alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NURESCELL INC. (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY) FOR THE
PERIOD FROM APRIL 1, 1999 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,418
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,418
<PP&E>                                          52,609
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          182,318
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,312
<OTHER-SE>                                   (117,079)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,551
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               414,150
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,409)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (410,741)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (410,741)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) A15-04 

Proposed Final Audit Report on McSally ) 

for Congress ) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on May 08,2018, the Commission decided 

by a vote of 4-0 to approve the Proposed Final Audit Report on McSally for 

Congress, as recommended in the Memorandum fix>m the Chief Compliance 

Officer and the Audit Division dated May 2,2018. . 

Commissioners Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voted 

affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

1 Date Dayna C. Brown 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
Rockingham,

No. 5726.

#### Evelyn Pindar *v.*Vernon Pindar.

Argued May 7, 1968.

Decided May 29, 1968.

*John B. Ford*( orally), for the plaintiff.

*Shaw & Eldredge {Mr. Carleton Eldredge*orally), for the defendant.

Grimes, J.

The Trial Court after hearing evidence denied the defendant’s moton for modification of a divorce decree with respect to support payments based on the fact that the minor child had married. The defendant’s exception to this denial was transferred by *Loughlin,*J.

The parties were divorced by decree dated April 21, 1965. That part of the decree which related to custody and support was entered in accordance with a stipulation of the parties. It provides as follows:

“1. Libellee shall pay to libellant Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per month until the minor child, Daphne, reaches the age of twenty-one (21) or finishes her schooling, whichever is later, and for three years thereafter. The parties agree to treat the Two Hundred Dollars ( $200.00) as support for the minor child until she becomes twenty-one (21) and that libellee shall be entitled to the tax exemption for the child.

“2. Libellant shall have custody of the minor child and libellee shall have reasonable rights of visitation.”

The minor daughter of the parties was married in June 1967, *77just before reaching the age of twenty and did not complete her junior college education which she had been pursuing since the fall of 1966. She and her husband are both employed but she is also attending business school. There was still $474 due on her junior college tuition at the time of hearing. The plaintiff is employed with a take-home pay of $97 or $100 per week. She testified that she had been compelled to sell her home to make ends meet while the daughter was in college. There has been no change in the circumstances of the defendant since the original decree.

The issue is whether the marriage and employment of the daughter in and of themselves entitled the defendant to a termination of the support order as a matter of law. We hold that it does not.

While for tax purposes the parties agreed that payments would be treated as support for the child until she became twenty-one years old, the undertaking of the defendant ran to the plaintiff and was to continue for three years after the daughter reached the age of twenty-one years or completed her schooling “whichever is later.” Whichever of these two events occurred later simply marked the time when the three-year period would begin to run and it was the obvious intention of the parties that the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff would continue for at least three years after the fixed date when the child became twenty-one and longer if she had not completed her schooling.

We hold therefore that the marriage of the daughter and her employment where there were no other changes in the circumstances of the parties did not, as a matter of law, entitle the defendant to a modification of the order.

*Exception overruled.*

All concurred.
1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2672

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Dwight William Alexander, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 3, 2008 

Filed: December 8, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dwight Alexander appeals the 120-month sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a

mixture containing cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(A). Alexander argues that his criminal history is overstated; that the court

should have imposed a lesser sentence; and that the 120-month statutory minimum

sentence is unconstitutional because it does not take into consideration the disparity

in sentencing for offenses involving powder cocaine and those involving crack.
-2-

We reject these arguments. First, the district court’s discretionary refusal to

depart downward for overstated criminal history is unreviewable. See United States

v. Betts, 509 F.3d 441, 446 (8th Cir. 2007). Second, even after Kimbrough v. United

States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 564 (2007) (district court may reasonably vary under18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) to account for 100-to-1 crack to powder cocaine disparity), the district court

could not sentence Alexander below the 120-month statutory minimum, see id. at 573-

74 (sentencing courts remain bound by statutory minimum sentences); United States

v. Jenkins, 537 F.3d 894, 896 (8th Cir. 2008) (even after Kimbrough, district courts

are not authorized to sentence below Congressionally mandated statutory minimums).

Third, the mandatory minimum sentence under section 841(b)(1)(A) is constitutional.

See United States v. Buckley, 525 F.3d 629, 635 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 77 U.S.L.W.

3242 (U.S. Oct. 20, 2008) (No. 08-6427); United States v. Williams, 474 F.3d 1130,

1132 (8th Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 32.1







CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Shiner International, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Qingtao Xing, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Date: November 15, 2011
By:
/s/ Qingtao XingName: Qingtao XingTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 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 §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 503.20 Definitions.

For purposes of this part: *Closed meeting* and *closed portion of a meeting* mean, respectively, a meeting or that part of a meeting designated as provided in § 503.27 as closed to the public by reason of one or more of the closure provisions listed in § 503.24.

*Commission* means the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, which is a collegial body that functions as a unit composed of three individual members, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

*Meeting* means the deliberations of at least two (quorum) members of the Commission where such deliberations determine or result in joint conduct or disposition of official Commission business.

*Member* means any one of the three members of the Commission.

*Open meeting* means a meeting or portion of a meeting which is not a closed meeting or a closed portion of a meeting.

*Public observation* means the right of any member of the public to attend and observe, but not participate or interfere in any way, in an open meeting of the Commission within the limits of reasonable and comfortable accommodations made available for such purpose by the Commission.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Martin Kremenstein, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of PowerShares DB US Dollar Index Bullish Fund, a series of PowerShares DB US Dollar Index
Trust; 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: March 29, 2013 |  | /s/ Martin Kremenstein 
|                      |  | Martin Kremenstein     
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer
From: Allison Wright 

To: bwheeler@fec.Qov 

Subject: 

Date: 10/04/2010 01:50 PM 

Hi Brenda -

Hope you are doing well. I just wanted to give you a heads up that we are not 

going to request a hearing. 

Take care -

Allison
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
Varsity Group Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |                              
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: May 15, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ James M. Craig           
|                    |  |  |  | James M. Craig               
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                    |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
§ 670.14 Conditions of permits. ( a ) *Possession of permits.* Permits issued under the regulations in this part, or copies of them, must be in the possession of persons to whom they are issued and their agents when conducting the authorized action.
( b ) *Display of permits.* Any permit issued shall be displayed for inspection upon request to the Director, designated agents of the Director, or any person with enforcement responsibilities.
( c ) *Filing of reports.* Permit holders are required to file reports of the activities conducted under a permit. Reports shall be submitted to the Director not later than June 30 for the preceding 12 months.
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 64 FR 6247, Feb. 9, 1999.

§ 302.80 Medical support enforcement. ( a ) The State plan may provide that the IV-D agency will secure and enforce medical support obligations under a cooperative agreement between the IV-D agency and the State Medicaid agency.
( b ) The State plan must provide that the IV-D agency shall secure medical support information and establish and enforce medical support obligations in accordance with the requirements contained in §§ 303.30 and 303.31 of this chapter.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0960-0420) [50 FR 41894, Oct. 16, 1985, as amended at 51 FR 37731, Oct. 24, 1986; 54 FR 32309, Aug. 4, 1989; 61 FR 67241, Dec. 20, 1996; 64 FR 6249, Feb. 9, 1999]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1022]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, March 5, 2007, 8 a.m. to 
March 6, 2007, 9 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge 
Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register 
on February 8, 2007, 72 FR 5985-5988.
    The meeting will be held March 12, 2007 to March 13, 2007. The 
meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the 
public.

    Dated: February 27, 2007.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-1022 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### § 2508.2 What is the purpose of this part?

The purpose of this part is to set forth the basic policies of the Corporation governing the maintenance of its system of records which contains personal information concerning its employees as defined in the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Records included in this part are those described in aforesaid act and maintained by the Corporation and/or any component thereof.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Information Services Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael P. Connors, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



March 8, 2010

/s/ MICHAEL P. CONNORSMichael P. Connors Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
§ 675.4 Waiver process. ( a ) If an individual is found not physically qualified for deployment to Antarctica, the USAP's contractor will inform the individual of the determination and of the administrative waiver process, and will provide a waiver application package to the individual upon request.
( b ) The waiver applicant should send the completed waiver application package to the USAP's contractor which will forward the package to NSF's Office of Polar Programs for review and a determination on the appropriateness of a waiver. In making the waiver determination, the Office of Polar Programs may consult with other qualified medical personnel and may require waiver applicants to take further medical examinations or to furnish additional medical documentation in support of the waiver application.
( c ) The Director, Office of Polar Programs (or designee) will make a final determination, in the exercise of his or her discretion, on the appropriateness of a waiver on a case-by-case basis.
( d ) Individuals for whom a waiver is determined to be appropriate are eligible for deployment to Antarctica subject to any necessary limitations/restrictions identified by the Director, Office of Polar Programs, or designee.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
Varsity Group Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |                              
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2006 |  | /s/ Mark F. Thimmig          
|                         |  | Mark F. Thimmig              
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                         |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Develin v. Crary, appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought by John Develin against George D. Orary, to recover for a quantity of alcohol sold and delivered. There was a conflict of testimony as to the delivery of the alcohol, and the referee found that it had been delivered.

*E. T. Wood,*for appellant.

*De Witt & Johnson,*for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### § 2555.605 Enforcement procedures.

The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 45 CFR 1203.6 through 1203.12.

[65 FR 52894, Aug. 30, 2000]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****International law and thechanging character of war**
 
PDF | Mobi | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:D 208.207:87
Item Number:0408-A (online)
CGP systemNumber:000852672
 
February 10, 2020
No. 2788.

#### Sindy Elkins *v.*The State

Opinion delivered October *24, 1888.*

3. Appeal Bond from the justice’s to the county court was conditioned that “the defendant shall prosecute her appeal with effect, and shall pay such fine and costs as shall be adjudged against her by the county court, as well as other costs that may be adjudged against her in the court below.” *Held*sufficient, and that the ruling of the county court dismissing the appeal on the ground that the bond was insuffi cient was erroneous.

2. Disturbance of the Peace—Information, to charge the offense of using abusive language to another in a manner calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, should allege that the language was used in the presence or hearing of the injured party. (Willson’s Crim. Stats., Arts. 495a, 495b.)

Appeal from the County Court of Morris. Tried below before the Hon. D. M. Rodes, County Judge.

This appeal is prosecuted from the ruling of the county court dismissing an appeal prosecuted thereto from the justice’s court, upon the ground that the appeal bond was insufficient.

*Moore & Hart,*for the appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Hurt, Judge.

Appellant was convicted before a justice of the peace, and, in order to perfect an appeal to the county court, filed an appeal bond conditioned “that the defendant shall prosecute her appeal with effect, and shall pay such fine and costs as shall be adjudged against her by the county court, as well as ether costs that maybe adjudged against her in the court below.” In the county court the appeal bond was held insufficient and the appeal dismissed. This was error. The bond was substantially in compliance with the statute. The judgment of dismissal is set aside and the cause remanded for trial.

We call attention of the court below to the complaint in this ■case. The complaint fails to state that the language was used in the presence or hearing of Shepperd. It fails to set out the language used—simply pleading a conclusion.

*Reversed and remanded.*
§ 1620.6 Signed written agreement. All staff who handle cases or matters, or are authorized to make decisions about case acceptance, must sign a simple agreement developed by the recipient which indicates that the signatory: ( a ) Has read and is familiar with the priorities of the recipient;
( b ) Has read and is familiar with the definition of an emergency situation and the procedures for dealing with an emergency that have been adopted by the recipient; and
( c ) Will not undertake any case or matter for the recipient that is not a priority or an emergency.