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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 of CepTor  Corporation,  (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  year  ended  September  30,  2005 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Donald
W. Fallon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  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)         The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of
            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.

November 15, 2005

                                 /s/ Donald W. Fallon
                                 --------------------
                                 Donald W. Fallon
                                 Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President,
                                 Finance and Administration and Secretary
```
#### Nathan I. Berger v. National Architects Bronze Company and Others.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present— Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Page, JJ.
§ 223.11 Appropriate action. The Administrator may take appropriate action in the case of any individual who is found in violation of the statutory or regulatory post employment restrictions after a final decision by: ( a ) Prohibiting the individual from making, on behalf of any other person (except the United States), any formal or informal appearance before, or with the intent to influence, any oral or written communication to, the Agency on any matter of business for a period not to exceed five years, which may be accomplished by directing Agency employees to refuse to participate in such appearance or to accept any such communication; and
( b ) Taking other appropriate disciplinary action.
Exhibit 32.2





Section 1350 Certification of Principal Financial Officer





CERTIFICATION 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 of INX Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James H. Long, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 Company.




By:
/s/ JAMES H. LONGJames H. LongChief Financial Officer
  July 18, 2011
#### John A. Hawkinson, Appellant, v. Clayton Packing Company, Inc., et al., Respondents.

There is no showing sufficient to warrant departure from the general rule that a commission for the taking of testimony without the State issue upon written interrogatories. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.
#### Before State Industrial Commission, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim of Viney Hamilton, Claimant, for the Death of Her Husband, Marshall Hamilton, v. John L. Hayes Construction Company, Employer, Respondent, and London Guarantee and Accident Company, Ltd., Insurance Carrier, Appellant.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, without costs.
### §300cc–16. Research centers

#### (a) In general

(1) The Secretary, acting through the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, may make grants to, and enter into contracts with, public and nonprofit private entities to assist such entities in planning, establishing, or strengthening, and providing basic operating support for, centers for basic and clinical research into, and training in, advanced diagnostic, prevention, and treatment methods for acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

(2) A grant or contract under paragraph (1) shall be provided in accordance with policies established by the Secretary, acting through the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and after consultation with the advisory council for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

(3) The Secretary shall ensure that, as appropriate, clinical research programs carried out under paragraph (1) include as research subjects women, children, hemophiliacs, and minorities.

#### (b) Use of financial assistance

(1) Financial assistance under subsection (a) may be expended for—

(A) the renovation or leasing of space;

(B) staffing and other basic operating costs, including such patient care costs as are required for clinical research;

(C) clinical training with respect to acquired immune deficiency syndrome (including such training for allied health professionals); and

(D) demonstration purposes, including projects in the long-term monitoring and outpatient treatment of individuals infected with the etiologic agent for such syndrome.

(2) Financial assistance under subsection (a) may not be expended to provide research training for which Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards may be provided under section 288 of this title.

#### (c) Duration of support

Support of a center under subsection (a) may be for not more than five years. Such period may be extended by the Director for additional periods of not more than five years each if the operations of such center have been reviewed by an appropriate technical and scientific peer review group established by the Director and if such group has recommended to the Director that such period should be extended.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

For the purpose of carrying out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXIII, §2316, as added Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §201(4), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3071; amended Pub. L. 107–206, title I, §804(c), Aug. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 874.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2002—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 107–206 substituted "Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards" for "National Research Service Awards".
#### In the Matter of Rosetta Newport, Respondent, v Philip Toia, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Appellants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, for the reasons expressed in the memorandum decision at Special Term, Conway, J. Petitioner’s claim of need under emergency conditions was clearly before the hearing officer and respondents, and was impliedly ruled upon adversely to petitioner. Such action was arbitrary and unreasonable under the circumstances and was properly annulled by Special Term. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court—article 78.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Denman, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.
#### § 19.6-8 Allotment to beneficiary.

If a court order is not a qualifying court order because it directs or implies that payment to the beneficiary is to be made by the principal rather than the Secretary of State, the principal may make an allotment to the beneficiary from his/her annuity. An annuitant may also make an allotment from his/her annuity to a previous spouse in the absence of a court order.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2007\5634\Order re March 12 hearing.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIRTRANSPORTATION ANTITRUSTLITIGATION                                                                      /

This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS                                                                      /

No. C 07-05634 CRB

MDL 1913

ORDER

The Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss will be held in abeyance pending a

determination of the applicability of the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction to these proceedings. 

The merits of those motions will therefore not be the subject of the hearing scheduled for

March 12, 2010.  Instead, the parties should be prepared to discuss the merits of Defendants’

Motion To Stay Proceedings Upon Notice of Injunction in In Re: Japan Airlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01453-CRB   Document 6   Filed 03/03/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2021-04-09T05:29:44-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### Harold Dessau, Inc., Respondent, v. Charles Elterich, Jr., et al., Defendants, and Henrietta B. Elterich et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ.
§ 270.3a-1 Certain prima facie investment companies. Notwithstanding section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(a)(1)(c)), an issuer will be deemed not to be an investment company under the Act; *Provided,* That: ( a ) No more than 45 percent of the value (as defined in section 2(a)(41) of the Act) of such issuer's total assets (exclusive of Government securities and cash items) consists of, and no more than 45 percent of such issuer's net income after taxes (for the last four fiscal quarters combined) is derived from, securites other than: ( 1 ) Government securities;
( 2 ) Securities issued by employees' securities companies;
( 3 ) Securities issued by majority-owned subsidiaries of the issuer (other than subsidiaries relying on the exclusion from the definition of investment company in section 3(b)(3) or (c)(1) of the Act) which are not investment companies; and
( 4 ) Securities issued by companies: ( i ) Which are controlled primarily by such issuer;
( ii ) Through which such issuer engages in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities; and
( iii ) Which are not investment companies;
( b ) The issuer is not an investment company as defined in section 3(a)(1)(A) or 3(a)(1)(B) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(a)(1)(A) or 80a-3(a)(1)(B)) and is not a special situation investment company; and
( c ) The percentages described in paragraph (a) of this section are determined on an unconsolidated basis, except that the issuer shall consolidate its financial statements with the financial statements of any wholly-owned subsidiaries.
[46 FR 6881, Jan. 22, 1981, as amended at 67 FR 43536, June 28, 2002]
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4316 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4316

  To amend chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 to include 
Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in the definition of State 
    for the purposes of the trade adjustment assistance for workers 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2012

Mrs. Christensen (for herself, Mr. Faleomavaega, Ms. Bordallo, and Mr. 
   Sablan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 to include 
Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in the definition of State 
    for the purposes of the trade adjustment assistance for workers 
                                program.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR WORKERS TO 
              TERRITORIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 247(7) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2319(7)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United 
        States, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
        Mariana Islands,'' after ``District of Columbia''; and
            (2) by striking ``such Commonwealth.'' and inserting ``such 
        territories.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall be 
effective with respect to petitions filed under section 221 of such Act 
(19 U.S.C. 2271) on or after October 1, 2012.
                                 <all>
```
Motion GRANTED and Order filed March 2, 2020

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00172

- CV

____________ IN RE CURTIS BURTON , Relator

O RIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 270th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015

- 50245



### ORDER
February 28, 2020, relator C urtis Burton filed a petition for writ of mandamus
in this court. Relator asks this court to order the Honorable Dedra Davis, Judge of the 270th District Court, in Harris County, Texas, to set aside her February 11, 2020
order denying relator’s motion to disqualify counsel entered in trial court number
2015

- 50245, styled Burton v. Meridian Capital International Fund, et al.2 Relator has also filed a motion for temporary stay of proceedings below. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. On February 28, 2020, relator ask ed this court to stay proceedings in the trial court pending a decision on the petition for writ of
mandamus.
It appears from the facts stated in th e petition and motion that relator’s request for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relator’s motion and issue the following order:

We ORDER all procee dings in trial court cause number 2015

- 50245 , Burton v. Meridian Capital International Fund, et al.
, STAYED until a final decision by this court on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this

court.
In addition, the court reques ts real parties in interest Meridian Capital International Fund and Meridian Capital CIS Fund to file a response to the petition
for writ of mandamus on or before March 17, 2020

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan.
#### Luis Alberto ROMERO-MORA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72590.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007 *.

Filed March 22, 2007.

Luis Alberto Romero-Mora, Eloy, AZ, pro se.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Robbin K. Bla-ya, Esq., Greg D. Mack, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*705MEMORANDUM **

Luis Alberto Romero-Mora, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. *Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales,*423 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

Romero-Mora was convicted of an aggravated felony, rendering him removable and barring him from cancellation of removal relief. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (defining a theft offense, including receipt of stolen property, as an aggravated felony). Romero-Mora’s claim fails because he has not shown that additional time would have changed the outcome of his proceedings and thus that he was prejudiced by the IJ’s refusal to continue his case. *See Colmenar v. INS,*210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring an alien to demonstrate prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Romero-Mora’s remaining contentions lack merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
§ 1508.735 Under what conditions do I get an additional opportunity to challenge the facts on which the suspension is based? ( a ) You as a respondent will not have an additional opportunity to challenge the facts if the suspending official determines that— ( 1 ) Your suspension is based upon an indictment, conviction, civil judgment, or other finding by a Federal, State, or local body for which an opportunity to contest the facts was provided;
( 2 ) Your presentation in opposition contains only general denials to information contained in the Notice of Suspension;
( 3 ) The issues raised in your presentation in opposition to the suspension are not factual in nature, or are not material to the suspending official's initial decision to suspend, or the official's decision whether to continue the suspension; or
( 4 ) On the basis of advice from the Department of Justice, an office of the United States Attorney, a State attorney general's office, or a State or local prosecutor's office, that substantial interests of the government in pending or contemplated legal proceedings based on the same facts as the suspension would be prejudiced by conducting fact-finding.
( b ) You will have an opportunity to challenge the facts if the suspending official determines that— ( 1 ) The conditions in paragraph (a) of this section do not exist; and
( 2 ) Your presentation in opposition raises a genuine dispute over facts material to the suspension.
( c ) If you have an opportunity to challenge disputed material facts under this section, the suspending official or designee must conduct additional proceedings to resolve those facts.
#### Long Island Racing Publications, Inc., Appellant, v. City of New York et al., Respondents.

Order and judgment (one paper) unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondents. No opinion. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ. [31 Misc 2d 286.]
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4340 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4340

 To restrict assistance to Egypt unless the Government of Egypt holds 
                        free and fair elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2012

Mr. Schweikert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To restrict assistance to Egypt unless the Government of Egypt holds 
                        free and fair elections.

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

SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE TO EGYPT.

    (a) Restriction.--Assistance under the provisions of law described 
in subsection (b) may not be provided to Egypt unless the President 
determines and certifies to Congress that the Government of Egypt has 
held free and fair elections.
    (b) Provisions of Law.--The provisions of law referred to in 
subsection (a) are--
            (1) chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
        1961 (relating to the Economic Support Fund); and
            (2) section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (relating to 
        the Foreign Military Financing program).
                                 <all>
```
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-3 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify andrepresent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofAugust 21, 2019, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-3 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the“Agreement”) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: /s/ Marc WomackName: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2022
 
By: /s/ Erik LaneyName: Erik LaneyTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2022**