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

      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


      Pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  1350, the undersigned  officer
of  Harold's Stores, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby  certifies
that  the  Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q  for  the
quarter  ended  July 29, 2006 (the "Report") fully  complies
with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d),   as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and  that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents,  in
all  material respects, the financial condition and  results
of operations of the Company.

Date:  September 12, 2006     /s/ Jodi Taylor
                              Jodi Taylor
                              Chief Financial Officer
0.7Colbert 5 '06 NOxSpecific EmissionsNOx 24 Hour Avg (lb/mmBtu)NOx 30 Day Rolling Avg (lb/mmBtu)0.550.60.650.40.450.5

b /mmBtu)0 250.30.35

O x Emissions (l b0.150.20.25

N O00.050.101000200030004000500060007000800090000.6Ghent B3 '06 NOxSpecific EmissionsNOx 24 Hour Avg (lb/mmBtu)NOx 30 Day Rolling Avg (lb/mmBtu)0 450.50.550.350.40.45

b /mmBtu)0.250.3

O x Emissions (l b0.10.150.2

N O00.050.101000200030004000500060007000800090000.6Ghent B4 '06 NOxSpecific EmissionsNOx 24 Hour Avg (lb/mmBtu)NOx 30 Day Rolling Avg (lb/mmBtu)0 450.50.550.350.40.45

b /mmBtu)0.250.3

O x Emissions (l b0.10.150.2

N O00.050.101000200030004000500060007000800090000.5Mill Creek B3 '06 NOx Specific EmissionsNOx 24 Hour Avg (lb/mmBtu)NOx 30 Day Rolling Avg (lb/mmBtu)0.40.450.30.35

b /mmBtu)0.20.25

O x Emissions (l b0.10.15

N O00.0501000200030004000500060007000800090000.5Mill Creek B4 '06 NOx Specific EmissionsNOx 24 Hour Avg (lb/mmBtu)NOx 30 Day Rolling Avg (lb/mmBtu)0.40.450.30.35

b /mmBtu)0.20.25

O x Emissions (l b0.10.15

N O00.0501000200030004000500060007000800090000.55Wateree WAT2 '06 NOx Specific EmissionsNOx 24 Hour Avg (lb/mmBtu)NOx 30 Day Rolling Avg (lb/mmBtu)0.450.50 30.350.4

b /mmBtu)0.20.250.3

O x Emissions (l b0.10.15

N O00.0501000200030004000500060007000800090000.65Chesapeake 3 '06 NOxSpecific EmissionsNOx 24 Hour Avg (lb/mmBtu)NOx 30 Day Rolling Avg (lb/mmBtu)0.50.550.60.40.45

b /mmBtu)0.250.30.35

O x Emissions (l b0 10.150.2

N O00.050.101000200030004000500060007000800090000.7John Amos 1 '06 NOx Specific EmissionsNOx 24 Hour Avg (lb/mmBtu)NOx 30 Day Rolling Avg (lb/mmBtu)0.550.60.650.40.450.5

b /mmBtu)0 250.30.35

O x Emissions (l b0.150.20.25

N O00.050.101000200030004000500060007000800090000.65John Amos 2 '06 NOx Specific EmissionsNOx 24 Hour Avg (lb/mmBtu)NOx 30 Day Rolling Avg (lb/mmBtu)0.50.550.60.40.45

b /mmBtu)0.250.30.35

O x Emissions (l b0 10.150.2

N O00.050.101000200030004000500060007000800090000.6Pleasants 1 '06 NOxSpecific EmissionsNOx 24 Hour Avg (lb/mmBtu)NOx 30 Day Rolling Avg (lb/mmBtu)0 450.50.550.350.40.45

b /mmBtu)0.250.3

O x Emissions (l b0.10.150.2

N O00.050.101000200030004000500060007000800090000.55Pleasants 2 '06 NOxSpecific EmissionsNOx 24 Hour Avg (lb/mmBtu)NOx 30 Day Rolling Avg (lb/mmBtu)0.450.50 30.350.4

b /mmBtu)0.20.250.3

O x Emissions (l b0.10.15

N O00.0501000200030004000500060007000800090000.5East Bend B2 '06 NOx Specific EmissionsNOx 24 Hour Avg (lb/mmBtu)NOx 30 Day Rolling Avg (lb/mmBtu)0.40.450.30.35

b /mmBtu)0.20.25

O x Emissions (l b0.10.15

N O00.0501000200030004000500060007000800090000.6Mountaineer 1 '06 NOx Specific EmissionsNOx 24 Hour Avg (lb/mmBtu)NOx 30 Day Rolling Avg (lb/mmBtu)0 450.50.550.350.40.45

b /mmBtu)0.250.3

O x Emissions (l b0.10.150.2

N O00.050.101000200030004000500060007000800090000.951DB Wilson W1 '06 NOx Specific EmissionsNOx 24 Hour Avg (lb/mmBtu)NOx 30 Day Rolling Avg (lb/mmBtu)0 750.80.850.90 950 550.60.650.70.75

b /mmBtu)0 350.40.450.50.55

O x Emissions (l b0 150.20.250.30.35

N O00.050.10.150100020003000400050006000700080009000
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MIGUEL ALVAREZ-ADAME,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50161

D.C. No. 3:07-cr-00059-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Miguel Alvarez-Adame appeals from the 110-month sentence imposed

following his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

FILED

JAN 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50161

(1967), Alvarez-Adame’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for

relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Alvarez-Adame filed

a pro se supplemental brief and the government filed an answering brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81, 109 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

We decline to reconsider Alvarez-Adame’s challenge to the validity of the

underlying deportation order because this court already decided that issue in

United States v. Alvarez-Adame, 346 Fed. Appx. 169 (9th Cir. 2009). See United

States v. Scrivner, 189 F.3d 825, 827 (9th Cir. 1999) (under the law of the case

doctrine, one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions which

another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062

(9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it

delete from the judgment the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). See United States v.

Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to

delete the reference to section 1326(b)).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED to correct the judgment.
# C_2023286EN.01001001.xml

| 14.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 June 2023 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-220/22) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Systematic and persistent exceedance of the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (ΝΟ2) - Appropriate measures - As short an exceedance period as possible)

(2023/C 286/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: H. Almeida, P. Barros da Costa and J. Reis Silva, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that






  — | by systematically and persistently exceeding the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (ΝΟ2) from 1 January 2010 to the year 2020 inclusive in the zones of Lisboa Norte (PT 3001), Porto Litoral (PT 1004) and Entre Douro e Minho (PT 1009), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, read in conjunction with Section B of Annex XI to that directive; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that

—

by systematically and persistently exceeding the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (ΝΟ2) from 1 January 2010 to the year 2020 inclusive in the zones of Lisboa Norte (PT 3001), Porto Litoral (PT 1004) and Entre Douro e Minho (PT 1009), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, read in conjunction with Section B of Annex XI to that directive;

| — | in respect of all of those zones, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, read individually and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, and in particular its obligation under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive to take appropriate measures so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible; |
| --- | --- |

—

in respect of all of those zones, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, read individually and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, and in particular its obligation under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive to take appropriate measures so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.

---
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****    - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский 

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

        - Student Loans
        - Grants
        - Laws
        - Data

            - taxonomy view
            - North Dakota 

# North Dakota 

# North Dakota 

                      -  August 12, 2021      U.S. Department of Education Approves North Dakota’s Plan for Use of American Rescue Plan Funds to Support K-12 Schools and Students, Distributes Remaining $101 Million to State   
Today, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) announced the approval of North Dakota’s  American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ARP  ESSER) plan and distributed remaining ARP ESSER funds to them.
  **Tags:**North DakotaAmerican Rescue PlanPress Releases

## How Do I Find...?

                      - Student loans, forgiveness
                      - Higher Education Rulemaking
                      - College accreditation
                      - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
                      - FERPA
                      - FAFSA
                      - 1098, tax forms
                      - More...

## Information About...

                      - Elevating Teaching
                      - Early Learning
                      - Engage Every Student
                      - Unlocking Career Success
                      - Cybersecurity

----

*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

          - Student Loans
          - Repaying Loans
          - Defaulted Loans
          - Loan Forgiveness
          - Loan Servicers
          - Grants & Programs
          - Apply for Pell Grants
          - Grants Forecast
          - Apply for a Grant

          - Laws & Guidance
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - Civil Rights
          - IDEA Website
          - Data & Research
          - Education Statistics
          - Postsecondary Education Data
          - ED Data Express
          - Nation's Report Card
          - What Works Clearinghouse
          - Open Data Platform
          - COVID Relief Data

          - About Us
          - Contact Us
          - ED Offices
          - Jobs
          - Press Releases
          - FAQs
          - Recursos en español
          - Budget, Performance
          - Privacy Program
          - Homeroom Blog

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information Quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF

THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul B. Bolno, M.D., certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Wave Life Sciences Ltd.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: May 9, 2018



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paul B. Bolno, M.D.                                            
|Paul B. Bolno, M.D.                                                
|President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 10, 2016

No. 04-16-00269-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF BILLYE M. HORMUTH, DECEASED,

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011PC4120

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's second motion for extension of time to file brief is DENIED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 10th day of August, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### COM. v. SELLARD, J.

2026 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/19/2017

CP-36-CR-0004518-2013 (Lancaster)

Affirmed
#### COM. v. TAGGART, C.

591 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/29/2017

Reargument Denied 12/7/2017

CP-15-CR-0003001-2014 (Chester)

Affirmed
*Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have no precedential value

and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule,

the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40696

Summary Calendar

GEORGE FRACIS VERTZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL WARREN, Dr.; J. DAVID

FAGAN, Dr.; DANIEL SALTZSTEN, Dr.;

JOHN SEALY HOSPITAL,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(G-91-CV-320)

December 1, 1995

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Fracis Vertz appeals the district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) dismissal of his

civil rights suit. Vertz alleged that he underwent surgery to correct a preoperative

condition, that the surgery was unsuccessful, that he now suffers from additional

postoperative complications, and that the defendantsrefused to provide available, corrective

surgery. Vertz alleged that during the surgery the defendants deliberately performed an
2

experimental procedure without his consent. Vertz also alleged that the magistrate judge

recommended dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action in retaliation for hisfiling a petition

for writ of mandamus.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Vertz’s section 1983 action

asfrivolous undersection 1915(d). Vertz’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1939

DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KELDA S. DAVIS; DURHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT; DURHAM’S FAMILY 

COURT; JUDGE D. WALKER; DURHAM COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY; 

CAPTAIN BARNES; POLICE CHIEF CERLYN DAVIS; CLARENCE 

BIRKHEAD; HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTOR, City Hall,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00008-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: December 16, 2021 Decided: December 17, 2021

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Allen’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Allen 

v. Davis, No. 1:21-cv-00008-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2021). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


    We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration statement
of Southwest Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports, which
include an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company's change as of January 1,
1994 in accounting for securities, dated January 31, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Southwest
Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995,
and for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995, and 1994, which reports are
included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 1996.



                                           COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


Houston, Texas
August 13, 1997
# C_2022398EN.01001201.xml

| 17.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2022 — Laudamotion GmbH v flightright GmbH

(Case C-474/22)

(2022/C 398/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Laudamotion GmbH

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: flightright GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the right to compensation for a delay in a flight of more than three hours after the scheduled time of arrival under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) require that, in accordance with Article 3(2)(a) thereof, the passenger must present himself or herself for check-in at the time indicated by the air carrier, the tour operator or an authorised travel agent, but not later than 45 minutes before the published departure time, or is the case of a long delay in the above sense exempt from that requirement — as in the case where a flight is cancelled? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the right to compensation for a delay in a flight of more than three hours after the scheduled time of arrival under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) require that, in accordance with Article 3(2)(a) thereof, the passenger must present himself or herself for check-in at the time indicated by the air carrier, the tour operator or an authorised travel agent, but not later than 45 minutes before the published departure time, or is the case of a long delay in the above sense exempt from that requirement — as in the case where a flight is cancelled?

| 2. | In the event that the right to compensation is not exempt, on the sole basis of the occurrence of a long delay in the above sense, from the requirement for passengers to present themselves for check-in, does such an exemption apply where the passenger had sufficiently reliable information indicating that the flight would arrive only with a long delay in the above sense? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the right to compensation is not exempt, on the sole basis of the occurrence of a long delay in the above sense, from the requirement for passengers to present themselves for check-in, does such an exemption apply where the passenger had sufficiently reliable information indicating that the flight would arrive only with a long delay in the above sense?

---

(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---