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



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Joseph C. Cahill, Director and CFO of PowerCold Corporation (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: August 15, 2005



/s/ Joseph C. Cahill

Joseph C. Cahill

Director and CFO
|   | (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                Registrant. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                                                         |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/              Richard Paul              Richman                                                                                                                           |   |   |   |
| Richard              Paul Richman                                                                                                                                            |   |   |        |
| Chief                Executive Officer of Wilder RichmanResources                Corporation, a general partner ofthe                RegistrantApril                15, 2008 |   |   |   |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ODELL JOHNSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 279 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ODELL JOHNSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 280 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of January, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

January 29, 2015

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., February 10, 2015

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Closed

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: It was determined by a unanimous vote of the Commissioners that 

the Commission consider and act upon the following in closed

session: Brody Mining, LLC v. Secretary of Labor, Docket Nos.

WEVA 2014-82-R, et al. (Issues include whether to grant or deny

the Secretary of Labor’s Emergency Motion for Stay of ALJ’s 

Order Dismissing Pattern-of-Violations Notice.)

A certification regarding the closure of the meeting will be placed

on the Commission’s website (www.fmshrc.gov).

Commission employees shall not attend this meeting unless they 

have been assigned to work on this case with Commissioners.

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
Consent of Neil N. Gow
 
 I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the El Morro Project, Region III, Chile,” dated March 23, 2012, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2013, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.
 
 
 Dated this 28th day of March, 2014
 
 
 “Neil Gow”Name:
Neil Gow, P.Geo.Title:
Associate Principal Geologistfor Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1631

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Code, to increase the maximum

amount in controversy permitted for cases under the jurisdiction of

the Small Claims and Conciliation Branch of the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 1, 1993

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the District of Columbia

A BILL

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Code, to increase

the maximum amount in controversy permitted for cases

under the jurisdiction of the Small Claims and Conciliation Branch of the Superior Court of the District of

Columbia.

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 ‘‘District of Columbia

5 Justice Reform Act of 1993’’.
2

•HR 1631 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

2 PERMITTED FOR CASES UNDER JURISDIC3 TION OF SMALL CLAIMS AND CONCILIATION

4 BRANCH OF SUPERIOR COURT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 11–1321, D.C. Code, is

6 amended by striking ‘‘$2,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$5,000’’.

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

8 subsection (a) shall apply to cases filed with the Superior

9 Court of the District of Columbia on or after the date of

10 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
EXHIBIT 10.75


 


Independent
Auditors’ Consent


 


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-16039, No. 333-64082, No. 333-64080, No. 333-107420 and No. 333-123330
on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-118655 on Form S-3 of Source
Interlink Companies, Inc. of our report dated May 3, 2007 (May 14, 2007 as to
the effects of the sale of the Company discussed in Note 18 to the combined financial
statements), relating to the combined financial statements of PRIMEDIA Enthusiast
Media appearing in this Current Report on Form 8-K of Source Interlink
Companies, Inc.


 


	
  /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

  
	
   

  
	
  New York, New York

  
	
  October 15, 2007
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 1 0 5 5 1 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. M I C H A E L A N T H O N Y R O D R I G U E Z , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 1 : 0 6

- C R

- 3 6

- 1

B e f o r e H I G G I N B O T H A M , G A R Z A , a n d E L R O D , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t M i c h a e l A n t h o n y R o d r i g u e z h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e

w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. R o d r i g u e z h a s n o t f i l e d a

r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o

n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o

w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n ,
a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 15 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-10551 Document: 00511382065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 67183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31985]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1203]

Approval of Manufacturing Authority; Foreign-Trade Zone 7, IPR 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Pharmaceuticals), Mayaguez, Puerto Rico

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Corporation, 
grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 7, on behalf of IPR Pharmaceuticals, 
Inc., has requested authority to manufacture pharmaceutical products 
under FTZ procedures within FTZ 7--Site L-164-0-63 (Doc. 39-2001);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (66 FR 49162, 9/26/01);
    Whereas, pursuant to section 400.32(b)(1) of the FTZ Board 
regulations (15 CFR 400), the Secretary of Commerce's delegate on the 
FTZ Board has the authority to act for the Board in making decisions 
regarding manufacturing activity within existing zones when the 
proposed activity is the same, in terms of products involved, to 
activity recently aproved by the Board and similar in circumstances (15 
CFR 400.32(b)(1)(i)): and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the request 
is in the public interest;
    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application on behalf of IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to 
manufacture pharmaceutical products under zone procedures within FTZ 
7--Site L-164-0-63, is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's 
regulations, including Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, the 14th day of December 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 01-31985 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-05-M
```
#### CHATMAN v. CHATMAN.

No. 34599.

Oct. 10, 1950.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1950.

*223 P. 2d 538.*

Young, Young & Young, of Sapulpa, for plaintiff in error.

Wilkerson & Smith, of Sapulpa, for defendant in error.

O’NEAL, J.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a motion for a new trial in a judgment in a divorce proceeding. Judgment was entered January 26, 1949, and on March 11, 1949, plaintiff’s motion for new trial was overruled, and he was given 60 days to make and serve case-made. No case-made having been made and served within such time, the plaintiff after the extension of time had expired filed an application for a further order which was denied by the trial court. Thereafter, on June 25, 1949, plaintiff filed what is denominated “alias motion for new trial” to obtain a review of the order made by the trial court on June 23, 1949, refusing further time in which to make and serve the case-made. On August 15, 1949, plaintiff filed an application in the Supreme Court for an extension of time. This application was heard and overruled on August 25, 1949.

On November 8, 1949, the trial court entered an order overruling the “alias motion for new trial.” The appeal is apparently from this order.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the case-made was not served and settled under a valid order extending the time in which to make and serve the same and is therefore a nullity and the proceeding based upon such case-made presents nothing for review. The motion must be sustained. The 60 days in which to make and serve a case-made expired May 10, 1949, and no valid order authorizing the making and serving of a case-made was made thereafter. The case-made was served January 6, 1950. This court has repeatedly held that a case-made not served within the time allowed by statute or within the time as extended by the trial court is a nullity and where the assignments of error cannot be reviewed otherwise than upon a case-made there is nothing before this court for review. Harrell v. Cole, 168 Okla. 423, 33 P. 2d 613; Pinkard v. MacGregor, 199 Okla. 536, 188 P. 2d 227.

Since the alleged errors in the granting of divorce can only be presented *525by a case-made, and the same was not served within the time allowed by statute, or an order extending such time, the appeal must be and the same is dismissed.

DAVISON, C.J., ARNOLD, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, LUTTRELL, HALLEY, and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

K.J. BRUBAKER, B.T. PALMER, M.N. FULTON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

BRANDON L. READ

SERGEANT (E-5), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201600137

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 15 January 2016.

Military Judge: LtCol E.A. Harvey, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, 1st Marine 

Division (Rein), Camp Pendleton, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LtCol D.C. Young, 

USMC.

For Appellant: CDR Richard E.N. Federico, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

9 August 2016

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

 

 For the Court 

 R.H. TROIDL 

 Clerk of Court
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 19

- 00389

- CR

EX PARTE Kenneth Richard RIKER II

From the County Court at Law , Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 25621A

Honorable Mark Cashion, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 2, 2020

DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by Appellant and his

attorney. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). Appellant’s motion is granted; this appeal is dismissed. See

id. ; Hypolite v. State , 647 S.W.2d 294, 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) ; Conners v. State , 966 S.W.2d

108, 110 (Tex. App.

— Hou ston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’ d)

.

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED 1/31/99 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                         583,959
<SECURITIES>                                    73,658
<RECEIVABLES>                                  192,317
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,218
<INVENTORY>                                     46,689
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               932,637
<PP&E>                                         129,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,915
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,031,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          225,356
<BONDS>                                        415,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,874
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     374,788
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,031,393
<SALES>                                        696,094
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               696,094
<CGS>                                          279,690
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  279,690
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               301,357
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                123,310
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,783
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            111,527
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   111,527
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.55
        


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOHN KLECHA , Appellant,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2016 S06 TITLE TRUST , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 995

[ May 12, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Barry Stone

, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE17010431

.
Philippe Symonovicz of Law Offices of Philippe Symonovicz, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Adam A. Diaz and Roy Dia z of Diaz Anselmo & Associates P.A., Fort Lauderdale

, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ROSS , G ERBER and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with regulations FEMA has established a Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 hourly rate of $36.71 for assessing and collecting fees from Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees for services provided by FEMA personnel for FEMA's REP Program. 

# DATES:

This user fee hourly rate is effective for FY 2002 (October 1, 2001, to September 30, 2002). 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Russell Salter, Division Director, Technological Hazards Division, Readiness, Response, and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3030 (phone), or (email) russ.salter@fema.gov. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

As authorized by Public Law 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, FEMA we will charge an hourly user fee rate of $36.71 to NRC licensees of commercial nuclear power plants for all REP Program site-specific related services provided by FEMA personnel as described in 44 CFR Part 354. FEMA will deposit these funds in the REP Program Fund to offset the actual costs by FEMA for its REP Program. 

FEMA established the hourly rate on the basis of the methodology set forth in 44 CFR 354.4(b), “Determination of site-specific biennial exercise related component for FEMA personnel,” and will use the rate to assess and collect fees for site-specific biennial exercise related services rendered by FEMA personnel. This hourly rate only addresses charges to NRC licensees for services that FEMA personnel provide under the site-specific component, not charges for services FEMA personnel provide under the flat fee component referenced at 44 CFR 354.4(d), nor for services that FEMA contractors provide. We will charge for FEMA contractors' services in accordance with 44 CFR 354.4(c) and (d) for the recovery of appropriated funds obligated for the Emergency Management Planning and Assistance (EMPA) portion of FEMA's REP Program budget. 

Kenneth S. Kasprisin, 

Assistant Director, Readiness, Response and Recovery Directorate. 

[FR Doc. 01-31702 Filed 12-26-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6718-06-P
#### Anna HILL, Administratrix of the Estate of Neil O. Wallace, Deceased, Appellant, v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE COMPANY.

No. 12174.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 15, 1957.

Decided May 20, 1957.

Hymen Schlesinger, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Bruce R. Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Pringle, Bredin & Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges, and SORG, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal presents the very narrow contention of the inadequacy of the award of the district court in a suit brought under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688.

Appellant Neil O. Wallace was injured aboard the vessel of defendant-appellee on March 25, 1949. Medical testimony indicated that appellant recovered from this injury on or about June 16, 1949; he thereafter held a job as fireman for a barge line for a period of twenty-seven months. The district court found the defendant negligent and awarded appellant $784.59, a sum representing loss of wages and pain and suffering for the period from March 25, 1949, to June 16, 1949. It is argued by appellant that this award is inadequate because it should have included a sum for loss of future earnings. This contention is predicated upon the testimony of appellant’s medical expert, who stated that it was his opinion that the present pain and stiffness in appellant’s knee were caused by his injury. However, this expert examined appellant only two days before trial, more than seven years after the accident. In view of this and because appellant’s medical history disclosed three previous accidents to the injured limb and the presence of chronic osteomyelitis, the district court found that there was no credible evidence of causation between appellant’s present condition and the accident occurring on March 25, 1949.

*311There was sufficient basis in the record for the district court to disallow compensation for loss of future earnings as there was medical testimony that appellant had fully recovered from the injury in less than three months.

Although the award is a modest one, and perhaps is less than we would have made had the case been tried to us, we cannot say that it is so inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court and necessitate a new trial.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.