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

**CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the 12 months ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”), I, Joseph D. Moore, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ofthe Company, certify, for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tomy knowledge:

            (1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                        of the Exchange Act; 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/ Joseph D. Moore                            Joseph D. MooreExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerSeptember 13, 2005
#### § 6.84 Form of payment.

Payment shall be by check or money order payable to The Federal Emergency Management Agency and shall be addressed to the system manager.
### §§2211 to 2216. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–394, title IV, §401, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3661

Section 2211, Pub. L. 100–407, title I, §101, Aug. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 1047; Pub. L. 103–218, title I, §101, Mar. 9, 1994, 108 Stat. 57; Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, §414(b)(1), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1242, authorized program.

Section 2212, Pub. L. 100–407, title I, §102, Aug. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 1052; Pub. L. 103–218, title I, §102, Mar. 9, 1994, 108 Stat. 63; Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, §414(b)(2), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1242, related to development grants.

Section 2213, Pub. L. 100–407, title I, §103, Aug. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 1055; Pub. L. 103–218, title I, §103, Mar. 9, 1994, 108 Stat. 70, related to extension grants.

Section 2214, Pub. L. 100–407, title I, §104, Aug. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 1056; Pub. L. 103–218, title I, §104, Mar. 9, 1994, 108 Stat. 75, related to progress criteria and reports.

Section 2215, Pub. L. 100–407, title I, §105, Aug. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 1057; Pub. L. 101–476, title IX, §901(a)(2), Oct. 30, 1990, 104 Stat. 1142; Pub. L. 103–218, title I, §105, Mar. 9, 1994, 108 Stat. 76, related to administrative provisions.

Section 2216, Pub. L. 100–407, title I, §106, Aug. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 1058; Pub. L. 103–218, title I, §106, Mar. 9, 1994, 108 Stat. 82, related to authorization of appropriations.
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6 and 404.7, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the invention described in U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 60/501,243 entitled “Small Molecule Inhibitors of Botulinum Toxin,” filed September 8, 2003. The United States government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army, has rights in this invention.

# ADDRESSES:

Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA-Z, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 04-23231  Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
#### Jacob Goldberg, Respondent, v. Gustave Goldberg, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.
NJDEP HZRESULT Error Report
       File:       C:\Datamgt\NJ EDD\cwk\DGW 2H10\HZRESULT
       Date:       03/21/2011 13:59
       Errors#:    (0)

 No HZRESULT errors have been identified!
[Cite as Norris v. Welch , 124 Ohio St.3d 203, 2010-Ohio-115.]

N ORRIS , A PPELLANT , v. W ELCH , W ARDEN , A PPELLEE . [Cite as Norris v. Welch , 124 Ohio St.3d 203, 2010-Ohio-115.] Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — Res judicata bars petitioner from filing a su ccessive habeas corpus petition — Judgment affirmed. (No. 2009-1821

─ Submitted January 13, 2010

─ Decided January 21, 2010.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-09-1212, 2009-Ohio-4598.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Robert Lee Norris, for a writ of habeas corpus. Res judicata barred Norris from filing a successive ha beas corpus petition and from seeking successive appellate reviews of the same issues. Miller v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. &
Corr. , 123 Ohio St.3d 87, 2009-Ohio-4081, 914 N.E.2d 367, ¶ 1; Shie v. Smith
, 123 Ohio St.3d 89, 2009-Ohio-4079, 914 N.E.2d 369, ¶ 2. Judgment affirmed.
M OYER , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

__________________ Robert Lee Norris, pro se.

_____________________
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-99-30

May 19, 1999

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH COMMONWEALTH EDISON OFFICIALS

TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE AT BRAIDWOOD NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet Thursday, May 27, with

Commonwealth Edison Company officials to discuss the recent Plant Performance Review of

the Braidwood Nuclear Power Station. The plant is located in Braidwood, Illinois.

The meeting will be at 1 p.m. in the Training Building at the Braidwood plant. The plant

is located on Illinois Route 53 about two miles south of Braidwood. The meeting is open to

public observation. NRC officials will be available after the meeting for questions and

comments from members of the public and the news media.

[The Plant Performance Review assessment of Braidwood was previously covered in

News Announcement RIII-99-18, issued on April 1]

In a March 26 letter to Commonwealth Edison Company, which operates the plant,

Geoffrey Grant, Division Director in the NRC’s Region III Office, said “Braidwood’s overall

performance was acceptable.”

The text of the plant performance review letter is available from the NRC Region III

Office of Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr/456ppr1.htm.

The review covered the time period from August 30, 1997, through January 31.

NRC reviews safety performance twice a year at every licensed nuclear power plant in

the nation. These reviews give the agency staff an integrated assessment of plant performance

and provide a basis for planning inspection activities.

Plant performance reviews are an interim measure NRC is using to monitor nuclear

power plant safety. The agency began using it for this purpose after suspending the

Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) process until a new assessment

program is developed. Previously, SALP reports were issued every 12 to 24 months.

The new reactor oversight and assessment program being developed will provide

quarterly performance reports, based on a number of performance indicators and on inspection

findings. This program will be tested at nine plants beginning in June and will be extended to all

plants next January. A full description of the new program is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.

####
No: 24-003 January 12, 2024 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to Hold Oral Argument 

on Perry License Renewal

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will hold oral 

argument virtually on Jan. 30 on a petition requesting a hearing on Energy Harbor Nuclear 

Corp.’s application to renew the operating license of Perry Nuclear Power Plant, near Perry, 

Ohio, for an additional 20 years. 

The oral argument, scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. Eastern time, will allow the Board to 

ask questions about the admissibility of two proposed contentions from petitioners Ohio NuclearFree Network and Beyond Nuclear challenging safety and environmental aspects of the 

application. The Board will hear argument from representatives for the petitioners, Energy 

Harbor Nuclear, and the NRC staff.

The public will have listen-only access to the oral argument by dialing 301-576-2978 and 

entering the passcode 510 048 948, followed by the “#” sign. 

The Board is composed of three administrative judges from the NRC’s Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board Panel. Boards conduct adjudicatory hearings on NRC licensing and 

enforcement actions, and they are independent of the NRC staff. A Board’s ruling may be 

appealed to the Commission, the five-member body that sets NRC policy.
#### § 127.508 May SBA appeal a contracting officer's decision not to make a requirement available for award as a WOSB Program contract?

The Administrator may appeal a contracting officer's decision not to make a particular requirement available for award under the WOSB Program.
### §51. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 642

Section, act Mar. 4, 1913, ch. 141, §8, 37 Stat. 738, related to mediation in labor disputes and the appointment of commissioners of conciliation. See section 172 of this title.
### §49l. Miscellaneous operating authorities

(a) The activities carried out pursuant to section 49f of this title shall be subject to the performance accountability measures that are based on indicators described in section 3141(b)(2)(A)(i) of this title.

(b)(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the referral of any applicant to private agencies as long as the applicant is not charged a fee.

(2) No funds paid under this chapter may be used by any State for advertising in newspapers for high paying jobs unless such State submits an annual report to the Secretary beginning in December 1984 concerning such advertising and the justifications therefor, and the justification may include that such jobs are part of a State industrial development effort.

(June 6, 1933, ch. 49, §13, as added Pub. L. 97–300, title VI, §601(h), formerly title V, §501(h), Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1397; renumbered title VI, §601(h), Pub. L. 100–628, title VII, §712(a)(1), (2), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3248; amended Pub. L. 97–404, §5, Dec. 31, 1982, 96 Stat. 2027; Pub. L. 113–128, title III, §307, July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1627.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 49l, act June 6, 1933, ch. 49, §13, 48 Stat. 117, relating to mail franking privileges to employment systems, was transferred to section 338 of former Title 39, The Postal Service. Section 338 of former Title 39 was repealed and reenacted as section 4152 of former Title 39, The Postal Service by Pub. L. 86–682, Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 578. Section 4152 of former Title 39 was repealed and reenacted as section 3202 of Title 39, Postal Service, by Pub. L. 91–375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 719.

#### Amendments

2014—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 113–128 amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: "The Secretary is authorized to establish performance standards for activities under this chapter which shall take into account the differences in priorities reflected in State plans."

1982—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 97–404 designated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2014 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 113–128 effective on the first day of the first full program year after July 22, 2014 (July 1, 2015), see section 506 of Pub. L. 113–128, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3101 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1983, but with Secretary authorized to use funds appropriated for fiscal 1983 to plan for orderly implementation of section, see section 181(i) of Pub. L. 97–300, which was formerly classified to section 1591(i) of this title.

#### Definitions of Terms in Pub. L. 113–128

Except as otherwise provided, definitions in section 3 of Pub. L. 113–128, which is classified to section 3102 of this title, apply to this section.
#### Trinity Operating Company, Inc., v. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo Alberto REYES-NAJERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40965.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ricardo Alberto Reyes-Najera (Reyes) appeals his conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) for being found unlawfully present in the United States after having been deported following his conviction for an aggravated felony. Reyes asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. We need not decide the applicability of the waiver provisions in this case because the issue that Reyes raises is foreclosed.

Reyes’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Reyes contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert, denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Reyes properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.
### §1138. Appropriations

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to enable the Secretary to carry out his functions and duties under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, §508, Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 895.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–406, known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Titles I, III, and IV of such Act are classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1001 of this title and Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Regulations

Secretary authorized, effective Sept. 2, 1974, to promulgate regulations wherever provisions of this subchapter call for the promulgation of regulations, see section 1031 of this title.
NUMBER 13-16-00479-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ALEJANDRO EMILIANO SOLIS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relator Alejandro Emiliano Solis filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the 

above cause on August 29, 2016, seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his pending 

motion for nunc pro tunc judgment. The relator did not furnish an appendix or record to 

support his request for relief.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no 

adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel 

is a purely ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. In re Harris, 

 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re McCann, 422 

S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet 

both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. 

State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement 

to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show 

himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements, 

the relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent 

evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise 

argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the 

appendix or record.” See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. The relator must furnish an 

appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) 

(specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required 

contents for the record).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus 

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not met his burden to obtain 

mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

2nd day of September, 2016.
### §155. National Labor Relations Board; principal office, conducting inquiries throughout country; participation in decisions or inquiries conducted by member

The principal office of the Board shall be in the District of Columbia, but it may meet and exercise any or all of its powers at any other place. The Board may, by one or more of its members or by such agents or agencies as it may designate, prosecute any inquiry necessary to its functions in any part of the United States. A member who participates in such an inquiry shall not be disqualified from subsequently participating in a decision of the Board in the same case.

(July 5, 1935, ch. 372, §5, 49 Stat. 452; June 23, 1947, ch. 120, title I, §101, 61 Stat. 140.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1947—Act June 23, 1947, reenacted section without change.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1947 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by act June 23, 1947, see section 104 of act June 23, 1947, set out as a note under section 151 of this title.
#### MEYERS, Appellant, v. COLEMAN, Sheriff, Respondent.

(192 N. W. 184.)

(File No. 5148.

Opinion filed February 20, 1923.)

1. Exemptions — Claim of Exemption. — Wife May Claim Exemption, Where Husband Fails To Bo So.

Where a husband fails to assert his right to exemption, his wife may make such claim.

2. Exemptions — Mandamus—Claim of Exemptions — Claim of Exemption Within 02 Bays From Bate of Levy Made Within Reasonable Time.

A claim of exemption, by the wife when husband has failed to- make claim, within 22 days from the date of th-e- levy, under execution, was made within a reasonable time, and entitled her ■to writ of mandamus requiring the sheriff to restore the property seized.

Appeal from, Circuit 'Court, Tripp County; Hon. N. D. Burci-i, Judge.

Manadamus by Lillian Meyers against Thomas Coleman, Sheriff of Tripp (County. Judgment for -defendant, and relator appeals.

Reversed, with directions to issue peremptory writ.

*W. J. Hooper,*of Gregory, for Appellant.

*Buffington & Prchal,*of Dallas, for Respondent.

Appellant cited: Chesney v. Francisco, 12 Neb. 626, 12 N. W. 94; Robinson v. Hughes (Ind. Sup.), 20 N. E. 220; Rice v. Nolan, 33 Kan. 28, 5 Pac. 437; 'Daniels v. 'Hamilton, 52 Ala. 108; Thompson on Homestead! & Exemptions, 809; U. S. Fidelity & *245Guaranty Co. v. Hollenshead ('Wash.), 98 Pac. 749; Boylston v. Rankin (Ala.), 21 So. 995; Stout v. Price, 56 N. E. 857; 'Commonwealth v. Burnette, 44 So'. 960; Hartman v. Wood, 67 N. Y. S. 1046; State v. Allen, 35 S. E. 990; Noyes v. Belding, 5 S. D. 603; State v. Emmerson, 74 Mo. 607.

Respondent cited: Noyes et al vl Belding et al, 5 S. D. 603; Meyer v. Beaver, 9 S. D. 168; First National Bank v. Lee, 141 N. W. 716; Angelí v. Johnson, 2 N. W. 387; Moffitt v. Adams, 14 N. W. 88; Zielke v. Morgan, 7 N. W. 283.

DILLON, J.

The sole question before this court: Was the claim for exemption on the part of the wife made within a reasonable time?

[1, 2] The husband having failed to assert the right, the wife was entitled to make such, claim. She made it within 22 days from the date of the levy. We hold that the claim was made within a reasonable time.

On the authority of Goodland v. Smejkal (S. D.), 190 N. W. 1017, this cause is reversed, with directions that the peremptory writ of mandamus be issuied, requiring the sheriff to restore to the relator the property claimed as exempt.

Note — Reported in 192 N. W. 184. See American Key-Numbered Digest, (1) Exemptions, Key-No. 118, 25 'C. J. Sec. 23'2; 11 R. C. L. 547; (2) Exemptions, Key-No. 119(1), 25 C. J. Secs. 235-240.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)
**Title:****Annual report, parts...**
 
2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc: ID1.27:SL 1/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000637687
 
October 27, 2017
#### § 296.11 Deadline for notifying FEMA of injuries.

The deadline for filing a Notice of Loss is November 14, 2024. Except as provided in § 296.35 with respect to a request to reopen a claim, an injury that has not been described: on a Notice of Loss, on a supplement to a Notice of Loss or a request to supplement a Notice of Loss under § 296.34 received by the Claims Office on or before November 14, 2024 cannot be compensated under the Act. The Act establishes this deadline and does not provide any extensions of the filing deadline.