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

|  |    |                                                                                                                                                      |
|--|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|  |    |                                                                                                                                                      |
|  | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|  |    |                                                                                                                                                      |

|              |                                          |  |
|--------------|------------------------------------------|--|
|              |                                          |  |
| May 21, 2010 | /s/ Jay Rifkin                           |  |
|              | Jay Rifkin   Principal Financial Officer |  |
§ 1.475 Form of written consent. ( a ) *Required elements.* A written consent to a disclosure under §§ 1.460 through 1.499 of this part must include: ( 1 ) The name of the facility permitted to make the disclosure (such a designation does not preclude the release of records from other VA health care facilities unless a restriction is stated on the consent).
( 2 ) The name or title of the individual or the name of the organization to which disclosure is to be made.
( 3 ) The name of the patient.
( 4 ) The purpose of the disclosure.
( 5 ) How much and what kind of information is to be disclosed.
( 6 ) The signature of the patient and, when required for a patient who is a minor, the signature of a person authorized to give consent under § 1.464 of this part; or, when required for a patient who is incompetent or deceased, the signature of a person authorized to sign under § 1.465 of this part in lieu of the patient.
( 7 ) The date on which the consent is signed.
( 8 ) A statement that the consent is subject to revocation at any time except to the extent that the facility which is to make the disclosure has already acted in reliance on it. Acting in reliance includes the provision of treatment services in reliance on a valid consent to disclose information to a third party payer.
( 9 ) The date, event, or condition upon which the consent will expire if not revoked before. This date, event, or condition must ensure that the consent will last no longer than reasonably necessary to serve the purpose for which it is given.
( b ) *Expired, deficient, or false consent.* A disclosure may not be made on the basis of a consent which: ( 1 ) Has expired;
( 2 ) On its face substantially fails to conform to any of the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section;
( 3 ) Is known to have been revoked; or
( 4 ) Is known, or through a reasonable effort could be known, by responsible personnel of VA to be materially false.
( c ) *Notification of deficient consent.* Other than the patient, no person or entity may be advised that a special consent is required in order to disclose information relating to an individual participating in a drug abuse, alcoholism or alcohol abuse, HIV, or sickle cell anemia program or activity. Where a person or entity presents VA with an insufficient written consent for information protected by 38 U.S.C. 7332, VA must, in the process of obtaining a legally sufficient consent, correspond only with the patient whose records are involved, or the legal guardian of an incompetent patient or next of kin of a deceased patient, and not with any other person.
( d ) It is not necessary to use any particular form to establish a consent referred to in paragraph (a) of this section, however, VA Form 10-5345, titled Request for and Consent to Release of Medical Records Protected by 38 U.S.C. 7332, may be used for such purpose.
[60 FR 63929, Dec. 13, 1995, as amended at 85 FR 64043, Oct. 9, 2020]
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2245 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in 

Wenatchee, Washington, as the Elwood ‘‘Bud’’ Link Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2007 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient 

clinic in Wenatchee, Washington, as the Elwood ‘‘Bud’’ 

Link Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ELWOOD ‘‘BUD’’ LINK DE4 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUT5 PATIENT CLINIC. 

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Department of Veterans Af7 fairs outpatient clinic located in Wenatchee, Washington, 

8 shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2245 IH

1 and designated as the ‘‘Elwood ‘Bud’ Link Department 

2 of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regula4 tion, map, document, record, or other paper of the United 

5 States to the medical center referred to in subsection (a) 

6 shall be considered to be a reference to the Elwood ‘‘Bud’’ 

7 Link Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### C. A. McMeans et al. v. The State.

*No. 1151.*

*Decided February 10th, 1897.*

1. Local Option—Recognizance.

Where the recognizance on appeal from a conviction for a violation, of local option recites, that the appellants stand charged with the offense of “unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in a prohibition district.” Held, it does not recite any offense.

2. Same—Recognizance Must be Separate for Joint Defendants.

Where two or more parties are jointly indicted and tried, the recognizance upon appeal from their conviction must not be a joint one. Each party must enter into a separate recognizance.

Appeal from the County Court of Hood. Tried below before Hon. George W. Riddle, County Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for violation of local option, appellants having been jointly indicted and jointly tried; penalty, a fine of $25 and twenty days’ imprisonment in the county jail against each of the defendants.

They attempt to prosecute this appeal by a joint recognizance.

.The Assistant Attorney-General moves to dismiss the appeal, because, 1st. It recites no offense. 2d. Because it is a joint recognizance.

No brief for appellant.

*Mann*Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellants were jointly indicted for a violation of the local option law. convicted, and appeal. The Assistant At*131tomey-General, upon two grounds, moves a dismissal of the appeal: First, that the recognizance is insufficient in not reciting the offense charged against appellants, and in not reciting any offense; and, second, because the recognizance on appeal is a joint undertaking by the appellants, and not separate, as it should be. The recognizance recites that the appellants stand charged with the offense of “unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in a prohibition district.” This allegation does not recite the offense charged in the information. In fact, it recites no offense at all. We further find that the recognizance is a joint obligation. This renders it fatally defective. Where two or more parties are jointly indicted in misdemeanor cases, and each appeals from a conviction, each appellant must enter into a separate recognizance. A joint recognizance, as in this case, will not suffice. The motion is well taken, and the appeal is dismissed.

*Dismissed.*
Order entered August 28, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00770-CR

EX PARTE KEITH TEHDAI CHITSAKA

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-82291-2019

ORDER

Appellant has filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the trial court’s 

denial of his post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. This is an 

accelerated appeal governed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31.

We ORDER the trial court to prepare a certification of appellant’s right to

appeal and to file it with the clerk’s record.

We ORDER the C o l l i n County Di st r ic t Clerk to file the clerk’s

record by September 18, 2020. We ORDER that the clerk’s record contain copies 

of the writ application; the State’s response to the writ application, if any; the trial 

court’s order adjudicating the writ application; any findings of fact and conclusions 
–2–

of law issued by the trial court; the judgment in the underlying case; any other 

documents, pleadings, or motions related to the writ application; the trial court’s 

certification of appellant’s right to appeal; and any other documents requested by 

the parties.

We ORDER the court reporter to file, by September 18, 2020, the reporter’s 

record of the hearing on the writ application, written verification that no hearing 

was conducted, or a letter indicating why no reporter’s record has been filed.

Appellant’s brief shall be due thirty days after the record is filed, and the 

State’s brief shall be due thirty days after appellant’s brief is filed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 31.1(a). After the record and briefs have been filed, the Court will notify 

the parties of the submission date and panel.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Tom 

Nowak, Presiding Judge, 366th Judicial District Court; Antoinette Varela,

official court reporter, 366th Judicial District Court; Lynne Finley, Collin County

District Clerk; and counsel for all parties.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
* 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. 97-20861 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MICHAEL BRETT WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-92-CR-19-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - September 3, 1998 Before KING, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Michael Brett Walker has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Walker has filed a response to that brief. Our independent review of the brief, Walker’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
§ 423.1978 Reopening determinations and decisions. ( a ) A coverage determination or redetermination made by a Part D plan sponsor, a reconsideration made by the independent review entity specified in § 423.600, or the decision of an ALJ or attorney adjudicator or the Council that is otherwise binding may be reopened and revised by the entity that made the determination or decision as provided in § 423.1980 through § 423.1986.
( b ) The filing of a request for reopening does not relieve the Part D plan sponsor of its obligation to make payment or provide benefits as specified in § 423.636 or § 423.638 of this chapter.
( c ) Once an entity issues a revised determination or decision, the revisions made by the decision may be appealed.
( d ) A decision not to reopen by the Part D plan sponsor or any other entity is not subject to review.
[74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 5126, Jan. 17, 2017]
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT









|1. | I am a duly authorized officer of BMW Financial Services NA, LLC;
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------

|2. | I have reviewed the terms of that certain Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 15, 2020 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, as seller, servicer (in
            such capacity, the “Servicer”), administrator and custodian, U.S. Bank National Association, as indenture trustee, BMW FS Securities LLC, as depositor, and BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2020-A, as issuer, and I have made, or have caused to be made
            under my supervision, a review of the activities of the Servicer and the performance of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement during the period from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|3. | to the best of my knowledge, based on the review described in paragraph 2 above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects during
            the period from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:  March 25, 2022




By:  /s/ Ole
        Jensen


Name:  Ole Jensen


Title:  Vice
      President – Finance & Chief Financial Officer
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Maldives Election Results

# 									Maldives Election Results							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

October 1, 2023

The United States congratulates President-Elect Mohamed Muizzu on his win in the September 30 election in Maldives. The United States and Maldives have a strong relationship based on mutual respect and shared interests. The United States looks forward to deepening our partnership with Maldives and expanding our people-to-people ties.

Tags

Bureau of South and Central Asian AffairsElectionsMaldivesOffice of the SpokespersonPartnerships

Back to Top
Conference Call between EPA Region 6 and Citizens of Freeport, Texas 

RE: EPA’s Proposed Approval of Texas GHG PSD SIP Rules 

March 19, 2014 

EPA Region 6 Participants: Tom Diggs, Adina Wiley, Lynde Schoellkopf, Jeff Robinson, Cindy 

Parker 

Citizen Participants: Laura Jones, Sharron Stewart, Melanie Oldham, David Cole 

Purpose of Meeting 

At the request of interested citizens from Freeport, Texas, EPA Region 6 held a conference call 

regarding our proposed approval of the Texas Greenhouse Gas Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration State Implementation Plan (GHG PSD SIP) rules. The call was a listening session 

only. EPA Region 6 did not accept any formal comments on the rulemaking during this 

conference call. We directed any interested citizens to follow the procedures outlined in the 

above-referenced proposed rulemaking to submit any formal comments for EPA to review and 

consider. 

General Discussion from Citizen Participants 

The participating citizens discussed several issues with EPA Region 6. A summary of the 

discussion topics is presented below. This discussion does not represent a formal comment on 

EPA’s proposed rulemaking. 

 Location of the ozone monitor in Clute, Texas 

 Issuance of LNG permits by the TCEQ 

 EPA and TCEQ permitting process for GHG PSD permits and BACT review 

The memo serves as documentation of the meeting between the parties, and will be included on 

the docket to this rulemaking for public review.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-31111

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES M. SAM, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 96-CR-60002-02

- - - - - - - - - -

August 28, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James M. Sam, Sr., appeals his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for conspiracy to commit food stamp fraud, theft of

government property, and money laundering; money laundering; and

criminal forfeiture. He argues that the district court erred in

applying § 2S1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines in

calculating his sentence. The district court did not err in

grouping Sam’s offenses under § 3D1.2 of the Guidelines. United 

States v. Patterson, 962 F.2d 409, 416 (5th Cir. 1992). The

district court did not err in applying the highest offense level 
No. 97-31111 

-2-

applicable to the offense of money laundering pursuant to

§§ 2S1.1 and 2S1.2 of the Guidelines. See United States v.

Hoster, 988 F.2d 1374, 1381 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.192 Business to be conducted with decorum and courtesy.

Trademark applicants, registrants, and parties to proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and their attorneys or agents are required to conduct their business with decorum and courtesy. Documents presented in violation of this requirement will be submitted to the Director and will be returned by the Director's direct order. Complaints against trademark examining attorneys and other employees must be made in correspondence separate from other documents.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
SERVED: AUGUST 25, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ROTOR FIX LLC 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-2445 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013WP910153) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

President 

Rotor FIX LLC, Respondent 

16209 Victory Blvd. #267 

Van Nuys, CA 91406 

Robert Spitzer, Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave., S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

ONE COPY 

Hon. J .E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2015-2445 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 42.123 Filing of supplemental information.

(a) *Motion to submit supplemental information.* Once a trial has been instituted, a party may file a motion to submit supplemental information in accordance with the following requirements:

(1) A request for the authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information is made within one month of the date the trial is instituted.

(2) The supplemental information must be relevant to a claim for which the trial has been instituted.

(b) *Late submission of supplemental information.* A party seeking to submit supplemental information more than one month after the date the trial is instituted, must request authorization to file a motion to submit the information. The motion to submit supplemental information must show why the supplemental information reasonably could not have been obtained earlier, and that consideration of the supplemental information would be in the interests-of-justice.

(c) *Other supplemental information.* A party seeking to submit supplemental information not relevant to a claim for which the trial has been instituted must request authorization to file a motion to submit the information. The motion must show why the supplemental information reasonably could not have been obtained earlier, and that consideration of the supplemental information would be in the interests-of-justice.