alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 21.6052 Evaluations. ( a ) Scope and nature of evaluation. The scope and nature of the evaluation under this program shall be the same as for an evaluation of the reasonable feasibility of achieving a vocational goal under the procedures described for chapter 31 benefits. See § 21.50(b)(5) and § 21.53 (d) and (f). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(a)(1)(2))
( b ) *Specific services which may be provided in the course of evaluation in determining the reasonable feasibility of achieving a vocational goal.* The following specific services may be provided as a part of the evaluation of reasonable feasibility of achieving a vocational goal, as appropriate: ( 1 ) Assessment of feasibility by a Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC);
( 2 ) Review of feasibility assessment and of need for special services by the Vocational Rehabilitation Panel;
( 3 ) Provision of medical and other diagnostic services;
( 4 ) Evaluation of employability, for a period not to exceed 30 days, by professional staff of an educational or rehabilitation facility. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b))
( c ) *Responsibility for evaluation.* All determinations as to the reasonable feasibility of vocational training and entitlement to assistance under 38 U.S.C. 1524 shall be made by a CP or VRC in the Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) Division.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b))
[53 FR 4397, Feb. 16, 1988, as amended at; 81 FR 26132, May 2, 2016; 87 FR 8744, Feb. 16, 2022]
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R OB E R T R OS E B R OC K, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. R O N A L D M A T H I S , C hi e f of P ol i c e of T he V e t e r a ns A dm i ni s tr a t i on G r e a t e rL os A ng el es H ea l thcar e S ys t em , i n h i s off i ci al c apa c i tya nd D O N N A B E I T E R , D i r e c t or of T he V et er ans A dm i ni strat i on G re at er L os A ng el es H ea l thcar e S ys t em , i n h er o ffi ci al cap aci ty, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 56132 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 0 - c v - 0 1 8 7 8 - SJ O - SS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S . J a m e s O t e r o, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** S a n F r an c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED OC T 22 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 56132 2 R obe rtR os e br oc k appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s r e que s tf

or pr e l i m i na ryi nj unc t i ve r e l i e f a ga i ns tV e t e r ans A dm i ni s tr a t i on of f i c i a l s i n hi s a c t i on a l l e gi ng vi e w poi ntdi s c r i m i na t i on i n vi ol a t i on of the F i r s tA m e ndm e nt . W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. W e e x p r e s s n o v ie w o n th e m e r its o f th e c o m p la in t. O u rs o le in q u iryis w he the rthe di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng pr e l i m i naryi nj unc t i ve r e lie f . T h e L a n d s C o u n c il v . McN

a ir , 53 7 F . 3d 98 1, 98 6 (9th C i r. 20 08 ); se e W in te rv . N a tu ra l R es o u r c es D e

fe n s e C o u n c il , 129 S . C t . 365, 374 ( 2008) ( l i s t i ng f a c to r s f o rd is tr ic t c o u rt to c o n s id e r ) ; Sp ort s Form , Inc. v. U

ni ted P ress Int ’l

, Inc. , 6 8 6 F .2 d7 5 0 , 7 5 2 - 5 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) ( e x p la in in g lim ite ds c o p e o f r e v ie w ) . W e c onc l ude the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on. A c c or di ngl y , w e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng the pr e l i m i naryi nj unc t i on. A FFI R M ED .
Sl()-l()()329-()2() 

Jonathan Marriott 

3872, Picador Court, No. 4, Jacksonville, FL 32217-3036 UNfTEO STATES 

T: (904) 207-9346 E: JMarrio@liotmail.com 

22 March 2010 

The Honourable Raymond H. LaHood, 

Secretary of Transportation, 

Department of Transportation, 

1200, New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-% 

bear Mr. Secretary LaHood, 

I write to register my support and asic you to approve the application for antitrust immunity and 

joint business agreement filed by American Airlines and japan Airlines. Approval of this 

application by the U.S. Department of Transportation would enable these oneworld alliance 

airlines that operate transpacific service to work closely together to deliver highly competitive 

flight schedules, fares and service as well as compete on equal footing with the Star and SItyTeam 

alliances. 

Your approval will help create a more efficient and comprehensive transpacific network for the 

carriers' customers. This action will have a positive impact on air travel by offering customers 

more service, scheduling and pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue to 

benefit from having three competitive air alliances. 

I urge you to look upon this application favourably and to approve it swiftly. I thank you in 

advance for your consideration. 

Yours sincerely, 

(l^^t^hu-^^ 

Jonathan Marriott
§ 5.20 Procedures for petition for the withdrawal or modification of a guidance document. *Petitions for withdrawal or modification of a guidance document.* The following procedures apply for the public to petition for withdrawal or modification of a guidance document. ( a ) A member of the public wishing to petition for withdrawal or modification of a guidance document may submit such petition via email to: *OEIDMO@va.gov .* Petitions may also be mailed to the following address: Office of Policy and Interagency Collaboration, Office of Enterprise Integration, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420.
( b ) A petition for withdrawal or modification of a guidance document must contain the following information: ( 1 ) The petitioner's name and address;
( 2 ) Information identifying the guidance document to which the petition pertains;
( 3 ) A statement of the reasons the petitioner believes the document should be withdrawn or modified.
( c ) VA will seek to provide a response to a petition within 90 days of receipt of the request.
[85 FR 72570, Nov. 13, 2021, as amended at 86 FR 30184, June 7, 2021]
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 234 ) ll-K - (I ) -4 7 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:56

AM Sheet 234 of 325P. 2

THIR D ROUND IFCA

M RESULTS . EEA , Inc . Februar y 5 , 1980 . II-K-(I)-4 7 

## 7 7

THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)-4 7
No. 76-6286.

#### Segal *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th dr. Certiorari denied.
**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**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Navigators Group, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Paul J. Malvasio, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)            The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)            The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Paul J. Malvasio         |   |   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Paul J. Malvasio             |   |
| Executive Vice President and |   |
| Chief Financial Officer      |   |
| May 5, 2005                  |   |

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toThe Navigators Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Navigators Group, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 27, 2023

No. 04

- 23

- 00868

- CR

EX PARTE Oscar Gamboa QUEZADA

From the County Court

, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11369CR

Honorable Susan D. Reed , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the court DISMISSES this appeal for

want of jurisdiction.

It is so ORDERED on December 27, 2023

.

_____________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of December, 2023

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-12-0000676 

27-FEB-2013 

08:26 AM 

SCWC-12-0000676
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

BARBARA ELLEN SHERRILL,


Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,
 

vs.
 

ESTATE OF THOMAS MICHAEL PICO, JR., and MARY ZANAKIS PICO,


Respondents/Respondents-Appellees.
 

 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
 

(CAAP-12-0000676; PROBATE NO. 10-1-0254)
 

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and


Circuit Judge Nacino, in place of Acoba, J., recused)
 

The application for a writ of certiorari, filed on 

January 18, 2013, is hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 27, 2013. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Edwin C. Nacino
126 STAT. 390 PUBLIC LAW 112–139—JUNE 27, 2012 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 997: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 112–527 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 112–65 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 157 (2011): Nov. 2, considered and passed Senate. 

Vol. 158 (2012): June 18, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–139 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a water contract between 

the United States and the East Bench Irrigation District. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘East Bench Irrigation District 

Water Contract Extension Act’’. 

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND WATER CONTRACT. 

The Secretary of the Interior may extend the contract for water 

services between the United States and the East Bench Irrigation 

District, numbered 14–06–600–3593, until the earlier of— 

(1) the date that is 4 years after the date on which the 

contract would have expired if this Act had not been enacted; 

or 

(2) the date on which a new long-term contract is executed 

by the parties to the contract. 

Approved June 27, 2012. 

East Bench 

Irrigation 

District Water 

Contract 

Extension Act. 

June 27, 2012 

[S. 997] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
From: Phil Hopkinson [mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com]

Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 2:42 PM

To: Caskey, John; Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Charlie Dr exler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Silcox, Clark; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eric Pete rson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matt Miller; Matthew Nardotti; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Polinski, Raymond; Pu esh Kumar; Richard Parker; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo

Cc: Bob Smith (bsmith@federalpacific.com); (rjstahara@centralmoloneyinc.com); Ali Ghafourian (aghafourian@ermco-eci.com); Ned Brush (Ned.efbrush@gmail.com); Dave Brender (dbrender@cda.copper.org); jay. ballard@schneider-electric.com; Kenneth.Harden@schneiderelectric.com; Tom Patzner (thomas.patzner@ us.schneider-electric.com); Steve Nizinski Subject: RE: Distribution Transformer Loading



### Good afternoon Richard and all:

Attached, you will find my analysis of distri bution transformer loading, both medium voltage and low voltage, that may prove to be useful for the negotiations. I plan to attend this week’s meetings and would be happy to explain this report if it would add value.

I would also be glad to expl ain my earlier report on medium voltage distribution transformer selling prices to the end user versus efficiency.

Thanks in advance,

Phil

Philip J Hopkinson, PE
President & CEO HVOLT Inc. 3704 High Ridge Rd. Charlotte, NC 28270 phopkinson@hvolt.com
Ph 704-846-3290
Fx 704-845-2520
Cell 704-236-3320
www.hvolt.com
Exhibit 4.119


 


Maximum Mortgage Contract


 


Contract No.: 13100220140074066


 


Mortgagor: Hebei Ruiliang Trading Co., Ltd


Mortgagee : Agricultural Bank of China, Shijiazhuang North City
Branch


 


Signing Date : December 26, 2014


 


Mortgage Definition : To ensure multiple loans Party B (Mortgagee)
has lent to Shijie Kaiyuan Auto Trading Co., Ltd., Party A (Mortgagor) is willing to provide the Maximum Mortgage Guarantee hereunder
for Party B.


  


Maximum Amount: RMB100, 000,000 


Mortgage Term : December 26, 2014 to December 25, 2015


 


 Collateral: The assets Party A mortgages
to Party B as Collateral are listed in Maximum Mortgage Contract (No. 13100220150014859). The appraised value of the Collateral
is RMB 164,915,800.
Exhibit 99.4


CERTIFICATION


I, Doug Drysdale, certify that:


1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Cybin Inc.;


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;


3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;


4.    The issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:


a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;


b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and


c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and


5.    The issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditor and the audit committee of the issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):


a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and


b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.


Date: June 22, 2022    By: /s/ Doug Drysdale  Doug DrysdaleChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
"

"

?>

?>

*

*

** * * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

* * *

*

* ***

*

*

** * * *

* * *

*

* * ** * * * * *

* *

* * * *

*

* * *

*

*

* * **

*

*

*

* * *

* * * * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* * * *

*

* * *

"K

! !1

! !1

"

"

"

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

** * * * *

* * * * * * * * * *

*

*

*

* * * *

*

*

*

*

"K

"K

T01N T01N

R03E

R03E

4 3

9

2

11

28

16

27

15

26

21 22

14

23

10

6Ð188

6Ð187

6Ð429

6Ð181

6Ð132

6Ð187.2C

Ð6

FH 17

6Ð187.2B

6Ð187.2D

6Ð443

6Ð188.1C

6Ð188.1A

6Ð187.2D

188.1G

6Ð187.2E

6Ð188.1B

607.1A

6Ð429.1B

188.1D

607.1C

607.1D

6Ð188

587

6Ð188.1F

6Ð188.1E

607.1B

6Ð187

607.1E

181.1A

181

6Ð188.1A

6Ð429

607.1A

Rimmer

Pasture

Grandad

Pasture

619003

619003

05

04

619006

619061

15

MYSTIC RANGE PROJECT

Rimmer Range Allotment

Range Improvements

?> Pond

"K Spring

* * Fence

" Cattleguard

Management Area

5.1 Resource Production Emphasis

±

Boundary Lines

Allotment Boundary

Pasture Boundary

Private Land

03/19/2010

0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1

Miles

Proposed Alt C Improvements

"K Proposed Spring Improvement

* * Proposed Fence

" Proposed Cattleguard

! !1

Proposed Trail Gate
## NO. 12-08-00328-CV IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S
NAOMI RUTH CR

AWFORD, § APPEAL F ROM THE 114TH APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF LEWIS B ARB ER, JR . AND SURETY INS URANCE C OMPANY, APP ELL EES § SMI TH CO UN TY

, T EXAS
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM This appea l is being dismiss ed for want of pr osecution. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 2. 3( b) . App e lla nt, Naomi Ruth Crawfor d, perf ecte d her appea l on August 6, 2008. There afte r, the re porter’ s rec ord wa s fi l ed on October

6, 2008, making Appellant’s br ief due on or bef ore N ovember

5, 2008. When Appellant fa iled to file her brief within the required ti me, t his court noti fied her on November 7, 2008 that the brief

was pa st due and wa

rned that if no motion for ext ension of time to file the brie f wa s filed by November

17, 2008, the appe al would be dismissed for w an t o f p ro s ecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Proc edure 42.3(b). The notice further informed Appellant that the motion for extension of time must contain a rea sonable ex planation for her failure to file the brie f and a showing that Appellee h a d n o ts u f f e r e d m a t e r i a l i n

j ur y th e r e b y. To date, A

ppellant has neither complied with or otherwise r esponded to this court’s N ovember 7, 2008 notice. Ac cording ly , we dis miss the a pp e a l for want of prosecution

. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a) (1), 42.3.( b). Opinion delivere d November 26, 2008. P an elconsi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(PUBL I SH)
#### § 1209.81 Applicability.

The inflation adjustments set out in § 1209.80 shall apply to civil money penalties assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Safety and Soundness Act, 12 U.S.C. 4636, and subparts B and C of this part, for violations occurring on or after January 15, 2024.

[89 FR 3333, Jan. 18, 2024]
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Fiscal Transparency Report…Palestinian Authority

# 					2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Palestinian Authority			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Palestinian Authority  

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Palestinian Authority 

During the review period, the Palestinian Authority made significant progress by publishing, within a reasonable period, audit reports that covered the entire annual budget and contained substantive findings, recommendations, and narratives.The Palestinian Authority made its enacted budget public, but not within a reasonable period, and the data was incomplete and not approved by the legislature.It also did not publish its executive budget proposal or end-of-year report within a reasonable period. The Palestinian Authority published monthly budget execution reports that did not provide a substantially full picture of revenues and expenditures.The limited information in the reports was generally reliable and accurate.Information on debt obligations, including for PA-owned enterprises, was incomplete.The supreme audit institution lacked independence, and its audit reports were not made publicly available within a reasonable period and did not cover the entire annual executed budget.

The Palestinian Authority’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

-  Making its executive budget proposal, complete enacted budget, and end-of-year report publicly available within a reasonable period;
-  Publishing information on PA debt obligations, including for major PA-owned enterprises;
-  Providing in budget documents a substantially complete picture of revenues and expenditures; and
-  Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence, audits the government’s annual executed budget, and publishes its reports within a reasonable period.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Palestinian Authority  

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentPalestinian Territories

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
§ 1005.5 Issuance of access devices. ( a ) *Solicited issuance.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a financial institution may issue an access device to a consumer only: ( 1 ) In response to an oral or written request for the device; or
( 2 ) As a renewal of, or in substitution for, an accepted access device whether issued by the institution or a successor.
( b ) *Unsolicited issuance.* A financial institution may distribute an access device to a consumer on an unsolicited basis if the access device is: ( 1 ) Not validated, meaning that the institution has not yet performed all the procedures that would enable a consumer to initiate an electronic fund transfer using the access device;
( 2 ) Accompanied by a clear explanation that the access device is not validated and how the consumer may dispose of it if validation is not desired;
( 3 ) Accompanied by the disclosures required by § 1005.7, of the consumer's rights and liabilities that will apply if the access device is validated; and
( 4 ) Validated only in response to the consumer's oral or written request for validation, after the institution has verified the consumer's identity by a reasonable means.