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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9294 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9294

To encourage the Secretary of the Army to support the implementation of 
hybrid-electric engine technology within the High Mobility Multipurpose 
             Wheeled Vehicle fleet, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2024

 Ms. Slotkin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To encourage the Secretary of the Army to support the implementation of 
hybrid-electric engine technology within the High Mobility Multipurpose 
             Wheeled Vehicle fleet, 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. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON USE OF HYBRID-ELECTRIC ENGINE 
              TECHNOLOGY IN MILITARY WHEELED VEHICLES.

    It is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) the use of hybrid-electric propulsion technology in 
        military wheeled vehicles has been shown to provide enhanced 
        lethality to warfighters compared to the use of conventional 
        engine technology in such vehicles; and
            (2) the Secretary of the Army should support efforts to 
        implement hybrid-electric engine technology within the High 
        Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle fleet of the Army.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 13.2**



**CERTIFICATION**



In connection with the annual report of Dunxin Financial Holdings Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2022 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officer does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to such officer’s knowledge:







| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 23, 2023







|*/s/ Xiang Zhou*                                                            | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name: Xiang Zhou                                                            | 
|Title: Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) | 









The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 4058

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MICKEL L. MARZOUK , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. M. Hannah Lauck , District Judge. ( 3:15

- cr
- 00052

- MHL

- 1 )

Submitted : September 3, 2019 Decided: September 11, 2019

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Amy Austin, LAW OFFICE OF AMY L. AUSTIN, PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant Unit ed States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mickel L. Marzouk pled guilty to two counts of brandishing a firearm in furtheranc e of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012), and aiding and abetting in those crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2012). On appeal , Marzouk argues that Hobbs Act robbery, the offense underlying his § 924(c) convictions, does not qualify as a crime of violence. Finding no error, we affirm.
“We review de novo the question whether an offense qualifies as a crime of
violence.” United States v. Mathis , 932 F.3d 242, 263 (4th Cir. 2019) . A crime of violence for § 924(c) purposes is defined as a felony offense that : (A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another [(the “force clause”)], or (B) that[,] by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense [(the “residual clause”)]. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). We previously declared that § 924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague.
United States v. Simms , 914 F.3d 229, 237 (4th Cir. 2019) (en banc), pet. for cert. filed , 87 U.S.L.W. 3427 (U.S. Apr. 24, 2019) (No. 18

- 1338); accord United States v. Davis , 139
S. Ct. 2319 , 2336 (2019). How ever, we recently held that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as
a crime of violence under the force clause of § 924(c)(A)

. Mathis , 932 F.3d at 265

- 66

. A ccordingly, the district court did not err in rejecting Marzouk’s arguments to the contrary.
W e affirm t he district court’s judgment. W e dispense with oral argument because3 the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 8.01**

Our subsidiaries, each of which is incorporated under the laws of the Federative Republic of Brazil, are listed below. 

Imobiliária Araucaria Ltda. 

Imobiliária Cajueiro Ltda. 

Imobiliária Ceibo Ltda. 

Imobiliária Cremaq Ltda. 

Imobiliária Engenho de Maracaju Ltda. 

Imobiliária Flamboyant Ltda. 

Imobiliária Mogno Ltda. 

Jaborandi Agrícola Ltda. 

Imobiliária Jaborandi Ltda. 

Imobiliária Ipê Ltda.

FIM Guardian – Fundo de Investimento Multimercado Crédito o Privado Exclusivo Guardian—Guardian Multi Strategy (aka Hedge Fund) Private Debt Securities Exclusive Fund. 

* FIM Guardian is a opened-end investment fund, intended to receive applications exclusively from BrasilAgro’s resources
No. 64262.

protests 228040-K, etc. (New York).

#### Elvic Import Corp. et al. v. United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of veils or veilings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Elvic Import Corp.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 13, C.D. 1837), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RAYMOND ROBINSON, Specialist Five, U. S. Army, Appellant

15 USCMA 492, 35 CMR 464

No. 18,649

July 23, 1965

*Colonel Joseph L. Chalk, Lieutenant Colonel Jacob Hagopian,*and *Captain Frank J. Martin, Jr.,*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*493
      *Colonel Edwin G. Shuck, Captain John C. Cortesio, Jr.,*and *Captain Charles M. Pallesen, Jr.,*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Tried by general court-martial, the accused was found guilty of larceny, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921, and conspiracy to commit larceny, in violation of Code, supra, Article 81, 10 USC § 881. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for twelve months. Intermediate appellate authorities affirmed, and we granted accused’s petition for review upon the issue whether the law officer erred prejudicially in advising the court-martial that accused’s alleged mistake of fact, in order to be a defense to the crimes charged, must be both honest and reasonable. Cf. United States v Walters, 10 USCMA 598, 28 CMR 164; United States v Sicley, 6 USCMA 402, 20 CMR 118; United States v Rowan, 4 USCMA 430, 16 CMR 4.

Examination of the record reveals that, after delivery of the erroneous instruction, defense counsel commendably called the law officer’s attention to his utilization of an incorrect standard. The law officer immediately agreed, withdrew the improper instruction, and substituted therefor an advice in which he emphasized that accused’s mistake need only be honest in order to constitute a complete defense. In light of this action, the effect of the earlier and erroneous instruction was clearly cured, and the case was considered by the court members under the proper standard.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PennantPark Floating Rate Capital Ltd. (the “Company”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Arthur H. Penn, as Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge 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 Registrant.

 

| /s/ Arthur H. Penn |
|--------------------|
| Name:              |   | Arthur H. Penn |
| Title:             |   | Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:              |   | November 14, 2018 |
# C_2007265EN.01000301.xml

| 7.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 265/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 265/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 November 2007

(2007/C 265/05)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4547 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 166,90 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4542 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69685 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2500 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6658 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 85,36 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7800 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5842 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,950 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 252,22 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7024 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,6377 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,3760 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,185 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7059 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5695 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3482 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,2932 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8733 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1058 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 321,01 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,4697 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,8419 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3434 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 263,23 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8551 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,432 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 35,7680 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,820 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4547

JPY

Japanese yen

166,90

DKK

Danish krone

7,4542

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69685

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2500

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6658

ISK

Iceland króna

85,36

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7800

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5842

CZK

Czech koruna

26,950

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

252,22

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7024

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,6377

RON

Romanian leu

3,3760

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,185

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7059

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5695

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3482

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,2932

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8733

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1058

KRW

South Korean won

1 321,01

ZAR

South African rand

9,4697

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,8419

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3434

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 263,23

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8551

PHP

Philippine peso

63,432

RUB

Russian rouble

35,7680

THB

Thai baht

45,820

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the accompanying Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin Landis, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



(1) 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



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



|Date: March 16, 2020 | By: | /s/ Kevin Landis              | 
|-------------------- | --- | ----------------------------- | 
|                     |     | Kevin Landis                  | 
|                     |     | Chief Executive Officer       | 
|                     |     | (Principal Executive Officer) | 











Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the accompanying Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Omar Billawala, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



(1) 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



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



|Date: March 16, 2020 | By: | /s/ Omar Billawala            | 
|-------------------- | --- | ----------------------------- | 
|                     |     | Omar Billawala                | 
|                     |     | Chief Financial Officer       | 
|                     |     | (Principal Financial Officer) |
Case: 2:11-cv-01080-EAS-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 10/16/12 Page: 1 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-01080-EAS-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 10/16/12 Page: 2 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-01080-EAS-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 10/16/12 Page: 3 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T10:31:30-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
# C_2007238EN.01000502.xml

| 10.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4793 — Lafarge/Etex/Gyplac JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 238/03)

On 3 September 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4793. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4793. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
No. 47502.

#### Protest 33899-K of Lea & Perrins, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The plaintiff’s uncontradicted testimony showed that the merchandise is salted anchovies and belongs to the herring family; that the anchovies were dry-packed in salt in wooden barrels; that the weight of the fish in each barrel was about 120 to 130 pounds; and that the combined weight of the immediate container and the fish was 150 pounds. In view of the appraiser’s amended return that the merchandise is dutiable as claimed, on the record presented, and following *Ways*v. *United States (G.*A. 7151, T. D. 31204) the court held the salted anchovies dutiable at the rate of *%*of 1 cent per pound net weight under the provision of paragraph 719 (4) as amended by the United Kingdom Trade Agreement (T. D. 49753) for “herring, whether or not boned, in immediate containers weighing with their contents more than fifteen pounds each and containing each more than ten pounds of herring, net weight: * * * valued at 6 cents or more per pound,” as claimed.
# C_2007235EN.01002401.xml

| 6.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/24

---

Action brought on 14 August 2007 — Hansgrohe v OHIM (AIRSHOWER)

(Case T-307/07)

(2007/C 235/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hansgrohe AG (Schiltach, Germany) (represented by S. Weidert and J. Zehnsdorf, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 31 May 2007 in Appeal No R 1281/2006-1 concerning trade mark Application No 4 869 319; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 31 May 2007 in Appeal No R 1281/2006-1 concerning trade mark Application No 4 869 319;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘AIRSHOWER’ for goods in class 11 (Application No 4 869 319).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: partial rejection of the Application.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the Appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), because the sign applied for is of a distinctive character and is not descriptive.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2007315EN.01004102.xml

| 22.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/41

---

Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Alber v OHIM (part of hand grip)

(Case T-391/07)

(2007/C 315/78)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Alfons Alber (Vöran, Italy) (represented by: S. Schneller, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 August 2007 and the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 January 2007 in so far as those decisions reject registration of Community trade mark No 4 396 727 in respect of the goods ‘manually operated tools for agricultural, horticultural and forestry activities, including garden shears, tree pruning shears, hedge clippers; manually operated secateurs ...’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 August 2007 and the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 January 2007 in so far as those decisions reject registration of Community trade mark No 4 396 727 in respect of the goods ‘manually operated tools for agricultural, horticultural and forestry activities, including garden shears, tree pruning shears, hedge clippers; manually operated secateurs ...’;

| — | hold oral proceedings before the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

hold oral proceedings before the Court of First Instance;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

| — | in the alternative, remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: three-dimensional trade mark ‘Part of hand grip’ in respect of goods in Classes 6 and 8 (application No 4 396 727)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: refusal in part of the application.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of the principle laid down in the first sentence of Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) that the Office examines the facts of its own motion and infringement of Article 7 of that regulation. In the alternative, failure to the state reasons on which a decision is based pursuant to the first sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2008242EN.01000701.xml

| 23.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/7

---

Notice of publication of Special Report No 6/2008 ‘European Commission Rehabilitation Aid following the Tsunami and Hurricane Mitch’

(2008/C 242/06)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 6/2008 ‘European Commission Rehabilitation Aid following the Tsunami and Hurricane Mitch’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: www.eca.europa.eu

A hard copy or a CD-ROM version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Communication and Reports Unit |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| L-1615 Luxembourg |
| Tel. (352) 43 98-1 |
| E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Communication and Reports Unit

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

L-1615 Luxembourg

Tel. (352) 43 98-1

E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---