alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.02








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter WNT L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christian Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management LLC, 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, to the best of my knowledge:




(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.




























By:
/s/ Christian AngstadtName:
Christian AngstadtTitle:
Chief Financial Officer ofDemeter Management LLC,General Partner of the registrantDate:
May 13, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 39284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19453]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 184-057


Pacific Gas and Electric Company El Dorado Irrigation District; 
Notice Extending Deadline

July 16, 1998.
    By application filed April 17, 1998, Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company (PG&E) and the El Dorado Irrigation District (El Dorado) asked 
to transfer the license for Project No. 184 from PG&E to El Dorado. The 
Commission issued a Notice of Transfer of License on April 29, 1998 (63 
FR 24780, May 5, 1998), setting June 10, 1998, as the deadline for 
filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene. On June 10, 1998, 
Alpine County, California, et al. (movants),\1\ filed a ``Motion to 
Intervene, Request for Extension of Comment Deadline, and Preliminary 
Comments,'' which includes a request for a 60-day extension of the June 
10 comment deadline to August 9, 1998. PG&E and El Dorado filed replies 
in opposition to the extension request. Movants have shown good cause 
for granting an extension of time.\2\ and notice is hereby given that 
the deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene in 
this proceeding is extended to August 7, 1998.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ League to Save Sierra Lakes, El Dorado County Taxpayers for 
Quality Growth, Forty-Niner Council of the Boy Scouts of America, 
Plasse Homestead Homeowners' Association, Kit Carson Lodge, Caples 
Lake Resort, Kirkwood Meadows Public Utilities District, Northern 
Sierra Summer Homeowners' Association, East Silver Lake Improvement 
Association, South Silver Lake Homeowners' Association, Lake 
Kirkwood Association, Plasse's Resort, California Sportfishing 
Protection Alliance, Environmental Planning and Information Council 
of Western El Dorado County, Inc., Friends Aware of Wildlife Needs, 
Safegrow, California Native Plant Society, Caples Lake Homeowners 
Association, Soreson's Resort, and Sierra Club.
    \2\ See 18 CFR 385.2008(a).
    \3\ August 9, 1998 falls on a Sunday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-19453 Filed 7-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                          11,150
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,790
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,940
<PP&E>                                           8,098
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,841
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,038
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,182
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,182)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,963
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,219)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 6, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130990 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. BLOOMFIELD ESTATES IMPROVEMENT Stephen J. Markman, ASSOCIATION, INC., Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130990 COA: 255340 Oakland CC: 2004-056387-CH CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 14, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed whether the use of Bl oomfield Estates Subdivision lots in Springdale Park violates the deed restrictions, whether plaintiff is estopped from seeking enforcement of the deed restrictions, and what remedie s may be available if there are violations of the deed restriction.

t1129 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 6, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit
31.2



CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,
Mark Speck, certify that:



1.
I have reviewed this amendment to annual report on Form 10-K/A of Reliability Incorporated; and



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.



Date:
June 18, 2020



|/s/
    Mark Speck          | 
|--------------------------- | 
|Chief
    Financial Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                           1000
<CURRENCY>                             U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-2-1995
<PERIOD-START>                         DEC-4-1994
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-2-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                        1
<CASH>                                 7,883
<SECURITIES>                           54,674
<RECEIVABLES>                          35,717
<ALLOWANCES>                              500
<INVENTORY>                            27,267
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       127,011
<PP&E>                                 104,223
<DEPRECIATION>                         72,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         161,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  20,596
<BONDS>                                   678
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                 1,309
<OTHER-SE>                             131,623
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           161,027
<SALES>                                182,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       182,000
<CGS>                                  154,956
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          154,956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        17,342
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         129
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         13,760
<INCOME-TAX>                             4,350
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      9,410
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                             9,410
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                             1.57
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Corey
Henry, certify that:

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 Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2017-2
(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 statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
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.

In giving the certifications above, I
have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.



By:

/s/ Corey HenryName:

Corey HenryTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerSantander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor(senior officer in charge of securitization ofthe depositor)Date:

March 30, 2018
# 08 Months
### NUM BER 13-07- 0071 7-CV



## COURT OF A PP EA LS

T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS

C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG

DA N UZ ZE LL , A pp ellan t,

v
.
WIL LIA M T . M cGEE, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 1 07t h Dist rict C ou rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas
.



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON

B ef o re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez

Pro se app ellant Da n Uz z ell f iled suit f or f raud in Came ron Coun ty, T exas against

a p p e ll e e W il liam T . McGee an d oth ers. Af ter a he aring, the trial court granted McGee's

moti on to se v er

and tr ansfer

v enue. In th is a cc ele ra ted a ppeal , U z z ell , by one is sue,U z z el l do es no t ch al l en ge t he se vera nc e o rde r. 1

2 chal len g es the t ri al cour t' s o rd er tr ansfer ri ng ve n u e. Ap pel lee co ntends that the tr ial 1

court's orde r transf erring v enu e is i nte rlocuto ry a nd not a ppe alab le; the ref ore, this Court

does not h av e j ur is dic ti on. W e ag re e and dis mis s for w ant o f jur is dic ti on.
Gener all y , app ell ate j ur is dic ti on appl ies to cas es in w hic h a fin al jud g ment has been

re nder ed, or a statut e per mits i nter loc utor y appeal

. Lehm ann v

. H ar -C on C or p. , 39 S.W .3d
191, 195 ( Tex . 200 1)

. Sect ion 15.0 64 of t h e T e xas C iv il Pr act ic e and Remedi es Cod e provides that "[i]n a ll v enu e he arings, no f actu al proof conce rning the me rits of the case

shal l be r eq uir ed to establ is h v enue. T he c our t s hal l deter mine v enue q uest ion s fr om the
ple adi ng s a nd affidav it s. No int er loc utory a p p e a l sh all

l ie fr om the deter

m ina ti on ." T EX

. C IV

. P R AC

. & R EM

. C OD E A NN . § 15.064( a) ( Ver non 200 2) ( emphasi s a dded)

. In this ca s e , t h e a p p e a l i s fr o m a v e n u e o r d e r a n d n o t a fi n a l j u d g me nt.

Furthermor e, t he s tatut e does not per mit int er loc utor y appeal from a deter minat ion of

v enue; in fact, it pr ohi bit s int er loc utor y appeal

. Id. ; Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. Pion eer Elecs.
, 68 S. W .3d 2 54, 2 57 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 02, n o pet .) ( "The le g is lat ur e has pr ov ide d

that no i nter loc utor

y appeal i s a v ail abl e from a tr ial co urt' s d eter minat ion of a v enue

q uest ion .")

. Therefor e, t his C our t does not hav e j ur is dic ti on. Acc or din g ly , w e di smi ss the
appeal for w ant o f jur is dic ti on.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e
Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 2nd day

of Ma y , 200 8.
John Larson Phone: 541-753-4466

Honey B, LLC Fax: 541-753-7110

5695 SW Airport Place email: john@corvallisaero.net

Corvallis, Oregon 97333

November 7, 2012 Exemption No. 10250

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0369

Frederick E. Tilton, ND

Federal Air Surgeon

800 Independence Ave SW

Washington, DC 20591

Dear Dr. Tilton,

Honey B, LLC hereby applies for an extension of exemption No. 10250 from 14 CFR Part 120 to the 

extent necessary to allow Honey B, LLC to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug testing 

program.

The grant of extension will allow Honey B, LLC to continue to provide service to the public. It has been 

found that the exemption is in the public interest and allows us to maintain a level of safety equivalent 

to that provided by regulation.

Sincerely,

/s/

John Larson

Honey B, LLC
No. 10-1499.

#### L. Perrigo Company, Petitioner v. Augustine Gaeta, et ux., Individually and as Guardian ad Litem for A. G., a Minor.

565 U.S. 973, 132 S. Ct. 497,

181 L. Ed. 2d 343,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7720.

October 31, 2011.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604, 131 S. Ct. 2567, 180 L. Ed. 2d 580 (2011).

Same case below, 630 F.3d 1225.
No. 11-6260.

#### Roger Stevenson, Petitioner v. April Shoup, et al.

565 U.S. 987, 132 S. Ct. 520,

181 L. Ed. 2d 365,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7851.

October 31, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 421 Fed. Appx. 312.
No. 11-5119.

#### James Nelson, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 890, 132 S. Ct. 271,

181 L. Ed. 2d 160,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5719.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 419 Fed. Appx. 65.
No. 11-5810.

#### In re Mark C. Jackson, Petitioner.

565 U.S. 941, 132 S. Ct. 419,

181 L. Ed. 2d 290,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7195.

October 11, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Justice Kagan *291took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
No. 11-6657.

#### Muhammad Jalal-Deem Akbar, Petitioner v. Brian Jett, Warden.

565 U.S. 974, 132 S. Ct. 539,

181 L. Ed. 2d 344,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7642.

October 31, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 429 Fed. Appx. 627.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 143 (Monday, July 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19940]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 USC Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Applications and Reports for Registration as a Tanner or 
Agent.
    Agency Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0179.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Burden: 154 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 77.
    Avg. Hours Per Response: 2 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The Marine Mammal Protection Act exempts Alaskan 
natives from the prohibitions from taking, killing, or injuring marine 
mammals without a permit or exemption if the taking is done for 
subsistence or for creating and selling authentic native articles of 
handicraft or clothing. Non-natives who wish to act as a tanner or an 
agent for such products must register with NOAA and submit certain 
records. The information obtained is used for law enforcement purposes.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion, annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: July 22, 1998.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information 
Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-19940 Filed 7-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
No. 11-6176.

#### Dejuan Hines, Petitioner v. K. Harrington, Warden.

565 U.S. 1015, 132 S. Ct. 552,

181 L. Ed. 2d 399,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7997.

November 7, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
PFAS

Daniel Carman, 

Supervisory Quality Assurance 

Specialist

November 17, 2022
PFAS

What is PFAS? 

Poly-Fluoro-Alkyl Substances (or Per-Fluoro-Alkyl Substances)

Large class of chemicals that may impart water repellency, stain resistance, oil 

resistance, and other favorable performance properties into textile goods

Some specific types of PFAS have been implicated as having health or 

environmental concerns

Some proposed legislation or other forms of regulation have 

caused manufacturers to move away from the use of PFAS in their 

products

In some cases, certain technical requirements have only been 

achievable through the use of PFAS

Alternate technologies may need to be developed to meet the requirements

If requirements cannot be met, new requirements need to be considered
Roles

Prime Contractors:

Source materials that comply with applicable regulations and meet contract 

technical requirements

Request waiver or variance to contract requirements when fully-compliant 

materials are unavailable (RFV or “Request for Variance” form must be submitted 

to the Contracting Officer)

Military Services:

Evaluate RFVs and consider alternate technical requirements where appropriate

DLA Troop Support:

Receive RFVs from Contractors

Request engineering support from Services to evaluate the RFVs

Advise Contractors of RFV/Waiver status

Modify Contract terms when/if approved by the Services
Current Congressional Action 

August 06, 2022

• H.R.4975 - PFAS Free Military Purchasing Act

• SEC. 2. Restriction on procurement, purchasing, and sale by

Department of Defense of certain items containing perfluoroal- kyl substances and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

• (b) Definitions.—In this section:

• (1) The term “covered item” means—

• (L) shoes and clothing for which treatment with a perfluoroalkyl

substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance is not necessary for an 

essential function.

• Examples of where PFAS can be found include cleaners,

textiles, leather, paper and paints, fire-fighting foams, and wire

insulation. Certain PFAS can accumulate and stay in the 

human body for long periods of time.
Registration, Evaluation, 

Authorization and Restriction of 

Chemicals (REACH)

• Reputable dye and chemical companies, dye-houses and 

retailers will comply with the REACH process – and 

register things that are already safe and being well 

managed

• Substances used in the interest of defense and covered 

by National exemptions.

• REACH Restricted chemicals list :

https://www.aafaglobal.org/AAFA/Solutions_Pages/Restricted_Substance_List.asp

x?WebsiteKey=49c45f4d-69b3-4c66-823a-6d285960fed2
Questions/ Comments

Sustainability Program Points of Contact email address: 

TrpSptCTStandardiz@dla.mil and 

daniel.carman@dla.mil
No. 11-6822.

#### Transito Villegas-Valdez, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1021, 132 S. Ct. 568,

181 L. Ed. 2d 410,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8047.

November 7, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 429 Fed. Appx. 427.