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



Statement of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Knight Trading Group, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), John B. Howard, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



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



/s/    JOHN B.
HOWARDName: John B. HowardTitle:   Chief Financial OfficerDate:   May 6, 2004




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
§ 21.9 Parts, subparts, and undesignated center heads. ( a ) The normal divisions of a chapter are parts, consisting of a unified body of regulations applying to a specific function of an issuing agency or devoted to specific subject matter under the control of that agency.
( b ) Subparts or undesignated center heads may be used to group related sections within a part. Undesignated center heads may also be used to group sections within a subpart.
cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge Marquion Sullivan Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2
§ 11.310 Bail. ( a ) Each person charged with a criminal offense under this part shall be entitled to release from custody pending trial under whichever one or more of the following conditions is deemed necessary to reasonably assure the appearance of the person at any time lawfully required: ( 1 ) Release on personal recognizance upon execution by the accused of a written promise to appear at trial and all other lawfully required times;
( 2 ) Release to the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to assure the accused's appearance;
( 3 ) Release with reasonable restrictions on the travel, association, or place of residence of the accused during the period of release;
( 4 ) Release after deposit of a bond or other sufficient collateral in an amount specified by the magistrate or a bail schedule;
( 5 ) Release after execution of a bail agreement by two responsible members of the community; or
( 6 ) Release upon any other condition deemed reasonably necessary to assure the appearance of the accused as required.
( b ) Any law enforcement officer authorized to do so by the court may admit an arrested person to bail pending trial pursuant to a bail schedule and conditions prepared by the court.
( c ) A convicted person may be released from custody pending appeal on such conditions as the magistrate determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the accused unless the magistrate determines that release of the accused is likely to pose a danger to the community, the accused, or any other person.
( d ) The Court of Indian Offenses may revoke its release of the defendant and order him or her committed at any time where it determines that the conditions of release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant, or if any conditions of release have been violated.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 28, 2009 

s0420 

Order 

 

April 28, 2009 

137935 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137935 

 COA: 287053 

Wayne CC: 05-004164-01-FC 

PAUL BURKS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 25, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10536 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**James L. Rudzavice,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:0 7

- C R

- 138

- 1 USDC No. 4:20

- CV

- 505

Before **Wiener, Southwick,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * James Rudzavice was convicted of child pornography offenses and sentenced to 360 months in prison. United States v. Rudzavice , 586 F.3d 310,
312

- 13 (5th Cir. 2009). He appeals from the district court ’ s denial of a motion

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 18, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10536 Document: 00515679678 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/18/2020No. 20

- 10536

2 for compassionate release under 1 8 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), in which h e argued that the threat of COVID

- 19 in prison constituted extraordinary and compelling r easons for release. He asserts on a p peal that he has already

cont r act ed COVID

- 19 once and fears reinfection. He also asserts that the district court was b ia sed, and he seeks a rem a nd for reco nsid erati o n by a differe n t judge.

We need not decide whether the r i sk of rein f ecti o n constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reaso n for compassionate release because the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Rudzavice remained a danger to the safety of other s and that his immediate release after serving less than ha l f o f his sentence would not be in the inter est of justice and would minimize the seriousness of his crimes

. S e

e United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 692

- 93 (5th Cir. 2020)

. The judgment is **AFFIRMED** . Rudzavice ’ s motion for appointment of counsel and all of his other requests for relief are **DENIED**

. Case: 20-10536 Document: 00515679678 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/18/2020
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# USINDOPACOM Statement on DPRK Missile Launch

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command Public Affairs

We are aware of the two ballistic missile launches and are consulting closely with our allies and partners. While we have assessed that this event does not pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel or territory, or to our allies, the missile launch highlights the destabilizing impact of the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs. The U.S. commitments to the defense of the Republic of Korea and Japan remain ironclad.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
# C_2013253EN.01001801.xml

| 3.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/18

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2013/C 253/13

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 7.8.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 7.8.2013-31.12.2013 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Stock or group of stocks | RED/N1G14P. |
| Species | Redfish (Sebastes spp.) |
| Zone | Greenland waters of NAFO 1F and Greenland waters of V and XIV |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 30/TQ40 |

Date and time of closure

7.8.2013

Duration

7.8.2013-31.12.2013

Member State

Germany

Stock or group of stocks

RED/N1G14P.

Species

Redfish (Sebastes spp.)

Sebastes

Zone

Greenland waters of NAFO 1F and Greenland waters of V and XIV

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

30/TQ40

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2013049EN.01000701.xml

| 20.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/7

---

Notice for the attention of the persons, entities and bodies to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2013/89/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe apply

2013/C 49/04

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons, entities and bodies that appear in Annex I to Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2013/89/CFSP (1), and in Annex III to Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe.

1

The Council of the European Union has determined that the persons, entities and bodies that appear in the above mentioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/101/CFSP and Regulation (EC) No 314/2004.

The attention of the persons, entities and bodies concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 7 of the Regulation).

The persons, entities and bodies concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above mentioned list should be reconsidered. Any such request should be sent to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C — Unit 1C (Horizontal Issues) |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C — Unit 1C (Horizontal Issues)

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons, entities and bodies concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 46, 19.2.2013, p. 37.

1

---
#### Robert BREST, Administrator of the Estate of Elizabeth H. Bauer, Deceased, v. PHILADELPHIA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY and William G. Martin.

Nos. 11337, 11338.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Oct. 13, 1954.

Decided Oct. 26, 1954.

H. Francis DeLone, Philadelphia, Pa. (Jay B. Leopold, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for Philadelphia Transp. Co.

Glen A. Troutman, Philadelphia, Pa. (McWilliams, Wagoner & Troutman, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for William G. Martin.

Arthur M. Harrison, Philadelphia, Pa. (Arnold M. Kessler, Bernstein & Bernstein, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before GOODRICH, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a death by wrongful act case. There was a verdict of $36,500 for the surviving husband and $3,500 for the administrator. The appellants do not deny liability but ask for a reversal on the ground that the damages awarded are excessive. This matter was carefully considered by the district court. It was there pointed out that in the case of a negligent death by wrongful act involving a wife and mother the damages are not limited to the services of a substitute hired housekeeper. It is to be borne in mind that our function on an appeal is not the same as that of the trial judge. In his discretion he may order a new trial if he thinks a verdict excessive. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a), 28 U.S.C.A. In this case the trial judge thought that the verdict was more than he would have given but was not sufficiently excessive to shock his conscience. As this Court has stated in Trowbridge v. Abrasive Co. of Philadelphia, 3 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 825, 830, we will not sub*332stitute our judgment for that of the trial court as to whether the verdict is excessive. Our function is to determine whether the verdict is so grossly excessive as to justify reversal on the ground that the denial of the motion for a new trial constituted an abuse of discretion. *Ibid.*We find no abuse of discretion in what the trial court did here.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
#### § 1187.31 May OIED award a grant that is duplicative of Federal funding from another source?

OIED may not award a grant under the IBIP that is duplicative of existing Federal funding from another source. Duplicative funding means any funding from other Federal grants that would overlap with the IBIP grant for the same activities described in the applicant's IBIP proposal.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 117 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 117

  Expressing support for a National Week of Reflection and Tolerance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 1999

 Mr. Rangel submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing support for a National Week of Reflection and Tolerance.

Whereas America is a pluralistic country comprised of different races, genders, 
        ethnic groups, religions, and creeds;
Whereas our Nation, founded on the principles of tolerance, diversity, justice, 
        and equality, should affirm these common values and principles; and
Whereas Americans should reflect on the importance of understanding and 
        tolerance in our pluralistic country: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That a National Week of Reflection and Tolerance should 
be established encouraging communities and institutions around the 
Nation to engage in events and activities that are reflective, 
educational, celebratory, and healing as they relate to diversity among 
Americans.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1000.432 To whom may a Tribe appeal a decision made before the AFA or an amendment to the AFA or compact is signed? ( a ) *Title I-eligible PFSA pre-award disputes.* For Title I—eligible PFSA disputes, appeal may only be filed with IBIA under the provisions set forth in 25 CFR 900.150(a) through (h), 900.152 through 900.169.
( b ) *Other pre-award disputes.* For all other pre-award disputes, including those involving PFSAs that are not Title I-eligible, appeals may be filed with the bureau head/Assistant Secretary or IBIA as noted below. However, the Tribe/Consortium may not avail itself of both paths for the same dispute. ( 1 ) *Bureau head/Assistant Secretary appeal.* Unless the initial decision being appealed is one that was made by the bureau head (those appeals are forwarded to the appropriate Assistant Secretary—see § 1000.433(c) of this subpart), the bureau head will decide appeals relating to these pre-award matters, that include but are not limited to disputes regarding: ( i ) PFSAs that are not Title 1-eligible;
( ii ) Eligibility for the applicant pool of self-governance Tribes;
( iii ) BIA residual functions;
( iv ) Decisions declining to provide requested information as addressed in § 1000.172 of this part;
( v ) Allocations of program funds when a dispute arises between a Consortium and a withdrawing Tribe; and
( vi ) Inherently Federal functions.
( 2 ) *IBIA appeal.* The Tribe/Consortium may choose to forego the administrative appeal through the bureau or the Assistant Secretary, as described in the paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and instead appeal directly to IBIA. The standard of review for such IBIA appeals will be an “abuse of discretion” standard.
# C_2013246EN.01000201.xml

| 27.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/2

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 246/02

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Tarbes–Paris (Orly) |
| Period of validity of the contract | From 1 June 2014 to 31 May 2018 |
| Deadline for submission of applications and tenders | 20 November 2013, before 12 noon, Paris time (France) |
| Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained | Syndicat mixte de la zone aéroportuaire Tarbes–Lourdes–Pyrénées |
| For the attention of Mr Le HOUELLEUR |
| Téléport 1 |
| Zone tertiaire Pyrène Aéro Pôle |
| 65290 Juillan |
| FRANCE |
| Tel. +33 562325651 |
| Fax +33 562329207 |
| E-mail: syndicat.mixte@pyrenia.fr |

Member State

France

Route concerned

Tarbes–Paris (Orly)

Period of validity of the contract

From 1 June 2014 to 31 May 2018

Deadline for submission of applications and tenders

20 November 2013, before 12 noon, Paris time (France)

Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained

Syndicat mixte de la zone aéroportuaire Tarbes–Lourdes–Pyrénées

For the attention of Mr Le HOUELLEUR

Téléport 1

Zone tertiaire Pyrène Aéro Pôle

65290 Juillan

FRANCE

Tel. +33 562325651

Fax +33 562329207

E-mail: syndicat.mixte@pyrenia.fr

---
#### § 11.106 Who is an Indian for purposes of this part?

For the purposes of the enforcement of the regulations in this part, an Indian is defined as a person who is a member of an Indian tribe which is recognized by the Federal Government as eligible for services from the BIA, and any other individual who is an “Indian” for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1152-1153.
§ 11.317 Parole. ( a ) Any person sentenced by the court of detention or labor shall be eligible for parole at such time and under such reasonable conditions as set by the Court of Indian Offenses.
( b ) Any person who violates the conditions of his or her parole may be required by the court to serve the whole original sentence, provided that such revocation or parole shall not be ordered without a hearing before the court at which the offender shall have the opportunity to explain his or her actions.
#### § 1000.97 What is a Tribal share?

A Tribal share is the amount determined for a particular Tribe/Consortium for a particular program at BIA regional, agency and central office levels under section 403(g)(3) and 405(d) of the Act.
September 9 2008