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



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



Each
of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Rideshare Rental, Inc. (“Rideshare
Rental”), that to his knowledge:



| | 1. | This
    Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2019 (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 such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
    of Rideshare Rental for the period covered by this Report.



This
Certification is executed as of November 25, 2020.



|/s/
    RYAN SAATHOFF       | 
|--------------------------- | 
|Ryan
    Saathoff           | 
|Chief
    Financial Officer |
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

Editorial Note on Part 363
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 363 appear at 70 FR 57433, Sept. 30, 2005, 70 FR 57442, Sept. 30, 2005, and 75 FR 70815, Nov. 19, 2010.

§ 363.12 Who may purchase and hold book-entry securities in TreasuryDirect ®? ( a ) A TreasuryDirect account owner may purchase and hold securities through his or her account.
( b ) We do not permit a legally incompetent person to open an account, purchase securities, or convert savings bonds once we have been provided with an order from a court with appropriate jurisdiction determining incompetence to perform such activities.
( c ) We do not permit a voluntary representative to purchase securities on behalf of the estate of a decedent.
( d ) We may reject any application for the purchase of a security, in whole or in part. We may refuse to issue a security in any case or class of cases, if we deem the action to be in the public interest. Our decision in any such respect is final.
[70 FR 57433, Sept. 30, 2005, as amended at 74 FR 19417, Apr. 29, 2009 ]
39743.

#### SMITH v. WILLOUGHBY.

Decided September 18, 1962.

*James W. Paris,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. Penn McWhorter,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The sole assignment of error complains that the trial court erred in refusing to open the default and allow the defendant to file an answer to the plaintiff’s petition. *Held:*

A direct bill of exceptions will not lie to a judgment denying a motion to open a default. *Code Ann.*§ 6-701; *Mills v. Sauls,*90 Ga. App. 257 (82 SE2d 716); *Commercial Nat. Bank of Cedartown v. Chapman,*209 Ga. 152 (71 SE2d 425), and citations. This court is without jurisdiction of the writ of error and the same must be

*Dismissed.*

*Frankum and, Jordan, JJ., concur.*
#### § 50.13 Offer and renewal.

An insurer is deemed to be in compliance with the requirement of providing disclosure “at the time of offer and of renewal of the policy” under § 50.10(b) if the insurer makes the disclosure no later than the time the insurer first formally offers to provide insurance coverage or renew a policy for a current policyholder.
40266.

#### WOOD v. CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION et al.

Decided October 9, 1963.

*B. P. Williams,*for plaintiff in error.

*Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeBieux, James H. Moore, Buchanan, Edenfield & Sizemore, William H. Major,*contra.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

This is an action by a wife for loss of consortium of her husband caused by the negligence of another. The injuries occasioning the loss of consortium were incurred in an automobile collision which occurred on January 9, 1960. The suit was not filed until January 9, 1962. The plea of the statute of limitation was raised by both defendants in their general demurrers.

Where a cause of action for an injury to the person arose on January 9, 1960, and suit was not filed until January 9, 1962, the cause is barred by the two-year statute of limitation provided in *Code*§ 3-1004. *Peterson v. Georgia R. &c. Co.,*97 Ga. 798 (25 SE 370); *Texas Co. v. Davis,*157 Ga. 538 (122 SE 62).

In *Schimmel v. Greenway,*107 Ga. App. 257, 258 (129 SE2d 542), it was held that an action by a wife for loss of consortium of her husband through the negligence of defendant is an action for injury to the person and is subject to the two-year statute of limitation governing those actions. The *Schimmel*case is applicable here and controls this case. See *Pinkerton Nat. Detective Agency v. Stevens,*108 Ga. App. 159 (1a) (132 SE2d 119), which followed *Schimmel*on this point.

The judgment of the trial court in sustaining the general demurrers of the defendants and in dismissing the petition is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
#### § 25.2512-4 Valuation of notes.

The fair market value of notes, secured or unsecured, is presumed to be the amount of unpaid principal, plus accrued interest to the date of the gift, unless the donor establishes a lower value. Unless returned at face value, plus accrued interest, it must be shown by satisfactory evidence that the note is worth less than the unpaid amount (because of the interest rate, or date of maturity, or other cause), or that the note is uncollectible in part (by reason of the insolvency of the party or parties liable, or for other cause), and that the property, if any, pledged or mortgaged as security is insufficient to satisfy it.
Exhibit 23.2 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Member 

Berkeley Point Financial LLC: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333- 222201) on Form S-8 of Newmark Group, Inc. of our report dated August 23, 2017, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Berkeley Point Financial LLC as of December 31, 2016, and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, changes in member’s capital and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2016, not included herein, which report appears in theDecember 31, 2017 annual report on Form 10-K of Newmark Group, Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 20, 2018
EXHIBIT
      10.23

    


    Salary
      and Bonus Information for Executive Officers

    


    
      	
              Name:

            	 	 	
              Jan
                W. Clark

            	 	 	
              John
                G. Warner

            	 	 	
              Michael
                T. Storm

            	 	 	
              Michael
                L. Derr

            	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
              Salary
                Effective January 1, 2005

            	 	
              $

            	
              178,500

            	 	
              $

            	
              161,700

            	 	
              $

            	
              117,600

            	 	
              $

            	
              100,800

            	 
	
              Bonus
                paid in 2005:

            	 	
              $

            	
              7,500

            	 	
              $

            	
              7,500

            	 	
              $

            	
              7,500

            	 	
              $

            	
              7,500

            	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
              Salary
                Effective January 1, 2006

            	 	
              $

            	
              189,500

            	 	
              $

            	
              171,500

            	 	
              $

            	
              124,600

            	 	
              $

            	
              106,800

            	 
	
              Bonus
                paid in 2006:

            	 	
              $

            	
              10,500

            	 	
              $

            	
              9,500

            	 	
              $

            	
              8,500

            	 	
              $

            	
              7,500

            	 


    

    


    Note:
      Salary amounts above do not include potential payments in lieu of allowed
      paid-days-off (vacation, sick and personal days off) not utilized or annual
      holiday payment, if any.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Assistant Secretary Donfried’s Travel to the Western Balkans

# 									Assistant Secretary Donfried’s Travel to the Western Balkans							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

April 21, 2022

Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Dr. Karen Donfried will travel to the Western Balkans from April 25 to 29, with stops in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia.

On April 25, she will thank Kosovo for providing refuge to Afghans and Ukrainians, encourage work on reforms for democratic consolidation and integration into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions, and review prospects for progress in the U.S.-supported, EU-facilitated Dialogue with Serbia toward an agreement on normalized relations centered on mutual recognition.

She will travel to Serbia on April 26 to urge Serbia to advance reforms for its European integration, enhance regional stability and prosperity, discuss opportunities for further energy diversification, and broaden our bilateral security and economic ties.  She will reiterate the need for Serbia and Kosovo to reengage in the EU-facilitated Dialogue.

On April 27, in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Dr. Donfried will encourage officials to resume institutional participation at all levels of government to advance functionality and common-sense reforms for greater prosperity and for BiH to obtain EU candidate status.  She will urge BiH to hold fall elections on time and make progress in fighting endemic corruption.

In North Macedonia on April 28, she will meet with government leaders to signal our strong support for North Macedonia’s EU accession negotiations and thank them for their ongoing assistance to Ukraine. She will urge NATO’s newest member to continue close cooperation on a range of regional, security, and defense issues to promote democracy and regional stability.

On April 28 she will commemorate 100 years of U.S.-Albanian diplomatic relations and thank Albania for our partnership on the United Nations Security Council and for its commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russian aggression.  She will also underscore our strong support for Albania’s EU accession and regional economic integration, as well as emphasize the need to fully implement justice reform and combat corruption.

Dr. Donfried will travel to Montenegro on April 29, where she will highlight U.S. support for and the need to accelerate work on Montenegro’s Euro-Atlantic path and EU accession, strengthening NATO membership, and on supporting shared values, including tackling corruption.  She will also thank Montenegro for joining EU sanctions on Russia in support of Ukraine, and for providing humanitarian and security assistance, as well as for closing its airspace to Russian aircraft.

Tags

AlbaniaBosnia and HerzegovinaBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsKosovoMontenegroNorth MacedoniaOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelRussiaSerbiaUkraine

Back to Top
"'•a f

U.S . Oepartmen

t o f Transportatio n r , > QJI , iCM T Oi

Offic e o f th e Secretar

y o f Transportatio n 'r n i i.'itl N !_U r

DESIGNATIO

N O FAGEN T FO R• |:RPO RFA

l iOl \ SERVIC E O FNOTICE, PROCESS , ORDER S , ; '"' f OpERATlOM

S DECISIONS , OPERATION S SPECIFICATION S AN D OTHE RREQDISlEMENT S -•'] ] '^i^ p 7 0 A ^\

- 3 2 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n ' " Sout hFlorid aFSDO-1 9 L aTorre d e Plaz aLa s America s 52 5 F.D . Roosevel t

Ave . Suit e 90 1 Sa n Juan , P.R . 00918-119 8

Global X Group . LL C ^havin g it s principal offic e at (Nam e o f Company, pleas e print

) 820 1 • Lindburg Bav . St . Thoma s USV T 0080 2 (Address) hereb y designates , pursuan t t o sectio n 4610 3 an d4130 2 o f Titl e 4 9 o f

th e U.S . Code , a s amended , th e perso n name dbelo w a s it s Agen t upo n servic e o f

al l notice , process , al l orders , decisions , andrequirement s o f th e Department

o f Transportatio n ma

y b e mad e fo r

an do n behal f o f sai dcarrier , hereb y cancelin g al l previou s designation s o f agent s mad e b y i t

t o th e FAA , DO T o r Board . Th e perso n name dbelo w i s authorize dt o sig n fo r an dagre e t o th e Operation s Specifications , issue dt o th e abov e mentione dcompany , governin g flight operation s int o th e Unite dStates . Nam e o f Agent : Lui s A . Trizarry . L . A . Irizarr v & Associates . Inc . (Pleas e Print

) Address : P O Bo x 37217 . Sa n Juan . Puert o Ric o 00937-021 7 Phon e Number : (787 ) 752-762 1 Fax Number : (7871276-384 6 Email; . irizany^icenetworks.co m Th e Agent^a4gsigriat£di!a s signediufiynam e an dals o hi s initial s i

n th e fpjffaynn

g space : Name : ^-—^^^ZZ^^^"-^"^ / (Initials) . I N WITNES S WHEREOF , Glob^ X Group . LL C ha s cause dthes e orient s t o b e (Nam e o f Conqnuiy ) signe di n it s nam e by . Le x Barke r , Presiden t o f sai dcompany , (Pleas e Print

) an dt o b e atteste dunde r

it s corporate seal b y Global X Group . LLC . General Manager (Secretar y o r othe r Title ) o n thi s 12*

^ day o f September . 2011 . Global X Group . LL C (Nam e o f Company ) B y : -><& :.^'*^ '

(Piesident ) ATTEST : (Secretar y o r othe r officer )
§ 510.204 Expenses of maintaining blocked physical property; liquidation of blocked property. ( a ) Except as otherwise authorized, and notwithstanding the existence of any rights or obligations conferred or imposed by any international agreement or contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date, all expenses incident to the maintenance of physical property blocked pursuant to § 510.201 shall be the responsibility of the owners or operators of such property, which expenses shall not be met from blocked funds.
( b ) Property blocked pursuant to § 510.201 may, in the discretion of OFAC, be sold or liquidated and the net proceeds placed in a blocked interest-bearing account in the name of the owner of the property.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00467-CV

Rayven Ruiz

v.

The Law Office of Richard Weaver, PLLC d/b/a The Weaver Law Firm

On Appeal from the

36th District Court of Bee County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. B-13-1236-CV-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 26, 2022
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 391.4 Documentary evidence. ( a ) When late charges are waived, the debtor's administrative file shall be properly documented with a memorandum. The memorandum shall contain a brief narrative statement describing the circumstances leading to the waiver and the reason(s) for granting the waiver.
( b ) A credit report or a financial statement sworn to by the debtor may be required before waiver of late charges is approved for a compromise, suspension, or termination, except where the cost of obtaining such a report or statement exceeds the late charges due.
#### § 515.319 Blocked account.

The term *blocked account* shall mean an account in which any designated national has an interest, with respect to which account payments, transfers or withdrawals or other dealings may not be made or effected except pursuant to an authorization or license authorizing such action. The term *blocked account* shall not be deemed to include accounts of unblocked nationals.

[28 FR 6974, July 9, 1963; 28 FR 7427, July 20, 1963]
#### § 48.4073-2 Exemption of tires with internal wire fastening.

The tax does not apply to sales of tires of any size or dimension manufactured from extruded tiring that is fastened or held together by means of internal wire or other metallic material.

(Secs. 4071(b), 4071(c), 4073(c), and 7805, Internal Revenue Code of 1954. (80 Stat. 331, 26 U.S.C. 4071(b); 68A Stat. 482, 26 U.S.C. 4071(c); 70 Stat. 389, 26 U.S.C. 4073(c); 68A Stat. 917, 26 U.S.C. 7805))

[T.D. 7809, 47 FR 6007, Feb. 10, 1982]
- Division Home
- Key Topics
- Contact Us

HomeAgricultural Policy...Food Security

# 									Food Security							

According to the 2022 Global Report on Food Crisis, 193 million people were experiencing acute food insecurity in 2021 and 236 million people were at the cusp of acute hunger. The compounded impacts from a protracted global pandemic, growing pressures from the climate crisis, high energy and fertilizer prices, and expanded conflicts have disrupted supply chains and dramatically increased global food insecurity, especially for the most vulnerable. In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, AGP aids in mobilizing global actions to address rising food insecurity as outlined by Secretary Blinken in the May 18 Roadmap for Food Security – Call to Action. Together with the Office of Global Food Security and the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) AGP advances Feed the Future (FTF), the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative, to combat acute food insecurity.
**Secretary Blinken at the Food Security Ministerial in New York on May 18, 2022**

 

Tags

AgricultureBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for Trade Policy and NegotiationsFood Security

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
40195.

#### CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. VAUGHN LUMBER COMPANY et al.

Per Curiam.

The appeal in this case is controlled by the holding and the discussion in *Pennsylvania Threshermen &c. Ins. Co. v. Wilkins,*106 Ga. App. 570 (127 SE2d 693), and by the authorities which it cites and follows.

*Pennsylvania Threshermen*involved the same collision of 3 motor vehicles implicated in this case. All of the defendants here *244were defendants there. What is more important is that *all*of the material allegations of this petition seeking a declaration of rights are the same as or similar to those found in the petition in *Pennsylvania Threshermen*and fall within the controlling principles of that case.

Decided July 9, 1963

Rehearing denied July 24, 1963.

*Gambrell, Harlan, Russell, Moye & Richardson, James C. Hill, Edward W. Killorin,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. C. Harvey, Jr., Sosebee & Clarke, Harold G. Clarke, Smith, Field, Ring el, Martin & Carr, H. A. Stephens,*contra.

Of interest is the fact that this plaintiff, Canal Insurance Company, appeared in *Pennsylvania Threshermen*as amicus curiae, in support of the petitioner there, urging the court to grant the declaratory relief sought.

Although the petitioner in *Pennsylvania Threshermen*sought to carry its case to the Supreme Court by a petition seeking a writ of certiorari directed to this court, the Supreme Court with all the Justices concurring denied the issuance of the writ. See 106 Ga. App. 886, and see Case No. 21870, Supreme Court records.

After negating by its own petition any possible coverage by its policy of liability accruing from the accident, from the arguments in its briefs the most that can be said as to what Canal Insurance Company seeks here is that it wants a declaration of rights based on a speculative risk of a possible, but speculative, forgery by one of its own, but not identified, agents.

The petition here does not show that there is a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests of such immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.

The judgment of the trial court in dismissing the petition on general demurrer is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*
## IN THE SUPREME COURT O F TEX AS

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 N O . 14-0214

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

### A N D R E W S 

### C O U N T Y 

### , T E X A S 

### , A N D R E W S 

### I N D U S T R IA L 

### F O U N D A T IO N 

### , A N D 

### A N D R E W S



### C H A M B E R O F 

### C O M M E R C E 

### , P E T IT IO N E R S 

### ,

v . 

### S IE R R A 

### C L U B 

### , R E S P O N D E N T

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

O N P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W F R O M T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E E I G H T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
P ER CURIAM

When a plaintiff’s claim implicates a defe ndant’s valid exercise of First Amendment rig hts, the Texas Citi zens Par

ticipation A ct allows the defe ndant to move for dismiss al. T E X . C I V . P R A C . & R E M . C O D E § 27.003(a)

. To defe at the defe ndant’s dismiss al motion, a plaintiff must “esta blish[ ] by clea r and specific evidenc e a prima fac ie case for eac h essential element of the claim in question.” Id. § 27.005(c)

. I n In re Lipsky , ___S.W .3d ___, ___ (Tex. 2015), we ex p lained that the phrase “cle ar and specific ev i d en ce” neither imposes a heig htened evidentiar y burden nor cate g orica lly reje cts the use of circ umstantial evidenc e when deter mining the plaintiff’s prima-f acie -ca se burden under the Act. I n contra st to Lipsky , the court of appea ls here conclude d that the statute’s “cle ar and specific evidenc e” requir em en t i n dicated an elevated evidentiar y standard that did not permit the use ofcirc umstantial evidenc e or rea sonable infere nces to support the plaintiff’s prima fac ie case . 418

S.W .3d 711, 715-16 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013). Applying that standard, the court conclude d that the plain t i ff (Andre ws County) failed to meet the Act’s prima-f acie -ca se burden and that the trial court acc ording ly err ed when it did not g rant the defe ndant’s (Sierra Club’s) motion to dismiss

. Id. at 719. Be cause the evidentiar y standard applied by the court is contra ry to our decision in Lipsky , we rema nd the case for the court of appea ls’s further consideration in light of our rec ent explanation of the statutory standard. Andre ws County ’s petition for revie w is acc ording ly g rante d and, without hear ing oral argument, we re v er s e an d remand to the court of appea ls for further proce eding s consistent with our opinion. T E X . R. A P P . P. 59.1.

Opinion Delivere d: May

8, 2015

2