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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2130 Referred in House (RFH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2130

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 1996

          Referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To extend certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities to Hong Kong 
                      Economic and Trade Offices.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES 
              TO HONG KONG ECONOMIC AND TRADE OFFICES.

    (a) Application of International Organizations Immunities Act.--The 
provisions of the International Organizations Immunities Act may be 
extended to the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices in the same 
manner, to the same extent, and subject to the same conditions, as such 
provisions may be extended to a public international organization in 
which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under 
the authority of any Act of Congress authorizing such participation or 
making an appropriation for such participation.
    (b) Application of International Agreement on Certain State and 
Local Taxation.--The President is authorized to apply the provisions of 
Article I of the Agreement on State and Local Taxation of Foreign 
Employees of Public International Organizations, done at Washington on 
April 21, 1994, to the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices.
    (c) Definition.--The term ``Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices'' 
refers to Hong Kong's official economic and trade missions in the 
United States.

            Passed the Senate September 28, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
exv10w42






Exhibit 10.42




	 	 	 

	Title (Version Date):

	 	(Corrected and Restated) Amendment to Amended
and Restated Servicer Advance Early
Reimbursement Mechanics Addendum dated May 1,
2011 (the “Addendum”)
	 
	 	 
	Description:

	 	Fannie Mae will provide Servicer with early
reimbursement of certain underlying servicing
advances, and Fannie Mae will recoup such early
reimbursement amounts from future recoveries.
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	Following a transfer to the Servicer by
Flagstar Capital Markets Corporation of the
servicing rights on certain loans effective
September 1, 2011, Fannie Mae will provide
Servicer with early reimbursement for 95% of
P&I Delinquency Advances and 85% of T&I
Servicing Advances and Corporate Servicing
Advances applicable to the outstanding Legacy
Advances on such loans (“Flagstar II Legacy
Advances”), as provided in the Addendum. These
reimbursement obligations are separate and
distinct from those applicable to the “Flagstar
Legacy Advances” as defined in the Addendum.
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	This (Corrected and Restated) Amendment to
Amended and Restated Servicer Advance Early
Reimbursement Mechanics Addendum dated May 1,
2011 supersedes and replaces in its entirety
that version previously executed by the parties
on August 29 and 30, 2011.
	 
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Indicative Terms

	 	See attached Exhibit 1.






	 	 	 	 	 

	Nationstar Mortgage LLC	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Gregory A. Oniu	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:

	 	SVP	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:

	 	9/19/11	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Fannie Mae	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Leslie Peeler	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:

	 	VP	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:

	 	9/20/11	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 







 









 








Exhibit 1

(Corrected and Restated)



The Amended and Restated Servicer Advance Early Reimbursement Mechanics Addendum dated May 1, 2011,
by and between Fannie Mae and Nationstar Mortgage LLC, shall be amended and supplemented, effective
September 1, 2011, as follows:





	 	1.	 	The Section of the Addendum titled “Eligible Advances for Early Reimbursement”
shall be supplemented to additionally provide the following:
	 
	 	 	 	“Eligible Advances shall also include (unless stated otherwise) any outstanding
Servicing Advances made by Flagstar Capital Markets Corporation in connection with the
loans on which the servicing rights are transferred to Servicer effective September 1,
2011 (the “Flagstar II Legacy Advances.”)
	 
	 	2.	 	The Section of the Addendum titled “Ongoing Reconciliation Period” shall be
supplemented to additionally provide the following at the end of such section:
	 
	 	 	 	“Flagstar II Legacy Advances:
	 
	 	 	 	95% of P&I Delinquency Advances; and 85% of T&I Servicing Advances and Corporate
Servicing Advances, provided:






(i) Data available to Fannie Mae and the Servicer allow Fannie Mae to identify and
segregate the Flagstar II Legacy Advances in a manner it deems satisfactory in its
sole and absolute discretion, exercised in good faith; and




(ii) The Flagstar II Legacy Advances consist entirely of Servicing Advances of the
type or types specified in the Fannie Mae EAF Data Dictionary.”




2
**Exhibit 32.1** **CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to the requirement set forth in 18 U.S.C.    Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of    the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, Edward M.    Jamison and Patrick Hartman each hereby certify as follows:     1. They are the duly appointed Chief Executive Officer and    Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Community Bancorp, a    Nevada Corporation (the “Company”).     2. Based on their knowledge, the Company’s Annual    Report on Form    10-K for the    year ended December 31, 2007, and to which this    Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the    “Periodic Report”), fully complies with the    requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in    the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,    the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto    as of this 14th day of March, 2008. /s/  Edward    M. Jamison**Edward M. Jamison****President and Chief Executive Officer** /s/  Patrick    Hartman
#### Robert Kale SHAWHAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 38327.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 9, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1965.

No attorney of record on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Don Koons, John Emmett and W. John Allison, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, four days in jail and a fine of $200.00.

Patrolman Wade of the Dallas Police testified that while on duty at 2:45 a. m. on the night in question he observed an automobile approaching a stop sign at a speed in excess of SO miles per hour, that when its brakes were applied he could hear the tires “squealing”, and that after the automobile passed the stop sign it turned off on a service road, came to a halt in the center of such road and extinguished its lights. He stated that he asked the appellant, who was alone, if he was in trouble, and, upon receiving a negative reply, asked appellant to get out of the automobile. When he did Wade observed that he was unsteady on his feet, that his face was flushed and his eyes bloodshot; he also detected an odor of alcohol on his breath and expressed the opinion that appellant’s answers to his questions were “confusing and slurry” and that appellant was intoxicated. Wade testified that he gave appellant an intoximeter test at the scene and that as the result of the visual preliminary color change test, appellant was brought to jail. The chain of custody of the test was proven, and Dr. Mason testified that he made an analysis of the test and found that it indicated that the person who had taken the test had a blood alcohol concentration of .176 per cent, which was indicative of intoxication. The State’s case is in many respects similar to the one before this Court in Jackson v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 262 S.W.2d 499.

Appellant testified that he was suffering from an inflamed wisdom tooth on the day in question, that he was given emergency treatment by his dentist, that he had attended a party that night as a matter of obligation and that while there had consumed two cups of punch, but that he was not intoxicated. In all of this he was corroborated by his dentist and others who had attended the party, but it was proven through them that the punch contained some form of alcohol. Appellant testified that he took his wife home after the party and later in the night went for a drive to relieve his mind from his toothache, that he did not see Patrolman Wade’s patrol car and that he came to a stop off the service road to change his shoes and to think.

The sole question presented for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Without the scientific evidence, a jury might well have considered appellant’s testimony and that of his impressive array of witnesses more favorably, but they have decided the issue adversely to appellant, and we find it sufficient as we did in the case cited above.

The judgment is affirmed.
exhibit 32

 

**FORM OF SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

**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 amended Annual Report of CareDecision Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the year endedJune 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Cox, President/CEO, of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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: September 6, 2005

 

/s/ Robert Cox                              

Robert Cox

President/CEO

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

 

 

**FORM OF SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

**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 amended Annual report of CareDecision Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the year endedJune 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith Berman, Treasurer/CFO, of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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: September 6, 2005

 

/s/ Keith Berman                             

Keith Berman

Treasurer/CFO

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Walter Z. Berger, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A for the periodended August 31, 2003 of Emmis Communications Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 14, 2004   /s/ WALTER Z. BERGER Walter Z. Berger Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARBHAJAN SINGH, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 09-73071 Agency No. A88-590-298
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 10, 2014 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circ uit Judges, and PRATT, Senior District Judge. ** Petitioner Harbhajan Singh (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of India, appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

# FILED
APR 30 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’ s adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner provided inconsistent accounts of his a lleged history of persecution to the Canadian and U.S. immigration authorities, and was unable to supply an adequate and persuasive explanation for the incons istencies. He was also unresponsive on cross-examination and when questioned by the immigration judge. Therefore, we affirm the BIA’s finding that Petitioner was not credible. 1 Furthermore, we agree that the two affidavits Petitioner submitte d in support of his application are by themselves insufficient to establish his asylum eligibility. Since Petitioner did not satisfy the less demanding burden of showing asylum eligibility, we must also concl ude that he failed to shoulder the more stringent clear probability standard applicab le to his withholding of removal claim. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). As for Petitioner’s CAT claim, it must also be rejected as it was based on the same evidence that the

1 We further conclude that the admission of the Canadian immigration documents was not fundamentally unfair such that it violated Petitioner’s due process rights. See Sanchez v. Holder , 704 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2012). 2BIA concluded was insufficient to establish Petitioner’s asylum eligibility. See id. at 1157. Accordingly, the petition is DENIED
.

3
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2085 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2085

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize the Capital Guide Service to accept voluntary services.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    That section 441 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (40 
U.S.C. 851) is amended by striking subsection (j) and inserting the 
following:
    ``(j)(1) Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States 
Code, the Capitol Guide Service is authorized to accept voluntary 
personal services.
    ``(2) No person shall be permitted to donate personal services 
under this subsection unless the person has first agreed, in writing, 
to waive any claim against the United States arising out of or in 
connection with such services, other than a claim under chapter 81 of 
title 5, United States Code.
    ``(3) No person donating personal services under this section shall 
be considered an employee of the United States for any purpose other 
than for purposes of chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code.
    ``(4) In no case shall the acceptance of personal services under 
this section result in the reduction of pay or displacement of any 
employee of the Capitol Guide Service.''.

            Passed the Senate September 17, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2085

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To authorize the Capital Guide Service to accept voluntary services.
```
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bear Staffing, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 949 C.D. 2020

:

Shawn Logan (Workers' :

Compensation Appeal Board), :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, December 6, 2021

, upon consideration of P etitioner’s

application for re argument

, t he application is denied.
<PAGE>   1
   
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

        We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of this Registration Statement on Form S-3 of our report
dated December 19, 1995 appearing on page 27 of General Automation, Inc.'s
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1995. We also
consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Prospectus.



                                                   /s/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
                                                   --------------------------
                                                       PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
February 5, 1996
Order 2011-12-5

Served: December 14, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 14th of December, 2011

Essential Air Service at

PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

 DOCKET DOT-OST-2011-0138

Summary

By this Order, the Department of Transportation extends the Essential Air Service (EAS) 

obligation of Mesaba Aviation and Pinnacle Airlines, d/b/a Delta Connection (Delta), at Pierre, 

South Dakota, for an additional 30 days, through January 15, 2012.

Background

On July 15, 2011, Delta filed a 90-day notice with the Department of its intent to terminate its 

subsidy-free service at 24 communities, including Pierre, South Dakota, effective October 13, 

2011. By Order 2011-11-4, November 2, 2011, we required Delta to continue to provide EAS at 

Pierre. As required by 49 U.S.C. 41734, we are extending Delta’s service obligation for an 

initial 30-day period, through January 15, 2012. 

This Order is issued under authority assigned in 14 CFR 385.12(k)(5).

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We require Mesaba Aviation and Pinnacle Airlines, operating as Delta Connection, to 

maintain its current level of service Pierre, as set forth in Appendix A through January 15, 2012;

2. We direct Mesaba and Pinnacle Airlines to retain all books, records, and other source and 

summary documentation to support subsidy claims for payment, and to preserve and maintain 

such documentation in a manner that readily permits its audit and examination by representatives 

of the Department. Such documentation shall be retained for seven years from when subsidized 

EAS began or until the Department indicates that the records may be destroyed, whichever 

comes first. Copies of flight logs for aircraft sold or disposed of must be retained. The carrier 

may forfeit its compensation for any claim that is not supported under the terms of this Order;
- 2 -

3. This Docket will remain open until further order of the Department; and

4. We will serve copies of this Order on the Mayor and airport manager of Pierre, South Dakota, 

Mesaba Aviation, and Pinnacle Airlines.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this Order under the Department’s 

Aviation Economic Regulations, 14 CFR 385.50, must file such petitions within ten (10) days 

after the date of service of this order.

This order will be effective immediately, and the filing of a petition for review shall not preclude 

its effectiveness.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director, Office

of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available at

www.regulations.gov
Essential Air Service to be Maintained at Pierre, South Dakota

Effective Period: December 20, 2011, until through January 15, 2012

Scheduled Service: Twelve nonstop round trip per week to Minneapolis

Aircraft: CRJ, 50 seats