alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Keys *against*Beardsley.

If a plaintiff after giving notice of trial countermands it he must pay to the defendant the *costs*incurred by him between the time receiving the nocountermand!

*LOIJCKS,*for the defendant,

moved for judgment as in ease of nonsuit, for not proceeding to trial, &c. It appeared that the plaintiff) after giving notice of trial at the last circuit, countermanded the notice.

*Talcot,*for the plaintiff)

offered to stipulate; and the question was, whether the defendant was not entitled to costs, for preparing for trial, after the notice and before the countermand. He cited *Jackson*v. *Mann,*1 *Caines Rep.*123.

*Per Curiam.*

The plaintiff may stipulate; but he must pay to the defendant his costs, if any have arisen between the time of receiving the notice of trial and the countermand.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21.1


                                  Subsidiaries



Name                                                 Jurisdiction of Formation
----                                                 -------------------------

NCO Financial Systems, Inc.                          Pennsylvania
NCO Funding, Inc.                                    Delaware
NCO Financial Services, Inc.                         Canada
FCA Funding, Inc.                                    Delaware
NCO Portfolio Management, Inc. *                     Delaware
Compass International Services Corporation           Delaware
NCO Financial Services (UK), Limited                 United Kingdom
NCO Financial Systems of Puerto Rico                 Puerto Rico
JDR Holdings, Inc.                                   Delaware
NCO Holdings, Inc.                                   Delaware
MCA Holdings, Inc.                                   Delaware
International Account Systems, Inc.                  Florida

* Owns 21 subsidiaries operating in the United States engaged in the ownership
  of delinquent receivables.

Note: This table does not include any subsidiary that is not required to be
      listed pursuant to Item 601 (b) (21) of Regulation S-K.
CURT BURLINGAME, 

HUSBAND,

Appellant,

v.

ELIZABETH BURLINGAME, 

WIFE,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1492

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Leandra G. Johnson, Judge.

Andrew J. Decker, IV, The Decker Law Firm, P.A., Lake City, for Appellant.

Sara Jane Carter and Arlen M. Weintraub of Douglas & Carter, Lake City; Donna S. 

Macrae, Three Rivers Legal Services, Lake City, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2848 

To exempt individuals with a personal health concern from complying with 

a Federal COVID–19 vaccine mandate, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 

Mr. LEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To exempt individuals with a personal health concern from 

complying with a Federal COVID–19 vaccine mandate, 

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 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Your Health Comes 

5 First Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERSONAL HEALTH EXEMPTION FROM COVID–19 

7 VACCINE MANDATES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Any COVID–19 vaccine mandate 

9 issued by an Act of Congress or by an executive agency 

10 shall include an exemption for any individual who has a 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2848 IS

1 concern with such mandate relating to that individual’s 

2 health. 

3 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

4 (1) COVID–19 VACCINE MANDATE.—The term 

5 ‘‘COVID–19 vaccine mandate’’ means any require6 ment that an individual receive a COVID–19 vac7 cine, including any requirement that an employer re8 quire an employee or independent contractor to re9 ceive such a vaccine. 

10 (2) EXECUTIVE AGENCY.—The term ‘‘executive 

11 agency’’ has the meaning given such term in section 

12 105 of title 5, United States Code. 

13 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec14 tion shall be construed to allow for or otherwise authorize 

15 a COVID–19 vaccine mandate issued by an Act of Con16 gress or by an executive agency. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER OF TRAMMELL CROW COMPANYPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2003 and filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Derek R. McClain,Chief Financial Officer of Trammell Crow Company (the “Company”), herebycertify that:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|   | /s/ Derek R. McClain      |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Name: Derek R. McClain    |
|   | Date: March 15, 2004 |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Cloud Medical Doctor SoftwareCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Pamela Thompson, 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 to thebest of my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

By /s/ Pamela Thompson

Pamela Thompson

Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer

December 1, 2014
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02
- 16
- 00257
- CV

IN RE LARRY JOE MORG AN RELATOR

---------- ORIGINAL PROCEEDING TRIAL COURT NO. 236

- 282599

- 15

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- The court has considered relator’s pe tition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.
PER CURIAM PANEL: GABRIEL, GARDNER , and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 26, 2016

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          97,957                  62,606
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,715                   1,057
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               302,468                 132,420
<PP&E>                                      13,445,131              13,354,939
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,156,251                 251,414
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,753,060              15,179,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,561,913               2,547,263
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        49,058                  32,508
<OTHER-SE>                                     168,217                 937,678
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,753,060              15,179,975
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,285,978                 681,167
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,493,582                 509,742
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,304,319                 534,330
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,473,735                 348,249
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,985,658)               (711,154)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,323)                 (1,014)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,975,910)               (669,634)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (547,001)               (444,553)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,522,911)             (1,114,187)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.70)                   (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.70)                   (.39)


</TABLE>
#### Estate of John W. Smith, deceased.

*(Surrogate Court of King’s County,*

*Filed December*6, 1886.)

1. Tax ok legacies and collateral inheritances — Constructions— Descendants — L. 1885, Chap. 483.

Caws of 1S85, Chap. 483, laying a tax on all property which shall pass by will, or by the intestate laws of this state to any one “ except father, mother husband, wife, children, brother and sister, and lineal descendants, born in lawful wedlock ” * * * is restricted to lineal descendants of the ancestor

2. Same — Construction — Estate.

The clause in the law as follows: “.provided that an estate which may be valued at a less sum than five hundred dollars shall not be subject to said tax or duty,” refers to the estate given to the person liable to taxation.

Lott, S.

The tax is imposed upon all taking, “ except father’, mother, husband, wife, children, brother and sister, and lineal descendants born in lawful wedlock, and the wife or widow of a son, and the husband of a daughter, and the societies, corporations and institutions now exempted by law from taxation, provided that an estate which may be valued at a less sum than five hundred dollars, shall not be subject to said tax or duty.”

Two questions are submitted regarding the construction of this;

I. Are the words lineal descendants restricted to the descendants of ancestor ?

II. Does the word “ estate ” in the exemption clause refer to the entire estate left by the ancestor or to the share coming to the person, society or corporation liable to taxation ?

In answer to the first question it is submitted that the words “ lineal descendants ” are restricted to those of the ancestor, the *section refers*to the relation of all the persons named to the ancestor. It is not at all ambiguous; but if more was wanted *381the same words are used again in the second section of the act and provision is made for the taxation of a remainder, when left “ to a collateral heir of the decedent, or to a stranger in blood,” I think is decisive as to the proper construction being as here claimed.

As to the second question, I think it evidently refers to the “ estate ” given the person liable to taxation, and for the following reasons:

1. It could not concern the Legislature what the extent of the decedent’s estate amounted to.

If he had a million, and gave to persons deemed by him worthy (but not of the exempt class) one hundred dollars each, no possible reason could exist for taxing those legatees because he had given so much more to persons who were not liable to taxation.

2. The provisions of the second section shows that the Legislature intended only to value a remainder going to those not exempt.

The solution of the second question is not quite so clear as it might be, but still I think it accords with the intention of the Legislature, and I think the amount of the tax also shows that it was not intended to be placed on small legacies.
2013 RIN supply (million RINs)

RINs Volume

Generated Generated Generated Generated Generated Generated

D code Fuel type Domestic Imported Domestic + imports Corrections Exported Total Domestic Imported Domestic + imports Corrections Exported Total

3 & 7 Biogas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 & 7 Ethanol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 & 7 Heating oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 & 7 Renewable diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 & 7 Renewable gasoline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 Biodiesel 2,067 234 2,300 282 2,018 1,378 156 1,534 188 1,346

4 Renewable diesel 119 319 439 94 345 72 188 260 55 205

5 Biogas 26 0 26 26 26 0 26 26

5 Ethanol 23 435 458 458 23 435 458 458

5 Heating oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 Naphtha 3 0 3 3 2 0 2 2

5 Renewable diesel 70 0 70 6 64 41 0 41 4 38

6 Biodiesel 9 46 55 55 6 31 37 37

6 Ethanol 13,099 0 13,099 622 12,477 13,099 0 13,099 622 12,477

6 Renewable diesel 0 196 196 106 90 0 116 116 63 53

3 & 7 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1

4 2,186 553 2,739 94 282 2,363 1,450 344 1,793 55 188 1,550

5 123 435 558 6 0 552 92 435 528 4 0 524

6 13,108 243 13,350 106 622 12,622 13,105 146 13,251 63 622 12,567

All advanced 2,309 988 3,298 100 282 2,915 1,543 779 2,322 59 188 2,075

Total 15,417 1,231 16,648 207 904 15,537 14,648 925 15,573 122 810 14,641

Total ethanol 13,122 435 13,557 0 622 12,935 13,122 435 13,557 0 622 12,935

Total biodiesel 2,076 280 2,355 0 282 2,073 1,384 187 1,570 0 188 1,382

Total renewable diesel 190 516 706 207 0 499 114 303 417 122 0 295
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ALFREDO JIMENEZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-70122

Agency No. A077-363-419

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted August 5, 2016

Pasadena, California

Before: KOZINSKI and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and BENCIVENGO,** 

District Judge.

Jose Alfredo Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial by

the immigration judge (“IJ”) of Jimenez’s petition for deferral of removal under the

FILED

DEC 06 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge

for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because “the BIA adopt[ed] the decision of

the IJ” in its entirety, “we review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA.”

Hoque v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 2004). We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

CAT Article 3 provides that a signatory may not return any person to a

nation “if there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of

being subjected to torture in that nation.” Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1216

(9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). A petitioner

for CAT relief bears the burden of establishing that “it is more likely than not that

he will be tortured upon removal, and that the torture will be inflicted at the

instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, the government.” Arteaga v.

Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 2007); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.17(d)(3). 

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Jimenez is

ineligible for deferral of removal under CAT. For example, the IJ found Jimenez’s

argument that his family is being targeted by the Los Zetas Cartel “largely

speculative” and therefore determined that Jimenez did not “establish that the

cartel would torture him on that basis.” Similarly, the IJ found no evidence

suggesting that the Sinaloa Cartel can identify Jimenez or that it is “seeking to

2
punish anyone involved in the drug smuggling attempt.” Substantial evidence

supports these findings, and the record does not compel the contrary conclusion.

DENIED.

3
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Capella Education Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lois M. Martin, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Lois M. Martin                               
|Lois M. Martin                                   
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|April 27, 2010                                   

This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent
that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40074

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ABEL JAIMES-JAIMES, also known as Abel Jaimes,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-192-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Abel Jaimes-Jaimes

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jaimes-Jaimes has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 7, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40074 Document: 00513788777 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2016
No. 16-40074

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40074 Document: 00513788777 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2016
# C_2016223EN.01000201.xml

| 21.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8071 — Goldman Sachs/Continental Bakeries)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 223/03)

On 14 June 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8071. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8071. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2016119EN.01000401.xml

| 5.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 April 2016

(2016/C 119/05)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1380 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 126,97 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4459 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79738 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2493 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0919 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4359 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,046 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 312,29 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2340 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4648 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,1952 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4917 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4832 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8254 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6605 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5373 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 308,19 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,6800 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3696 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5115 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 961,75 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4317 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,562 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 77,1535 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,080 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,0420 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,7227 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,2275 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1380

JPY

Japanese yen

126,97

DKK

Danish krone

7,4459

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79738

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2493

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0919

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4359

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,046

HUF

Hungarian forint

312,29

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2340

RON

Romanian leu

4,4648

TRY

Turkish lira

3,1952

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4917

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4832

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8254

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6605

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5373

KRW

South Korean won

1 308,19

ZAR

South African rand

16,6800

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3696

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5115

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 961,75

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4317

PHP

Philippine peso

52,562

RUB

Russian rouble

77,1535

THB

Thai baht

40,080

BRL

Brazilian real

4,0420

MXN

Mexican peso

19,7227

INR

Indian rupee

75,2275

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---