alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the
requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person for any other purpose.

I, David B. Turner, hereby certify as follows:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Report) of CCF Holding Company (the issuer), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

Dated this 14th day of November, 2008.



/s/ David B. TurnerDavid B. Turner, President and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
has been provided to the issuer and will be retained by the issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Joseph Reyes, Respondent, v Frank Silfies, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and plaintiff’s claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims. We agree. In support of his motion, defendant alleged that he did not direct or control the work that plaintiff performed at his home. Further, defendant submitted portions of plaintiff’s examination before trial wherein plaintiff stated that although defendant told him *980what work to be performed, he did not tell him how to perform the work. An exception is provided from the absolute liability imposed by Labor Law § 240 (1) for owners of one- and two-family dwellings who contract for work to be done on their homes, but who "do not direct or control the work”. Since the record establishes that defendant contracted with plaintiff to perform work on his single-family dwelling, and did not direct plaintiff in the method or manner of the work to be performed, the homeowner’s exception in Labor Law § 240 (1) is applicable *(see, Sotire v Buchanan,*150 AD2d 971; *Schwartz v Foley,*142 AD2d 635, *lv denied*73 NY2d 702). Plaintiff’s mere conclusory allegations that defendant directed or controlled his work are insufficient to defeat summary judgment *(see, Freedman v Chemical Constr. Corp.,*43 NY2d 260, 264).

Additionally, defendant’s permission to plaintiff to use defendant’s ladder does not constitute sufficient control or direction of plaintiff’s work to require denial of summary judgment *(see generally, Claytor v Wilmot & Cassidy,*44 AD2d 564, 565, *affd*34 NY2d 992; *cf., Galbraith v Pike & Son,*18 AD2d 39).

Likewise, plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 claim against defendant must also be dismissed. Labor Law § 200 codifies the common-law duty of owners and contractors to furnish a safe place to work *(see, Allen v Cloutier Constr. Corp.,*44 NY2d 290, 299). For an owner to be held liable under this section, a plaintiff must show that the owner supervised or controlled the work performed or that the owner had actual or constructive notice of the unsafe conditions that caused the accident *(see, DaBolt v Bethlehem Steel Corp.,*92 AD2d 70, 72). Since the record fails to establish that defendant exercised control over plaintiff’s work or that he had knowledge of the unsafe conditions that caused the accident, plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 claim must be dismissed *(see, Sotire v Buchanan, supra).*(Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Willis, J.—partial summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1092

To authorize financial assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1993

Mr. DE LUGO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To authorize financial assistance for the Northern Mariana

Islands, and for other purposes.

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

3 That the Act of March 24, 1976 (Public Law 94–241; 90

4 Stat. 263), as amended, is amended by adding the follow5 ing new section at the end thereof:

6 ‘‘SEC. 6. Pursuant to section 701 of the foregoing

7 Covenant, enactment of this section shall constitute a com8 mitment and pledge of the full faith and credit of the Unit9 ed States for the payment of $120,000,000 of guaranteed

10 amounts of direct grant assistance to the Government of
2

HR 1092 IH

1 the Northern Mariana Islands for capital infrastructure

2 construction for the seven fiscal years 1994 through 2000,

3 which assistance shall be provided according to the Agree4 ment of the Special Representatives on Future Federal Fi5 nancial Assistance of the Northern Mariana Islands, exe6 cuted on December 17, 1992, between the special rep7 resentative of the President of the United States and the

8 special representatives of the Governor of the Northern

9 Mariana Islands.’’.

Æ
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1082 

To prohibit the importation for sale of foreign-made flags of the United 

States of America. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2009 

Mr. BOREN (for himself and Mr. JONES) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To prohibit the importation for sale of foreign-made flags 

of the United States of America. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Genuine American 

5 Flag Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IMPORTATION FOR SALE OF FOREIGN-MADE AMER7 ICAN FLAGS PROHIBITED. 

8 Beginning 6 months after the date of the enactment 

9 of this Act, no flag of the United States of America (re10 gardless of size and whether or not in compliance with 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1082 IH

1 the standard proportions prescribed by Executive order) 

2 that is the product or manufacture of any foreign country 

3 or instrumentality may be imported for sale into the 

4 United States. 

Æ 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 21755.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 19, 1941.

Wallace Hughston, of McKinney, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for driving an automobile upon the public highway while appellant was intoxicated. Punishment was assessed at a fine of fifty dollars and five days in jail.

The record contains no bills of exception or statement of facts. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             656
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  158,179
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               158,835
<PP&E>                                       8,235,684
<DEPRECIATION>                                 980,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,413,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,680
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,413,742
<SALES>                                        875,752
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               880,743
<CGS>                                          191,587
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  635,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                245,313
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            245,313
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   245,313
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 0**  **9 -**  **2 119** 

OSCAR L. SHAW , Plaintiff

– Appell ant ,

v. DOUGLAS A. CHURDAR, PC Law Firm; DAVID T. RHENEY, Esq

. Attorney Nationwide; GARRISON HILL, Judge , Defendant s – Appell e e s .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Henry F. Floyd , District Judge. ( 6 : 0 9

- c v - 0 2 1 49

- HFF )

Submitted : June 24 , 2010 Decided: June 29, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, a nd DAVIS , Circuit Ju dges.

Affirme d by un published per curiam opinion

.

Oscar L. Shaw , Appellant Pro Se

. Mary A. Giorgi, Luanne Lambert Runge, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, PA, Greenville, South Carolina , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this c ircuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Oscar L. Shaw appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e) (2)(B) (200 6 ). We have reviewed the record and find n o reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Shaw v. Churdar , No. 6:09

- cv - 02149

- HFF (D.S.C. Sept. 1, 2009) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
i n the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         187,818
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,861
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,686
<INVENTORY>                                     11,110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               267,650
<PP&E>                                       2,252,707
<DEPRECIATION>                                 238,109
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,479,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          225,366
<BONDS>                                      1,618,056
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           241
<OTHER-SE>                                     361,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,479,118
<SALES>                                        343,380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               383,198
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  218,453 <F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                94,690 <F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,295
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,061)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       883
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,944)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,944)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.59)
<FN>
<F1>Includes gaming, lodging, food & beverage and other
<F2>Includes general & administration and depreciation & amortization
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
COORDINATING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP ROSTER

Federal Agency/Ex Officio Members

U.S. Department of Justice

Loretta E. Lynch

Chair, Attorney General

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention

Robert Listenbee

Vice-Chair, Administrator

Corporation for National and Community Service

Wendy Spencer

Chief Executive Officer

U.S. Department of Education

John B. King, Jr. 

Secretary

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Sylvia Mathews Burwell

Secretary

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Sarah R. Saldaña

Director

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

Julián Castro

Secretary

U.S. Department of Labor

Thomas E. Perez

Secretary

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Executive Office of the President

Michael Botticelli

Director

Federal Agency Affiliate Members

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Thomas Vilsack

Secretary

U.S. Department of Defense

Ashton B. Carter

Secretary

U.S. Department of the Interior

Sally Jewell

Secretary

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration

Kana Enomoto

Principal Deputy Administrator

Practitioner Members

Maura Corrigan

Adele L. Grubbs

Jacob Horowitz

Gordon A. Martin, Jr.

Pamela Rodriguez

Deborah Schumacher

Jim St. Germain 

William B. Thorne

Francisco Villarruel

Richard Vincent
US ONCOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC. AND US ONCOLOGY, INC.



Exhibit 32.2

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 US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Sicuro, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael A. Sicuro                           
|Michael A. Sicuro                               
|Chief Financial Officer of                      
|US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc.

August 11, 2009
* 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

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 26, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60902 Summary Calendar

RAHIM MAKNOJIA, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A95-453-791

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Rahim Maknojia petitions for review of an order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Maknojia does not dispute that he did not file a timely asylum application, but he argues that he met his burden of showing that extraordinary circumstances prevented his timely filing. We lack jurisdiction to review this claim, and theNo. 05-60902 -2- petition for review as to this claim is dismissed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(3); Zhu v. Ashcroft , 382 F.3d 521, 527 (5th Cir. 2005). Maknojia challenges the determination that he is not entitled to withholding of removal based on his Muslim religion or to protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We must defer to the BIA’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS , 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The determination that Maknojia is not entitled to withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or to protection under the CAT is supported by substantial evidence, and Maknojia has not shown that the record compels a contrary conclusion. The petition for review is denied as to these claims. DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           8,363,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                   0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,900,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                              0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          43,120,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            43,427,000
<LOANS>                                        157,426,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,540,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 215,927,000
<DEPOSITS>                                     192,718,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                             0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,623,000
<LONG-TERM>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         5,250,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,583,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 215,927,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,569,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,983,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    77,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,629,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,589,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,005,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      336,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                       2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,208,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,856,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,709,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,709,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.72
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        5.63
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,421,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                        90,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,335,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      219,000
<RECOVERIES>                                        88,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,540,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,540,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 7th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20531 

Main Conference Room, 3rd Floor 

Wednesday, December 19, 2018 

10 a.m. – Noon ET 

10 – 10:15 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks 

Caren Harp, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, and Vice Chair, Coordinating Council on 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Matt M. Dummermuth, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice 

Jesse Panuccio, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General of 

the United States, U.S. Department of Justice 

10:15 – 10:55 a.m. Agency Introductions and Presentations 

10:55 – 11:10 am. Family and Youth Services Bureau Overview 

Curtis O. Porter, Special Assistant to the Associate Commissioner, 

Family and Youth Services Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services 

11:10 – 11:30 a.m. Supporting Youth in Indian Country 

Jason Thompson, Assistant Director, Office of Justice Services, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior 

11:30 – 11:45 a.m. Council Discussion 

11:45 a.m. – Noon Public Questions, Wrap Up, and Adjournment 

Contact Information: Elizabeth Wolfe at Elizabeth.Wolfe@usdoj.gov
Exhibit 10.2


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO EQUITY LINE INVESTMENT
AGREEMENT


 


This FIRST AMENDMENT
is executed as of August 7, 2015, by and between Intelligent Highway Solutions, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”),
and GHS Investments LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, (“GHS”),


 


WHEREAS the
parties entered into an Equity Line Investment Agreement (the “Agreement”) on August 6, 2015; and


 


WHEREAS the
parties mutually desire to amend the Agreement under the terms and conditions set forth herein.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 


 


		1.	Section 2.7 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



 


2.7 COMMITMENT FEE. The
Company shall issue to the Investor three percent (3%) of the total Commitment Amount as common stock (the “Commitment Fee”).
The Commitment Fee shall be issuable in common stock fifteen (15) days after the Registration Statement becomes effective. The
value of shares will be determined based on the Formula Price, which is the average of the daily volume weighted average prices
of the Company’s Common Stock during the five (5) business days immediately preceding the day upon the due date of the issuance.
Such shares will be registered in the Registration Statement filed with the SEC.


 


		2.	Except as modified herein all of the Terms and Conditions as set forth in the Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the, properties
hereto have executed this First Amendment as of the date written above.


 


	Intelligent Highway Solutions, Inc.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/Devon Jones	 
	Name:  	Devon Jones	 
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 
	GHS Investments, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Mark Grober	 
	Name:  	Mark Grober	 
	Title:	President