alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1





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 Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ingrid Jackel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.





Date: August 6, 2009





By:
/s/ Ingrid JackelName:
Ingrid JackelTitle:
Chief Executive Officer








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 Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc. and will
be retained by Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
U.S. flag An official website of the United States government.
				Here's how you know we're official. **Official websites use .gov** A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure websites use HTTPS** A small lock or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to a .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Toggle navigation Toggle search National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 Search
					Search National Ocean Service


Home
				Ocean Facts

				Topics
					Explore All Topics 
                        Arctic 
                        Careers 
                        Economy 
                        Ecosystems 
                        Geodesy 
                        Hazards 
                        International
                        Navigation 
                        Observations 
                        Ocean 
                        Recreation 
                         Sea Level Rise 
                        Story Maps 
                        Tools
                
                			Education

				
				News
				Podcasts
				Video
				Images
				About Us


1. Home
2. Ocean Video

Ocean and Coastal Places: Wave Safe - American Samoa (Ocean Today) Wave Safe - California (Ocean Today) Wave Safe - Pacific Northwest (Ocean Today) Wave Safe - East Coast (Ocean Today) The Amazing Horseshoe Crab (Ocean Today) White Abalone Collection - First in 12 Years (Ocean Today) What is an invasive species? What is a wetland? Maritime Forests (Ocean Today) Too Many Lionfish! (#ScienceAtSea) Stingray Encounter (#ScienceAtSea) The Autonomous Underwater Glider (#ScienceAtSea) Remotely Operated Vehicle Exploration (#ScienceAtSea) Ocean Gliders (#ScienceAtSea) The Last Grand Challenge (Ocean Today) Northern Elephant Seals (Ocean Today) Protecting Coral Reefs (Ocean Today) The Wandering Seal (Ocean Today) Killer Whales 101 (Ocean Today) Turtle and the Tree (Ocean Today) Gray Whale 101 (Ocean Today) Deep Ocean Corals (Ocean Today) Watch Out For Spouts (Ocean Today) Whale Sense (Ocean Today) USS Monitor: Rediscovering the Ironclad (Ocean Today)
 Browse Ocean Video  By Category Ocean Basics Ocean Life Ocean Economy Ocean Ecosystems Health & Safety Maritime Transportation Positioning and Geology Ocean Technology Tides and Currents Ocean Observations Ocean and Coastal Places Ocean and Coastal Science     **Search** Our Stories    Get **Social**


Feedback Provide Feedback
							Contact Us
							Report an error
 Social Instagram Logo/a>


*Science. Service.Stewardship.*
 About NOS About Us
							NOS Program Offices
							Media Inquiries
							Website Acknowledgements
                            Site Index
							Disclaimer
 More Resources Freedom of Information Act
							Accessibility
							Information Quality
							Privacy Policy
							NOS For Employees
							USA.gov
 Department of Commerce
									National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
									National Ocean Service
WAITES v. CITY OF ATLANTA.

No. S04A1785.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

January 10, 2005.

Judgment affirmed without opinion.
Exhibit 32.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     I, Charles D. Hamm, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of ProCentury Corporation (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 whichthis certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) the information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Charles D. Hamm  Charles D. Hamm  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer  May 13, 2005
HANEY v. GREENE CONST., INC.

No. COA03-1418

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed January 18, 2005

Certification Date February 7, 2005

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
94 Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions) 

AmerisourceBergen $2.3 B

BAE Systems $1.3 B

Bechtel Group $1.3 B

Fluor Corp. $1.2 B

Boeing $847.0 M

Highmark Inc. $387.6 M

Leonardo SpA $252.7 M

Maritime Helicopter Support Company $239.3 M

Pennsylvania State University $214.7 M

Lockheed Martin $175.8 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

PENNSYLVANIA

#7 #25 3.2% $1,259 #8 #16 #15

$16.1 B SPENT 

IN STATE

2.0% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $13.4 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

57,035 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$2.7 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$2.7 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

57,035

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Philadelphia 402 8,058 1,362 103 9,925

Allegheny 319 1,359 1,491 2,867 6,036

Cumberland 661 3,884 236 213 4,994

Lebanon ND 956 3,783 185

York 285 3,353 73 439 4,150

Monroe 28 2,983 116 90 3,217

Dauphin 50 374 2,099 354 2,877

Montgomery ND 358 1,626 683

Franklin ND 2,088 151 382

Cambria 18 203 781 484 1,486

Construction: 1%

Research and 

Development: 6%

Service: 18%

Supplies and

Equipment: 75%

Active Duty: 4%

Civilian: 44%

National 

Guard: 33%

Reserve: 19%

22%

42%

4%

32%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

56%

18%

12%

14%

$11.9 $11.8

$10.2 $10.2 $10.3 $10.1 $11.3

$13.4

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 95

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Cambria

Allegheny

Bucks

Montgomery

Chester

York

Delaware

PENNSYLVANIA FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Allegheny

Chester

York

Delaware

Bucks

Philadelphia

Montgomery

Cambria

Dauphin

Cumberland

(M = millions)

$3.0 B

$2.5 B

$1.5 B

$1.2 B

$823.8 M

$549.0 M

$496.6 M

$448.9 M

$445.4 M

$400.5 M

Philadelphia

Cumberland

York

Allegheny

Monroe

Lebanon

Franklin

Dauphin

Montgomery

Adams

$754.8 M

$392.8 M

$272.0 M

$229.8 M

$202.2 M

$168.2 M

$156.3 M

$101.9 M

$75.5 M

$37.4 M

Monroe

Dauphin

Lebanon

Cumberland

Franklin

York

Philadelphia

Adams

Allegheny

Cumberland

Dauphin

Philadelphia

Montgomery
STATE v. Paul Dewayne CUMMINGS.

No. 1A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 10, 2005.

William N. Farrell, Jr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, John Carriker, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of May 2005 by Defendant for Extension of Time for Court Reporter to Prepare Transcript:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 6th day of June 2005 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 10th day of May 2005."
COOK v. LOGGERHEAD, INC.

No. COA04-910.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 7, 2005.

Certification Date June 27, 2005.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #149303)

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
76 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

#37 #16 0.5% $2,197 #30 #50 #50

$3.0 B SPENT IN 3.4% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $2.7 B CONTRACT 6,190 NUMBER OF $0.3 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Service: 21%

Construction: 0% Research and

Development: 13%

Supplies and

Equipment: 65%

By Service 

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

18%

21%

17%

44%

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions)

BAE Systems $1.9 B

L3Harris Technologies $154.0 M

Cobham $54.1 M

Creare $53.2 M

SIG Sauer Inc. $41.8 M

Safran Optics 1 $35.8 M

L&C Protec Inc. $24.2 M

Red River Computer Co. $24.2 M

Elbit Systems $23.4 M

Renco Corp. $22.4 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$2.7

$2.4 $2.2

$1.6 $1.4

FY13

$1.2 $1.1 $1.1

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 22% Active Duty: 16%

Civilian: 18%

National 

Guard: 44%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

50%

Navy/Marines

23%

Air Force

23%

Other Defense

3%

$273.0 MILLION 6,190

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active

Duty

Civilian National

Guard

Reserve Total

Rockingham 295 418 1,116 1,034 2,863

Hillsborough 61 193 584 ND ND

Merrimack ND 202 623 ND ND

Strafford 15 20 195 268 498

Grafton ND 242 224 0 ND

Cheshire ND ND 0 55 ND

Belknap 0 ND 0 0 ND
(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

NEW HAMPSHIRE FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (K = thousands, M = millions, B = billions)

Hillsborough

Rockingham

Grafton

Cheshire

Sullivan

Coos

Strafford

Belknap

Merrimack

Carroll

(K = thousands, M = millions)

$2.1 B

$388.6 M 

$112.1 M

$27.6 M

$25.4 M

$22.8 M

$21.2 M

$14.5 M

$6.8 M 

$6.5 K

Rockingham

Merrimack

Hillsborough

Grafton

Strafford

Cheshire

Belknap

$108.3 M

$44.6 M 

$36.0 M

$24.1 M

$10.5 M

$1.3 M

$271.3 K

Coos

Grafton

Carroll

Belknap

Sullivan Merrimack

Strafford

Rockingham

Cheshire

Hillsborough

Grafton

Belknap

Merrimack

Strafford

Rockingham Cheshire

Hillsborough

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 77

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS
STATE of North Carolina v. Irving D. CHAPPELL.

No. 9P01-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2004.

Irving D. Chappell, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kristy M. Newton, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 26th day of November 2003 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the Order of the North Carolina *81Court of Appeals, (filed as a Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question) the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 26th day of November 2003 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the Order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, (filed as a Petition for Discretionary Review) the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."

> Justice MARTIN recused.
EXHIBIT 32







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 root9B Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Kenneth T Smith, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to root9B Technologies, Inc., and will be retained by root9B Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ Kenneth T Smith


Kenneth T Smith


Chief Financial Officer


May 15, 2015
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert DIXON.

No. 542P03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 4, 2003.

Robert Dixon, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of December 2003."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Buncombe County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of December
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. 08-10187

Summary Calendar

BARBARA M BUSH

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

WARDEN GINNY VAN BUREN; DR EDULFO GONZALEZ; DR TRENT H

EVANS; DR ADRIANA RESTREPO; FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER

CARSWELL; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CV-743

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Barbara M. Bush appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint for

failure to comply with an order and for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted.

The district court dismissed Bush’s complaint for failure to resubmit her

complaint on a particular form required for prisoner civil rights complaints. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10187

2

The dismissal appears to be with prejudice, but it is doubtful that the record

reflects the necessary clear record of delay or contumacious conduct. See Berry

v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992).

The district court alternatively dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief could be

granted. Bush made several requests in the district court for appointment of a

guardian ad litem and for the return of personal items allegedly retained at the

Federal Medical Center-Carswell. Bush has not addressed these claims on

appeal. She has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s disposition of

these claims. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). To the

extent Bush is seeking to raise claims of retaliation, physical assault and sexual

harassment, and denial of access to the courts in her appellate brief, we decline

to consider those claims because they were not raised below. See Leverette v.

Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).

Although her pleadings are somewhat unclear, Bush’s primary argument

appears to be that a district court lacks authority to order forced medication

unless certain administrative and procedural requirements are satisfied and

that those procedures were not followed in her case. See 28 C.F.R. § 549.43. The

United States District Court for the District of Maryland ordered that Bush be

forcibly medicated in connection with her pending criminal case; therefore, the

proper forum for Bush’s challenge is her pending appeal of that order to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
# L_2016044EN.01000601.xml

| 19.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 44/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 44/6

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/234

of 9 February 2016

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Salam de Sibiu (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Romania's application to register the name ‘Salam de Sibiu’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Romania's application to register the name ‘Salam de Sibiu’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Salam de Sibiu’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Salam de Sibiu’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Salam de Sibiu’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.2. — Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 February 2016.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 329, 6.10.2015, p. 20.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
STATE v. Randy Lee SELLARS.

No. 547P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 23, 2005.

Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, for Randy Lee Sellars.

Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd day of September 2005 by Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of September 2005."
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38735-38736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13822]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3511-000]

Lower Saranac Hydro, LLC; Notice of Authorization for Continued 
Project Operation

    The license for the Groveville Hydroelectric Project No. 3511 was 
issued for a period ending May 31, 2022.
    Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the 
Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-
year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms and 
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the 
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other 
applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived 
the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) 
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth 
at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an 
application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to 
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 
license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the 
Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project 
has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be 
required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations 
until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or 
otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 3511 is issued to 
Lower Saranac Hydro, LLC

[[Page 38736]]

for a period effective June 1, 2022 through May 31, 2023, or until the 
issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under 
the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other 
disposition) does not take place on or before May 31, 2023, notice is 
hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under 
section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further 
order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders 
otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that Lower Saranac Hydro, LLC is authorized to continue 
operation of the Groveville Hydroelectric Project under the terms and 
conditions of the prior license until the issuance of a new license for 
the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first.

    Dated: June 22, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13822 Filed 6-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```