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

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18
(Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The
undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Behringer Harvard Opportunity REIT II, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to her knowledge:

The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the "Report"), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ KYMBERLYN K. JANNEY Kymberlyn K. Janney Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### Bair *versus*Steinman.

1. A defendant in an attachment execution, must make a demand of the sheriff for the §300 exemption when the process is served, or within a reasonable time after.

2. When he fails to make such demand, a subsequent plea of his rights will not avail: he is' held to promptness of demand to save costs of further proceedings.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of *Lancaster county.*

This was an attachment execution, issued December 31st 1863, by George M. Steinman and Charles Regnier, trading as George M. Steinman & Co., against Abraham T. Bair, in which Martin Groff, Jr., was garnishee.

The plaintiffs held a judgment against Bair for $158.48, on which they issued this attachment. On the 1st of January 1864 the sheriff attached all the property of defendant in the hands of Groff; and notified Bair, who made no claim for his exemption. The plaintiffs filed interrogatories which the garnishee answered January 25th 1864, admitting that he owed Bair $145, and on the 4th of February, judgment was rendered against the garnishee for that amount.

On the 20th of April 1864, the defendant pleaded that, by virtue of the exemption laws, he claimed all the money attached. On the trial the defendant asked the court (Long, P. J.) to charge that he had the right to claim the exemption; this was refused, and the jury instructed to find for the plaintiffs, because the defendant had failed to give notice to the sheriff of his claim. The verdict being for the plaintiff, this instruction was assigned for error.

*J.*Landis, for plaintiff in error.

*A. J. Steinman,*for defendant in error,

cited Hammer *v.*Freese, 7 Harris 255; Strouse *v.*Becker, 8 Wright 208.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 24th 1866, by

Woodward, C. J.

Though a debtor is entitled to the statutory exemption of $300 worth of his estate as against the process we call attachment execution, he is to obtain it, as in other cases, by demanding it of the officer when the process is served or within a reasonable time thereafter.

The reason why he is held to promptness of demand is that the costs of further proceedings may be saved.

If, as in this instance, he fail to make a demand, a subsequent plea of his rights will not avail him. This was ruled in Strouse’s Executor *v.*Baker, 8 Wright 206, and we do-not see that there is anything else in the case.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45787-45788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17973]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated March 27, 2008, and published in the Federal 
Register on April 2, 2008 (73 FR 18001), Lonza Riverside, 900 River 
Road, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428, made application by renewal to 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in 
schedules I and II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gamma hydroxybutyric acid (2010)............  I
Amphetamine (1100)..........................  II
Methylphenidate (1724)......................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture bulk products for finished dosage 
units and distribution to its customers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Lonza Riverside to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled 
substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has 
investigated Lonza Riverside to ensure that the company's registration 
is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included 
inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, 
verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and 
a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant 
to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above 
named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the 
basic classes of controlled substances listed.


[[Page 45788]]


    Dated: July 28, 2008.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-17973 Filed 8-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ex parte Daniel Ray Garcia

, * Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding

No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 170

- CR * August 10 , 20 2 1

* Per Curiam Memorand um Opinio n

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams , J. )

This court has considered Daniel Ray Garcia’s application for writ of habeas

corpus and concludes that the application for writ of habeas corpus should be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s

opini on, the application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MELODY MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-13456

DISTRICT JUDGE

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION [17]

On April 13, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation [17] that

Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] be dismissed for failure to take action, failure to prosecute, and lack of

progress. No objections were filed.

The Court has reviewed the record in this case.

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED and is

entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

S/ARTHUR J. TARNOW

Arthur J. Tarnow

United States District Judge

Dated: May 14, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and

Melody R Montgomery

33131 Alberta St. 

Westland, MI 48186 

 on May 14, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LISA M. WARE

Case Manager
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Thomas F. Darden, President and Chief Executive Officer of Quicksilver Gas Services GP LLC, thegeneral partner of Quicksilver Gas Services LP, the registrant, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Quicksilver Gas Services LP;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 9, 2007                              /s/ Thomas F. Darden   Thomas F. Darden   President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements No.
33-90926 on Form S-8, No. 333-75706 on Form S-8, and No. 333-38338 on Form S-3
of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. of our report dated March 17, 2003, except as to
notes 1, 3, 4 and 5, which are as of April 15, 2003, relating to the balance
sheets of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the
related statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash
flows, and related financial statement schedule for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which appears in the December 31,
2002 Form 10-K of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd.

Our report dated March 17, 2003, except as to notes 1, 3, 4 and 5, which are as
of April 15, 2003, contains an explanatory paragraph that states the Company has
suffered significant losses and has liabilities in excess of assets, which
raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The
financial statements and financial statement schedule do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of the uncertainty.


                                                 /s/ KPMG LLP

                            Denver, Colorado
                            April 15, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36283-36284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17417]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96-ANE-12]


Amendment to Class E Airspace; Pittsfield, MA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a rule, published 
on

[[Page 36284]]

May 29, 1996, which revised the Class E airspace area at Pittsfield, MA 
(PSF) to provide for adequate controlled airspace for those aircraft 
using the GPS RWY 8 Instrument Approach Procedure to Pittsfield 
Municipal Airport.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule published at 61 FR 26781 is effective on 0901 
UTC, August 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph A. Bellabona, Operations Branch, ANE-530.6, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-
5299; telephone: (617) 238-7536; fax (617) 238-7596.

    The FAA published a direct final rule with a request for comments 
in the Federal Register on May 29, 1996 (61 FR 26781), The FAA uses the 
direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where 
the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. The 
direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were 
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written 
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received 
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on 
August 15, 1996. No adverse comments were received, and thus this 
document confirms that the final rule will become effective on that 
date.

    Issued in Burlington, MA, on July 1, 1996.
David J. Hurley,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 96-17417 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-m
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4173 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4173

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve benefits for veterans 
                     exposed to ionizing radiation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 25, 1996

 Mr. Evans (for himself and Mr. Filner) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve benefits for veterans 
                     exposed to ionizing radiation.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONDITIONS PRESUMED TO BE SERVICE-CONNECTED DUE TO EXPOSURE 
              TO IONIZING RADIATION.

    Section 1112(c)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(P) Bone cancer.
            ``(Q) Cancer of the colon.
            ``(R) Nonmalignant thyroid nodular disease.
            ``(S) Parathyroid cancer.
            ``(T) Ovarian cancer.
            ``(U) Brain and central nervous system tumors.
            ``(V) Unexplained bone marrow failure.
            ``(W) Meningioma.''.

SEC. 2. MEMBERSHIP OF VETERANS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL 
              HAZARDS.

    Section 6(a)(1) of Public Law 98-542 (38 U.S.C. 1154 note) is 
amended by striking out ``or employees of the'' and all that follows 
through ``departments or agencies'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``or 
officers or employees of the United States''.
                                 <all>
```
### NUMBER 13 - 1 9 - 00 117 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ CONRADO TOVAR JR. , APPELLANT,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 275 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa Order Per Curiam Appellant, Conrado Tovar Jr. , has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his conviction in trial court cause number CR

- 4758

- 17

- E . The trial court's certification of the defendant's right to appeal s hows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(a)(2).2

On March 20, 2019 , we ordered appellant's counsel, Florencio Lopez , to, within thirty days, review the record and advise this Court as to whether appellant has a right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 44.3, 44.4. No response to this Court's order has been received. Theref ore, we abate this appeal and remand this cause to the trial court for a hearing to determine why counsel has failed to comply with this Court's order. The trial court's findings and conclusions shall be included in a supplemental clerk's record. The tri al court shall file the supplemental clerk's record and reporter's record, if any, with the Clerk of this Court within thirty days of the date of this order. If the trial court determines that counsel is unable to represent appellant in this matter, the tr ial court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, and whether appellant is entitled to appointed counsel. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 83

- 84 (1988); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We further direct the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding these issues. Should the trial court find that appellant desires to pursue this appeal, is indigent, and is entitled to a ppointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel. If counsel is appointed, the name, address, email address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 1 st day of May, 20 1 9

.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
      (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
registrant, 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)
    
    [Intentionally omitted.];(c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  (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 registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal
  control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Albert F. BuzzettiAlbert F. BuzzettiPresident and Chief Executive Officer 38
EXHIBIT 21.1
------------



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


                                                               COMPANY'S 
                                                JURISDICTION   PERCENTAGE
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                            OF INCORPORATION OWNERSHIP 
------------------                            ---------------- ----------

AMLI Residential Properties, L.P. . . . . . .     Delaware         84%
  A.    AMLI Residential Construction, Inc. .     Delaware         95%
  B.    AMLI Institutional Advisors, Inc. . .     Illinois         95%
  C.    AMLI Management Company . . . . . . .     Delaware         95%
  D.    Laurel Park Venture . . . . . . . . .     Georgia         100%
  E.    Pleasant Hill Joint Venture . . . . .     Georgia          40%
  F.    AMLI Foundation Co-Investors, L. P. .     Delaware         25%
  G.    AMLI Foundation Co-Investors-II,
          L. P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     Delaware         15%
  H.    AMLI at Champions, L. P.  . . . . . .     Texas            15%
  I.    AMLI at Windbrooke, L. P. . . . . . .     Illinois         15%
  J.    AMLI at Willeo Creek, L. P. . . . . .     Georgia          30%
  K.    Barrett Lakes, L.L.C. . . . . . . . .     Delaware         35%
  L.    AMLI at Chevy Chase, L.P. . . . . . .     Illinois         33%
  M.    AMLI at Willowbrook, L.P. . . . . . .     Illinois         40%
  N.    AMLI at River Exchange, L.L.C.. . . .     Delaware         40%
  O.    Acquiport/Aurora Crossing, L.P. . . .     Delaware         25%
  P.    Acquiport/Fossil Creek, L.P.. . . . .     Delaware         25%
  Q.    AMLI at Danada, L.L.C.. . . . . . . .     Illinois         10%
  R.    AMLI at Verandah, L.P.. . . . . . . .     Delaware         35%
  S.    Gardner Drive Limited Liability 
        Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     Delaware         35%
  T.    AMLI at Regents Crest, L.P. . . . . .     Delaware         25%
  U.    Park Creek-Gainsville, L.L.C. . . . .     Georgia         100%
  V.    Timberglen, L.P.. . . . . . . . . . .     Delaware        100%
  W.    AMLI Partners Ltd. 85-IV. . . . . . .     Illinois          1%
  X.    AMLI Towne Creek Crossing L.P.. . . .     Georgia           1%
  Y.    Lantana Apartments, Ltd.. . . . . . .     Texas           100%
  Z.    Windsor Plano Partners, Ltd.. . . . .     Texas           100%
  AA.   AMLI at Conner Farms, L.P.. . . . . .     Delaware        100%
  BB.   Clairmont, L.P. . . . . . . . . . . .     Delaware        100%