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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 141 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 141

                  Honoring the life of Betty Shabazz.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2007

  Mr. Rangel submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
                  Honoring the life of Betty Shabazz.

Whereas the United States honors Betty Shabazz as a wife, mother, educator, and 
        advocate for civil and human rights, women, and the poor;
Whereas Betty Shabazz, through her life and deeds, has been an inspiration to 
        people around the world;
Whereas Betty Shabazz was a woman of strength, resilience, perseverance, and 
        grace who overcame the greatest of challenges;
Whereas Betty Shabazz was born Betty Sanders in Detroit, Michigan, on May 28, 
        1936;
Whereas Betty Shabazz met and married the controversial activist and leader El-
        Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X) in New York in 1958;
Whereas on February 21, 1965, while pregnant with twins, Betty Shabazz and their 
        four daughters witnessed Malcolm X's assassination;
Whereas Betty Shabazz exhibited her resiliency and determination as a single 
        mother, raising and educating her six daughters, Attallah, Qubilah, 
        Ilyasah, Gamilah, and twins Malikah and Malaak;
Whereas Betty Shabazz found the time to become certified as a registered nurse, 
        and to later earn bachelor's and master's degrees and, finally, a 
        doctorate in education administration from the University of 
        Massachusetts;
Whereas Betty Shabazz joined the administrative staff of Medgar Evers College in 
        Brooklyn, New York, rising to high positions;
Whereas, while preserving the public memory of her late husband, Betty Shabazz 
        earned a reputation of her own, as an educator, public speaker, and 
        advocate for women, education, and civil and human rights;
Whereas on June 23, 1997, Betty Shabazz succumbed to injuries suffered in a 
        tragic fire;
Whereas Betty Shabazz personified the roles of wife, mother, and professional 
        woman; and
Whereas Betty Shabazz will be forever remembered for her love of family, her 
        commitment to humankind, and for the joy and laughter she brought to all 
        those who knew her: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That Congress honors the life of Betty Shabazz.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 22-60390

Summary Calendar

____________

Maria Del Carmen Salmeron-Acosta; Fernando De Jesus 

Salmeron-Acosta, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A209 893 934

Agency No. A209 893 935

______________________________

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Maria Del Carmen Salmeron-Acosta and her son, Fernando De Jesus 

Salmeron-Acosta, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s 

(BIA) decision dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 12, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60390 Document: 00516609076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2023
No. 22-60390

2

denial of Maria’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

Fernando is a derivative of his mother’s application for asylum. 

We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the IJ’s underlying 

decision only if it impacted the BIA’s decision, as it did here. See Sharma v. 

Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Findings of fact, including the 

denial of asylum and withholding of removal, are reviewed under the 

substantial evidence standard. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224

(5th Cir. 2019). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Sharma, 729 

F.3d at 411.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s holding that SalmeronAcosta’s proposed particular social group (PSG) of “Salvadoran females 

who have been victims of rape by an older man and have suffered emotional, 

physical[,] and physiological hardships” is not cognizable because it is 

impermissibly defined by the harm. See Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 232. 

Because Salmeron-Acosta’s failure to show a cognizable PSG is dispositive 

of her asylum and withholding of removal claims, see id. at 224, the rest of her 

issues concerning asylum and withholding of removal need not be addressed, 

see INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and 

agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 

unnecessary to the results they reach.”). Salmeron-Acosta has abandoned 

her arguments concerning due process and prosecutorial discretion because 

she inadequately briefed them. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 

446 (5th Cir. 2010); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (requiring briefs to 

include an argument containing “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for 

them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the 

appellant relies”). 

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. 

Case: 22-60390 Document: 00516609076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2023
Exhibit 13.1

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code), each undersigned officer of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2017 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |        |  |                                     
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: 19 March 2018 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Carlos Brito                    
|                    |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Carlos Brito                        
|                    |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer             
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: 19 March 2018 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Felipe Dutra                    
|                    |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Felipe Dutra                        
|                    |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial & Technology Officer
# C_2015118EN.01002101.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/21

---

Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Global Steel Wire, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10 and in Case T-438/12 Global Steel Wire v Commission

(Case C-56/15 P)

(2015/C 118/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Global Steel Wire, S.A. (represented by: F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10 and in Case T-438/12 Global Steel Wire v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10 and in Case T-438/12 Global Steel Wire v Commission;

Global Steel Wire

Commission

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.

The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in assessing the legal interest of Global Steel Wire in bringing proceedings, as regards both the action for annulment in Case T-578/10 against the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel), and the amendment of the pleas in law and forms of order sought in Case T-429/10 in relation to the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel).

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

ARIEL UMARA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Case No.: 2:12-cv-1119 

 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge King 

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

 ORDER 

 On November 12, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed and that this 

action be dismissed. (Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 24). This matter is now before the 

Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to that Report and Recommendation. (Objection, Doc. No. 25). 

The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

 The objections present, once again, the issues presented to and considered by the 

Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. Specifically, Plaintiff objects to the 

Administrative Law Judge’s failure to delay the hearing until after Plaintiff’s neurologist’s 

appointment. As the Magistrate Judge acknowledged, Plaintiff has failed to offer any 

explanation as to why he waited so long to schedule the recommended neurological consultation. 

It was Plaintiff’s burden to establish disability. For the reasons stated in the Report and 

Recommendation, this Court finds that the objections are without merit. 

Case: 2:12-cv-01119-GCS-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 01/10/14 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 24, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

Plaintiff’s Objections are hereby overruled. The Clerk is instructed to enter final judgment in 

favor of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security. 

 The Clerk shall remove Document 24 from the Court’s pending motions list. 

 The Clerk shall remove this case from the Court’s pending cases list. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 /s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:12-cv-01119-GCS-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 01/10/14 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
<PAGE>
 
                    THE UNION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES                Item 6
 
                       Computation of Primary and Fully               Exhibit 11
                    Diluted Earnings Per Share (Unaudited)
 
               (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      Three Months Ended September 30,
                                                       ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    1996                           1995
                                                       -----------------------------  ----------------------------- 
                                                         Number    Income               Number    Income
                                                           of      Net of  Per Share      of      Net of  Per Share
                                                         Shares    Taxes    Amount      Shares    Taxes    Amount
                                                       ---------  -------  ---------  ---------  -------  --------- 
<S>                                                    <C>        <C>      <C>        <C>        <C>      <C>
Primary Earnings:
-----------------
Average common shares (based
 on weighted average number
 of shares outstanding)                                5,683,499                      5,580,617
 
Common stock equivalents
 (stock options)                                         225,702                        140,200
                                                       ---------                      ---------
Net income                                             5,909,201   $1,557    $.26     5,720,817   $1,077    $.19
                                                       =========   ======    ====     =========   ======    ====
 
Fully Diluted Earnings:
-----------------------
Average common shares (based
  on weighted average number
  of shares outstanding)                               5,683,499                      5,580,617
 
Common stock equivalents
  (stock options)                                        229,980                        142,530
                                                       ---------                      ---------
Net income                                             5,913,479   $1,557    $.26     5,723,147   $1,077    $.19
                                                       =========   ======    ====     =========   ======    ====
 
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act





I, Stuart Ducote, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of United Mortgage Trust (the "Company"), have executed this certification for furnishing to the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the filing with the Commission of the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the "Report"). I hereby certify 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 as of and for the end of that period.


UNITED MORTGAGE TRUSTDate: May 16, 2011
By
/s/ Stuart DucotePresident
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,083,761
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                        1,083,761
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                          1,083,761
<EQUITIES>                                       1,781
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,085,542
<CASH>                                          30,341
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              73,328
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          11,145
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,479,012
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                418,638
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            232,921
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                146,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    224,950
<COMMON>                                        71,778
<OTHER-SE>                                     302,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,479,012
<PREMIUMS>                                     193,501
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             18,332
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               3,234
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                     152,409
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     10,149
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             6,903
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,768
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,868
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,868
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2015389EN.01002001.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 11 September 2015 — Ibrica Zulfikarpašić v Slaven Gajer

(Case C-484/15)

(2015/C 389/21)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Referring court

Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu, Stalna služba u Samoboru

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ibrica Zulfikarpašić

Applicant:

Defendant: Slaven Gajer

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

A ruling is sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union as to whether the provisions of the Law on Enforcement, concerning the European Enforcement Order, comply with Regulation (EC) No 805/2004, (1) that is to say whether, in the Republic of Croatia in relation to the issue of a writ of execution based on an authentic document in enforcement proceedings, the term ‘court’ includes notaries, whether notaries can issue European Enforcement Orders in respect of definitive and enforceable writs of execution based on authentic documents when those writs have not been contested, and where the answer is in the negative, whether the courts can issue European Enforcement Orders in respect of writs of execution based on an authentic document prepared by a notary, when the content of those writs relates to uncontested claims, and in such a case what form should be used.

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15).

1

---
#### Commonwealth *v.*Belote, Appellant.

*Criminal law*— Narcotic *drugs*— Sale *and possession*— Evidence *—Sufficiency.*

In the trial of an indictment for the sale and possession of narcotic drugs a verdict of guilty will be sustained, where the Commonwealth produced evidence of several witnesses who testified that they had purchased the narcotics from the defendant.

Argued December 4, 1924.

Appeal, No. 288, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment and sentence of Q. S. Phila. Co., Aug. T., 1924, No. 406, on verdict of guilty in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Bernard

Belote. Before Orlady, F. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Indictment for the sale and possession of narcotic drugs. Before McDevitt, J.

From the record it appeared that the Commonwealth produced several witnesses who testified that they had purchased cocaine or heroin from the defendant; and also that other witnesses had seen him selling or attempting to sell drugs.

Verdict of guilty on which judgment of sentence was passed. Defendant appealed.

*443February 27, 1925:

*Errors assigned*were various rulings on evidence, the charge of the court, answers to points and refusal of defendant’s motion for a new trial.

*Edward O. Thomas,*for appellant.

*Warren C. Graham,*Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Per Curiam,

The evidence in this case is limited to the few. witnesses who testified very convincingly as to the material facts. The verdict rendered was the only one consistent with the testimony, and there is nothing in this record to justify a reversal of the judgment. The case was fairly submitted in a charge that was free from error.

The judgment is affirmed.
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 Argan, Inc. , a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Rainer Bosselmann, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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 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.    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
            respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
            Company.


Date: September 11, 2006             By: /s/ Rainer Bosselmann
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Rainer Bosselmann
                                         Chairman of the Board and
                                         Chief Executive Officer