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

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF THE CFO**

 

Certificationof Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant ToSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (Furnished but not filed)

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Favrille, Inc., on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2005, filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Tamara Seymour, Chief Financial Officerof Favrille, Inc., certify that:

 

1.               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Favrille, Inc..

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to Favrille, Inc. and will be retainedby Favrille, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

 
| Date   | May 13, 2005 |                    | By | /s/  Tamara A. Seymour |   |
|--------|--------------|-------------------------|----|----------------------------------|--------|
|   |         | Tamara A. Seymour,      |
|   |         | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of 

W&T Offshore, Inc. and Subsidiaries: 

 

We areaware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-126251 and 333-126252) of W&T Offshore, Inc. of our report dated November 14, 2005 relating to the unaudited consolidated interim financial statementsof W&T Offshore, Inc. and Subsidiaries that is included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005. 

 

 

New Orleans, Louisiana

November 14, 2005
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, VEHICLE 

MAINTANCE FACILITY, Brooklyn, NY, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0435

Issued: June 28, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On January 28, 2022 appellant sought appeal from a purported August 31, 2021 decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Board 

assigned Docket No. 22-0435.

The Board, having duly considered this matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employee’sCompensation Act.1 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed his appeal.2 Although the case record does contain a letter from OWCP dated 

August 31, 2021, it is informational in nature. Thus, it does not constitute a final adverse OWCP 

decision.3 As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a). 

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3

See Order Dismissing Appeal, K.S., Docket No. 20-1401 (issued March 17, 2021); Order Dismissing Appeal, 

S.U., Docket No. 20-0636 (issued December 3, 2020) (correspondence that is purely informational in nature does not 

constitute a final adverse decision of OWCP from which appellant may properly appeal). Id. at §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3(a).
2

properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal assigned Docket No. 22 -0435 

must be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0435 is dismissed.4

Issued: June 28, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id. at 

§ 501.6(d).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND TRUST CORPUS OF SAN
JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND THE RELATED CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF DISTRIBUTABLE INCOME AND CHANGES IN TRUST CORPUS FOR THE TWELVE
MONTH PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,862,453
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,862,453
<PP&E>                                     133,275,528
<DEPRECIATION>                              88,089,329
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,048,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,862,453
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  45,186,199
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,048,652
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,691,995
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               896,328
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             31,795,667
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         31,795,667
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                31,795,667
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.Y., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, PINE BLUFF 

ARSENAL, Pine Bluff, AK, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0206

Issued: October 29, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Furonda Brasfield, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On November 5, 2020 appellant, through counsel, sought an appeal from a January 14, 

2020 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of 

the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0206. 

The Board, having duly considered this matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.2 

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.

3

 The 180th day following the January 14, 2020 decision was July 12, 2020. As 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until November 5, 2020, more than 180 days after 

the January 14, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0206 is 

untimely filed. He has not offered a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with 

supporting documentation sufficient to establish compelling circumstances. As there is no final 

adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the 

Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0206 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0206 is dismissed.

Issued: October 29, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
Exhibit 32.1

Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15a-14(b) and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended
December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                                             |  |                             
|------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|                    |  |  |  | SOUTHWEST BANK, TRUSTEE FOR THE
PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: March 2, 2015 |  |  |  | By:                                                         |  | /s/ Ron E. Hooper           
|                    |  |  |  |                                                             |  | Ron E. Hooper,              
|                    |  |  |  |                                                             |  | SVP Royalty Trust Management

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Permian
Basin Royalty Trust and will be retained by the Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES PETTY

No. 7311SC244

(Filed 14 March 1973)

Criminal Law § 23— acceptance of guilty plea

The acceptance of defendant’s plea of guilty will not be disturbed on appeal where the trial judge examined defendant before accepting the plea and found that his plea was freely, understandingly and voluntarily made, and defendant’s signed transcript of plea supported these findings.

Appeal by defendant from *Braswell, Judge,*23 October 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Lee County.

Defendant was indicted for first-degree burglary. He pled guilty to felonious breaking and entering. From judgment sentencing defendant to prison for the term of five years with direction that he receive credit for all time spent in jail awaiting trial, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Special Consultant Wade E. Brown for the State.*

*A. B. Harrington III for defendant appellant.*

PARKER, Judge.

Since defendant pled guilty this appeal presents only the question whether error appears on the face of the record proper. *State v. Roberts,*279 N.C. 500, 183 S.E. 2d 647. None does. Before accepting the plea, the trial judge examined defendant and found that his plea was freely, understandingly and voluntarily made. Defendant’s signed transcript of plea supports these *592findings. The acceptance of the plea will not be disturbed on this appeal. *State v. Jones,*278 N.C. 259, 179 S.E. 2d 433.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.
#### LAWRENCE E. HORTEN, Appellant, v. MYRTLE KEATING, Surviving Spouse and Sole Heir of MILES KEATING, Deceased, Respondent.

No. 7720

May 21, 1975

535 P.2d 796

[Rehearing denied June 17, .1975]

*Michael L. Hines,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*A. Loring Primeaux*and *Fadgen & Johnson,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

*319OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

By Last Will dated November 6, 1970, Myles Keating bequeathed his estate to his friend and business partner, Larry Horten, and also appointed Horten executor. Keating was not then married. On September 23, 1972, Keating married Myrtle McAvin, to whom he remained married until his death. Provision was not made for Myrtle by marriage contract, by the aforementioned Last Will, nor was she mentioned therein to show an intention not to make provision for her.1 The decedent left no issue, father, mother, brother or sister surviving. The record does not establish whether his estate was his separate property, or his interest in community property.

If he attempted to bequeath his separate estate, and the dis-positive provision of his will was nullified by his subsequent ■marriage to Myrtle, then NRS 134.050(4) provides that such ■separate property shall go to the surviving wife,2 since, in truth, he died intestate. On the other hand, if he attempted to bequeath his interest in community property, and the bequest ■was nullified by reason of his later marriage, such interest would go to Myrtle as his surviving spouse.3

Following a contest of the dispositive provision of the will by Myrtle, the surviving spouse, the district court ruled that the decedent’s estate was to go to Myrtle as though the decedent had died intestate, since, in the circumstances related, the Last *320Will was revoked by his subsequent marriage to her. That ruling was correct. The will was revoked as to Myrtle, and whatever interest she would have taken had her husband died intestate goes to her as the surviving spouse unaffected by the provisions of the will. In re Estate of Stewart, 444 P.2d 337, 338 (Cal. 1968); In re Piatt’s Estate, 183 P.2d 919 (Cal.App. 1947).

Affirmed.

1

NRS 133.110: “If a person marries after making a will and the spouse survives the maker, the will is revoked as to the spouse, unless provision has been made for the spouse by marriage contract, or unless the spouse is provided for in the will, or in such a way mentioned therein as to show an intention not to make such provision; and no other evidence to rebut the presumption of revocation shall be received.”

2

NRS 134.050(4): “If the decedent shall have no issue, father, mother, brother, or sister, or children of any issue, all of the separate property of the intestate shall go to the surviving husband or wife.”

3

NRS 123.250: “Upon the death of either-husband or wife, one-half of the community belongs to the surviving spouse; the other half is subject to the testamentary disposition of the decedent, and in the absence thereof goes to the surviving spouse. . . .”
#### JAMES RAY BOYER, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 7284

February 26, 1975

532 P.2d 273

*Rodlin Goff,*State Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; and *Larry Hicks,*District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

James Ray Boyer entered a guilty plea to a charge of selling marijuana to an adult, in violation of NRS 453.210 [now NRS 453.321]. He seeks in this post-conviction proceeding to set aside his judgment of conviction, on the ground that appropriate inquiry regarding his waiver of constitutional trial rights was not made when his guilty plea was accepted. Boyer was represented by counsel when he entered his plea and later when he *119was sentenced. We have reviewed the transcript of the proceedings at both hearings, and they reflect that the canvass by the district judge fully met the standards of Armstrong v. Warden, 90 Nev. 8, 518 P.2d 147 (1974). See also Patton v. Warden, 91 Nev. 1, 530 P.2d 107 (1975).

We therefore affirm the order of the court below denying Boyer’s post-conviction petition.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.V., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE 

SYSTEM, Fresno, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0853

Issued: December 1, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On May 12, 2022 appellant, through counsel, sought an appeal from a purported April 5, 

2022 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).

2

 The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0853.

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 

(FECA).3 This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2 The case record contains an OWCP decision dated March29, 2022. As counsel did not appeal from this decision, 

the Board will not review this decision in this appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3;see also D.E., Docket No. 21-0531 

(issued June 16, 2021).

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).
2

the date appellant filed her appeal.

4

 The Board notes that the case record does not contain a final 

adverse decision of OWCP dated April 5, 2022.

As there is no final adverse decision of OWCP, appealed by counsel within 180 days of 

the filing of this appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0853 must be 

dismissed.5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0853 is dismissed.

Issued: December 1, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4

Id. at § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of 

issuance of a decision of OWCP.”

5

Id.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 65934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21740]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-920-1310-01; WYW 146279]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas 
lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease WYW146279 from Gulf 
Exploration LLC for lands in Converse County, Wyoming. The petition was 
filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date 
the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. 
Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $166 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease WYW146279 effective October 1, 2004, under the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the 
lands.

Pamela J. Lewis,
Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 05-21740 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report  included  in  this  Form  10-K,  into  the  Company's  previously  filed
Registration  Statements  on Form S-8 File Nos.  33-30249,  33-38201,  33-45610,
33-45614, 33-80084, 33-60343, 33-60389, 333-69789 and 333-69791, and on Form S-3
File Nos. 33-31409, 33-44769, 33-89178, 333-13859 and 333-34715.

                                      /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Rochester, New York
  April 14, 2000

                                      -95-