alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1395 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

to discount FHA single-family mortgage insurance premium payments for first-time homebuyers who complete 

a financial literacy housing counseling program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1395 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Housing Financial Lit3 eracy Act of 2021’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DISCOUNT ON MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUM 

5 PAYMENTS FOR FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS 

6 WHO COMPLETE FINANCIAL LITERACY HOUS7 ING COUNSELING PROGRAMS. 

8 The second sentence of subparagraph (A) of section 

9 203(c)(2) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 

10 1709(c)(2)(A)) is amended— 

11 (1) by inserting before the comma the following: 

12 ‘‘and such program is completed before the mort13 gagor has signed an application for a mortgage to 

14 be insured under this title or a sales agreement’’; 

15 and 

16 (2) by striking ‘‘not exceed 2.75 percent of the 

17 amount of the original insured principal obligation of 

18 the mortgage’’ and inserting ‘‘be 25 basis points 

19 lower than the premium payment amount estab20 lished by the Secretary under the first sentence of 

21 this subparagraph’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 20, 2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1395 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban 

eracy housing counseling program. time homebuyers who complete a financial litmortgage insurance premium payments for firstDevelopment to discount FHA single-family
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**Certificationof**

**ChiefExecutive Officer**

**of TGCIndustries, Inc. Pursuant to**

**Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and accompanies the annual reporton Form 10-K (the “Form 10-K”) for the fiscal year ended December 31,2007, of TGC Industries, Inc. (the “Company”).  I, Wayne A. Whitener, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)         The Form 10-K fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)         The information contained in the Form 10-K fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as anexhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601(6)(32) of Regulation S-K andSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and,accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated byreference into any filing of the registrant, whether made before or after thedate hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

 
| Date:   March 14,  2008 | By:    |    /s/  Wayne A. Whitener |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                                        |   | Wayne A.  Whitener                       |
|                                        |   | President and  Chief Executive  Officer  |
|                                        |   | (Principal  Executive Officer)           |
|                                             |        |                                          |  |

 

----
8

Exhibit 10.4


SUMMARY OF OFFICER BONUS ARRANGEMENTS

DESCRIPTION

The officers of the Registrant and the Bank are eligible for a bonus  calculated
as a  percentage  of each  officer's  base  salary.  Executive  officers  of the
Registrant  participate in the plan on the same basis as all other participating
officers.  The bonus is  approved  by the Board of  Directors  and the  specific
percentage  award is determined  based upon the  Registrant's  return on average
assets  for the  twelve-month  period  ending on  November  30. If the return on
assets is less than one and one quarter  percent  (1.25%),  no cash  bonuses are
paid under the plan. The threshold bonus is 2% of salary, and the maximum is 20%
of salary.  If the Registrant were to achieve a one and one half percent (1.50%)
return on average assets, officers would receive a bonus of 10% of salary.

OTHER PROVISIONS

If an officer's  employment  is  terminated  for any reason  before the bonus is
paid, the officer forfeits all rights to the bonus.

This bonus arrangement does not give any officer the right to be retained in the
employment of the  Registrant and does not affect the right of the Registrant to
terminate, with or without cause, any officer's employment at any time.

The  Registrant  has the right to withhold from any  compensation  payable to an
officer, or to cause the officer (or the executor or administrator of his or her
estate or his or her distributee) to make payment of any federal,  state,  local
or foreign taxes required to be withheld with respect to any payment.

The Board of  Directors  may  amend,  alter,  suspend or  discontinue  the bonus
arrangements  as it shall at any time or from time to time determine in its sole
discretion.
|   | (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/ David F. Hakala                                                                                                                                                                  |
|                             |   |   | David                F. HakalaActing                  Chief Executive Officer, Chief                  Operating Officer, Principal                  Financial and Accounting Officer |
|                        |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| May                10, 2007 |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                 |

----
A.M., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3235

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of California Micro Devices Corporation.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  |                                            
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: June 14, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    Robert V. Dickinson
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  | Robert V. Dickinson Chief Executive Officer
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: June 14, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    R. Gregory Miller  
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  | R. Gregory Miller Chief Financial Officer  



This certification
accompanies this periodic report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Federal Securities Act of 1933, as amended or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
STATE of Louisiana v. Leon MCDONALD

NO. 2017-KO-1574

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 2018

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882342
<NAME> 90CC
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          99,869
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,360
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               176,229
<PP&E>                                       5,774,917
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,934,087
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,017,059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,409
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     992,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,017,059
<SALES>                                        353,470
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               356,099
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  306,253
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 49,846
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             49,846
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,846
<EPS-BASIC>                                       6.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Wenzhong LU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-73332

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 24, 2017

. Maria Christina Flores, Attorney, Law Office of Maria Christina Flores, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Marshall Tamor Golding, Esquire, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

*766Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

**The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Wenzhong Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusions that, even if credible, Lu failed to establish past persecution on account of other resistance to China’s population control policies, *see He v. Holder,*749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014), and the harm Lu suffered as to his land taking claim did not rise to the level of persecution, *see Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Lu failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in China. *See Gu,*454 F.3d at 1022 (applicant failed to present compelling objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of future persecution). Thus, Lu’s asylum claim fails.

Because Lu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal claim. *See Zehatye,*453 F.3d at 1190.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Lu s contentions related to his CAT claim because he did not raise this claim to the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2

                         RULE 13a - 14(b) CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Glacier Water  Services,  Inc., (the
Company)  on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  October 2, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. David
Walters,  Senior Vice  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to and for the  purposes of 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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 of the Company as of the
          dates  indicated  and  results of  operations  of the  Company for the
          periods indicated.


/s/  W. David Walters
---------------------

W. David Walters
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
October 28, 2005
PROGRES

S POLRE P I

. HEADIN G Date : 12/26/199 0 From : Stev e Hawthorn , OS C Regio n VII I T o : Steve n Luftwig , Directo r ER D subject : Midval e Sla g (NPL ) - Abandone d La b Polrep' : POLRE P 5 I I

. BACKGROUN

D 2.0V

Sit e No : 7 1 D.O

. No : 5 7 Respons e Authority : CERCL A N P L Status : Propose d NP L Star t Date : 12/12/1*9 0 Approva l status : Directo r Hazardou s Wast e Managemen t Divisio n Statu s o f Actio n Memorandum : Th e Actio n Memorandu m i s expecte d t o b e signe d afte r th a firs t o f th e year . III

. RESPONS E INFORMATIO N A

. Situatio n . T h e Midval e Sla g NP L Sit e (proposed) , locate d approximatel y 60 0 East , 770 0 south , Midvala , Utah , consist s primaril y o f abou t tw o millio n ton s o f sla g remainin g fro m a century' s wort h o f coppe r an d lea d smeltin g i n th e area, an d i s locate d jus t nort h o f th e Sharo n Stee l NP L site

. Th e wastes foun d o n th e sit e ar e contaminate d i n par t wit h hig h concentration s o f lea d an d arsenic

. A n analytica l laborator y wa s observe d o n th e sit e containin g hazardou s chemical s an d a remova l action wa s initiated , subsequently , a secon d buildin g (th e gat e building ) was inspecte d an d foun d t o contai n chemicals

. Flammabl e liquids , oxidizers , acids , bases , cyanides , low-leve l radioactiv e compounds , compresse d ga s cylinders , an d a suspecte d PC S transforme r hav e bee n foun d on th e site , initia l estimate s Indicate d approximatel y 250 0 container s o f variou s size s on site

. Col d and snow y condition s continu e a t th e sit e causin g sligh t weathe r relate d delays

. B

. Action s Take n Inventoryin g o f containers was completed , bringin g th e tota l t o approximatel y 2500

. The chemica l inventor y wa s entered int o a compute r database

. Hazar d categorizatio n

o f unknow n compound s continues

. Segregatio n o f chemical s base d o n hazard clas s continues

. On-sit e activitie s wer e halte d o n 12/22/90 , the y wil l resum e on 1/2/91

.C 5 - , 9 0 IS : 4 1

. Nex t Step s chemicals

. D

. Ke y Issue s 

### Non e t o repor t I V

. COS T INFORMATIO N and stagin g o f

ERC S T A T EP A Axaount Budgete d
f $ 75,00 0 50,00 0 25,00 0 COBt

S t o Dat e 46 > 000 12,50 0 9,00 0 Balanc e

29,00 0 37,50 0 16,00 0 "e o SOU TOTA L 150,00 0 67,50 0
#### Standard Accident Insurance, Company *v.*Theo Money Chevrolet Company.

4-9273

233 S. W. 2d 553

Opinion delivered November 6, 1950.

*Moore, Burroiv, Ghowning*& *Mitchell,*for appellant.

*Bates, Poe*& *Bates,*for appellee.

*870George Rose Smith, J.

This is an action by the appellee corporation, which was later succeeded by the appellee partnership, to recover $301.32 under what is captioned an “Automobile G-arage Liability Policy,” issued by the appellant. In 1947 the insured was engaged in the garage business in the city of Waldron. A customer, Virgil Nichols, left a truck at the shop for repairs to the differential. One of the company’s mechanics, Bert Hawkins, worked on the vehicle and then took it out for a test drive. In the course of this test the rear axle assembly broke down, either because defective parts had been installed or because Hawkins had done his work improperly. The work had to be done over again, and the company filed a claim with the insurer upon the theory that an accident within the coverage of the policy had occurred. This suit was brought after the insurer denied liability. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s testimony both sides requested an instructed verdict, and the court entered judgment for the plaintiff.

The insuring clause of the policy provides that the insurer will pay all sums which the insured shall become obligated to pay “by reason of the liability imposed upon him by law for damages because of injury to or destruction of property . . . caused by accident” and arising out of the insured’s garage business.

Even when construed most strongly against the insurer this language is not broad enoug’h to cover the present claim. To establish a cause of action the insured must prove that it is liable for damages caused by an accident arising from the operation of its garage. If we assume that an accident has been shown, which we do not determine, it still cannot be said that as a result the insured became liable to Nichols for any damages. On the contrary, all that happened was that the insured had to do its work a second time to be in a position to make a charge for its services.

The appellee relies mainly upon the decision in *O’Toole*v. *Empire Motors, Inc.,*181 Wash. 130, 42 P. 2d 10, where a similar policy was involved. But that case *871involved tlie vital element of liability on the part of the garage owner to his customer. A car had been defectively repaired, and as a result it turned over and caused injury to the customer and his wife. They recovered judgments in tort against the garage owner, and the insurer was required to pay the amount of the judgments. In the case at bar the essential factor of the insured’s liability to Nichols is lacking. Immediately after the asserted accident Nichols could not have maintained a suit against the insured merely because the truck had not yet been repaired. The most that can be said is that the insured had to do its work twice before Nichols could be expected to pay the bill, but even then the liability was on the part of Nichols to the insured and not the other way around.

Reversed and dismissed.
EX PARTE Teddy Lane BAILEY

CR-16-0247

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Jackie HENDERSON and Mark Henderson, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2566

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 12, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 99.2





C.M. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY


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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the Report) of C.M. Life Insurance Company (the Company), I, Howard E. Gunton, Executive Vice President and 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, 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 Company.





C.M. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (Registrant)





Date: November 12, 2002





By:

/s/    HOWARD E.
GUNTONHoward E. Gunton Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      36,736,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,173,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,198,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,217,000
<PP&E>                                      14,989,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,992,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,319,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,120,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       110,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,075,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,319,000
<SALES>                                      2,033,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,033,000
<CGS>                                        1,567,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,567,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,022,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             115,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,191,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,191,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,191,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>