alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

. ‘o”OV~m .o‘I.=“* 

AUSTIN 

- . . 

brro”... *=*.I.. 

. 

Njeot- 
Honorable H. A. Jamleon, page 2 

It Is the oplni.on o,f this department that the poliog 

of your depeitment, ati stated by you, Is in accordance with the 

true oonatruotlon of th6"statute. 

The pertinent part of Section 25 of Article ggla of 

the statutes Is as follows: 

a& & 6, and provided turther that no bullding end loan association shall at any time make 

loans In the aggregate in exoess of fifty thousand dollars to one borrower unless suoh loan or 

loans In exoess or fifty thousand dollam shall be 

not more than one-half of one r cent. of the aaseta of suoh assoOlatlon; * * J"I* 

This means that such "loan or loans In exoess or rirty 

thousand do&lars* as a whole shall not be more than one-half of 

one per cent. of theassets 0r tl33 assooletlon. It does not mean 

that that portion of such loan or loans which portion is in 6x:- 

oess or $50,000.00 may be equal to one-halr of one per oent. of 

the assets or such essodatlon. Your Instance of Illustration is 

apt, and correctly states the true rule. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNE~GENERUOF!CEX4S 

By (8) Ooie Speer 

Assistant 

APPHOVED JON 29, 194.4 

(s) Geo. P. Blackburn 

(Acting) ATT&FWYEYNeRAL 

APPROVEDOPINION COMMITTEE 

BY (9) m3, 0HAIEM.m
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6171
RICKY WAYNE CRAVEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; H. W. FISHER, Superintendent, Davie Correctional Center, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-637-6) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Wayne Craven, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge to enter a final order in the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(i)(1994). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's judgment denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). * We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's memorandum opinion and order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Craven v. Attorney General , No. CA-97-637-6 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 1998). To the extentthat Appellant raises issues for the first time on appeal, we decline to address those issues. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Walk the Black Heritage Trail®

Boston National Historical Park, Boston African American National Historic Site
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4952 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4952

To increase the annual limitation on purchases by individuals of Series 
    I United States savings bonds during periods of high inflation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 2022

  Mrs. Fischer (for herself and Mr. Warner) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To increase the annual limitation on purchases by individuals of Series 
    I United States savings bonds during periods of high inflation.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Savings Security Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON PURCHASE OF SERIES I UNITED STATES 
              SAVINGS BONDS.

    (a) In General.--Section 3105 of title 31, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f)(1) For purposes of subsection (c)(7), during any applicable 
year, the maximum amount of Series I United States savings bonds issued 
during such year that may be held by an applicable individual shall not 
exceed $30,000.
    ``(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, the term `applicable 
year' means any calendar year during which the average of the 
annualized changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 
during any 6-month period ending during such year is greater than 3.5 
percent.
    ``(B) Not later than 30 days after the Secretary determines that 
the requirement under subparagraph (A) has been satisfied with respect 
to any calendar year, the Secretary shall provide public notice that 
paragraph (1) applies with respect to such year.
    ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `applicable 
individual' means an individual who provides the Secretary with--
            ``(A) the TIN (as defined in section 7701(a)(41) of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986) of such individual; or
            ``(B) the social security number issued to such individual 
        by the Social Security Administration.
    ``(4) This subsection shall not apply with respect to any Series I 
United States savings bond that is made available in paper form.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to any calendar year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Glenwood Cemetery Association, Appellant, v. Shaeffer Brothers Company, Inc., Respondent.

Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and McCurn, JJ.
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 Annual Report of Cal Bay, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Robert J. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



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









/s/Robert J. Thompson

Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 26, 2004
|    |                                                                                            |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Great Plains Energy Incorporated; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
| Date:  | April 26, 2018 | /s/ Terry Bassham |
|   |   | Terry BasshamChairman, Chief Executive Officer and President |
EXHIBIT B 

Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 4 of 4
**Exhibit 12.1**
**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
I, Werner Wenning, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Bayer AG; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company andhave:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the company, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by theannual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the company’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date: April 6, 2004
/s/WERNERWENNING
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,654
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,536
<PP&E>                                          94,362
<DEPRECIATION>                                (47,122)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          956,974
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,060
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,142,016)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,430
<SALES>                                          2,766
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,766
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  994,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,043,761)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,043,761)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,043,761)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
| Exhibit 32.2 |
|--------------|

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

            In connection with the Annual Report of ExpressJet Holdings,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frederick S. Cromer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,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 ofoperations of the Company. |

 

 
|      Date:  February 13, 2004   |                   | **/s/ Frederick S.Cromer                               ** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           | Frederick S. Cromer Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
(No. 717

Claimant awarded $100.00.)

#### Thomas F. Trede, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 16, 1925.*

Respondeat *superior*— when *State not liable.*The State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the performance of their duty.

Social justice and *equity*— award *may be made.*The court may on ground of social justice and equity enter an award in favor of claimant.

E. A. Perry, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit brought by claimant, Thomas F. Trede, to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been incurred by him while in the employ of the State at the fair ground in May, 1922. Claim was filed June 29,1923, and evidence taken by. stipulation and filed February 14, 1925.

Claimant alleges that while endeavoring to operate a tractor for the State, he received a slight cut over the left eye which caused him to lay off of the job a week, and pay a doctor’s bill of five dollars for taking two stitches in the wound above the eye, and that the cut caused a scar that causes a permanent disfigurement of the face.

The evidence shows that he was paid for the entire time he lost on account of the injury. When he finally quit his job, he did not do so as a result of any injury received. There is no evidence of any suffering of consequence; or that he was confined to his bed or house in consequence of the injury. From our analysis of the very meager evidence as to his disfigurement, we are inclined to think it very slight. One of his witnesses testified “it only showed a little streak about three-fourths of an inch long; and that if he were not looking-for the injury, he would not likely notice it a few feet away.” *78He was endeavoring to run the tractor without ever having had any experience and was awkward in his efforts to do so: hence the accident. There is no evidence that the $5.00 he paid the doctor for taking the two stitches was paid to him by the State. He suffered very little, and that only for a few days. While the claim seems to ns quite trivial, yet he was in the employ of the State at time of the accident. We have decided to and do award claimant $100.00.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

XAVIER VINCENT NIXON, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0189 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-434210-001

The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Xavier Vincent Nixon, San Luis

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge 

David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 7-12-2018
STATE v. NIXON

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Xavier Vincent Nixon seeks review of the superior 

court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's first petition 

for post-conviction relief. 

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) 

(petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court's order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We conclude that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of LitFunding Corp. a Nevada corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
David Cohen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of
his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 LitFunding Corp., and will be retained by LitFunding Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ David Cohen
--------------------------
David Cohen
Chief Financial Officer
May 21, 2004
#### § 3137.91 When will BLM allow a well previously determined to be a non-unit well to be used in establishing or modifying a PA?

If you, as the unit operator, complete sufficient work so that a well BLM previously determined to be a non-unit well now meets the productivity criteria, you must demonstrate this to BLM within 60 calendar days after you determine that the well meets the productivity criteria. You must then modify an existing participating area or establish a new participating area (see § 3137.84 of this subpart).
§ 404.7 What types of projects are eligible for consideration under the program? To be eligible for consideration under the program, a rural water supply project must: ( a ) Meet the definition of a rural water supply project in § 404.2; and
( b ) Be located in a Reclamation State, as defined in § 404.2.
EXHIBIT 32

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of instaCare Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period endedDecember 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith Berman, Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ Keith Berman                          			

Keith Berman |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Principal Executive Officer |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | and Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | April 16, 2007 |
|--------|----------------|