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

Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Knight Capital
Group, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Thomas M. Joyce, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



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



/s/ THOMAS M. JOYCEName:  Thomas M. Joyce Title:    Chief Executive Officer Date:    November 9, 2006


This certification accompanies the Report 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 by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 17 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 17

    Concerning the extradition to the United States of Salvadorans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

  Mr. Moran of Virginia submitted the following resolution; which was 
          referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Concerning the extradition to the United States of Salvadorans.

Whereas 24 Salvadorans who have been accused of murder in the District of 
        Columbia have fled to El Salvador to avoid prosecution in the United 
        States;
Whereas these 24 individuals represent approximately two-thirds of the 
        outstanding homicide warrants in the District of Columbia;
Whereas other jurisdictions, such as Arlington, Virginia, seek Salvadorans who 
        have fled to El Salvador for serious crimes, including homicide;
Whereas since 1911, El Salvador has maintained a treaty with the United States 
        that provides for the extradition of suspects charged with certain 
        criminal offenses;
Whereas the United States-El Salvador extradition treaty does not compel the 
        extradition of either nation's citizens;
Whereas the United States has no constitutional prohibition against extraditing 
        its own citizens;
Whereas El Salvador's constitution prohibits the extradition of Salvadoran 
        citizens;
Whereas the El Salvadoran legislature, in April 1997, voted to amend its 
        constitution to allow extradition of its citizens;
Whereas the constitutional amendment permitting extradition of Salvadoran 
        nationals requires approval by two-thirds of El Salvador's unicameral 
        legislature in a second vote before it can be enacted; and
Whereas the vast majority of Salvadoran immigrants to the United States have 
        contributed much to the communities in which they live: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) the return to the United States of all individuals who 
        have fled the United States to avoid prosecution or confinement 
        for criminal offenses and who are currently living in El 
        Salvador should be a top priority for the United States 
        Government;
            (2) the legislature of El Salvador is to be commended for 
        its April 1997, passage of legislation which may lead to 
        enactment of a constitutional amendment permitting extradition 
        of Salvadoran nationals; and
            (3) the Government of El Salvador is urged to take all 
        steps necessary to ensure enactment of a constitutional 
        amendment permitting extradition of Salvadoran nationals during 
        its current legislative session.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 35.1

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The
undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly elected and acting Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC as servicer (the Servicer) under the Transition Property Servicing
Agreement dated as of January 19, 2012 (the Servicing Agreement) between the Servicer and CenterPoint Energy Transition Bond Company IV, LLC (the Issuer) and further that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement during the twelve months ended December 31, 2013 has been made under the supervision of the undersigned pursuant to
Section 3.03 of the Servicing Agreement; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of the undersigneds knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Servicing Agreement throughout the twelve months ended
December 31, 2013, except as set forth on Annex A hereto.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executed as of this
28th day of March, 2014.



CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, as servicerBy:

/s/ Walter L. FitzgeraldName:

Walter L. FitzgeraldTitle:

Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer




---

ANNEX A

to Certificate of Compliance

LIST OF SERVICER DEFAULTS

The following
Servicer Defaults, or events which with the giving of notice, the lapse of time, or both, would become Servicer Defaults known to the undersigned occurred during the year ended December 31, 2013:



|                  |  |       
|----------------- |  | ------
|Nature of Default |  | Status

None.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6849
VANCE BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR., Governor; MARY ANN SAAR, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-01270-03-WDQ) Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 22, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vance Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Vance Byrd appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Byrd v. Ehrlich , No. CA-03- 01270-03-WDQ (D. Md. filed May 19, 2003; entered May 20, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 11.1206 Obtaining a regular (non-emergency) order of protection. Following a hearing and finding that an act of domestic violence occurred, the court may issue an order of protection. The order must meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section and may meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. Either party may request a review hearing to amend or vacate the order of protection. ( a ) The order of protection must do all of the following: ( 1 ) Specifically describe in clear language the behavior the court has ordered he or she do or refrain from doing;
( 2 ) Give notice that violation of any provision of the order of protection constitutes contempt of court and may result in a fine or imprisonment, or both; and
( 3 ) Indicate whether the order of protection supersedes or alters prior orders pertaining to matters between the parties.
( b ) The order of protection may do any of the following: ( 1 ) Order the person who committed the act of domestic violence to refrain from acts or threats of violence against the petitioner or any other family member;
( 2 ) Order that the person who committed the act of domestic violence be removed from the home of the petitioner;
( 3 ) Grant sole possession of the residence or household to the petitioner during the period the order of protection is effective, or order the person who has committed an act of domestic violence to provide temporary suitable alternative housing for the petitioner and other family members to whom the respondent owes a legal obligation of support;
( 4 ) Award temporary custody of any children involved when appropriate and provide for visitation rights, child support, and temporary support for the petitioner on a basis which gives primary consideration to the safety of the petitioner and other household members;
( 5 ) Order the person who is found to have committed an act of domestic violence not to initiate contact with the petitioner;
( 6 ) Restrain the parties from transferring, concealing, encumbering, or otherwise disposing of one another's property or the joint property of the parties except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life, and order the parties to account to the court for all such transferring, encumbrances, and expenditures made after the order is served or communicated; and
( 7 ) Order other injunctive relief as the court deems necessary for the protection of the petitioner, including orders to law enforcement agencies as provided by this subpart.
### **CHAPTER 839—DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED MEMBERS**

Sec.
8317.
Minors enlisted upon false statement of age.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior chapter 839, consisting of sections 8441 to 8452, related to temporary appointments in the Air Force, prior to renumbering as chapter 919 of this title.

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(e)(2)(A), (f)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1837, 1838, redesignated chapter 569 of this title as this chapter and item 6292 as 8317.

**1980**—Pub. L. 96–513, title V, §503(46), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2914, struck out item 6294 "Women in the Regular Navy and Regular Marine Corps: termination of enlistment".

**1968**—Pub. L. 90–235, §§3(a)(4), (b)(4), 8(4), Jan. 2, 1968, 81 Stat. 758, 764, struck out item 6291 "Honorable discharges", item 6293 "Minors enlisted without consent of parent or guardian", item 6295 "Regular Navy: early discharge", item 6296 "Furlough without pay", item 6297 "Disposition of uniform; clothing allowance; emergency funds", and item 6298 "Authority to live at a receiving station after honorable discharge".
#### § 160.1 Liens.

The act of March 7, 1928 (45 Stat. 210; [25 U.S.C. 387](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/25/387)) creates a first lien against irrigable lands under all Indian irrigation projects where the construction, operation and maintenance costs of such projects remain unpaid and are reimbursable, and directs that such lien shall be recited in any patent or instrument issued for such lands to cover such unpaid charges. Prior to the enactment of this legislation similar liens had been created by legislative authority against irrigable lands of the projects on the Fort Yuma, Colorado River, and Gila River Reservations, in Arizona; Blackfeet, Fort Peck, Flathead, Fort Belknap, and Crow Reservations, Mont.; Wapato project, Yakima Reservation, Wash.; the irrigable lands on the Colville Reservation within the West Okanogan irrigation district, Washington, and the Fort Hall Reservation, Idaho. This legislation, therefore, extends protection similar to that existing in the legislation applicable to the projects on the reservations above mentioned.

Cross References:

For operation and maintenance charges and construction costs, see [parts 134](/on/2024-03-22/title-25/part-134) and [137 of this chapter](/on/2024-03-22/title-25/part-137).
#### Margaret Polhamus, as Sole Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. The Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, Respondent.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs, unless within twenty days the appellant pays to the *918respondent twenty dollars and serves proposed case and exceptions, in which event motion is denied, without costs.
H. Res. 114

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 17, 1999.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order

to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 975) to provide for

a reduction in the volume of steel imports, and to establish

a steel import notification and monitoring program. The bill

shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final

passage without intervening motion except: (1) ninety minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and

Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Attest:

Clerk.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# The 13th MEU Participates in Readiness and Training (CARAT)/Marine Exercise (MAREX) Indonesia 2022 

By Gunnery Sgt. Chad Pulliam13th Marine Expeditionary Unit

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
§ 103.25 What kind of borrower is eligible under the Program? ( a ) A borrower is eligible for a BIA-guaranteed or insured loan if the borrower is: ( 1 ) An Indian individual;
( 2 ) An Indian-owned business entity organized under Federal, State, or tribal law, with an organizational structure reasonably acceptable to BIA;
( 3 ) A tribe; or
( 4 ) A business enterprise established and recognized by a tribe.
( b ) To be eligible for a BIA-guaranteed or insured loan, a business entity or tribal enterprise must be at least 51 percent owned by Indians. If at any time a business entity or tribal enterprise becomes less than 51 percent Indian owned, the lender either may declare a default as of the date the borrower stopped being at least 51 percent Indian owned and exercise its remedies under this part, or else continue to extend the loan to the borrower and allow BIA's guaranty or insurance coverage to become invalid.
[66 FR 3867, Jan. 17, 2001; 66 FR 46307, Sept. 4, 2001]
### §14106. Communication with board by officers under consideration

Subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military department concerned, an officer eligible for consideration by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this title who is in the promotion zone or above the promotion zone, or who is to be considered by a vacancy promotion board, may send a written communication to the board calling attention to any matter concerning the officer which the officer considers important to the officer's case. Any such communication shall be sent so as to arrive not later than 10 calendar days before the date on which the board convenes. The board shall give consideration to any timely communication under this section.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1611, Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2925; amended Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title V, §505(b), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3227; Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title V, §501(b), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1373.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in sections 3362(f), 5900, and 8362(f) of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, §1629(a)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1).

#### Amendments

2017—Pub. L. 115–91 substituted "10 calendar days" for "the day".

2006—Pub. L. 109–163 inserted "the day before" after "not later than".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2017 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–91 applicable with respect to promotion selection boards convened on or after Dec. 12, 2017, see section 501(c) of Pub. L. 115–91, set out as a note under section 614 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 2006 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 109–163 effective Mar. 1, 2006, and applicable with respect to selection boards convened on or after that date, see section 505(c) of Pub. L. 109–163, set out as a note under section 614 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1996, see section 1691(b)(1) of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as a note under section 10001 of this title.
§ 11.407 Sexual assault. ( a ) A person who has sexual contact with another person not his or her spouse, or causes such other person to have sexual contact with him or her, is guilty of sexual assault as a misdemeanor, if: ( 1 ) He or she knows that the conduct is offensive to the other person; or
( 2 ) He or she knows that the other person suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders him or her incapable of appraising the nature or his or her conduct; or
( 3 ) He or she knows that the other person is unaware that a sexual act is being committed; or
( 4 ) The other person is less than 10 years old; or
( 5 ) He or she has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control his or her conduct, by administering or employing without the other's knowledge drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance; or
( 6 ) The other person is less than 16 years old and the actor is at least four years older than the other person; or
( 7 ) The other person is less than 21 years old and the actor is his or her guardian or otherwise responsible for general supervision of his or her welfare; or
( 8 ) The other person is in custody of law or detained in a hospital or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over him or her.
( b ) Sexual contact is any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of the person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, or for the purpose of abusing, humiliating, harassing, or degrading the victim.
#### Frances M. McCardell, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Appellant.

Reargument ordered and case set.down for Monday, January 13/ 19.08. Present — Woodward, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
#### Sanford Brooks v. The State.

No. 22770.

Delivered March 22, 1944.

The opinion states the case.

*Edward, Dwyer*and *Joe Burkett,*both of San Antonio, for appellant.

*Ernest S. Goens,*State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is an assault with intent to murder. The punish-' inent assessed is ■ confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of three years.

The record discloses that appellant was charged by indictment with an assault with intent to murder with malice aforethought. The court submitted the case to the jury upon the law relative to an assault with intent to murder both with and without malice. The jury returned the following verdict:

> *99“We the jury find the defendant Guilty of' Assault with intent to commit Murder & assess his punishment at 3 years confinement in the Penitentiary.

> “No suspended sentence.

> “Signed

> “W. B. Singleton

> “Foreman.”

Looking to the verdict as it is written, it is obvious that it is impossible to tell whether they found appellant guilty of an assault with intent to commit murder with or without malice. The punishment prescribed by law for an assault with intent to murder with malice is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of not less than two nor more than fifteen years, while that prescribed for an assault with intent to commit murder without malice is confinement in the .state penitentiary for not less than one nor more than three years. However, the court sentenced him to serve from two to three years in the penitentiary.

The difficulty arising from such an indefinite verdict in cases of this nature is the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Under the provisions of this law, the trial court was in no position to make a proper application thereof. Neither is this court in a position to do so because we do not know of what grade of offense the jury convicted the accused. In the absence of a determination of that issue by the jury, this court would not be authorized to arbitrarily reform the sentence so as to comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law. See Johnson v. State, 137 Tex. Cr. R. 82, 128 S. W. (2d) 384; Lewis v. State, 140 Tex. Cr. R. 470; Jordan v. State, 144 S. W. (2d) 274.

In view of the disposition we are making of this case, we do not deem it necessáry to discuss any of the other questions presented for review.

From what we have said, it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
### **CHAPTER 113—DEFENSE CIVILIAN TRAINING CORPS**

Sec.
2200g.
Establishment.
2200h.
Program elements.
2200i.
Model authorities.
2200j.
Definitions.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2021**—Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title X, §1081(a)(4)(B), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3870, struck out "Sec." before each item in this analysis, except where it appears preceding item 2200g.