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

USCA Case #21-5081 Document #1950405 Filed: 06/13/2022 Page 1 of 1 

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 21-5081 September Term, 2021 

1:19-cv-02336-JEB 

Filed On: June 13, 2022 [1950405] 

Campaign Legal Center and Catherine 

Hinckley Kelley, 

 Appellants 

v. 

Federal Election Commission, et al., 

 Appellees 

M A N D A T E 

In accordance with the judgment of April 19, 2022, and pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 41, this constitutes the formal mandate of this court. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/ 

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk 

Link to the judgment filed April 19, 2022
#### § 2551.11 What is the Senior Companion Program?

The Senior Companion Program provides grants to qualified agencies and organizations for the dual purpose of engaging persons 55 and older, particularly those with limited incomes, in volunteer service to meet critical community needs; and to provide a high quality experience that will enrich the lives of the volunteers. Program funds are used to support Senior Companions in providing supportive, individualized services to help older adults with special needs maintain their dignity and independence.

[74 FR 46508, Sept. 10, 2009]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION AND
SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          17,681
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  146,613
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                           5,158<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 182,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     146,137
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   182,562
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,544
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,244
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0<F3>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,515
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,785
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,785
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.77
<FN>
<F1>THE BALANCE SHEET IS UNCLASSIFIED.
<F2>PP&E IS SHOWN NET ON THE BALANCE SHEET.
<F3>INTEREST EXPENSE IS CONSIDERED AN OPERATING EXPENSE OF THE REGISTRANT.
</FN>


</TABLE>
§ 2105.43 When will the Agency waive fees? ( a ) The Agency will release records responsive to a request without charge (in other words, it will give you a full fee waiver) or at a reduced charge (in other words, it will give you a partial fee waiver, as discussed further in paragraph (b) of this section) if the Agency determines, based on all available information, that you have demonstrated (by addressing and meeting each of the criteria listed in § 2105.46) that disclosing the information is: ( 1 ) In the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of Government operations or activities, and
( 2 ) Not primarily in your commercial interest.
( b ) A partial fee waiver may be appropriate if some but not all of the requested records are likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of the Government.
( c ) When deciding whether to waive or reduce fees, the Agency will rely on the fee waiver justification submitted in your request letter. If the letter does not include sufficient justification, the Agency will deny the fee waiver request. The Agency may, at its discretion, request additional information from you (*see* § 2105.49).
( d ) The burden is on you to justify entitlement to a fee waiver. Requests for fee waivers are decided on a case-by-case basis under the criteria discussed in paragraph (a) of this section and § 2105.46. If you have received a fee waiver in the past, that does not mean you are automatically entitled to a fee waiver for every request submitted.
( e ) The Agency must not make value judgments about whether the information at issue is “important” enough to be made public; it is not the Agency's role to attempt to determine the level of public interest in requested information.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1999-02-11T17:12:56Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1999-02-11T17:13:02Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1999-02-11T17:13:02Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="163489">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="3">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1999-02-11T17:12:56Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>OFFICE OF THE ATCORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 
AUSTIN </p>
<p></p>
</div>
<div class="page"><p></p>
<p>4’ 
l . . . . 
</p>
<p>-- - _ </p>
<p></p>
</div>
<div class="page"><p></p>
<p>, 
</p>
<p>. 
</p>
<p>t 
</p>
<p>. 
</p>
<p>! . 
</p>
<p>. 
. . . - 
</p>
<p>, 
</p>
<p>Gt , </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 71472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29045]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8099]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: A Hellenistic ``Herakles Knot'' and a Pair of Tarentine 
Fibulae

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition A Hellenistic ``Herakles Knot'' and a pair 
of Tarentine fibulae, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owner or 
custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, from 
on or about January 10, 2013, until on or about January 1, 2023, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: November 23, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-29045 Filed 11-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### Thomas *v.*The State.

Submitted July 16,

Decided July 27, 1906.

Accusation of being a common cheat and swindler. Before Judge Little. City court of Sparta. June 4, 1906.

The accusation alleged, that the accused approached McCook and importuned him to sell him certain described furniture, representing to McCook that he (the accused) had made arrangement with Thornton whereby Thornton would furnish to the accused five dollars with which he would make the first payment to McCook on the furniture; that on the faith of this statement McCook sold the furniture to the accused for $12.25, of which $5 was to be paid on December 23, 1905, and the balance was to be paid in instalments of $2 per month; and that the statement so made by the accused to McCook, upon the faith of which McCook extended said credit to him, was utterly false, and was deceitfully made for the purpose of obtaining the credit and defrauding McCook, and thereby McCook was defrauded and damaged in the sum of $12.50. The testimony showed, that the accused, on December 13, 1905, went to the store of McCook, selected the furniture described in the accusation, and offered to buy it on credit, stating to McCook that he had made arrangements with Mr. Thornton to get the money, and would send McCook $5 by Henry Warren on December 23. McCook sold him the furniture upon this statement, taking his note for the price of it ($12.50), of which $5 was to be paid on December 23, and the *91rest in monthly instalments of $3. The accused in fact had made no arrangement with Thornton; and although he did seek and obtain employment of him about Christmas, and did obtain from him an advance of $15, he failed to pay any money to McCook, who -'finally sent for and took back the furniture. After verdict of guilty, the accused moved for a new trial on the general grounds and the following: “That the court erred in failing to charge the jury as to the effect of a certain note reserving title to the personal property sold to the defendant in this case; the theory of the defense being that the prosecutor did not trust the defendant upon any verbal statement by him made, but did not trust him at all, having reserved title by taking note with reservation of title.” The motion was overruled, and the accused excepted.

*90Evans, J.

1. Under an accusation of being a common cheat and swindler, where the evidence supports the allegations therein, and the person alleged to have been defrauded is shown to have parted with his property upon the false. representation of a fact, and has sustained loss and injury, a verdict finding the defendant guilty is not without evidence to support it.

2. An exception that the court failed to charge a certain proposition is without merit, where it appears that no request to so charge was made, and where the general charge covered the substantial issues of the case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*

*91
      *T. L. Reese*and *Seaborn Reese,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. W.'Moore, solicitor,*contra.
§ 171.103 Information blocking. ( a ) Information blocking means a practice that except as required by law or covered by an exception set forth in subparts B, C, or D of this part, is likely to interfere with access, exchange, or use of electronic health information; and
( b ) If conducted by: ( 1 ) A health IT developer of certified health IT, health information network or health information exchange, such developer, network or exchange knows, or should know, that such practice is likely to interfere with access, exchange, or use of electronic health information; or
( 2 ) A health care provider, such provider knows that such practice is unreasonable and is likely to interfere with access, exchange, or use of electronic health information.
[89 FR 1436, Jan. 9, 2024]
---

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER and CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report of Wescorp Energy Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Douglas Biles, Chief Executive Officer and I, Terry Mereniuk, 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.



|Dated: July 31, 2006 | (signed) Douglas Biles  | 
|-------------------- | ----------------------- | 
|                     | Douglas Biles, CEO     
|                     |                        
|                     |                        
|                     | (signed) Terry Mereniuk | 
|                     | Terry Mereniuk, CFO    

---
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  Quarterly Report of Network Installation Corporation,
(the  "Company")  on  Form  10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),

I,  Michael  Cummings, Chief Executive 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/  Michael  Cummings
--------------------------------------
Michael  Cummings
Chief  Executive  Officer
Dated:  July  26,  2004



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United  States  Code)  and  is  not  being  filed  as part of the Report or as a
separate  disclosure  document.
#### § 309.125 On what basis is Federal funding of Tribal IV-D programs determined?

Federal funding of Tribal IV-D programs is based on information contained in the Tribal IV-D application. The application must include a proposed budget and a description of the nature and scope of the Tribal IV-D program and must give assurance that the program will be administered in conformity with applicable requirements of title IV-D of the Act, regulations contained in this part, and other official issuances of the Department that specifically state applicability to Tribal IV-D programs.
##### 



Exhibit 12(i)
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Qimonda AG;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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
for the company and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Kin Wah LohKin Wah LohChairman of the Management Board
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-11153

Summary Calendar

_____________________

OTIS B. CLAYBORNE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY;

ROBERT GEHRMAN; PAULA BURCH;

WHITNEY WOLF; DENNIS HARRIS; MAX J.

MULLENS; BRUCE HINES; TOM MORGAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas, Dallas

(3:95-CV-1925-R)

_________________________________________________________________

May 13, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mr. Otis B. Clayborne, proceeding pro se, filed this

employment discrimination suit against Southwestern Bell Telephone

Company and the above-named employees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5 ("Title VII"). The United States magistrate judge

granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that
2

Mr. Clayborne had failed to comply with Title VII's limitations

period. Under Title VII, any suit must be filed within ninety days

of the receipt of a right to sue letter. We affirm.

The movant in a motion for summary judgment has the initial

burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion, and

identifying those portions of the summary judgment record that

demonstrates no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986). When the

movant satisfies this burden, the non-movant must produce

affirmative evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505,

2510-11 (1986).

In this case, the movant provided United States Postal Service

a "return receipt" that shows Mr. Clayborne had received his right

to sue notice on May 25, 1995. Mr. Clayborne filed this suit on

August 29, 1995, ninety-six days after receiving the right to sue

notice. Because Mr. Clayborne failed to provide the magistrate

judge any affirmative evidence contradicting the authenticity of

the return receipts, nor did he give any justification for excuse

from the ninety-day limitations period, he failed to establish any

genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, summary judgment was

appropriate. The judgment of the magistrate judge is therefore

A F F I R M E D.
3