alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department of Transportation 

Mr. Robert Finamore 

400 7th Street, S.W., Room 6402 

Washington, DC 20590 

Reykjavik, 10.09.2014 

1409410 KHM 

Subject: Statement of Reciprocity 

The Icelandic Transport Authority hereby confirrns, that it will grant, on the basis of 

reciprocity, to any air carrier designated by the United States of America, the right to 

conduct fifth, sixth and seventh freedom traffic rights on scheduled or non-scheduled basis, 

which are in confoimity to the Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the 

United States and the Government of Iceland, signed in Washington 14 thof June 1995 and 

as amended by exchange of diplomatic notes, l stof March 2002, and the Air Transport 

Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community and its 

Member States, signed on Apri125 thand 30th, 2007, which Iceland and Norway became 

parties to on 17thof December 2009. 

Sincerely 

.~.. 

a gu fa ~':+ 

~ ~, ~ r 

~ Kristin lga arkusd6ttir 

Head of Legal Section 

I(L

). 

Icelandic Transport Authority P.O. Box 470 - 202 Kopavogur Iceland - Tel: +354 480 6000 - Icetra@icetra.is - www.icetra.is
Jame s Turner/R6/USEPA/U S 01/25/200 6 10:1 8 A M T o Rebamburg@aol.co m c c bc c Subjec t Roger s Roa d Site Propert

yDescriptio n PRIVILEGE D AN D CONFIDENTIA L T o follo wu p o n m ye-mai l memorandu m of yesterday , ou rRemedia l Project Manage rha d someon e i n th e offic e wh o use d t o wor k

a s a surveyo rloo k

at th e propertydescriptio n tha t yo u provided
. H e sai d tha t i t wa s definitel yi n error , an d th e RP M calle d u p Ji m Whiske ri n th e Jacksonvill e Cit yEngineer' s offic e t o discus s \ l Yo u maywis h t o connec t wit h th e CityEngineer' s offic e an d hav e someon e loo k a t th e actua l propert ydescriptio n i n th e dee d record s an d se e i ftha t i s correct
. Pleas e le t m e kno wwha t yo u fin d out
. Thank s an d tak e care . Jame s L
. Turne r Senio rAttorne y Offic e o fRegiona l Counse l (6RC-S ) U.S
. EP ARegio n 6 144 5 Ros s Avenue , Ste
. 120 0 Dallas , Texa s 75202-273 3 ' E-Mail : Turner.James@epa.go v Ph : (214)665-315 9 Fax:(214)665-646 0

905034 4 

# lllilllillllllliilllllilillllll l
Exhibit 32.1

 

 

**DDS Technologies USA, Inc.**

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

 

                In connection with the Annual Report of DDS Technologies USA, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),the undersigned, Spencer L. Sterling, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,and Joseph Fasciglione, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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. |

|   |                                    |                                     |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|   | By:                                     | /s/    Spencer L. Sterling               |
|   |                                    | President and    Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                    |
|   |                                    |
|   | By:                                     | /s/    Joseph Fasciglione                |
|   |                                    | Chief Financial    Officer               |
|   |                                    |
|   | Dated:    April 14, 2004 |
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. JULIAN G. LEAL, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

6 USCMA 166, 19 CMR 292

No. 6333

Decided July 15, 1955

*Commander James A. Brough,*USN, and *Major Melvyn H. Kerr,*USMC, were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander George H. Rood,*USN, and *Commander Raymond W. Glasgow,*USN, were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

A general court-martial sitting at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, found the accused guilty, *inter alia,*of desertion terminated by apprehension, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 85, 50 USC § 679. The sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of apprehension is the problem now before us.

The Government relied solely on an entry in the accused’s service record book which related that he had been apprehended on July 27, 1954, by two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents *167in Houston, Texas, and thereafter surrendered to Air Police in the same city. By the time of the accused’s return to military custody, and of the entry in his service record book, Marine directives had been altered to impose- the duty of recording whether an unauthorized absence was terminated by surrender or by apprehension. See United States v. Bennett, 4 USCMA 309, 15 CMR 309. As we have recently pointed out, such an entry, when made under an official duty, will sustain a court-martial’s finding of apprehension. United States v. Simone, 6 USCMA 146, 19 CMR 272; United States v. Lugo, 6 USCMA 151, 19 CMR 277.

Accordingly, the findings and sentence, as acted on by intermediate agencies of appellate review, must be affirmed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 128977 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128977 COA: 253295 Calhoun CC: 2003-000940-FC TRINITY MILFORD MATTHISEN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 15, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan , lv gtd 472 Mich 881 (2005).

l1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8883 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of 

higher education to disclose campus policies relating to responding to 

certain incidents of civil disturbance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2024 

Mr. BANKS (for himself, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. WILLIAMS of 

New York, Mr. VAN DREW, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. GUEST, and Ms. 

BOEBERT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

institutions of higher education to disclose campus policies relating to responding to certain incidents of civil 

disturbance, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Tax Dollars for 

5 College Encampments Act of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8883 IH

1 SEC. 2. HEA AMENDMENTS. 

2 (a) DISCLOSURE OF CAMPUS SECURITY POLICY AND

3 CAMPUS CRIME STATISTICS.—Section 485(f)(1)(J) of the 

4 Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)(J)) 

5 is amended— 

6 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by strik7 ing ‘‘A statement’’ and inserting ‘‘(i) A statement’’; 

8 (2) by redesignating clause (i) as subclause (I) 

9 and adjusting the margins accordingly; 

10 (3) by inserting after subclause (I), as so redes11 ignated, the following: 

12 ‘‘(II) respond to incidents of civil 

13 disturbance occurring on the campus, 

14 including with respect to coordination 

15 of such response with State, local, and 

16 campus law enforcement;’’; 

17 (4) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as 

18 subclauses (III) and (IV), respectively, and adjusting 

19 the margins accordingly; and 

20 (5) by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(ii) For purposes of this subpara22 graph, the term ‘incident of civil disturb23 ance’ means a civil unrest activity (includ24 ing a demonstration, riot, or strike) that 

25 disrupts the community in which it is tak26 ing place and requires intervention to— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8883 IH

1 ‘‘(I) maintain public safety; and 

2 ‘‘(II) prevent the disruption of 

3 learning, as applicable.’’. 

4 (b) ACCREDITING AGENCY OR ASSOCIATION OPER5 ATING PROCEDURES.—Section 496(c) of the Higher Edu6 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1099b(c)) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (8), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

8 end; 

9 (2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at 

10 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

11 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(10) monitors an institution’s compliance with 

13 section 485(f)(1)(J).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**Certification by the Principal Financial Officer**

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of RDA Microelectronics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lily Li Dong, 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 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; 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: April 28, 2014

 
|   | By:    | /s/   Lily Li Dong        |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Lily   Li Dong            |
|   | Title: | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

1

----
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

v. Jenkins, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4731.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2022-OHIO-4731

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. JENKINS, APPELLEE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State v. Jenkins, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4731.]

Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of State v. Bourn and cause 

remanded for further proceedings.

(No. 2022-0297―Submitted November 29, 2022―Decided December 30, 2022.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,

No. 109421, 2022-Ohio-297.

_________________

{¶ 1} The judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals is reversed on 

the authority of State v. Bourn, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4321, __ N.E.3d __, 

and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concur.

DONNELLY and STEWART, JJ., would dismiss the appeal as having been 

improvidently allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

BRUNNER, J., dissents for the reasons set forth in her dissenting opinion in 

Bourn.

_________________

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel 

T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

_________________
|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |  |  |  |  |
| Name                                  |   |   | Domicile |   |
| BDCA Funding I, LLC                   |   |   | Delaware |   |
| 54th Street Equity Holding, Inc. |   |   | Delaware |   |
| Park Ave RE, Inc.                     |   |   | Delaware |   |
| Kahala Aviation Holdings, LLC         |   |   | Delaware |   |
| Kahala Aviation US, Inc.              |   |   | Delaware |   |
| Kahala LuxCo                          |   |   | Luxembourg |   |
| BDCA-CB Funding, LLC                  |   |   | Delaware |   |
| BDCA 2L Funding I, LLC                |   |   | Delaware |   |
| BDCA Helvetica Funding, Ltd.          |   |   | Cayman Islands |   |
No. 04-4199 File Name: 05a0964n.06 Filed: December 14, 2005 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT TRI-COUNTY EXTENDED CARE CENTER, Petitioner,

v. MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Before: NELSON , DAUGHTREY , and SUTTON , Circuit Judges.

DAVID A. NELSON , Circuit Judge. This case is here on a petition for review of a decision of the Departmental Appeals Board, United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). The petitioner, Tri-County Extended Care Center, is a long-term care facility that participates in the federal Medicare and Ohio Medicaid programs. HHS assessed a civil monetary penalty against Tri-County after a survey of the facility resulted in findings of non-compliance with certain program requirements.An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) affirmed the penalty imposed by HHS, and TriCounty sought review before the Departmental Appeals Board. The Board affirmed the ALJ’s findings that: (1) Tri-County used half side rails on a resident’s bed withoutNo. 04-4199 Page 2 adequately assessing the risk of entrapment; (2) Tri-County failed to investigate and report a resident’s injury of unknown cause; (3) Tri-County allowed a resident to develop an avoidable pressure sore and failed to promote healing of the resident’s pressure sores; and (4) Tri-County failed to provide appropriate incontinence care to two residents. The facility challenges each of these findings in its petition for review. “The findings of [HHS] with respect to que stions of fact, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive.” 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a(e). The court “do[es] not consider the case de novo , nor resolve conflicts in the evidence, nor decide questions of credibility.” MeadowWood Nursing Home v. United States Dep’t of Health and Human Services , 364 F.3d 786, 788 (6 thCir. 2004). Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings. Therefore, and in the absen ce of any challenge to the amount of the civil monetary penalty, Tri-County’s petition for review is DENIED

.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES T. SMITH, Jr., First Lieutenant, U. S. Army, Appellant

10 USCMA 152, 27 CMR 227

No. 12,020

Decided January 23, 1959

*First Lieutenant James G. Garner*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Major Edward Fenig*and *First Lieutenant Judson A. Parsons, Jr.*

*Major Thomas J. Nichols*argued the cause for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

The accused pleaded guilty to unauthorized absence and the larceny of $495.00 entrusted to him by enlisted personnel for deposit in the Soldiers’ Deposit Fund. He was sentenced to dismissal, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for one year.

In the course of his instructions on the sentence, the law officer advised the court-martial that “an officer may not be sentenced to confinement unless the sentence includes dismissal, nor may he be sentenced to hard labor without confinement in any case.” Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, paragraph 126d. Recently, we held that a substantially similar instruction as it relates to enlisted personnel is erroneous. United States v Varnadore, 9 USCMA 471, 26 CMR 251. Although it recognizes the similarity in instruction, the Government contends that the status of officers is sufficiently different from that of enlisted persons to compel a different conclusion. We are not convinced. The correctness of an instruction is not measured by the military rank of the accused.

Error in an instruction does not itself justify reversal. We must determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the court was misled by the erroneous instruction. If there is no fair risk that the error misled the court, or adversely influenced it in its deliberations, the error may be disregarded. United States v Mamaluy, 10 USCMA 102, 27 CMR 176; United States v Moynihan, 1 USCMA 333, 3 CMR 67. Unlike *Varnadore,*the record of trial here does *154not indicate that the court-martial was confused as to its power over the sentence. Nor, under the circumstances of the case, is there a reasonable possibility that the erroneous instruction caused the court to adjudge dismissal as part of the sentence. United States v Horowitz, 10 USCMA 120, 27 CMR 194. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

FERGUSON, Judge

(concurring):

Although I dissented in United States v Horowitz, 10 USCMA 120, 27 CMR 194, it has fixed the law and, therefore, I concur.

Latimer, Judge

(concurring in the result) :

I concur in the result.

I agree that there was no prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused. In the cited case of United States v Varnadore, 9 USCMA 471, 26 CMR 251, and in United States v Holt, 9 USCMA 476, 26 CMR 256, which involved a somewhat similar instruction, I dissented and I have not changed my belief that the instruction sets out a correct principle of military law. However, in the case at bar, the disposition ordered makes it unnecessary for me to go beyond the views I stated in the above mentioned cases.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8694 

To amend title 4, United States Code, to permit the flag of the United 

States to be flown at half-staff in the event of the death of the Mayor 

of the District of Columbia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2024 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 4, United States Code, to permit the flag 

of the United States to be flown at half-staff in the 

event of the death of the Mayor of the District of Columbia. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FLYING FLAG OF UNITED STATES AT HALF4 STAFF IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF THE 

5 MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

6 Section 7(m) of title 4, United States Code, is amend7 ed— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8694 IH

1 (1) in the fourth sentence, by striking ‘‘Govern2 ment and the Governor of a State, territory, or pos3 session,’’ and inserting ‘‘Government, the Governor 

4 of a State, territory, or possession, and the Mayor 

5 of the District of Columbia,’’; and 

6 (2) in the eighth sentence, by striking ‘‘or the 

7 Governor of a State, territory, or possession;’’ and 

8 inserting ‘‘, the Governor of a State, territory, or 

9 possession, or the Mayor of the District of Colum10 bia;’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highland Hospitality Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James L. Francis, President and 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 to the best of my knowledge: 

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

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

Date: May 9, 2007
```

                                                            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 Great Wall Acquisition
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
2004 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I Kin Shing Li, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and
Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Sec. 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.

By:  /s/ Kin Shing Li                               Dated: November 15, 2004
    -----------------------------------------------
        Kin Shing Li
        Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary
        (Principal Executive and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```
## NUMBER 13

- 2 1

- 00 229

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF A.D.A. , A CHILD

On a ppeal from the 430th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s third motion for extension to file

appellant’s brief. Appellant requests a five

- day extension from the current due date of

October 12 , 2021.

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant’s motion is of the

opinion that the motion should be granted. The Court, however, requires strict adherence

to the briefi ng rules in appeals of parental termination cases, such as this appeal, and

looks with disfavor upon the delay caused by such extension requests. See T EX

. R. A PP

.2 P. 38.6; see also id . at R. 28.4.

It is therefore ordered that the Honorable Victoria Guerra

, counsel for appellant,

file the appellate brief with this Court by October 1 8 , 2021. No fu rther motions for

extension will be granted.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

14 th day of October, 2021.