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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust IV and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") for the period ended September 26, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gary Carlin, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General
Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING IV, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ GARY CARLIN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    GARY CARLIN*
                              Title:   Vice President, Controller and
                                       Chief Accounting Officer,
                                       Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: November 7, 2008
-----------------------

*  Gary Carlin functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Override a LVD Record 

To override a LVD Record, complete the following steps:

1. Click Override to override the blocked, suspended, or denied check as shown in Figure 1. 

An Override Check Denial dialog box appears.

Figure 1. Override Check Denial Box

• When an override of a blocked check is performed in check capture, the override is a 

temporary, one-time event. The check remains blocked in the Master Verification 

Database (MVD) unless an authorized person clears the item out of the MVD 

database.

• Click Cancel to close the Check Verification window, and return the check to the 

customer. Click Print to print the Verification report as shown in Figure 2.

Application Tips
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Figure 2. Verification Report

Click Cancel to close the Check Verification window. If Cancel is clicked, return the 

check to the customer.

2. Enter the Login ID and Password and click Login. A Comment dialog box appears.

A Check Capture Supervisor must authorize the override of the blocked, suspended, 

or denied check.

3. Enter a reason why the check was approved for processing and click OK. A notification 

appears stating the override was successful.

Application Tip

Application Tip
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE BRIDGETTE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0436 DFL PAN P

vs.

 D. RUNNELS, Warden, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On May 27, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither party has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 35 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 27, 2005, are adopted in full; and 

2. Plaintiff’s November 10, 2004, motion for a temporary restraining order is

denied. 

Plaintiff is advised that ex parte motions are disfavored. However, plaintiff may seek

injunctive relief by filing, and serving, a motion for preliminary injunction under F.R.Civ.P. 65. 

Dated: 8/22/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

Chief United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 35 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4022 

To amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act to make 

improvements to that Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2024 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

to make improvements to that Act, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Migratory Birds of 

5 the Americas Conservation Enhancements Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION 

7 ACT AMENDMENTS. 

8 (a) FEDERAL SHARE.—Section 5(e)(1) of the 

9 Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4022 IS

1 6104(e)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘25 percent’’ and in2 serting ‘‘33.3 percent’’. 

3 (b) COOPERATION.—Section 7 of the Neotropical Mi4 gratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 6106) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 180 

7 days after the date of the enactment of the Migratory 

8 Birds of the Americas Conservation Enhancements Act of 

9 2024, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on En10 vironment and Public Works of the Senate and the Com11 mittee on Natural Resources of the House of Representa12 tives a report describing the implementation of subsection 

13 (b) by the Secretary, which shall include, if applicable, a 

14 description of the composition of the advisory group con15 vened under paragraph (1) of that subsection.’’. 

16 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

17 10(a) of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

18 (16 U.S.C. 6109(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘2023’’ and 

19 inserting ‘‘2028’’. 

20 (d) TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.— 

21 (1) DEFINITIONS.—Section 4 of the Neotropical 

22 Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 6103) 

23 is amended— 

24 (A) by striking paragraph (1); and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4022 IS

1 (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) 

2 through (5) as paragraphs (1) through (4), re3 spectively. 

4 (2) COOPERATION.—Section 7(b)(1) of the 

5 Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 

6 U.S.C. 6106(b)(1)) is amended in the second sen7 tence by adding a period at the end. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 Respondent has never been served with this petition. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENITO JULIAN LUNA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0627 FCD GGH P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel with a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On September 14, 2004, the undersigned granted petitioner’s motion to

voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice. On June 3, 2011, petitioner filed a first amended 1

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner indicates that he returned to state court to exhaust

additional claims, however it appears that those claims were exhausted when the California

Supreme Court denied a petition on July 18, 2007. It is not clear what has transpired in the four

years since the California Supreme Court denied the petition, or why petitioner waited to re-file

in federal court.

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 16 Filed 06/09/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

A dismissal without prejudice is treated for limitations purposes as if the case had never 2

been filed, Henry v. Lundgren, 164 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1999), i.e., there is no filing to which

the later filed habeas petition can relate back.

2

Petitioner shall show cause within twenty-one days why the petition should not be

dismissed for being filed beyond the one year statute of limitations.

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause within

twenty-one days why the petition should not be dismissed for being filed beyond the one year

statute of limitations.

DATED: June 8, 2011

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:AB

luna0627.ors

Case 2:04-cv-00627-MCE-GGH Document 16 Filed 06/09/11 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEIL DARROW,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0762 GEB PAN P

vs.

SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1983. He challenges the June 6, 2002, decision finding him unsuitable for parole.

On December 7, 2005, petitioner filed a request for a protective order alleging that

on November 29, 2005, a panel of the Board of Prison Terms again found petitioner unsuitable

for parole and decided not to consider petitioner’s case again for five years. Petitioner asserts the

panel’s decision is not supported by the evidence and the panel retaliated against him for

requesting the members to take this litigation under consideration and correct their previous

decision.

The November 29, 2005, decision is not included in petitioner’s pending

application for habeas relief. Before a federal court can review the November 29, 2005,

decision, petitioner must exhaust available state remedies. 

Case 2:04-cv-00762-GEB-PAN Document 24 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s December 7, 2005,

request for a protective order is denied.

DATED: March 27, 2006.

\004

\darr0762.dny request 

Case 2:04-cv-00762-GEB-PAN Document 24 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2
Order filed October 2, 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00715

- CV

____________ MARSHAUN ROBINSON , Appellant

V.

TEXAS BOARD PARDONS AND PAROLES , Appellee

On Appeal from the 61st District Court Harris County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. 2014

- 34153



### ORDER
According to information provided to this court, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order signed August 14, 2014, sustaining a contest to his pauper’s oath . It appears that n o final judgment has been signed in this case
, and the order being appealed is interlocutory. The clerk’s record has not been filed in this appeal. Appellant filed a motion to appeal as indigent

. To determine our jurisdiction over this appeal, we issue the following order for a partial clerk’s record.We order the Harris County District Clerk to file a partial clerk’s record with the

clerk of this court on or before October 31, 2014, containing a final judgment signed by
the trial court. If the requested document is not part o f the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a certified statement that the document is not part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
**Part 1, Section VII: GTAS Validations and Edits**

One of the goals the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) has envisioned for GTAS is to improve the consistency in agency trial balance reporting. This will be accomplished through validations and edits.

The validations ensure that the attributes reported in agencies’ GTAS trial balance submissions are valid for the USSGL account. The validations encompass both USSGL level attributes per the USSGL Attribute Table and Treasury Account Symbol (TAS) level attributes found in the Super Master Account (SMAF).

Simple validations are those involving one attribute while special validations involve more than one attribute. All validations are fatal.

The edits compare the agency trial balances with USSGL rules and with data from authoritative sources such as the Central Accounting Reporting System (CARS), Fiscal Service and the Federal Financing Bank. The edits may be either fatal or proposed. Fiscal Service will use the proposed edits only for analytical purposes. Fiscal Service disclaims any role or responsibility with the agency auditor relationship concerning the GTAS fatal and proposed analytical edits.

The following are the validation and edit reports included in this section:

Page 1 of 1

# image1.png
Proposed Changes for FY 2017 

Justification: To modify the definition for Department of Health and Human Services.

Note, the above will be voted on in May 2017. 

		IRC Handout 12-08-16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY )

OF AMERICA, a Washington ) CIV. S-04-836 GEB JFM

corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 

) ORDER

v. ) 

)

MBA CONSTRUCTION, a California )

corporation doing business as MACK )

CONSTRUCTION; KEVIN D. MACK, an )

individual; KATIE BAUGH, an )

individual; and DANNY W. BAUGH, )

an individual, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a Reply to

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment. Because Plaintiff’s motion has not been opposed,

Plaintiff’s Reply which is attached to its motion is deemed filed on

May 6, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 26, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00836-GEB -JFM Document 48 Filed 05/26/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 49563.

#### Protests 902576-G, etc., John Morgan, Inc., et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH D. PHELON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0857 DFL KJM P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 12, 2005, the court dismissed petitioner’s

application for writ of habeas corpus because he had not filed it on the proper form. The court

granted petitioner thirty days within which to file his habeas application on the proper form.

Petitioner has not complied with the May 12, 2005 order. Good cause appearing,

petitioner will be granted thirty days within which to comply with the May 12, 2005 order. If

petitioner fails to comply with the May 12, 2005 order within thirty days, the court will

recommend that this action be dismissed.

On June 6, 2005, petitioner filed a motion asking that this action be stayed

pending the exhaustion of state court remedies with respect to certain claims. This motion will 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00857-RRB -KJM Document 7 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

be denied without prejudice to renewal after petitioner files his amended petition. Petitioner is

encouraged to review Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), before renewing any request for a

stay.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the court’s form

application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254;

2. Within thirty days, petitioner shall file an amended application for writ of

habeas corpus utilizing the court’s form; and

3. Petitioner’s June 6, 2005 motion for a stay is denied without prejudice to

renewal after petitioner files his amended application for writ of habeas corpus. 

DATED: March 16, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

phel0857.am 

Case 2:04-cv-00857-RRB -KJM Document 7 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

LELAND INMON

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 15

- 1076

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed May 13, 2016

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Hernando County

, Stephen E. Toner, Jr. , Judge.

Leland Inmon, Crawfordville, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent

- Tripp,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal

Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. Appellant asserts seven claims for

relief. Finding merit with regard to only c laim t wo

, we reverse the denial as to that claim

and remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding Appellant's trial

counsel’s failure to present evidence relevant to Appellant’s history of substance abuse,2

which would qualify him for sentencing pursuant to section 948.20

, Florida Statutes

(2013). We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the remaining six claims.

AFFIRMED in PART; REVERSED in PART; REMANDED with Instructions

.

ORFINGER

, EVANDER and WALLIS , JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000151

14-MAR-2019

07:52 AM
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

09/25

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Sep 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■ ■

■ ■

★

●

●

●

●

★

● ● ●

●
From: "Chartier, Daniel" <DChartier@eei.org>

To: Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ W ayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Kinsman, John" <JKinsman@eei.org>, "Fisher, Emily" <EFisher@eei.org>, "Obenshain, Karen"

<KObenshain@eei.org>, "Holdsworth, Eric" < EHoldsworth@eei.org>, "Fang, Bill" <BFang@eei.org>, "Shea, Quin" <QShea@eei.org> Date: 05/09/2012 03:42 PM Subject: Attendance List from NSPS Webinar 

### Kevin and Bob, Please find attached the attendance list for today’s webinar as compiled by our confer ence call vendor. Again, thanks for taking the time to do this webinar. All the best, Dan

**______________________** 

### Daniel L. Chartier, Director, Environmental Markets and Air Quality Programs Edison Electric Institute | 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. | Washington, D.C. 2 0004 202 - 508 - 5710 Office | 202 - 731 - 5888 Mobile | dchartier@eei.org **Follow EEI** on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube . Register now for the EEI Annual Convention! 

### http://www.eei.org/2012

EPA NSPS 05 09 2012 200P.pdf
Before the Third Division,

October 29, 1947

No. 51984.

#### Folkard & Lawrence, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 54446-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In *158accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Before the Second Division,

November 6, 1957

No. 61317.

protest 301424-K (Detroit).

#### John V. Carr & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawbence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of butt hinges, imported with wood screws of steel, the hinges measuring *3%*inches by *3%*inches, being packed 2 hinges and 12 screws to a box (12 screws for each pair of hinges), and the hinges, size 4 inches by 4 inches, being packed 2 hinges and 16 screws to a box (16 screws for each pair of hinges), of the same kind in all material respects as the merchandise the subject of *Trans Atlantic Company*v. *United States*(35 Cust. Ct. 1, C. D. 1712). Upon the agreed statement of facts and following the cited authority, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained, the value of the screws being held as follows, as stipulated by counsel:

Value of screws U. S. dollars Hinges identification per 1,000

*3%*x *3%"*$1.48

4 x 4" $1.64

which values were included in the value of the screws and hinges, as invoiced and appraised.
Before the Second Division,

October 3, 1951

No. 55909.

protests 133463-K, etc. (New York).

#### B. Westergaard & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cheese knives similar in all material respects to those the subject of *B. Westergaard & Co.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 77, C. D. 1302), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00522-CR

PATRICK EVANS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

A jury convicted Appellant Patrick Evans of capital murder in 2007, and the 

conviction was affirmed on appeal in 2009. See Evans v. State, No. 08-07-

00213-CR, 2009 WL 2462538, at *11 (Tex. App.––El Paso Aug. 12, 2009, pet. 

ref’d) (not designated for publication). On October 22, 2013, we received 

Appellant’s pro se “Notice of Appeal of Recent Motions.” In response, we sent a 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

letter to Appellant advising him of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over 

this appeal because it appeared he was attempting to appeal a judgment that 

had already been affirmed once on appeal. Appellant replied with a letter asking 

to withdraw his notice of appeal, which we construe as a motion to dismiss the 

appeal. It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore we 

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f); Willis v. State, No. 02-

11-00309-CR, 2011 WL 4345301, at *1 (Tex. App–-Fort Worth Sept. 15, 2011, 

no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 19, 2013
No. 66276.

#### The American Import Co. *v.*United States,

protests 59/17778, etc, (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass balls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Markovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.