</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

BRUCE J. CARR, 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee. 

§

 § 

§ 

 § 

§ 

 § 

§ 

 § 

§ 

 § 

§ 

 No. 50,2020

 

 Court Below: Superior Court 

 of the State of Delaware 

 Cr. I.D. No. 82002234DI

 Submitted: July 6, 2020

 Decided: July 23, 2020

O R D E R

On March 12, 2020, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice, sent by certified 

mail, directing the appellant, Bruce Carr, to show cause why his appeal should not 

be dismissed for his failure to pay the Supreme Court filing fee or file a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis. On March 16, 2020, the Court received the certified mail 

receipt indicating that the notice to show cause had been delivered. A timely 

response to the notice to show cause would have been due on or before March 23, 

2020. Under the Court’s emergency orders that extended filing deadlines due to the 

COVID-19 pandemic, the deadline for Carr’s response to the notice to show cause 

was extended through July 1, 2020. Carr has not responded to the notice to show 
2

cause, nor has he paid the filing fee or filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Dismissal of the appeal is therefore deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2)

and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves 

 Justice
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4753 

To suspend, during the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment 

of this Act, any Environmental Protection Agency action under the 

Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane pursuant to 

certain proceedings, other than with respect to motor vehicle emissions, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2010 

Mr. RAHALL (for himself, Mr. MOLLOHAN, and Mr. BOUCHER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To suspend, during the 2-year period beginning on the date 

of enactment of this Act, any Environmental Protection 

Agency action under the Clean Air Act with respect 

to carbon dioxide or methane pursuant to certain proceedings, other than with respect to motor vehicle emissions, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stationary Source Reg5 ulations Delay Act’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4753 IH

1 SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN EPA ACTION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 

3 (b), notwithstanding any provision of the Clean Air Act 

4 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), during the 2-year period begin5 ning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Adminis6 trator of the Environmental Protection Agency may not 

7 take any action under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 

8 et seq.) with respect to any stationary source permitting 

9 requirement or any requirement under section 111 of that 

10 Act (42 U.S.C. 7411) relating to carbon dioxide or meth11 ane. 

12 (b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply 

13 to— 

14 (1) any action under part A of title II of the 

15 Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.) relating to 

16 the vehicle emissions standards contained in Docket 

17 No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0171 or Docket No. 

18 EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472; 

19 (2) any action relating to the preparation of a 

20 report or the enforcement of a reporting require21 ment; or 

22 (3) any action relating to the provision of tech23 nical support at the request of a State. 

24 (c) TREATMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provi25 sion of law, no action taken by the Administrator of the 

26 Environmental Protection Agency before the end of the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4753 IH

1 2-year period described in subsection (a) shall be consid2 ered to make carbon dioxide or methane a pollutant sub3 ject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

4 7401 et seq.) for any source other than a new motor vehi5 cle or new motor vehicle engine, as described in section 

6 202(a) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(a)). 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 10.4  
                 AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN  
                   INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION  
                               AND RFM INC.  
  
  
   THIS AMENDMENT, dated as of May 9, 1997, to Consulting Agreement,  
dated as of May 1, 1997 (the "Consulting Agreement"), between  
International Multifoods Corporation ("Multifoods") and RFM, Inc., an  
Illinois corporation (the "Contractor").  
  
   WITNESSETH:  
  
   WHEREAS, Multifoods and the Contractor wish to amend the Consulting   
Agreement as hereinafter provided.  
  
   NOW, THEREFORE, the Consulting Agreement be and the same hereby is   
amended effective as of May 9, 1997, as follows:  
  
   1.   The name and address of the Contractor be and hereby is changed  
        to RFM Inc., 401 South First Street, #111. Minneapolis,  
        Minnesota 55401.  
  
   2.   Add new paragraph E to Section 2 of the Consulting Agreement,   
        entitled "Signing Bonus", as follows:  
  
        "E.   As an incentive to execute and deliver this Agreement and   
              provide the Consulting Services, Multifoods shall pay the   
              Contractor, in addition to the compensation for Consulting   
              Services described in Section 2 of this Agreement, a  
              "signing bonus" of $50,000, in a lump sum, on or before  
              June 10, 1997."  
  
   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered  
this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.  
  
                                 INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION  
  
  
                                 By:   /s/ Gary E. Costley  
                                       Gary E. Costley  
                                       Chairman of the Board, President and 
                                       Chief Executive Officer  
  
  
                                 RFM, INC.  
  
  
                                 By:   /s/ Robert F. Maddocks  
                                       Robert F. Maddocks  
                                       President
#### Abraham N. Leventhal, Appellant, *v.*The Weber-Peuthert Company, Respondent, Impleaded with Another.

*Leventhal*v. *Weber-Peuthert Co.,*173 App. Div. 886, affirmed.

(Argued November 1, 1918;

decided November 19, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 16, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict in an action to *694recover on two promissory notes. The defense was that the notes were paid in full by the delivery to Leventhal & Vogel, the payees, of furs which by agreement between the parties were accepted in full payment of the notes.

*Max Schleimer*for appellant.

*Wallace Thayer*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Pound and Andrews, JJ.
#### FLORENCE CAVAGNARO, Appellant, v. STATE WIDE INVESTIGATIONS, INC., a Nevada Corporation; FRANK SHERMAN, Respondents.

No. 9241

July 26, 1978

581 P.2d 859

*468*Galatz, Earl & Biggar,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Thorndal & Liles, Ltd.,*and *Leland Eugene Backus,*Las Vegas, for Respondents.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

On July 30, 1973, appellant’s husband, William Cavagnaro, was struck and killed by an automobile while crossing Flamingo Road on his way to work at the construction project for the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas. The deceased was employed by Olson Glass Co., a subcontractor on the MGM project. The automobile which struck him was driven by respondent Frank Sherman, an employee of respondent State Wide Investigations, Inc., also a subcontractor on the project.

Subsequent to the accident, appellant accepted benefits pursuant to NRS chapter 616 (Nevada Industrial Insurance Act). She then commenced this action seeking additional damages for the wrongful death of her husband allegedly caused by respondents’ negligence. Respondents moved for and were granted summary judgment on the ground appellant’s action was barred by NRS 616.370, which provides, *inter alia,*that (1) once an employee receives accident benefits under the Act, he is barred from commencing any action for additional compensation, and, (2) the rights and remedies provided in the Act for an employee injured by an accident arising in the course of his employment shall be exclusive of all other rights and remedies.

Appellant’s sole contention is that NRS 616.085 and 616.115 *469violate the constitutional proscription against involuntary servitude because they deem all employees of subcontractors and independent contractors to be employees of the principal contractor.1 The thrust of appellant’s argument is that these statutes, by definition, “compel every employee in Nevada to work not only for his chosen employer, but also for any other employer” employed by the same principal contractor. We are not persuaded by this logic.

The statutes neither compel an employee to labor, against his will, for the benefit of another, nor prohibit or restrict any employee from leaving the service of the employer, and thus, do not violate the involuntary servitude provisions of either the federal or state constitution. *Cf.*Lancaster v. C.F.&I. Steel Corporation, 548 P.2d 914 (Colo. 1976).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

U.S. Const. Amend. XIII provides, in pertinent part:

> “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States. . . .”

Nev. Const, art. 1, § 17, provides:

> “Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude unless for the punishment of crimes shall ever be tolerated in this state.”

NRS 616.085 provides:

> “Subcontractors and their employees shall be deemed to be employees of the principal contractor.”

NRS 616.115 provides:

> “ ‘Subcontractors’ shall include independent contractors.”
# L_2007042EN.01002201.xml

| 14.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 42/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 42/22

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 22 January 2007

regarding the position to be taken by the Community within the International Coffee Council on the extension of the International Coffee Agreement, 2001

(2007/95/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 in conjunction with Article 300(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | The International Coffee Agreement of 2001 has been signed and concluded on behalf of the European Community on 24 September 2001 by Council Decision 2001/877/EC (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The International Coffee Agreement of 2001 has been signed and concluded on behalf of the European Community on 24 September 2001 by Council Decision 2001/877/EC (1).

| (2) | Under the provisions of Article 52(1) and (2), the International Coffee Agreement of 2001 is due to expire on 30 September 2007 unless it is extended beyond that date by decision of the International Coffee Council for one or more periods not exceeding six years in total. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Under the provisions of Article 52(1) and (2), the International Coffee Agreement of 2001 is due to expire on 30 September 2007 unless it is extended beyond that date by decision of the International Coffee Council for one or more periods not exceeding six years in total.

| (3) | The extension of that Agreement is in the interest of the European Community. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The extension of that Agreement is in the interest of the European Community.

| (4) | The European Community’s position in the International Coffee Council should be established, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The European Community’s position in the International Coffee Council should be established,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The European Community’s position within the International Coffee Council shall be to vote in favour of extending the International Coffee Agreement, 2001, for one or more periods not exceeding six years.

Done at Brussels, 22 January 2007.

For the Council

The President

F.-W. STEINMEIER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 326, 11.12.2001, p. 22.

1

---
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-7122 CHARLES SMITH,

Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

in 06-0348, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of the appellant's unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted. Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT 

# MAY - 8 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk 

# umildistri

cc: Kenneth M. Carpenter, Esq. Scott D. Austin, Esq. s8 

# MAY - 8 2009 MAY F 8 2009 JAN HORbita CLERK ISSUED AS A MANDATE:
Exhibit 11.1


                          EARNINGS PER SHARE
                          PRIMARY COMPUTATION
         ($ in millions, except share and per share amounts)


 
                                              Nine Months Ended
                                                   March 31,          
                                              -------------------
                                                1997       1996
                                              --------   --------
Basis for computation of earnings per 
 common and common equivalent shares:
   Earnings from continuing operations        $ 125.3    $ 103.6
   Deduct dividends on 4 Percent
    cumulative preferred stock                    (.3)       (.3)
                                              --------   -------- 
   Earnings from continuing operations
    available to common shareholders            125.0      103.3
   Discontinued operations                        2.2       41.3
                                              --------   --------

   Available for common shareholders          $ 127.2    $ 144.6
                                              ========   ========



Number of shares:
  Weighted average shares outstanding     74,057,373  75,508,512
  Shares issuable upon exercise of
   stock options,net of shares assumed
   to be repurchased                       1,359,018   1,161,824
                                          ----------  ---------- 
                                          75,416,391  76,670,336
                                          ==========  ==========



Earnings per common share:
  Continuing operations                       $ 1.66      $ 1.35
  Discontinued operations                        .03         .54
                                              ------      ------

  Net earnings                                $ 1.69      $ 1.89
                                              ======      ======
# C_2007289EN.01000501.xml

| 1.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/5

---

COUNCIL DECISION

COUNCIL DECISION

of 26 November 2007

appointing an Italian member and Latvian and Luxembourg alternate members to the Governing Board of the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work

(2007/C 289/06)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94 of 18 July 1994 establishing a European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 8 thereof,

1

Having regard to the list of nominations for appointment submitted to the Council by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work as regards the proposals of the groups of members representing employers' and employees' organisations within that Committee,

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decision of 8 November 2007 (2) the Council appointed the members and alternates of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, with the exception of the Italian, Luxembourg and Latvian members, for the period from 8 November 2007 to 7 November 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decision of 8 November 2007 (2) the Council appointed the members and alternates of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, with the exception of the Italian, Luxembourg and Latvian members, for the period from 8 November 2007 to 7 November 2010.

2

| (2) | An Italian member and a Latvian and a Luxembourg alternate member for the employers' organisations need to be appointed for the vacant seats, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

An Italian member and a Latvian and a Luxembourg alternate member for the employers' organisations need to be appointed for the vacant seats,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be appointed member and alternates of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period to 7 November 2010:

REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS' ORGANISATIONS

| Country | Members | Alternates |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Italy | Mr Luigi CASANO | — |
| Latvia | — | Mr Aleksandrs GRIGORJEVS |
| Luxembourg | — | Mr Robert KANZ |

Country

Members

Alternates

Italy

Mr Luigi CASANO

—

Latvia

—

Mr Aleksandrs GRIGORJEVS

Luxembourg

—

Mr Robert KANZ

Article 2

This Decision shall be published for information in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

Done at Brussels, 26 November 2007.

For the Council

The President

J. SILVA

---

(1)  OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1112/2005 (OJ L 184, 24.6.2005, p. 5).

1

(2)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.

2

---