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 V and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P. (the  "Partnership")
for the  period  ended  June 30, 2006 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, Kathleen Skero,
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 V, L.P.

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


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: August 9, 2006
_____________________

*  Kathleen Skero 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.
(Reap. Dec. 10042)

#### Europa Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 12874.

(Decided June 29, 1961)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*William H. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *(Alfred A. Taylor, Jr.,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to plastic artificial flowers exported from France on or about January 1, 1958.

When the case was called for trial, the sole owner of the importing company and counsel for the defendant entered into a stipulation, on the basis of which I find that the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved is export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, and that such value is the invoiced and entered value.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 17, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-451

Lower Tribunal No. F82-18361

________________

Eddie Dean Hill,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa Tinkler Mendez, Judge.

Eddie Dean Hill, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, HENDON, and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MCI WORLDCOM

COMMUNICATIONS, INC. : CIVIL ACTION

:

: NO. 02-4402

 VS. : 

:

TUCOWS, INC.

 ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd of JULY, 2002, in accordance with the

court’s procedure for random reassignment of cases, it is hereby, 

 ORDERED that the above captioned case is reassigned from the

calendar of the Honorable Clarence C. Newcomer to the Honorable Petrese B.

Tucker.

FOR THE COURT:

 

JAMES T. GILES

Chief Judge

ATTEST:

 

MICHAEL E. KUNZ

Clerk of Court

Case 2:02-cv-04402-PBT Document 2 Filed 07/23/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 50945.

#### Protests 118572-K (B), etc., of Jean R. Graef, Inc., et al. (New York).

*239Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400-the court dismissed the protests.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3991 

To expand the scope of the Do Not Call rules under the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act to include all telephone subscribers, and to expand the 

private right of action for calls in violation of those rules. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 20, 2024 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. KING, Ms. SMITH, Mr. WELCH, 

Mr. SANDERS, Ms. HIRONO, and Ms. DUCKWORTH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To expand the scope of the Do Not Call rules under the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act to include all telephone subscribers, and to expand the private right of 

action for calls in violation of those rules. 

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 ‘‘Protecting American 

5 Consumers from Robocalls Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3991 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDING SCOPE OF DO NOT CALL RULES AND 

2 PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 227(c) of the Communica4 tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(c)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding 

6 subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘residential’’; 

7 (2) in paragraph (3)— 

8 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

9 (A), by striking ‘‘residential’’; and 

10 (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘resi11 dential’’; and 

12 (3) in paragraph (5)— 

13 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

14 (A), by striking ‘‘more than one telephone call 

15 within any 12-month period by or on behalf of 

16 the same entity’’ and inserting ‘‘a telephone call 

17 by or on behalf of an entity’’; and 

18 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘up 

19 to’’. 

20 (b) REVISED REGULATIONS.—Not later than 270 

21 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal 

22 Communications Commission shall revise the regulations 

23 prescribed under section 227(c) of the Communications 

24 Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(c)) as necessary to implement 

25 the amendments made by subsection (a) of this section. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 55862.

protests 33324-K, etc. (New York).

#### Heller Hope Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
No. 47835.

Suit 4408.

#### *United States*v. *T. D. Downing Co.*

C. D. 647. Appeal dismissed October 30, 1942.
(Part 1SUPPLEMENT) (Fiscal Year 2018 ReportingSection IV) (U.S. Standard General Ledger - Account Attribute Definition Report)

 (Bulletin No. 2018-05) (IV ADR - 1) (June 2018)
20.05
----

Adoption of five reference documents for the purpose of Council Directive 96/61/EC from 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1)

(2006/C 257/06)

On 16 August 2006, the Commission adopted the complete texts of the reference documents on

These documents are available on the Internet site http://eippcb.jrc.es

----

(1)OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.

----
Part 1, Section V: USSGL Crosswalks to Standard

External Reports

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2018 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map

USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with current reporting guidance from the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), and the

Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service).

Each report crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or

column on the reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This

subsidiary information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional

information on attributes.

All crosswalks require pre-closing USSGL account balances.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by

OMB and Fiscal Service:

Section V Page Number

Balance Sheet (BS) V BS - 1

Statement of Net Cost (SNC) V SNC - 1

Statement of Changes in Net Position (SCNP) V SCNP - 1

Statement of Custodial Activity (SCA) V SCA - 1

Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) V SBR - 1

SF 133 and Schedule P: Report on Budget Execution and

Budgetary Resources and Budget Program and Financing Schedule

V SF 133/Sch P - 1

 

Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

June 14, 1956

No. 60039.

#### Camilli Albert & Laloue, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 273263-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT&"Arial,Regular"	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2018 ReportingSection VII&"Arial,Regular"

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 9/25/18
1. If not held immediately upon defendant's first appearance,

the hearing may be continued for up to three days upon motion of

the Government, or up to five days upon motion of the defendant. 

18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2).

 A hearing is required whenever the conditions set forth

in 18 U.S.C § 3142(f) are present. Subsection (1) sets forth the

grounds that may be asserted only by the attorney for the

Government; subsection (2) states that a hearing is mandated upon

the motion of the attorney for the Government or upon the

judicial officer's own motion if there is a serious risk that the

defendant (a) will flee or (b) will obstruct or attempt to

obstruct justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt

to threaten, injure, or intimidate a prospective witness or

juror.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

:

 v. : Case No. 05-613-M

:

KENNETH WATERSTRADT :

ORDER OF TEMPORARY DETENTION

PENDING HEARING PURSUANT TO 

BAIL REFORM ACT

Upon motion of the government, it is ORDERED that a

detention hearing is set for Tuesday, June 21, 20051 at 1:30 p.m. before

Honorable Jacob P. Hart in Courtroom 5B.

Pending this hearing, the defendant shall be held in custody

by (the United States Marshal) and produced for the hearing.

Date: June 17, 2005 ___________________________

DIANE M. WELSH

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cr-00439-MMB Document 5 Filed 06/20/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 58499.

protest 229015-K (Philadelphia).

#### Dreher Leather Mfg. Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of snakeskins similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Fleming-Joffe, Ltd.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1263), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1765 was sustained.
No. 53518.

protest 50136-K/89987 (Chicago).

#### P. Becker & Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 154001 the court dismissed the protest.
(Reap. Dec. 10046)

#### Mattel, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 239, etc.

(Decided July 7, 1961)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*William, S. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have- been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto:

> 1. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof are limited to the merchandise shipped by Kokusi Boeki Kaisha, Ltd. of Japan.

> 2. That the said merchandise was appraised under Section 402(b) of the Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, 2nd Session.

> 3. That at the time of exportation to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, were the values found by the Appraiser less buying commission of 10% or 13% as noted on the invoices.

> 4. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A,” as heretofore limited, are submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930,' as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 296, T.D. 54165, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the values found by the appraiser, less buying commission of 10 per centum or 13 per centum, as noted on the invoices.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Proposed New Budgetary USSGL Account for 2021**

**Account Title:**Federal Financing Bank (FFB) - Net Principal Payments

**Account Number:**412250  

**Normal Balance:**Debit 

**Definition:**  This account is used by the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) to record the net amount of Agency or guaranteed principal received in excess (or deficit) of principal repaid to the Bureau of Fiscal Service. Although the normal balance of this account is debit, it is acceptable for this account to have a credit balance. Only the FFB may use this account. This account closes into 420100 at year end.

**Justification:** When the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) receives a repayment of loan

            principal balance from a borrowing Agency, normally the FFB also simultaneously 

            repays the Bureau of Fiscal Service, its funding source, the exact same amount.  To

            handle circumstances when the amounts received by the FFB do not equal the amounts 

            repaid to the Bureau of Fiscal Service, a new USSGL account is being requested. This  

            new USSGL account will record the net amount of Agency or guaranteed principal 

            received by the FFB in excess (or deficit) of the amount of principal repaid to the Bureau 

            of Fiscal Service during the fiscal year. This account will only be used by the FFB. **This**

**proposed account is contingent on a new line being added to the SF 133 when the**

**2021 OMB Circular No. A-11 is released.**

IRC Handout July 7, 2021
### Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)**M eeting with EPA** **on October 14, 2015 List of Attendees** 

**No. Name**  **Affiliation Email**  1. Mark de Figueiredo EPA defigueiredo.mark@epa.gov 2. Jameel Alsalam EPA alsalam.jameel@epa.gov 3. Vickie Patton EDF vpatton@edf.org 4. Peter Zalzal EDF pzalzal@edf.org 5. Tomas Carbonell EDF tcarbonell@edf.org 6. Sarah Dunham EPA dunham.sarah@epa.gov 7. Bruce Moore EPA moore.bruce@epa.gov 8. Alex McPherson EPA mcpherson.alex@epa.gov 9. Pamela Franklin EPA franklin.pamela@epa.gov 10. Lisa Thompson EPA thompson.lisa@epa.gov
No. 64828.

#### V. Christensen Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/26494 (New York).

*358Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         65,124 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  84,070 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   10,048 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              139,146 
<PP&E>                                        597,354 
<DEPRECIATION>                                348,414 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                403,127 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         174,249 
<BONDS>                                             0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                    1,223,442 
<OTHER-SE>                                          0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  403,127 
<SALES>                                       165,735 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              165,735 
<CGS>                                               0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 241,830 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   12 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              177,753 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              9,090 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (262,951)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                 (262,951)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)
        

</TABLE>
#### Harold WAPNICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Respondent-Appellee.

Docket No. 00-2541.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 13, 2001.

Harold Wapnick, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

Emily Berger, Assistant United States Attorney, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; Susan Corkery, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief, Brooklyn, NY, for appellee.

Present LEVAL, and SACK, Circuit Judges.*

*

 The third judge on the panel that was assigned to hear this appeal recused herself and did not participate. The appeal was heard and decided by the panel’s remaining two judges pursuant to the Court's Local Rule § 0.14(b).

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Harold Wapnick appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habe-as corpus. He argues, *inter alia,*that he was entitled to more good time credits, that he was eligible for parole, that his fine was illegally imposed, and that he was deprived of defense witnesses. Wapnick’s good time credits were accurately calculated. His argument regarding entitlement to parole is meritless because the crimes for which he was convicted either continued through or occurred after November 1, 1987, the effective date of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The Guide*42lines make him ineligible for parole. *See United States v. Azeem,*946 F.2d 13, (2d Cir.1991). His remaining arguments were not raised in the district court and, in any event, are without merit.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA SALTER,

NO. CIV. S-04-29 LKK/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI; and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN’S 

AFFAIRS,

Defendants.

 /

A hearing in the above-captioned case was scheduled for July

18, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., on the Law and Motion Calendar of this

court pursuant to defendant’s motion for summary judgment or

summary adjudication. 

Counsel for plaintiff has filed an opposition brief. Local

Rule 56-260(b) for the Eastern District of California specifies

that any party opposing a motion for summary judgment or summary

adjudication “shall reproduce the itemized facts in the Statement

of Undisputed Facts and admit those facts that are undisputed and

Case 2:04-cv-00029-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 06/29/05 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

 The court notes that it has already been forced to continue 1

one hearing date because of plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to file

a timely opposition in accordance with Local Rule 78-230.

Plaintiff’s counsel is admonished that failure to comply with Local

Rule 56-260(b) by the specified date may result in further

sanctions.

2

deny those that are disputed, including with each denial a citation

to the particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition,

interrogatory answer, admission or other document relied upon in

support of that denial.” Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to

reproduce the Statement of Undisputed Facts and admit those that

are undisputed and deny those that are disputed (otherwise known

as a “Response SUF”). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to file a Response

SUF which complies with Local Rule 56-260(b) by 4:00 p.m. on

Thursday, June 30, 2005.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 28, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00029-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 06/29/05 Page 2 of 2
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

View a Financial Institution

To view a Financial Institution (FI), complete the following steps:

1. From Administration, select Manage FI>Financial Institution>View. 

2. The View the Financial Institution page appears. View details for Financial Institutions as 

shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 1. View FRB Detail
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Figure 2. View Financial Institution Detail

FI Confirmers, Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) Confirmers, FI Viewers, and FRB 

Viewers are authorized to view Institution Information, Routing Transit Numbers (RTN) 

and Status and CA$HLINK II Account Number (CAN)/Acct Key Relationships.

Click Return Home to return to the OTCnet Home Page.

Application Tip

Additional Button
# C_2018094EN.01002202.xml

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Jean Patou Worldwide v EUIPO — Emboga (HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE)

(Case T-808/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE - Earlier EU word mark JOY - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 094/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jean Patou Worldwide Ltd (Watford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baran, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl, A. Folliard-Monguiral and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Emboga, SA (Petrel, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2016 (Case R 235/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Jean Patou Worldwide and Emboga.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jean Patou Worldwide Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jean Patou Worldwide Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

1

---