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 of Mayors Jewelers, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the thirteen weeks ended September 25, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Lawrence R. Litowitz, Interim Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, 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
Company. Date: January 7, 2005 /s/ Lawrence R. Litowitz

Lawrence R. LitowitzInterim
Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8750 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8750

 To direct the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Administrator 
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to establish a 
   National Coastal Data Information System, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 12, 2020

Ms. Velazquez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Administrator 
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to establish a 
   National Coastal Data Information System, 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. NATIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE RISK ANALYSIS.

    (a) Purposes.--The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the 
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
shall establish a National Coastal Data Information System to--
            (1) combine existing observations, modeling, predictions, 
        products and services into an integrated framework for 
        producing and maintaining authoritative and timely data, maps, 
        and information services which quantify and communicate coastal 
        flood risk to the States;
            (2) develop and strengthen partnerships with organizations 
        that represent end users within coastal communities, including 
        other Federal agencies, to better assess information gaps and 
        needs relating to the risk posed by the rising sea level; and
            (3) produce new information products and services, targeted 
        to end-user needs, that allow coastal communities across the 
        United States to plan for present and future coastal flood 
        risk.
    (b) Report.--The Administrator shall, not less than 180 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act and every 3 years thereafter, provide 
the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives with 
a report containing holistic analysis of the need to expand 
observations, modeling, predictions, products, and services to--
            (1) improve the understanding of changing coastal flood 
        risk, including the impacts of sea level rise; and
            (2) track and report how observed rates of sea level rise 
        compare to the sea level rise predictions published within the 
        National Climate Assessments.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

SPA RENTAL, LLC, d/b/a/ MSI AVIATION, 

Complainant, 

v. 

SOMERSET- PULASKI COUNTY AIRPORT 

BOARD, 

Respondent. 

FAADocketNo.l6-13-02 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to June 15,2015. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in 

this case. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April17, 2015, I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time to 

April30, 2015 for FAA Docket No. 16-13-02 addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Komad Kuczak 

130 West Second Street, Suite 1010 

Dayton, OH 45402 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Rachel Owsley 

Bethany A. Breetz 

Stites & Harbison, PLLC 

400 West Market Street, Suite 1800 

Louisville, KY 40202 

Hand delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

(/ PoM ,J/1/l)/~/ 'I c'/7 -1 

Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 17,

2013.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00874

- CV

HARDAWAY NET

- WORKS, INC. , Appellant

V.
THE CONCENTRIC3 GROU P, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harr is County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 32266



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment signed July 1 , 2013. On December 6
, 2013, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the parties have reached an agreement to compromise an d settle their difference s arising from the underlying lawsuit. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed with prejudice

. PER CURIAM

P anel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Brown

.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 15, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129331 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129331 

 COA: 252606 

Oscoda CC: 02-000752-FH 

KEVIN MICHAEL MAY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 9, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

p1208 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 15, 2005 

Clerk
# C_2022318EN.01002002.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 20 April 2022 — Global Roads Investimentos SGPS, Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-267/22)

(2022/C 318/29)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Global Roads Investimentos SGPS, Lda

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Is a holding company established in Portugal and governed by the provisions of Decree-law No 495/88 of 30 December 1988, which has as its sole object the management of shareholdings in other companies, as an indirect means of pursuing economic activities, and which, in that context, acquires and holds on a long-term basis such shareholdings, which, in general, amount to at least 10 % of the share capital of the companies in which it has a shareholding, where those companies do not operate in the insurance or financial sectors, covered by the definition of ‘financial institution’ within the meaning of point 22 of Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU (1) and point 26 of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013? (2)

---

(1)  Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

---
BBY-2014 Ex 10.18






Exhibit 10.18







BEST BUY MOBILE PERFORMANCE AWARD 
TERMINATION AGREEMENT




Introduction


You were granted a Performance Award under a Best Buy Mobile Performance Award Agreement. The Performance Award provided for a  potential payment for each of consecutive 12-month Performance Periods, with the final Performance Period ending March 2, 2013.  Payments have been made to you for all Performance Periods preceding the final Performance Period, which has not yet been completed.


Under the Performance Award, payments are calculated based on Economic Value Added (EVA) generated by the Best Buy Mobile venture.  In the current and final Performance Period (March 4, 2012- March 2, 2013), Best Buy Mobile became part of the newly-formed Connectivity Business Group, resulting in the commingling of businesses and resources, and a corresponding lack of certainty regarding the calculation of EVA for this final Performance Period.


The purpose of this Termination Agreement is to bring certainty to the payment to you for the final Performance Period under the Performance Award, and to bring finality to that Performance Award.


Agreement


		
	•
	In March 2013, you will be paid $3,713,190 (less tax withholding and applicable deductions) for the final Performance Period under the Performance Award Agreement, provided you are employed by Best Buy through the end of the Performance Period. If your employment terminates under the circumstances in Section 2.5 (a) of the Performance Award Agreement, this payment will be pro-rated to end of the fiscal quarter preceding your date of termination. If your employment terminates for any other reason before the end of the Performance Period, you will not be entitled to any payment for the final Performance Period. Further, the payment in this paragraph remains subject to the Recovery Policy provision s in Section 3.5 of the Performance Award Agreement.




		
	•
	You agree that, by agreeing to the above payment , Best Buy has no further obligation to you under the Performance Award Agreement.




		
	•
	You waive any further rights you have under the Performance  Award Agreement, and agree not to bring any claims against Best Buy or any of its subsidiaries or employees based on the Performance Award Agreement. Your release  includes  (but  is  not  limited  to) any contract, quasi-contract, statutory, tort, or negligence claims.




		
	•
	Section III of the Performance Award Agreement (Restrictive Covenants) survives and continues in full force and effect. You acknowledge that you remain bound by the provision s of Section III.
















By signing below, you agree to the terms of this Performance Award Termination Agreement. Please keep a copy of this document for your records.




	
			
	/s/ Jude Buckley
	 
	Jude Buckley

	Signature
	 
	Printed Name

	 
	 
	 

	12/10/2012
	 
	 

	Date
2018 EAVS Data Brief: Connecticut EAVS Jurisdictions 

169 

 Voter Registration 

Total Registered Voters, 

Nov. 20181 

2,369,335 

1 A1a of EAVS 

Registration Forms Received, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20182 

701,958 

2 A3a of EAVS 

New Voters Registered, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20183 

259,386 

3 A3b of EAVS 

Sources of Registration Forms4 

4 A4a-l of EAVS 

Mail/Fax/Email 88,113 

In-Person 103,483 

Online 187,288 

Motor Vehicle Office 283,609 

Public Assistance 

Office 7,256 

Disability Office 1,386 

Military Recruitment 

Office 988 

Other Non-NVRA 

Office 1,045 

Registration Drives 0 

Other Sources or Not 

Categorized 28,790 

 Voter Turnout 

Voters Participating by Mode5 

In-Person E-Day 

1,328,226 

93% 

By Mail 

91,602 

7% 

Other Mode 

1,832 

0% 

5 In-person Election Day 

voters is F1b. By-mail voters 

is F1d+F1g. In-person early 

voters is F1f. Other mode is 

F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Total Turnout:6 1,421,650 

6 F1a of EAVS 

Provisional Voters:7 10 

7 F1e of EAVS 

UOCAVA Voters:8 1,822 

8 F1c of EAVS 

Election Technology 

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9 

169 169 169 

0 0 0 

DRE w/o DRE with Ballot Scanner Hand Electronic 

VVPAT VVPAT Marking Count Poll Book 

Device 



9 F3a-d, F5a-F8a, and 

F11a of EAVS 

Election Policies 

✔ Has online voter registration10 

10 Q6 of Policy Survey 

✔ Has a form of same-day voter registration (SDR)11 

11 Q7 of Policy Survey 

Has all-mail elections statewide12 

Has all-mail elections in certain jurisdictions12 

12 Q9a of Policy Survey 

✔ Allows voters to register as permanent absentee 

voters13 

✔ 13 Q10 of Policy Survey Requires excuse for by-mail voting14 

✔ Requires excuse for in-person early or in-person 14 Q8 of Policy Survey 

absentee voting15 15 Q12a of Policy Survey 

Uses vote centers16 16 Q13 of Policy Survey 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at 

www.eac.gov. 

Responses of “Does not apply” and “Data not available”

are shown as zeroes.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8665 

To direct the Federal Communications Commission to establish a new Tribal 

priority window for the 2.5 gigahertz band, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 23, 2020 

Ms. HAALAND (for herself, Ms. CRAIG, Mr. COLE, Ms. KENDRA S. HORN of 

Oklahoma, Mr. GALLEGO, and Mr. YOUNG) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Federal Communications Commission to establish a new Tribal priority window for the 2.5 gigahertz 

band, 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 ‘‘Extending Tribal 

5 Broadband Priority Act of 2020’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8665 IH

1 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW 2.5 GHZ TRIBAL PRIORITY 

2 WINDOW. 

3 (a) COMMISSION DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

4 ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal Communications Com5 mission. 

6 (b) NEW TRIBAL PRIORITY WINDOW.—The Commis7 sion shall— 

8 (1) not later than 30 days after the date of en9 actment of this Act, establish a new Tribal priority 

10 window for the 2.5 gigahertz band, under the same 

11 terms and conditions as the Tribal priority window 

12 established in the Report and Order in the matter 

13 of Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band adopted by the 

14 Commission on July 10, 2019 (FCC 19–62), for any 

15 portions of the band— 

16 (A) that remain available for assignment in 

17 accordance with that Report and Order; and 

18 (B) for which the Commission did not re19 ceive an application during the Tribal priority 

20 window established in that Report and Order; 

21 and 

22 (2) accept applications in the new window es23 tablished under paragraph (1) during the period 

24 that— 

25 (A) begins on the date on which the win26 dow is established; and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8665 IH

1 (B) ends on the date that is 180 days after 

2 the date on which the window is established, or 

3 such later date as the Commission considers ap4 propriate. 

5 (c) EXCEPTION FROM CERTAIN PROCEDURAL RE6 QUIREMENTS.—To the extent that the Commission deter7 mines that section 553 of title 5, United States Code, 

8 chapter 6 of that title (commonly known as the ‘‘Regu9 latory Flexibility Act’’), subchapter I of chapter 35 of title 

10 44, United States Code (commonly known as the ‘‘Paper11 work Reduction Act’’), or any other provision of law would 

12 prevent the Commission from establishing the new Tribal 

13 priority window by the date required under paragraph (1) 

14 of subsection (b) or from beginning to accept applications 

15 in that window as required under paragraph (2)(A) of that 

16 subsection, that provision shall not apply to any action 

17 taken by the Commission, or any rule or order issued by 

18 the Commission, to establish that window or to begin ac19 cepting applications in that window (as the case may be). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
# I SECTION 26

— EMISSION OF VISIBLE AIR CONTAMINANTS A person shall not discharge Into the atmosphere, from any single sourcewhatsoever, except for an incinerator, any air contaminants for a period or periods aggregating more than three (3) minutes in any sixty (60) minute period, which is: 26.1.1 Of such opacity to a degree equal to 20 obscura tion orgreater. 26.1.2 Exceptions: 26.1.2.1 Smoke from fires permitted In Section 42 hereIn; 26.1.2.2 Where the presenceofuncombined water is the only reason forthe failure ofan emission 4 tomeet the limitations herein, this Section shall not apply; 26.1.2.3

-Smoke discharged In the course oftraining Air Pollution Control Inspectors to observe visible emissions, Ifwritten permission is obtained from

- —the Control Officer specifying the times and dates ofsuch training. 26.2 Any existing source undergoing modification shall incorporate control devices andmethods calculated, within themaximumcontrol capability which is technicallypracticable -at the time that themodlfl— cation Is begun, to eliminate all visible emission fromthe source involved. 26.2.1 Any new source shall Incorporate control devices and methods calculated to produce zero

## (o) opacity except for three 

### (3) minutes in any sixty (60) mIn utes duringwhich time a visible emission of2O opacity shall be permitted. 26.3 No person shill cause, suffer, alloworpermit the discharge Into the atmosphere fromany incinerator constructed, any air contaminants in excess of five (5) percent opacity except for a period or periods aggregating not more than one (1) minute in any sixty (60) minute period during which time a visible emission not in excess oftwenty (20) percent opacity shall be permitted.
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 21 - 00019 - CV IN RE SILVER HAYS , RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS



### April 1 , 2021 ORDER OF DISMISSAL Before QUINN , C.J. , and PARKER and DOSS , JJ. Pending before the court is a petition for writ of mandamus. It involves whether t he Hon orable D elwin McGee , County Court at Law for Moore County , Texas (trial cour t) abused his discretion in disqualifying counsel for Silver Hays , said counsel being Briar L. Wilcox. Hays contended it did , and Wilcox petitioned for mandamus relief on her behalf to confirm that belief
. Since the original petition was filed , the trial judge who signed the disqualification order recused himself. Thereafter , t he Hon orable John B. Board was assigned to preside over the cause. That resulted in our abating the cause to afford the newly assigned judge opportunity to reconsider the order of disqualification , an opportunity of which our Supreme Court approved in In re Blevins , 480 S.W.3d 542 (Tex.2

2013) (orig. proceeding) (per curia m)
. Reconsideration occurred , and the request to disqualify was denied and the prior order granting same was vacated . Disqualification being denied , the original order underlying this mandamus proceeding and the argument surrounding its propriety are moo t. Consequently , we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.
Per Curi a m
#### Jose Manuel HERNANDEZ-MOLINA, AKA Jose Manuel Hernandez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70099

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 27, 2017

Marco A. Garzón, Attorney, Surowitz *&*Argumedo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

*646OIL, Mona Maria Yousif, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Manuel Hernandez-Molina, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hernandez-Molina failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he fears and his actual or imputed political opinion. *See Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2002). Further, the BIA did not err in finding Hernandez-Molina failed to establish his membership in a cognizable social group, *see Reyes v. Lynch,*842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.’ ”) (quoting *Matter of M-E-V-G-,*26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)), and he did not show that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground, *see Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (desire to be free from harassment or random violence has no nexus to a protected ground).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Hernandez-Molina failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Nicaragua. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
March 1
, 20 12



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BERNARD MARIO CLARK , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00 091

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED . The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion, that the appellant pay all costs expended in this app eal, and that this decision be certified below for observance.