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 annual report of Kingsway Capital, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report'), I, Nghi Mac, Chief Executive Officer and Principal 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, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  April 14, 2008    /s/ Nghi Mac_____________ Nghi Mac Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer
#### § 1624.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to assist and provide guidance to legal services programs supported in whole or in part by Legal Services Corporation funds in removing any impediments that may exist to the provision of legal assistance to persons with disabilities eligible for such assistance in accordance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794 and with sections 1007(a)(1) and (3) of the Legal Services Corporation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2996f(a)(1) and (3), with respect to the provision of services to and employment of persons with disabilities. The requirements of this Part apply in addition to any responsibilities legal services programs may have under applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable implementing regulations of the Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No. 19-2336 (JEB)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant,

and

HILLARY FOR AMERICA, et al.,

Defendant-Intervenors.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court 

ORDERS that:

1. Count Two of the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

2. The case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

/s/ James E. Boasberg

JAMES E. BOASBERG

United States District Judge

Date: February 12, 2021

Case 1:19-cv-02336-JEB Document 52 Filed 02/12/21 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1028

CORA M. HILL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAMES C. HAWKS, Circuit Judge, Circuit Court of the City of 

Portsmouth; GEORGE T. ALBISTON, ESQ.; WILLIAM F. DEVINE, 

ESQ.; SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:12-cv-00364-MSD-DEM)

Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cora M. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Foris Simopoulos, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; 

James Arthur Cales, III, Alan Brody Rashkind, FURNISS, DAVIS, 

RASHKIND & SAUNDERS, Norfolk, Virginia; William Delaney Bayliss, 

Joseph Earl Blackburn, III, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cora M. Hill appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing her civil action for failure to establish a proper 

basis for jurisdiction over any of the named Defendants and 

denying reconsideration of those orders. On appeal, we confine 

our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See

4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hill’s informal brief does not 

challenge the bases for the district court’s dispositions, Hill

has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. 

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed on appeal in 

forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s judgments. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 612 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 612

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To reauthorize the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Lake Tahoe Restoration 
Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE LAKE TAHOE RESTORATION ACT.

    (a) Cooperative Authorities.--Section 4(f) of the Lake Tahoe 
Restoration Act (Public Law 106-506) is amended by striking ``4 fiscal 
years following the date of enactment of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2016'' and inserting ``period beginning on the date 
of enactment of this subsection and ending on the date described in 
section 10(a)''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 10(a) of the Lake 
Tahoe Restoration Act (Public Law 106-506) is amended by striking ``for 
a period'' and all that follows through the period at the end and 
inserting ``, to remain available until September 30, 2034.''.

            Passed the Senate July 10, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 612

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To reauthorize the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, and for other purposes.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 38 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 38

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Highway 
  Administration relating to ``Waiver of Buy America Requirements for 
                      Electric Vehicle Chargers''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Federal Highway Administration relating to 
``Waiver of Buy America Requirements for Electric Vehicle Chargers'' 
(88 Fed. Reg. 10619 (February 21, 2023)), and such rule shall have no 
force or effect.

            Passed the Senate November 8, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 38

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Highway 
  Administration relating to ``Waiver of Buy America Requirements for 
                      Electric Vehicle Chargers''.
```
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                        PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ace Marketing & Promotions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sean
McDonnell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.



/S/ SEAN MCDONNELL
---------------------
SEAN MCDONNELL
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
MAY 18, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0001068237
<NAME>                                 SSB GLOBAL DIVERSIFIED FUTURES FUND L.P.
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                      33,057,033
<SECURITIES>                                                   843,690
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  103,870
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            34,004,593
<PP&E>                                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              34,004,593
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          944,845
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  33,059,748
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                34,004,593
<SALES>                                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               218,554
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               876,806
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (658,252)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (658,252)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      (19.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0
        
 


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-698

In Re: EDWARD ROURKE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-18-L)

No. 97-705

In Re: EDWARD ROURKE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Submitted: November 18, 1997 Decided: December 2, 1997
2

Before HALL, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Petition for mandamus denied and petition for habeas corpus transferred by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Rourke, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* We defer to the district court's disposition of Rourke's

motion to expedite his application for a writ of habeas corpus. We

deny Rourke's motion to stay and Respondent's motion to dismiss the

mandamus petition.

3

PER CURIAM:

Edward Rourke petitions this court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

and for a Writ of Mandamus directing a Virginia state court to

release Rourke from confinement pending his petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus. A federal court may not award declaratory or injunctive relief that would affect pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances involving an immediate

threat to federally protected rights. See Younger v. Harris, 401

U.S. 37, 46-53 (1971). Furthermore, mandamus relief is only appropriate where the petitioner shows that no other means of relief is

available. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Because

Rourke did not file a direct appeal of his conviction and has demonstrated no extraordinary circumstances involving a threat to his

federally protected rights, his petition for a Writ of Mandamus is

denied. We decline to entertain Rourke's application for a writ of

habeas corpus and transfer it to the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia for disposition.* 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2241(b) (West 1994 & Supp. 1997); Fed. R. App. P. 22(a). 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.

PETITION DENIED; PETITION TRANSFERRED
4
Interim Decision #1403

MATTER OF POINDEXTER GALLERY

In VISA PETITION Proceedings

A-10383318

Decided by Regiorm2Ca9n.oiksiniter .11.4 15, 1984

Urgent need of beneficiary's services as an artist is not established within the contemplation of section 203(a) (1), Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, since the interest of the petitioning art gallery seems to be based solely on the speculation the beneficiary's paintings may become valuable.

This matter is before us on appeal from the decision of the District Director who denied the petition.The petitioner is an art gallery which presents exhibitions of contemporary paintings and sculpture and sells art work on commission. The petitioner is seeking the services of the beneficiary as an artist. The petitioner would act as the beneficiary's agent, take a one-third commission on all sales and may purchase paintings directly from the beneficiary at one

- half the retail price. An agreement has been signedby the beneficiary which grants the petitioner the right to first viewing of all her paintings until May 1,1966. The beneficiary is an unmarried 38-year-old citizen of Japan who has been in the United States since 1955 as a student attending the Art Students League at New York. Before her arrival in the United States she worked as an art consultant for a newspaper in Japan. The petitioner states that the beneficiary has exhibited her paintings at several group exhibitions over a period of the past six years and has earned between $2,000 to $3,000 from the sale of her paintings. We have carefully reviewed the record in this case in the light of the representations made by counsel in support of the appeal. While it is clear that the beneficiary is a talented artist we cannot find that .the petitioner has established an urgent need for her services. In determining whether urgent need exists a reasonable interpretation must be applied. "In the usual case, the petitioner seeks the services of thebeneficiary on a full-time basis, and the beneficiary derives her livelihood from the services rendered for the petitioner" (Matter of St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Ohureh,Int. Dec. No. 1293). In this case the

753 76S-455-05----40

### Interim Decision #1108

beneficiary has never earned her 

### living from the sale of her paintings nor is there any assurance that the demand for her paintings is such that she will now be able to do so. The petitioner will not 

### subsidizethe beneficiary nor is there any indication that it has invested or contemplates investing any funds in her training or in publicizing her talents. The petitioner's interest in the beneficiary seems to be based on the speculation that her paintings may become valuable and it is concluded that this is insufficient to establish an urgent need for her services. The appeal will be dismissed. 

### It 

### is orderedthat the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

754
#### § 1182.19 Restrictions that exist regarding the release of mailing lists.

The Institute may not sell or rent an individual's name and address unless such action specifically is authorized by law. This section shall not be construed to require the withholding of names and addresses otherwise permitted to be made public.
#### § 158.343 Optional State hearing.

Any State that submits a request for adjustment to the MLR standard may, at its option, hold a public hearing and create an evidentiary record with respect to its application. If a State does so, the Secretary will take the evidentiary record of the hearing into consideration in making her determination.
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------

                            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 Insilco Holding Co. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
A. Kauer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.



                                             /S/ DAVID A. KAUER
                                             -------------------------
                                             David A. Kauer
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             August 14, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 111 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 111

    Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign 
 military sale to the Government of Israel of certain defense articles 
                             and services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2024

   Mr. Sanders (for himself, Mr. Welch, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Schatz) 
  introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign 
 military sale to the Government of Israel of certain defense articles 
                             and services.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the following proposed 
foreign military sale to the Government of Israel is prohibited:
            (1) The sale of the following defense articles and services 
        described in Transmittal No. 24-10, submitted to Congress 
        pursuant to section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
        U.S.C. 2776(b)(1)), and published in the Congressional Record 
        on September 10, 2024: Thirty-two thousand seven hundred 
        thirty-nine (32,739) 120mm tank cartridges, consisting of 120mm 
        M1147 High Explosive Multi-Purpose with Tracer (HEMP-T) 
        cartridges and/or 120mm M830A1 High Explosive Multi-Purpose 
        Anti-Tank (MPAT) with Tracer cartridges. Also included are 
        various 120mm tank munitions; 120mm munition canisters; 
        transportation costs; publications and technical documentation; 
        U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and 
        logistics support services; and other related elements of 
        logistics and program support.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8078

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL WALLACE RICE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00011-REP-2; 3:08-cv-00403-REP)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 23, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Wallace Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Wallace Rice seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rice has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED