alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0102. JAQUENETTE D. RUCKER-MASON v. DBI/ASI/MTG

HOLDINGS, LLC.

Jaquenette Rucker-Mason filed this application for discretionary appeal

seeking review of an order entered by the Fayette County Magistrate Court in this

dispossessory action. “The only avenue of appeal available fromthe magistrate court

judgment is provided by OCGA § 15-10-41 (b) (1), which allowsfor a de novo appeal

to the state or superior court.” Handler v. Hulsey, 199 Ga. App. 751, 751 (406 SE2d

225) (1991). This Court thus may address magistrate court matters only if they

already have been reviewed by the state or superior court. See Westwind Corp. v.

Washington Fed. S & L Assn., 195 Ga. App. 411, 411 (393 SE2d 479) (1990).

The Georgia Constitution provides that “[a]ny court shall transfer to the

appropriate court in the state any civil case in which it determines that jurisdiction or

venue lies elsewhere.” Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. VIII; Bosma v.

Gunter, 258 Ga. 664, 665 (373 SE2d 368) (1988). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Fayette County State Court.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/19/2015

November 19, 2015
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4045

To confer United States citizenship posthumously on Rudolph Salli.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1994

Mr. POMBO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To confer United States citizenship posthumously on

Rudolph Salli.

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

3 SECTION 1. CITIZENSHIP FOR RUDOLPH SALLI.

4 Rudolph Salli, a native of Finland who was employed

5 in the service of the United States during World War II,

6 shall be held and considered to have been a citizen of the

7 United States at the time of his death.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2



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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of UBI Blockchain
Internet, LTD (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended February 28, 2017, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Chan Cheung, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | i. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | ii. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 21, 2017





/s/ Chan Cheung

Chan Cheung,

(Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3594 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3594

To prohibit direct Federal financial benefits and unemployment benefits 
                           to illegal aliens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 20, 1993

   Mr. Sangmeister introduced the following bill; which was referred 
     jointly to the Committees on the Judiciary and Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit direct Federal financial benefits and unemployment benefits 
                           to illegal aliens.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF DIRECT FEDERAL FINANCIAL BENEFITS AND 
              UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS.

    (a) In General.--On and after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no direct Federal 
financial benefit or social insurance benefit may be paid or otherwise 
given to any person not lawfully present in the United States, except 
emergency medical assistance or pursuant to a provision of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act.
    (b) Unemployment Benefits.--No alien who has not been granted 
employment authorization pursuant to Federal law shall be eligible for 
unemployment benefits.
    (c) Construction.--This section shall not apply to the provision of 
foreign aid to aliens abroad.
    (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``person 
not lawfully within the United States'' means any person who at the 
time the person applies for, receives, or attempts to receive a Federal 
financial benefit or social insurance benefit is not a United States 
citizen, a permanent resident alien, an asylee, a refugee, a parolee, 
or a nonimmigrant in status.

SEC. 2. VERIFICATION OF IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ALIENS APPLYING FOR 
              BENEFITS UNDER CERTAIN FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
carrying out the prohibition under section 1, the head of each Federal 
agency which provides a direct Federal financial benefit or social 
insurance benefit shall utilize the immigration status verification 
system of such Federal Agency or the Systematic Alien Verification For 
Entitlements Program (SAVE) of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service to determine the immigration status of aliens applying for any 
such benefit.
    (b) Notification to INS.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, the head of each Federal agency which provides a direct Federal 
financial benefit or social insurance benefit shall notify the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding applications for such 
benefits by persons not lawfully within the United States.

                                 <all>
```
**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 this Annual Report of BMB Munai, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gamal Kulumbetov, 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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date: June 16, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Gamal Kulumbetov                      |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|                |   | Gamal Kulumbetov, Chief Executive Officer |
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 27 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-170695) and Amendment No. 438 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.







/s/ Ernst & Young LLP



















Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


November 16, 2016
SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST (SNT) ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION 

Purpose: A legal instrument to specifically direct payment of a Survivor Benefit Plan annuity for a dependent 

child to a SNT under Public Law 113-291

SECTION I - MEMBER INFORMATION

1. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial) 2. BRANCH OF SERVICE

3. CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS

a. STREET ADDRESS b. CITY c. STATE d. ZIP CODE

SECTION II – DEPENDENT CHILD INFORMATION

3. DEPENDENT CHILD’S NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial)

4.

a. STREET ADDRESS b. CITY c. STATE d. ZIP CODE

SECTION III – PRACTICING ATTORNEY INFORMATION

 5. 

a. NAME b. STATE LICENSED TO PRACTICE

c. STATE BAR NUMBER

I certify that I prepared a Special Needs Trust (“Trust”) on behalf of the dependent child provided in Section II and that the Trust complies with all 

applicable state and federal laws. 

I understand that if the child named above has previously applied for, or in the future applies for, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or other benefits, 

the Social Security Administration may need to review the SNT and ensure that it is compliant with all applicable state and federal laws. 

d. ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE e. DATE

SECTION IV – NOTARY CERTIFICATION

State of _____________

County of ________________

By my signature, I certify that on this ______ day of _____________, 202___, 

the above named member appeared before me, produced satisfactory evidence of identity and signed this form in my 

presence. The signature on the above statement is verified as the signature of the member. 

Signature of notarial officer:

Title of office:

My commission expires:

 Notary Seal
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-24-00151-CV

BRIAUNNA DANIELS, Appellant

V.

TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION 

AND AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, INC., Appellees

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 48th District Court

of Tarrant County (048-342675-23)

May 23, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 99-60013

__________________

MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER STANDAERT,

Petitioner,

versus

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,

Respondent.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the Determination of the United States Parole Commission

(866602-080)

______________________________________________

December 14, 1999

Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

A court in Mexico found Michael Christopher Standaert

(Standaert) “criminally responsible of a health rel ated crime,

manufacturing and possession of methamphetamine” and sentenced him

to ten years in prison. After serving some of his sentence in

Mexico, Standaert trans ferred to the United States pursuant to a

prisoner transfer treaty to serve the remainder of his sent ence.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4106A, the United States Parole Commission

(Commission) determined that Standaert had to serve the full tenyear sentence.

Standaert now appeals the Commission’s determination, arguing2

that the Commission erred in calculating his offense level because

it used a drug quantity that was contrary to the findings in the

Mexican court’ s judgment. After having reviewed the briefs and

record and hearing oral argument, we conclude that Standaert has

not shown that the Commission’s finding that twenty-four ounces of

methamphetamine should be used to calculate his offense level

constituted “clear error.” S ee Rosier v. United States Parole

Commission, 109 F.3d 212, 214 (5th Cir. 1997) (explaining that this

Court reviews the Commission’s factual findings for clear error).

We therefore AFFIRM the Commission’s determination of Standaert’s

release date.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leo Nixon, Also Known as Neil Nixon, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred Eggert, J.), rendered August 3, 1987, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him as a persistent violent felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 8 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

A new trial is not warranted on the basis of defendant’s unpreserved claim that he was not present while the court, outside of the jury’s presence, considered its response to the jury’s note requesting a read back of testimony. While the requested read back of testimony did not occur until the next day, on appeal defendant cannot establish that he was "seriously prejudiced”. *(People v Lourido,*70 NY2d 428, 435.) Defendant’s absence in and of itself, does not require remedial action, as the proceedings, at which the court merely determined to have the testimony read back the following day, did not implicate defendant’s fundamental right to be present at trial, and counsel’s presence ensured that defendant’s interests were protected. *(People v Rodriguez,*76 NY2d 918, 921; *People v Mullen,*44 NY2d 1.)

Similarly without merit is defendant’s unpreserved claim that his right to be present was violated when the court dismissed the jury for the evening in his absence. The court clerk’s announcement that the defendant’s presence was "waived” did not waive defendant’s right to be present, but counsel’s failure to object was binding on defendant. *(People v Ford,*161 AD2d 262, *lv granted*76 NY2d 892.) The court’s brief remarks that the jury should not deliberate were not a charge on fundamental legal principles *(compare, People v Ciaccio,*47 NY2d 431; *People v Mullen, supra),*and here, unlike the circumstances in *People v Hernandez*(157 AD2d 472, 473), it is possible "to assess the extent to which the court’s instructions and admonitions were accurately communicated to the jury.”

Defendant’s claim that the prosecutor committed error in summation is unpreserved and meritless. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
# C_2018215EN.01026801.xml

| 19.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/268 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/268

---

P8_TA(2016)0393

EU-China Agreement on short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic passports ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 October 2016 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the People's Republic of China on the short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic passports (15470/2015 — C8-0110/2016 — 2015/0293(NLE))

(Consent)

(2018/C 215/51)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (15470/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (15470/2015),

| — | having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the People's Republic of China on the short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic passports (15469/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the People's Republic of China on the short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic passports (15469/2015),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0110/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0110/2016),

| — | having regard to the letter from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the letter from the Committee on Foreign Affairs,

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0281/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0281/2016),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the People’s Republic of China. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the People’s Republic of China.

---
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4044

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to issue regulations for the purchase

and eradication of swine infected with or exposed to brucellosis.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1994

Mr. LANCASTER (for himself, Mr. ROSE, and Mrs. CLAYTON) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to issue regulations

for the purchase and eradication of swine infected with

or exposed to brucellosis.

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

3 SECTION 1. PURCHASE AND ERADICATION OF SWINE IN4 FECTED WITH BRUCELLOSIS.

5 (a) REGULATIONS REQUIRED.—Not later than 30

6 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec7 retary of Agriculture shall issue regulations that authorize

8 the Secretary to purchase and eradicate, in accordance

9 with section 11 of the Act of May 29, 1884 (21 U.S.C.

10 114a), swine infected with or exposed to brucellosis.
2

•HR 4044 IH

1 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—Section 102 of the Food Se2 curity Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–198; 99 Stat. 1366;

3 7 U.S.C. 1446 note) shall apply to the issuance of regula4 tions under subsection (a).

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

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

 

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2021 (the “Report”) of PennantPark Floating Rate Capital, Ltd. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Richard Cheung, Chief Financial 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, 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 Registrant.

 

|                    |        |                         |
|--------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| /s/ Richard Cheung |
| Name:              |   | Richard Cheung          |
| Title:             |   | Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:              |   | February 9, 2022        |

 

 

----
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3915

To prevent States from taxing Federal military retirement annuities while

not taxing State retirement annuities on the basis of whether there

are employee contributions for such annuities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1994

Mr. TORKILDSEN (for himself, Mr. BLUTE, and Mr. STUDDS) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To prevent States from taxing Federal military retirement

annuities while not taxing State retirement annuities on

the basis of whether there are employee contributions

for such annuities.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL CONSENT TO TAX

4 MILITARY RETIREMENT ANNUITIES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 111 of title 4, United

6 States Code, is amended by inserting before the period

7 ‘‘or, in the case of retired or retainer pay payable by rea8 son of service in the uniformed services (as defined in sec-
2

•HR 3915 IH

1 tion 101 of title 10), whether there are employee contribu2 tions toward such pay’’.

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

4 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

5 January 1, 1994.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Clark, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, J.), entered February 13, 1987, convicting defendant after a bench trial of grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *lVs*to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted for snatching a chain and medallion from the neck of a 73 year old man. While the victim’s opportunity to observe the defendant was brief, the identification was not thereby rendered unreliable. *(People v Gonzalez,*61 AD2d 666, *affd*46 NY2d 1011.) The complainant was certain that defendant was the man who took his chain. Furthermore, police officers observed the victim chase the defendant down the street and recover his chain and medallion from between two parked cars along defendant’s at*254tempted route of escape, all of which provided sufficient identification evidence. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.