alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Patrick Flynn, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of ING Groep N.V.; 

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 thestatements 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 cashflows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control overfinancial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 13, 2017
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-16,678-06

EX PARTE ERIK THOR TROVE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. D-1-DC-04-904129-A IN THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of retaliation and

sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. 

Trove v. State, No. 03-04-00578-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 14, 2007) (not designated for

publication).

Applicant contends that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. Applicant has alleged

facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte

Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these circumstances, additional facts
2

are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the

trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court may use any means set out in

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

Applicant appears to be represented by counsel. If he is not and the trial court elects to hold

a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be

represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent him at the hearing. TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether trial and

appellate counsel’s conduct was deficient and Applicant was prejudiced. The trial court shall also

make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the

disposition of Applicant’s claims for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must be

requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.

Filed: March 20, 2019

Do not publish
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 Smartmetric,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jay Needelman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|Dated:  February 14, 2017 | By: | /s/ Jay Needelman                                                    | 
|------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                          |     | Jay Needelman                                                        | 
|                          |     | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
T. G. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160932

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 6036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01376]

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

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., January 29, 2025.

PLACE: Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must submit 
a written request at least 24 hours prior to the meeting to receive 
dial-in information. All requests must be sent to 
[email protected].

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
Office of Legislative Affairs Update
Bureau of Field Service Congressional Outreach Update
Website Survey--Next Steps

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Stephanie Hillyard, Secretary to 
the Board, (312) 751-4920.

(Authority 5 U.S.C. 552b.)

    Dated: January 15, 2025.
Stephanie Hillyard,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 2025-01376 Filed 1-15-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-P
```
NATIONAL WATER RESTORATION, INC., Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1226

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 23, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:04-cv-00495-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 76
Case 3:04-cv-00495-B Document 21 Filed 03/24/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 77
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00378-CV

In Re Commitment of Donald Wayne Hull

On Appeal from the

252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 1000-Y

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs 

of the appeal are adjudged against appellee, The State of Texas, although it is exempt 

from payment. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 18, 2019
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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. 

 

 

May 16, 2018 

d0509p 

Order 

 

Clerk 

May 16, 2018 

156689 

In re CONSERVATORSHIP OF RHEA BRODY. 

_________________________________________ 

MARY LYNEIS, as Conservator for RHEA 

BRODY, 

Appellee, 

v SC: 156689 

 COA: 332994 

Oakland Probate Court: 

ROBERT D. BRODY, 2015-367333-CA 

Appellant, 

and 

JAY BRODY, 

Interested Party, 

and 

GERALD BRODY and CATHY B. 

DEUTCHMAN, 

Interested Parties-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2017 

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. 

We further note that the briefs filed by the parties and the amicus discuss three 

sentences that were included in the Court of Appeals September 19, 2017 slip opinion but 

are not included in the advance sheets version of the opinion, which was released after 

the parties and amicus filed their briefs in this Court. The slip opinion stated: “As Rhea’s 

husband, Robert was an individual entitled to priority consideration. However, Robert 

was not entitled to consideration unless the probate court considered an independent 

fiduciary and found him or her unsuitable. Lyneis, as trustee and independent fiduciary, 

had statutory priority over Robert, despite Robert’s marriage to Rhea. 

MCL 700.5409(1).” These sentences are omitted from the advance sheets version of the 

Court of Appeals opinion, and are therefore not part of that court’s final published 

opinion.
FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSURANCE CORPORATION

Equal Employment Data Pursuant to Title III of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002

(No Fear Act), Pub. L 107-174

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Number of Complaints Filed 0 0 0 0 0 0

Number of Complainants 0 0 0 0 0 0

Repeat Filers 0 0 0 0 0 0

Complaint Activity

Comparative Data FY 2024 

Through 

12-31

Previous Fiscal Year Data
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                     <C>                     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1998          
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         154,058          
<SECURITIES>                                         0          
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,404,929         
<ALLOWANCES>                                    78,763         
<INVENTORY>                                    601,641         
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,196,149         
<PP&E>                                       2,328,151         
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,116,892        
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,452,227        
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,538,714        
<BONDS>                                              0        
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0        
<PREFERRED>                                          0        
<COMMON>                                        78,388        
<OTHER-SE>                                     374,521        
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,452,227        
<SALES>                                      4,352,402        
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0        
<CGS>                                                0        
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,054,400        
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,458,578        
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0        
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             162,146        
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,322,722)        
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0        
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0        
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0        
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0        
<CHANGES>                                            0        
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,322,722)        
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)        
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)        
        

</TABLE>
Earl OGDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3874

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 24 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 24

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by Centers for Disease 
  Control and Prevention relating to ``Temporary Halt in Residential 
   Evictions in Communities with Substantial or High Transmission of 
         COVID-19 To Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            August 10, 2021

  Mr. Marshall (for himself, Mr. Toomey, and Mr. Burr) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by Centers for Disease 
  Control and Prevention relating to ``Temporary Halt in Residential 
   Evictions in Communities with Substantial or High Transmission of 
         COVID-19 To Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
relating to ``Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions in Communities 
with Substantial or High Transmission of COVID-19 To Prevent the 
Further Spread of COVID-19'' (86 Fed. Reg. 43244 (August 6, 2021)) and 
printed in the Congressional Record on August 10, 2021, and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Statement

Dallas P. Tonsager, Board Chairman

Farm Credit Administration Board Meeting

December 8, 2016

Good morning, everyone. Before we start on the meeting agenda, I’d like to take a moment 

to recognize Ken’s service as FCA’s Board Chairman and CEO. 

In that role, Ken made a positive and valuable impact on the agency. He was responsible for 

ushering in the new capital rule, and for issuing guidance on internal controls and similar 

entities.

He promoted diversity and inclusion both here at FCA and within the Farm Credit System. In 

fact, under his chairmanship, the agency stepped up its recruiting of minority populations, 

which has resulted in a more inclusive workplace. 

He also had the vision to spearhead some major organizational changes at the agency that 

have led to more robust IT security and a dedicated office to human resources. 

He accomplished all of this while remaining the consummate professional and a steadfast 

colleague. We are fortunate that Ken will continue to serve on the board, and we thank him 

for all his years of commitment and service.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BOBBY RAY HAILEY, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:06-CV-0167-H

) ECF

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal )

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A Notice of Appeal has been filed in the above captioned action in which: 

(X) the District Court has entered a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding brought pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the undersigned

Magistrate Judge recommends as follows:

IFP STATUS:

(X) the party appealing should be GRANTED in forma pauperis status on appeal.

COA:

( ) a Certificate of Appealability should be GRANTED. (See issues set forth below).

(X) a Certificate of Appealability should be DENIED. (See reasons stated below).

REASONS FOR DENIAL: For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge, filed on April 11, 2008, which were accepted by the District Court on May 5,

2008, petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

DATED this 6th of June, 2008.

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Marvin L. BRIGHT, Appellant, v. ST. PETERSBURG COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3640

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 41001 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RUDY ALBERTO GONZALEZ

- SANTOS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:19

- CR

- 1971

- 1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rudy Alberto Gonzalez

- Santos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez

- Santos has fil ed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Gonzalez

- Santos ’s claim of ine ffective assistance of counsel; we therefore

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 1, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-41001 Document: 00515435133 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2020No. 19

- 41001

2 decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Gonzalez

- Santos ’s response. We concur w ith counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R

. 42.2. Case: 19-41001 Document: 00515435133 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2020
Case 3:05-cv-02413-BD Document 30 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 7 PageID 140
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02413-BD Document 30 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 7 PageID 141
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02413-BD Document 30 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 7 PageID 142
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02413-BD Document 30 Filed 03/21/06 Page 4 of 7 PageID 143
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02413-BD Document 30 Filed 03/21/06 Page 5 of 7 PageID 144
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02413-BD Document 30 Filed 03/21/06 Page 6 of 7 PageID 145
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02413-BD Document 30 Filed 03/21/06 Page 7 of 7 PageID 146
#### Kevin MURPHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert SHAW, Unit Sergeant; Larry Bearley, Hearings Officer; Michael Mahoney, Bureau Warden; Myron Beeson, Bureau Warden; and Richard S. Day, Director, Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-35989.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed June 12, 2001

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

We remand to the district court to determine in light of the opinion in *Shaw v. Murphy,*— U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1475, 149 L.Ed.2d 420 (2001), whether the prison regulations — particularly the rules forbidding insolence and interference with due process hearings — as applied to Murphy in this case are “reasonably related to legiti*1152mate penological interests” *Turner v. Safley,*482 U.S. 78, 79, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), or vague and overboard as applied to him.
Jugal K. TANEJA, Appellant, v. FIRST STREET AND FIFTH AVENUE, LLC a/k/a FSFA, LLC; Downtown St Pete Properties, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; Broadway Bank, an Illinois Banking Company; Fuel Investment & Development II, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; Paragon Mortgage Holdings, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; Abed, INC., a Florida Corporation; Indira Lalwani, Individually; Fuel Group, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; Smith Santiesteban Allen Architects, Inc., a Florida Corporation; Patrick T. Lennon; Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. ; Chandresh Saraiya, Individually; Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-3451

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0647

_____________________________

MARVIN KNIGHT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

June 25, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Marvin Knight, pro se, Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.