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





Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Citizens, Inc. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350





I, Kay E. Osbourn certify that:





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Citizens, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kay E. Osbourn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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, as amended; and




|   |                                                                                                                                                     
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ Kay E. OsbournName:Kay E. OsbournTitle:Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, andChief Investment OfficerDate:November 13, 2017























7
|   | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:   August      14, 2008 | By:    | /s/      Patricia K. Collawn        |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|                                        |   | Patricia      K. Collawn            |
|                                        |   | President      and CEO              |
|                                        |   | Texas-New      Mexico Power Company |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID JONATHAN THOMAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

ISIDRO BACA; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16572

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00508-RCJWGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016**

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

David Jonathan Thomas, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the 

district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in 

his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 

Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) alleging that defendants’ refusal to provide him with a 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

FILED

DEC 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-16572 

kosher food diet violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and 

RLUIPA. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We reverse 

and remand.

The district court erred in granting judgment for defendants, because 

defendants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that grievance No. 2006-

29-42178 was properly screened under existing prison regulations. See id. at 1172 

(defendant bears the burden of proving that the prisoner did not exhaust available 

administrative remedies). Defendants did not produce evidence showing that 

Thomas was required to attach prior level grievance responses to his next level 

grievances. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007) (compliance with prison 

grievance procedures is all that is required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act 

(“PLRA”) to properly exhaust). Moreover, grievance No. 2006-29-42178 was 

sufficient to put the prison on notice of Thomas’ claims. See Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[W]hen the administrative rulebook 

is silent, a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for 

which redress is sought.” (citation omitted)); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 824 

(9th Cir. 2010) (the PLRA does not “require an inmate to identify responsible 
3 15-16572 

parties or otherwise to signal who ultimately may be sued”). Accordingly, we 

reverse and remand for further proceedings.

We do not consider allegations and arguments raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

REVERSED and REMANDED.
Exhibit 32.2.1



Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Eugene R. McGrath, the Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (the Company) certify that
the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, which this statement accompanies, (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/    EUGENE R.
MCGRATHEugene R. McGrath




Dated: August 5, 2004
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVID STEPHEN REIDY,

Petitioner,

v.

LIUDMYLA Y. REIDY,

Respondent.

No. 4D18-2525

[November 28, 2018]

Petition for writ of prohibition to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Andrea Ruth Gundersen, Judge; L.T. 

Case No. FMCE 14-006256.

Carla P. Lowry of Lowry at Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Richard F. Hussey of Richard F. Hussey, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks prohibition to quash an order of the trial court which 

determined that an attorney timely and properly perfected his charging 

lien in a dissolution of marriage action. We grant the petition and quash 

the order upon concluding that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to 

entertain the lien.

The attorney represented the former wife in a dissolution action. He 

was replaced after the trial court entered a final dissolution judgment and 

while the direct appeal of that judgment was pending. He then filed a 

notice of intention to impose and enforce a charging lien. The trial court 

issued a post-dissolution support and fee order, and that led to a second 

appeal. Once that appeal was resolved, counsel moved to adjudicate and 

impose his charging lien for work performed prior to the entry of the 

original final judgment. The trial court determined that it was timely. We 

grant relief for two reasons.

First, the attorney failed to file the notice of charging lien before the 

trial court issued the final judgment. Brody v. Broward Cty. Sheriff’s 
2

Office, 137 So. 3d 610, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“A trial court lacks 

jurisdiction to entertain a charging lien where it has not been timely 

perfected; that is, filed before the trial court lost jurisdiction through 

settlement, dismissal or final judgment.”). Second, the judgment denied 

both parties’ fee requests and therefore did not reserve jurisdiction to 

adjudicate fees. Compare Weiland v. Weiland, 814 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 2002) with Lutz v. Rutherford, 139 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), 

and Baker & Hostetler, LLP v. Swearingen, 998 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 

2008).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition and quash the 

trial court’s order which determined counsel’s charging lien was timely and 

properly perfected. 

GROSS, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 21
 Subsidiaries of Registrant
 State of
    
    PercentageCompany Name
    
    Incorporation
    
    OwnershipCICA Life Insurance Company of America
(CICA)
    
    Colorado
    
    100% DirectCitizens Academy, LLC
    
    Texas
    
    100% DirectCitizens National Life Insurance Company
(CNLIC)
    
    Texas
    
    100% IndirectComputing Technology, Inc.
(CTI)
    
    Colorado
    
    100% IndirectFuneral Homes of America, Inc. (FHA)
    
    Louisiana
    
    100% IndirectInsurance Investors, Inc. (III)
    
    Texas
    
    100% IndirectIntegrity Capital Corporation (ICC)
    
    Indiana
    
    87% Direct
 13% IndirectIntegrity Capital Insurance Company (ICIC)
    
    Indiana
    
    100% IndirectSecurity Plan Life Insurance Company (SPLIC)
    
    Louisiana
    
    100% IndirectSecurity Plan Fire Insurance Company
(SPFIC)
    
    Louisiana
    
    100% Indirect
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Joseph Fershion ASHER, Jr. v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 53230.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 15, 1973.

In re: Joseph Fershion Asher, Jr. applying for writs of prohibition and habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction. Because of the inadequate facilities at the Orleans Parish Prison, this action is warranted.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO.  2-09-220-CV

ARTURO HERNANDEZ	APPELLANT

	V.

EDDIE C. WILLIAMS, DOCTOR DAVID	APPELLEES

POTTER, AND JOHN WILSON, P.A.

	------------

	FROM THE 89TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Arturo Hernandez filed a notice of appeal from a June 17, 2009 order denying his Motion For Appointment of Counsel.  It appears that the trial court has not signed a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order.  On July 23, 2009, we notified Appellant that unless he or any other party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response by August 3, 2009, showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we would dismiss the appeal. Hernandez filed a response, but the response does not raise any grounds for continuing the appeal.

	A party may appeal only from a final judgment or an interlocutory order specifically made appealable by statute or rule.  Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 & n.12 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g.,Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2008) (listing appealable interlocutory orders). Because the trial court has not signed a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 20, 2009
#### Harry BURNS, III, Appellant, v. Noel AMHERD, Appellee.

No. 68-467.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 26, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
  (a)
    
    A review of the Servicers activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing
agreement during the period from November 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 has been made under my
supervision.
 (b)
    
    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the
aforementioned period.
  /s/ Daniel J. GardettoDaniel J. GardettoAssistant Treasurer of
Ford Motor Credit Company LLC,
as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner
Trust 2009-E
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2095 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2095

 To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study to determine 
  the costs for the Corps of Engineers to ensure that certain project 
  activities authorized under Nationwide Permit 14 comply with public 
               safety conditions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 19, 2021

   Mr. Long introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study to determine 
  the costs for the Corps of Engineers to ensure that certain project 
  activities authorized under Nationwide Permit 14 comply with public 
               safety conditions, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. STUDY.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
Chief of Engineers, shall conduct a study to determine the costs for 
the Corps of Engineers to--
            (1) include public safety as a condition for authorizing a 
        proposed project activity under Nationwide Permit 14; and
            (2) inspect an authorized project activity after 
        construction to ensure that such project activity is maintained 
        in compliance with all conditions related to public safety 
        under Nationwide Permit 14.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report containing the 
results of the study conducted under subsection (a).
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Nationwide permit 14.--The term ``Nationwide Permit 
        14'' means the nationwide permit, relating to linear 
        transportation projects, issued pursuant to section 10 of the 
        Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and section 404 of the 
        Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
            (2) Project activity.--The term ``project activity'' means 
        an activity for which a permittee is required to submit a pre-
        construction notification under Nationwide Permit 14.
                                 <all>
```
#### Perfecto MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42934.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 27, 1972.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Treasury approves Hawaii’s plan to invest $109.7 million of CPF funding in 

broadband infrastructure projects that will provide high-quality internet to 

locations that lack access to adequate service.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Hawaii

 

▪ Program Summary: $109.7 million for Broadband Infrastructure (100% of program allocation)

▪ Program Description: Hawaii will implement two broadband infrastructure programs that aim

to provide reliable internet access to households across the state. Hawaii will invest $101.7

million of their CPF award to the Hawaii Subsea Middle Mile Program - a program designed to

address the critical middle mile subsea cable infrastructure needed to ensure the islands of

Hawaii have reliable, high speed internet access. Hawaii will additionally invest $8 million

towards the Hawaii Public Housing Authority (HPHA) Connections Program to upgrade HPHA

facilities to provide residents with access to affordable, high-speed internet.

‒ Both programs are designed to support internet service with speeds of 100/100 Mbps

symmetrical or better to households and businesses upon project completion. 

‒ Internet service providers utilizing investments funded by CPF will be required to 

participate in the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) – a $30 per month subsidy 

for low-income families. 

▪ Key State Contact: The University of Hawaii through a subgrant administered by the Hawaii

Department of Budget and Finance

Hawaii’s Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 19

- 00525

- CV

M. H., Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective S ervices, Appellee

FROM THE 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. 18

- 2091, THE HON ORABLE MELISSA MCCLE NAHAN, J U DGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM
Appellant M. H. filed his notice of appeal on August 2, 2019 . The appellate
record was complete August 24, 2019 , making appellant ’ s brief due September 13, 2019

. On
September 12, 2019 , counsel for appellant filed a m otion for extension of time to file appellant’s

brief.

T he rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals
from suits for termination of parental ri ghts. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days

for court’s final dis position). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting
extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order counsel to file appellant’s brief

no later than September 30, 2019 . If the brief is not filed by that date, c ounsel may be required
to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on S eptember 1 3 , 2019

.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Triana and Smith
#### Frank F. DOMNICK, Jr., Petitioner, v. Patricia L. WARE, as Executrix of the Estate of Frank F. Domnick, Deceased, Respondent.

No. 40545.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 16, 1971.

Paul E. Gifford, of Stephens, Demos, Magill & Thornton, Miami, for petitioner.

Fogle & Fordham and Richard M. Gale, Miami, for respondent.

*437PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have heard argument of the parties. After argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the writ was improvidently issued. Therefore, the writ is hereby discharged and the petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents.
|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 1 | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2017-3 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 2 | Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 4 | Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 5 | All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. |

|                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                               |  |
| /s/ Ryan C. Farris                                            |   |
|                                                          |
| Ryan C. Farris                                                |
| President, Ally Auto Assets LLC, as Depositor                 |
| (Senior Officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 15, 2015

NO. 03-14-00260-CR

Frank Ricci Flores, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 51ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment entered by the trial court. Having reviewed the record and 

the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s

judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Memorandum of Understanding 

At the signing today of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa 

and the Government of the United States of America to Improve International Tax Compliance 

and to Implement FATCA (hereinafter the "Agreement"), the representatives of the Republic of 

South Africa and the United States of America wish to conflrm their understanding of the 

following: 

It is understood that, in the case of securities registered with a South African Central Securities 

Depository for purposes of the Financial Markets Act, No. 19 of2012 that are held by or through 

one or more other Financial Institutions that are not Nonparticipating Financial Institutions, the 

relevant Financial Accounts are to be treated as held by such other Financial Institutions, and 

such other Financial Institutions are to be responsible for any reporting required with respect to 

such Financial Accounts. In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Agreement, the 

relevant settlement system may report on behalf of such other Financial Institutions. 

Signed at q? ~ c.+<S ~; t... , in duplicate, in the English language, this J_ day of JuJ.t~ , 20/1/ . 

FORTHEGOVERNMENTOFTHE 

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA: 

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: