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

CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q REPORT  OF  REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC.  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 U.S.C.
SS.SS. 1350(a) AND (b))

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), the
undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                                                                 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: April 30, 2009                                             |  | 
|/s/ STEVEN J. JANUSEK Steven J. Janusek,
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), is not
a part of the Form 10-Q to which it refers and is, to the extent permitted by law, provided by the above signatory to the extent of his knowledge.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version 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.

---



QuickLinks
# CE2004084EN.01048501.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/485 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/485

---

(2004/C 84 E/0562)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2297/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject:   Legal basis of the nuclear safety directive

Subject:

The Commission's proposal (1) for a Council (Euratom) directive on nuclear safety proposes harmonising the administration of funds for decommissioning nuclear power stations. Is the Commission sure that there is an adequate legal basis for such a directive? Is it possible that this part of the directive could be transformed into a separate proposal for a directive?

1

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

(12 August 2003)

The Honourable Member's question focuses on the legal basis of the provisions on decommissioning funds included in the proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) setting out basic obligations and general principles on the safety of nuclear installations.

Article 2(b) of the Euratom Treaty states that the Community must ‘establish uniform safety standards to protect the health of workers and of the general public and ensure that they are applied.’ Title II Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty requires basic standards to be laid down to protect the health of workers and the general public against the effects of ionising radiation. On this basis, a considerable body of radiation protection legislation has been produced which, while designed to protect health, has a far wider scope than health protection in the strict sense. Radiation protection and nuclear safety have the common objective of protecting workers and the general public against the effects of ionising radiation, and both form part of the EU's health protection policy. Indeed, in its judgment of 10 December 2002 (Case C-29/99), the Court of Justice confirmed that the Euratom Treaty also covered aspects relating to nuclear safety.

The health of workers and the general public can be protected fully only by removing any potential risk, and this also entails measures to guarantee a high level of nuclear safety. Decommissioning funds should therefore be regarded not as an end in themselves but as a means of ensuring a high level of nuclear safety when decommissioning operations are being carried out. Basically, the funds are comparable to any other measures to achieve this objective, including technical ones. The fact is that financial resources are a key component of a credible nuclear facility safety policy, which has to guarantee a high level of safety not only during a facility's operating lifetime but also afterwards for as long as the facility needs to be monitored for ionising radiation protection purposes. That is why the proposal for a Directive on the safety of nuclear installations, on the legal basis of Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty, also contains provisions on decommissioning funds.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 32 - C5-0228/2003 - 2003/0021(CNS).

1

---
Ibrahim MCCANTS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5456

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of *Rehaif* v. *United States* , 588 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019).
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20849 Summary Calendar

__________________ ROBERT RASBERRY, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus JAMES A. COLLINS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-93-1131
- - - - - - - - - - May 27, 1996 Before KING, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert Rasberry, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing his civil rights action in part for failure to state a claim and in part as frivolous. Rasberry argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his Eighth Amendment claim as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order of dismissal and find no reversible error. Rasberry v. Collins , No. CA-H-93-No. 95-20849 -2- 1131 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 1995). Rasberry does not adequately argue his remaining claims in the body of his brief, and they are deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Rasberry that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Rasberry is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court. APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
# L_2008272EN.01S00301.xml

| 14.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 272/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 272/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Petitioner v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

No. 19-42

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 6TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 28th 

day of September, A.D. 2017, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was 

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Antonio Jenkins, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-17-00089-CR

Trial Court No. 26924

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Antonio Jenkins, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 10th day of January, A.D. 2018.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00375

- CR

John Douglas Edwards

v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 221st District Court of Montgomery County , Texas Trial Cause No. 13

- 02

- 01583 CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considere d this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. September 25, 2014
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

N O

. 12-0748

IN RE HAL CREWS AND DEBRA LEITCH

O N P ETITION FOR W RIT OF M ANDAMUS

ORDERED:

1. Relators’ emergency motion for stay, filed November 2, 2012, is granted

in part. The trial set for November 27, 2012, in Cause No. 11-15393-A, styled Hal

Crews and Debra Leitch v. DKASI Corporation, Debra H. Holley, David Holley and ASI

Gymnastics, Inc.

, in the 14th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, is stayed pending

further order of this Court.

2. The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this November 09, 2012.

B LAKE A. H AWTHORNE

, C LERK

S UPREME C OURT OF T EXAS

B Y C LAUDIA J ENKS

, C HIEF D EPUTY C LERK
Bobby GLENN, Petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 18-9076

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
[ARTICLE] 6
[CIK] 0000764624
[NAME] PREMIUM TOTAL RETURN - CLASS L
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1999
[PERIOD-END]                               DEC-31-1999
[INVESTMENTS-AT-COST]                    2,249,828,328
[INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE]                   2,545,540,829
[RECEIVABLES]                              202,999,800
[ASSETS-OTHER]                                   7,138
[OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS]                                 0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                           2,748,547,767
[PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES]                    38,935,160
[SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT]                              0
[OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES]                  164,716,707
[TOTAL-LIABILITIES]                        203,651,867
[SENIOR-EQUITY]                                      0
[PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON]                 2,090,115,757
[SHARES-COMMON-STOCK]                        1,297,874
[SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR]                        1,196,364
[ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT]                    7,790,038
[OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII]                               0
[ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS]                    150,069,581
[OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS]                             0
[ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC]                   269,920,524
[NET-ASSETS]                             2,544,895,900
[DIVIDEND-INCOME]                           52,405,887
[INTEREST-INCOME]                           69,371,534
[OTHER-INCOME]                                       0
[EXPENSES-NET]                              49,312,417
[NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME]                     72,465,004
[REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT]                   742,214,274
[APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT]                (693,844,806)
[NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS]                      121,032,472
[EQUALIZATION]                                       0
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME]                      440,817
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS]                     4,560,112
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER]                                0
[NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD]                        503,863
[NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED]                    645,526
[SHARES-REINVESTED]                            243,173
[NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS]                 (1,672,467,200)
[ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR]                      3,257,921
[ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR]                   73,920,269
[OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR]                              0
[OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR]                           0
[GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES]                       24,858,896
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[GROSS-EXPENSE]                             49,312,417
[AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS]                        26,084,839
[PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN]                            21.29
[PER-SHARE-NII]                                   0.40
[PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC]                           0.48
[PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND]                              0.34
[PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS]                         3.86
[RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL]                              0.00
[PER-SHARE-NAV-END]                              17.97
[EXPENSE-RATIO]                                   1.88
</TABLE>
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Managed Municipals Portfolio II Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference, in this Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information, of our report dated October 15,
2000, on the statement of assets and liabilities for the Managed
Municipals Portfolio II Inc. as of August 31, 2000 and the related
statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of
changes in net assets for each of the years in the two-year period
then ended and the financial highlights for each of the years in the
five-year period then ended.  These financial statements and financial
highlights and our report thereon are included in the Annual Report of
the Fund as filed on Form N-30D.

We also consent to the references to our firm under the headings
"Financial Highlights" and "Independent Auditors" in the Prospectus
and "Independent Public Accountants" in the Statement of Additional
Information.



			KPMG LLP


New York, New York
November 22, 2000
Marcelino MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5949

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
[ARTICLE] 6
[CIK] 0000880366
[NAME] SMITH BARNEY INVESTMENT TRUST
[SERIES]
   [NUMBER] 005
   [NAME] SMITH BARNEY S & P 500 INDEX FUND
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          NOV-30-1999
[PERIOD-END]                               NOV-30-1999
[INVESTMENTS-AT-COST]                      212,402,885
[INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE]                     235,958,691
[RECEIVABLES]                                2,586,913
[ASSETS-OTHER]                                       0
[OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS]                                 0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                             238,545,604
[PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES]                       289,987
[SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT]                              0
[OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES]                      400,828
[TOTAL-LIABILITIES]                            690,815
[SENIOR-EQUITY]                                      0
[PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON]                   212,828,607
[SHARES-COMMON-STOCK]                       15,714,082
[SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR]                        4,608,002
[ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT]                    1,263,970
[OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII]                               0
[ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS]                        206,406
[OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS]                             0
[ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC]                    23,555,806
[NET-ASSETS]                               237,854,789
[DIVIDEND-INCOME]                            1,952,792
[INTEREST-INCOME]                              260,666
[OTHER-INCOME]                                       0
[EXPENSES-NET]                                 894,646
[NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME]                      1,318,812
[REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT]                     1,163,018
[APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT]                   19,908,774
[NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS]                       22,390,604
[EQUALIZATION]                                       0
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME]                      303,002
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS]                       979,715
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER]                                0
[NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD]                     14,264,265
[NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED]                  3,247,873
[SHARES-REINVESTED]                             89,688
[NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS]                     180,857,831
[ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR]                        259,754
[ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR]                       83,845
[OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR]                              0
[OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR]                           0
[GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES]                          388,545
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[GROSS-EXPENSE]                              1,016,949
[AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS]                       146,576,248
[PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN]                            11.98
[PER-SHARE-NII]                                   0.12
[PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC]                           2.27
[PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND]                              0.06
[PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS]                         0.07
[RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL]                              0.00
[PER-SHARE-NAV-END]                              14.24
[EXPENSE-RATIO]                                   0.59
</TABLE>
Kevin STERLING, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6547

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
# Official Journal C 322/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 322 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4929 December 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 322

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4929 December 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Council |
| 2006/C 322/1 | Council Resolution of 4 December 2006 concerning an updated handbook with recommendations for international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is involved | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Council

2006/C 322/1

Council Resolution of 4 December 2006 concerning an updated handbook with recommendations for international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is involved

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40209

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DENNIS JIMENEZ-AGUILERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-01-CR-949

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

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dennis Jimenez-Aguilera (Jimenez) appeals from his guilty

plea conviction and sentence for being an alien unlawfully found

in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a), (b)(2). For the first time on appeal, Jimenez argues

that although he consented to have his guilty plea hearing

conducted by a magistrate judge, his plea and sentence are

invalid because the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to

conduct the guilty plea proceeding in the absence of an order of
No. 02-40209

-2-

referral by the district court. Because Jimenez did not object

in the district court to the magistrate judge’s exercise of

authority, he waived his right to raise the procedural defect in

his guilty plea proceeding as a basis for relief. United States

v. Bolivar-Munoz, 313 F.3d 253, 256-57 (5th Cir. 2002).

Jimenez contends that his indictment was unconstitutional

because it lacked an allegation that he acted with general

intent. Jimenez raises this issue only to preserve it for

possible Supreme Court review. Even if his guilty plea did not

waive the issue, see United States v. Cotton, 122 S. Ct. 1781,

1785-87 (2002), his argument is foreclosed by this court’s

precedent in United States v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 237-39

& n.13 (5th Cir. 2000), and United States v. Berrios-Centeno,

250 F.3d 294, 299-300 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 928

(2001). Jimenez argues that the felony conviction that resulted

in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an

element of the offense that should have been charged in the

indictment. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue

for Supreme Court review in the light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule AlmendarezTorres. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 496; United States v.

Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.
(logo)Rialto 

CAPITAL

 

 

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as ofDecember 1, 2017 by and among Banc of America Merrill Lynch CommercialMortgage, Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as MasterServicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation as Trustee and Park Bridge Lender Services, LLC as OperatingAdvisor and Asset Representations Reviewer relating to the BANK 2017-BNK9,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2017-BNK9 **(BANK2017-BNK9)**

 

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.     Allservicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.     Areview of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of December 20, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”)in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted undermy supervision.

 

3.     Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ Adam Singer

AdamSinger, Managing Director

 

Date:March 1, 2018
Keenan G. WILKINS, aka Nerrah Brown, Petitioner v. STANISLAUS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 19-6245

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

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