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








CERTIFICATION 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








I, Steven G. Larson, 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:





(i)           the Quarterly Report of LaserCard Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 1, 2010 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and





(ii)            the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of LaserCard Corporation.





Date:           February 9, 2010


/s/ Steven G. LarsonSteven G. Larson
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, David L. Hauser, certify that:



|1) | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2) | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 13,
2008



/s/ DAVID L. HAUSERDavid L. HauserGroup Executive and Chief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 800
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54972, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 800 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93381, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 800.12 Form of the performance bond. The regulatory authority shall prescribe the form of the performance bond. The regulatory authority may allow for: ( a ) A surety bond;
( b ) A collateral bond;
( c ) A self-bond; or
( d ) A combination of any of these bonding methods.
[48 FR 32959, July 19, 1983, as amended at 81 FR 93381, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54972, Nov. 17, 2017]
Exhibit 5.1



|Letterhead of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
|--------------------------------------------------





October 13, 2005



|The Board of Directors
of Genesys S.A. | 
|-------------------------------------- | 
|Ladies and Gentlemen:                  | 

We are acting as special French counsel for Genesys S.A. (the Company) in connection with the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (the Registration Statement) being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) relating to the registration under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by the Company of an aggregate of 500,000 shares of its common stock (the Shares) issuable upon exercise of stock options granted under the Genesys 2005 Stock Incentive Plan (the Plan).

We are familiar with the corporate proceedings of the Company to date with respect to the issuance and sale of its ordinary shares, including resolutions of the board of directors and extraordinary general shareholders meetings of the Company (the Resolutions) authorizing the issuance, offering, and sale of ordinary shares, and we have examined such corporate records of the Company and such other documents and certificates as we have deemed necessary as a basis for the opinions expressed below.

We express no opinion as to any laws other than the laws of France and this opinion is to be construed under French law and is subject to the jurisdiction of the French courts.









---

The Board of Directors of Genesys, S.A.

October 13, 2005

Page 2





Based on the foregoing, and having regard for such legal considerations as we have deemed relevant, we are of the opinion that:

1.  The Company is a validly existing société anonyme.

2.  The Shares have been duly and validly authorized for issuance and, when issued by the Company and paid for in accordance with the corresponding resolutions of the extraordinary general meetings of shareholders and the board of directors, will be validly issued, fully paid, and non-assessable.

We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration Statement and to the reference to our name therein. In giving such consent we do not thereby admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

|Very truly yours,
|-----------------





CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP



By:/s/ Fabrice Baumgartner

|Fabrice Baumgartner, a Partner
|------------------------------







| |  | 
| |  | 





---
-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/27/2010 08:39PM -----

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: Tony Robledo/R6/USEPA/US

Date: 04/27/2010 06:15PM

cc: Cynthia Kaleri/R6/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: Fw: RE: Engine Estimates

Melanie - here's one of your requested items - I'll send the rest in another 

email to follow.

Hope this is helpful - feel free to contact me or the state folks directly if 

you have questions

or need additional information.

-----Forwarded by Tony Robledo/R6/USEPA/US on 04/27/2010 05:05PM -----

To: Tony Robledo/R6/USEPA/US@EPA

From: Keith Jordan <Keith.Jordan@LA.GOV>

Date: 04/23/2010 07:57AM

Subject: RE: Engine Estimates

(See attached file: Engines in 2008 EI.xlsx)

Tony,

First Tab:

Our Emissions Inventory people put together the list on the first tab that 

was to include all Internal

Combustion Engines. I tried to leave in only the ones fired by Natural Gas.

Second Tab:

The question of which engines have controls such as SCR is more difficult. 

Air Permits picked put three

reporting requirements from the TEMP requirements library: Requirement ID = 

1485673 or 1485674

or 471593. I wrote a query to look for Internal Combustion engines with those 

requirements.

Thanks,

Keith Jordan

Surveillance Division

225-219-3613

From: Robledo.Tony@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Robledo.Tony@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 2:48 PM

To: braun@adeq.state.ar.us; Keith Jordan; debra.mcelroy@state.nm.us; 

Brad_Flaming_-

_brad.flaming@deq.ok.gov; stahiri@tceq.state.tx.us

Cc: kimbrough@adeq.state.ar.us; Betty Brousseau; richard.groshong@deq.ok.gov; 

Laura_Clarke_-

_lclarke@tceq.state.tx.us

Subject: Engine Estimates

Do you know of an estimates of how many of these engines are controlled in 

your State - realize that this

may take some time so if you can get back to me by Friday April 23rd.

EPA HQ's is trying to get a handle on what the current landscape is for rich 

burn spark ignition (gas-fired)

engines in terms of how many of the existing engines that are already in use 

that have emission controls

(non-selective catalytic reduction or NSCR) installed.

The reason is that EPA HQ's is looking at what the impacts of the NESHAP for 

existing spark ignition

engines would be if controls were required for those engines, and it would be 

helpful if they had some

idea of how many of them already have these controls even in the absence of 

the NESHAP. The

engines of most concern are those that are <500 HP at major sources of HAP 

and any HP at area

sources of HAP, since EPA already has limits on the ones that are >500 HP at 

major sources.

Tony Robledo

U.S. EPA Region 6

Air Toxics Section

1445 Ross Ave.

Dallas, TX 75202

214.665.8182
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50501 USDC No. A-97-CV-798

KENNETH HILL, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

-------------------- November 24, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Hill, Texas state prisoner #632292, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely and to appeal the denial of his underlying constitutional claims. While Hill’s COA request was pending, Hill filed a second COA request and accompanying brief, noting a recent district court decision pertinent to the timeliness issue. This second request and briefNo. 98-50501 -2- is treated as a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief, which is GRANTED. Fed. R. App. P. 28(j). To obtain a COA, an applicant must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In considering a nonconstitutional question in a COA application, such as the limitations issue presented here, the petitioner must first make a credible showing of error by the district court. Sonnier v. Johnson , 161 F.3d 941, 943-44 (5th Cir. 1998). Only if the petitioner succeeds in doing so will the court consider whether he has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right on his underlying claims. Id. Hill has made a credible showing that the district court erred in dismissing his § 2254 petition as untimely. Under this court’s recent decision in Villegas v. Johnson , 184 F.3d 467 (5thCir. 1999), Hill’s third state habeas petition tolled the oneyear limitation period under § 2244(d)(2). Id. at 473. Hill’s federal habeas petition was therefore timely filed. Id. Because the district court’s order dismissing Hill’s petition did not address the merits of his underlying claims, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider his request for a COA with regard to those claims. See Sonnier , 161 F.3d at 945-46. Accordingly, Hill is hereby GRANTED a COA on the question of the timeliness of his § 2254 petition, the district court’s judgment dismissing his petition as time-barred is VACATED, and this case REMANDED with instructions to address the merits of Hill’s constitutional violations.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Patrick Brandon Jr. , Appellant

No. 06

- 21

- 00086

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 188th District Court of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 47992

- A ). Memorandum Op inion delivered by Justice Rambin
, Chief Justice Stevens and Justice van Cleef participating.

As stated in the Court’s opi nion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment s of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s ju d g ment memorializing
Brandon ’ s co nviction of possession of a controlled substance with int ent to deliver (Count I) and
the bill of costs associated with i t by deleting the $15.00 time payment fee contained in the total

cos ts in the judg m e n t

. We also modify the judg ment memorializing Brandon ’ s convic ti on o f

po ssession of a contr olled substance with the intent to deliver (C ount I ) to refl e c t that B randon ple d “true” to th e State’s enhance ment paragraph rather t han “not true

. ” As modified, the judgment s of the trial c ourt are affirmed. We note that the appellant, Patrick Brandon, Jr. , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 4, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

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

                                    FORM 8-K

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

                                 CURRENT REPORT
                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

       Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): October 29, 2003

                            MS Structured Asset Corp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

          Delaware                 333-64879                    13-4026700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(State or Other Jurisdiction   (Commission File                (IRS Employer
      of Incorporation)             Number)                 Identification No.)

 1585 Broadway, New York, New York                                   10036
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                         (Zip Code)

                         Registrant's telephone number, including area code:
212-761-2520

                                 Not Applicable
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)


<PAGE>


Item 7.           Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and
                  Exhibits

Exhibit 4.1       Trust Agreement

Exhibit 5.1       Validity Opinion of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton

Exhibit 23.1      Consent of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (included in
                  Exhibit 5.1)



<PAGE>



                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereto duly authorized.

Date: November 10, 2003

                                        MS STRUCTURED ASSET CORP.
                                        (Registrant)


                                        By: /s/ John Kehoe
                                            ----------------------------------
                                        Name:  John Kehoe
                                        Title: Vice President


<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit 4.1       Trust Agreement

Exhibit 5.1       Validity Opinion of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton

Exhibit 23.1      Consent of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (included in
                  Exhibit 5.1)
New Peer Review Record Comment for Entry New Peer Review Record Comment for Entry245551,Document PEER Document PEER Document PEER 

REVIEW PLAN REVIEW PLAN245551.PDF

Sci-Inv-HISA-ISI-Public-Comments Comments Comments 08/19/2012 05:35 PM

To: Stan Barone, Sci-Inv-HISA-ISI-Public-Comments

A new comment has been added to record number 245551, document title PEER 

REVIEW PLAN 245551.PDF.

Name: Tom Neltner

Email Address: tneltner@pewtrusts.org

Affiliation: Pew Health Group

Comment: Please include in the risk assessment

for Trichloroethylene that it is allowed

to be used in food packaging at 21 CFR

172.560, 173.290, 175.105, 177.1960, and

73.345.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9690 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the limitations period 

during which an action may be commenced for judicial review of a 

final rule. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2024 

Ms. CROCKETT (for herself, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. DELUZIO) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the limitations period during which an action may be commenced 

for judicial review of a final rule. 

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 ‘‘Timely Initiation to 

5 Modify Executive Rulemaking Act’’ or the ‘‘TIMER Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

7 Section 2401 of title 28, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9690 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ‘‘chap2 ter 71 of title 41’’ the following: ‘‘and subject to 

3 subsection (b)’’; 

4 (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub5 section (c); and 

6 (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(b) A civil action commenced against the United 

9 States under chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, for 

10 judicial review of a final rule shall be barred unless the 

11 complaint is filed within six years after the date on which 

12 the final rule is issued.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7056

JERRY W. NELSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:05-cv-02660-HMH) Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: October 3, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry W. Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jerry W. Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Nelson that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this wa rning, Nelson failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see alsoThomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Nelson has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 17, 2011 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 23 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 97 -9 56 -1 06 SINESIA MAR IA RABELO, a.k .a. Mari a Rab el o S in es ia , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er, vers us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 17 , 20 11 ) Befo re BLACK, BARKETT an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Si ne si a MariaRab el o s eek s re vi ew of th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (BIA) o rd er d is m is si ng he r m ot io n t o re co ns id er h er s eco ndm ot io n t o re op enhe r rem ov al pro ceed in gs . On ap pe al , sh e ch al le ng es on ly the de ni al of h er fi rs t m ot io n t o re op enhe r rem ov al pro ceed in gs an d the m eri ts of t he un de rlyin g rem ov al ord er. W e la ckjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er the de ni al of R ab el o’s fi rs t m ot io n to reo pe n b ecau se sh e fai le d t o e xh au sthe r adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s b y fil in g a ti m el y pe ti ti on forrev ie w of tha t d eci si on . 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (d )(1 ); Amaya
Art un du aga v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 46 3 F .3d12 47 , 12 50 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (n ot in g we la ckjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er cl ai m s n otrai se d b efo re the BIA). Ourrev ie w on ap pe al is th us li m it edto whet he r th e BIA ab us edit s d is cret io n i n a ffi rm in g the IJ’s de ci si on de nyin g the m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n o f th e o rd er d en y in g R ab el o’s se co ndm ot io n t o re op en . Becau se Rab el o d oe s n otatt ackth e BIA’s de te rm in at io n tha t h er s eco ndm ot io n t o re op enwas n um eri cal ly barre d, o r pr es en t an y arg um en t tha t an ex cep ti on ex is te d tha t wo ul d o ve rco m e th e num be r ba r, sh e ha s ab an do ne d tho se arg um en ts . Se e S ep ulved a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 40 1 F .3d12 26 , 12 28 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (“ Whe n an app el lantfai ls to off er ar gu m en t o n an i ss ue , th atis su e is ab an do ne d.” ). Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s the pe ti ti on to th e ex te ntth atRab el o s eek s t o ch al le ng e th e IJ ’s un de rlyin g o rd er o f rem ov al an d the de ni al of h er fi rs t m ot io n t o 2reo pe n. We den y th e p et it io n t o the ex te ntth atsh e ch al le ng es th e BIA’s d en ia l o f he r m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n. PETI TI ON DIS MIS SED I N PART AND DENIE D IN PART.

3
### §100503. Five-year strategic plans

(a) Strategic and Performance Plans.—Each System unit shall prepare and make available to the public a 5-year strategic plan and an annual performance plan. The plans shall reflect the Service policies, goals, and outcomes represented in the Service-wide strategic plan prepared pursuant to section 306 of title 5.

(b) Annual Budget.—

(1) In general.—As a part of the annual performance plan for a System unit prepared pursuant to subsection (a), following receipt of the appropriation for the unit from the Operations of the National Park System account (but not later than January 1 of each year), the superintendent of the System unit shall develop and make available to the public the budget for the current fiscal year for that System unit.

(2) Contents.—The budget shall include—

(A) funding allocations for resource preservation (including resource management), visitor services (including maintenance, interpretation, law enforcement, and search and rescue), and administration; and

(B) allocations into each of the categories in subparagraph (A) of all funds retained from fees collected for that year, including special use permits, concession franchise fees, and recreation use and entrance fees.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3098.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 100503 | 16 U.S.C. 5914. | Pub. L. 105–391, title I, §104, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3499. |

Section