alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Refugee Processing Data

The reports at the links below present data, organized by fiscal year, including the numbers of:
                - USCIS staff assigned to the Refugee Corps;
                - Refugee processing trips USCIS conducted;
                - Officers USCIS assigned to each refugee processing trip, along with the destination region and country for each trip;
                - Refugee interviews USCIS conducted; and
                - Approvals and denials USCIS issued.

**Data from Fiscal Year 2016 – 2023**

FY2023 Refugee Processing Data

FY2022 Appropriations Reporting Requirements – Refugee Data (Updated)

FY2021 Appropriations Reporting Requirements – Refugee Data

FY2020 Appropriations Reporting Requirements – Refugee Data

FY16 - FY23 Refugee Processing Circuit Rides

For more information on our reports, visit the Understanding Our Data page.

03/26/2024

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
EXHIBIT 32.01

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language in any filings.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 of SigmaTel, Inc., a Delaware corporation, for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of the undersigned officers of SigmaTel,
Inc. certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his respective knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 SigmaTel, Inc.
for the periods presented therein.

Date: May 10, 2007



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Phillip E. Pompa   
|Phillip E. Pompa       
|Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 10, 2007



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ R. Scott Schaefer  
|R. Scott Schaefer      
|Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of the above certification has been provided to SigmaTel, Inc. and will be retained by SigmaTel,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,278
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,675
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,278
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,722
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 675
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (18,397)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (18,397)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (18,397)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)



</TABLE>
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 amended Annual Report of Cyber Defense Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Amended
Report"), I, William C. Robinson, CEO, Chairman and Principal Executive,
Financial and Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:

(1) The Amended 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 Amended Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                           CYBER DEFENSE SYSTEMS, INC.



                            By: /s/ David M. Barnes
                                -----------------------------
                                David M. Barnes
                                CFO and Principal Financial
                                and Accounting Officer

                                February 7, 2007
# Adoption Information: Ghana

The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention) went into effect in Ghana on Jan. 1, 2017. After reviewing Ghana’s implementing legislation and meeting with the Central Authority in Ghana, the U.S Department of State determined that the United States can partner with Ghana as a Convention country and begin processing Hague adoptions. As of March 3, 2017, we accept:
                - Form I-800A, Application for Determination of Suitability to Adopt a Child from a Convention Country  from prospective adoptive parents wishing to adopt a child who is habitually resident in Ghana, and
                - Form I-800, Petition to Classify Convention Adoptee as an Immediate Relative  for a child who is habitually resident in Ghana (with Form I-800A approval notice).

Please visit uscis.gov/adoption and adoption.state.gov for the most up-to-date information on the intercountry adoption process in Ghana. 

                    - Adoption Notice: Adoptions from Ghana after March 3, 2017

04/01/2024

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### WARN v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.

July, 1894.)

Master and Servant—Rules nor Protection of Servant.

It is the duty of a master to make and promulgate rules for the protection of his servants, and to exercise such supervision over his servants as to have reason to believe that the business is conducted in pursuance of such rules.

Appeal from circuit court, Onondaga county.

Action by Elias Warn against the New York Central & Hudson Biver Bailroad Company. Prom a judgment entered on a nonsuit

in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Beversed.

Argued before HABDIN, P. J., and MABTIN and MEBWIN, JJ.

Louis Marshall, for appellant.

Hiscock, Doheny & Hiscock, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We are of the opinion that the facts in this', case should have been submitted to the jury, and that the nonsuit', was improper. The law imposes upon a railroad company the duty to its employés of diligence and care, not only in furnishing proper and reasonably safe appliances and machinery, and skillful and careful coemployés, but also of making and promulgating rules which, if faithfully observed, will give reasonable protection to the employés. Abel v. President, etc., 103 N. Y. 581, 9 N. E. 325. It is also required to exercise such a supervision over its servants and the prosecution of its business as to have reason to believe that it is being conducted in pursuance of such rules. Whittaker v President, etc., 126 N. Y. 549, 27 N. E. 1042. If defendant’s rule No. 36 was intended to apply to a train like the one in the inspection of which the plaintiff was injured, it became a question of fact whether the defendant was guilty of negligence in regard to its proper pro*898inulgation and enforcement. If that rule was not intended to apply to such a train, then it became a question of fact whether the defendant had performed the measure of its duty within the rule laid down in the Abel Case. The defendant, in making rules for the government of its employés, is bound to use ordinary care, and to anticipate and guard against such accidents and casualties as may reasonably be foreseen by its managers exercising such ordinary care. Berrigan v. Railroad Co., 131 N. Y. 582, 30 N. E. 57.

Nor should it be said, as matter of law, that under the facts of the present case th'e plaintiff assumed the risk, as incident to the business. In Abel v. President, etc., 128 N. Y. 664, 28 N. E. 663, it is said that the rule that the servant takes the risk of the business is subject to the qualification that the master must exercise reasonable care to guard the servant, while engaged in Ms duties, from unnecessary hazards, including hazards from negligence of eoemployés. See, also, McGovern v. Railroad Co., 123. N. Y. 280, 25 N. E. 373. Negligence of a servant does not excuse the master from liability to a coservant for an injury which would not have happened, had the master performed its duty. Coppins v. Railroad Co., 122 N. Y. 557, 25 N. E. 915. The question of contributory negligence was for the jury. All concur.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered; costs to abide the event.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Harry E. Gruber, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of Kintera, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby
certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 16, 2005



|                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Harry E. Gruber                                                                      
|Harry E. Gruber, M.D. President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 <LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION (in thousands) EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         128,435
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,447
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,523
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               180,927
<PP&E>                                         132,375
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,878
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 401,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           98,269
<BONDS>                                        379,791
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           312
<OTHER-SE>                                    (77,910)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   401,408
<SALES>                                        138,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               138,590
<CGS>                                           98,737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,089
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,437
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (49,709)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (49,709)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (49,709)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.07)


</TABLE>
#### Donna Humiston, Appellant, v Rochester Institute of Technology, Respondent.

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: In this negligence action, plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries based upon her claim that defendant breached a duty to its students by failing to secure its campus against intruders. After identifying in a bill of particulars 10 areas where she claimed security measures on defendant’s campus were inadequate or nonexistent, plaintiff was deposed upon oral examination and asked to express her opinion generally as to the measures which defendant should have adopted to obviate the conditions specified in her bill of particulars. Following her refusal to answer, defendant moved for leave to serve interrogatories as to what plaintiff claims defendant should have done to discharge its alleged duty generally in the *95810 areas described in plaintiff’s bill of particulars. In our view, Special Term erred in granting defendant’s motion. Plaintiff is not an expert on campus security and her personal opinion does not constitute "material and necessary” evidence which must be disclosed to defendant (CPLR 3101 [a]). Moreover, expert testimony is not required to establish the elements of reasonable care under the circumstances *(see, Havas v Victory Paper Stock Co.,*49 NY2d 381, 386), and plaintiff cannot be compelled to retain an expert to answer defendant’s interrogatories. Even if plaintiff has retained an expert to give proof on what constitutes reasonable care under the circumstances, the expert’s opinion is not discoverable. CPLR 3101 (d), which permits discovery of expert opinion upon request, is applicable only to actions commenced on or after July 1, 1985 (L 1985, ch 294, §§ 4, 25). The within action was commenced on or about August 15, 1984 and is thus subject to the prior rule which generally prohibited the discovery of expert opinion evidence *(see, Miracolo v Mercedes-Benz of N. Am.,*91 AD2d 679; *Coley v Michelin Tire Corp.,*75 AD2d 610; *Peloso v Rochester Gen. Hosp.,*64 AD2d 1013). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Provenzano, J. — leave to serve interrogatories.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerry Hickey, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford, 71*AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga *544County Court, Burke, J. — robbery, first degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES–OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      John
      C. Corey, President and Chief Executive Officer, of Stoneridge, Inc. (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 on Form 10-Q of the Company for the third quarter ended September 30,
      2008 (“the Report”) which this certification accompanies fully complies with the
      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and





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





/s/
                John C. CoreyJohn
                C. Corey, President and Chief Executive OfficerNovember
                7, 2008





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2589 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2589

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2016

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the Federal 
 Communications Commission to publish on its Internet website the text 
of any item that is adopted by vote of the Commission not later than 24 
  hours after receipt of dissenting statements from all Commissioners 
     wishing to submit such a statement with respect to such item.

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

SECTION 1. TIMELY AVAILABILITY OF ITEMS ADOPTED BY VOTE OF THE 
              COMMISSION.

    (a) Amendment.--Section 4 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 154) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(p) In the case of any item that is adopted by vote of the 
Commission, the Commission shall publish on the Internet website of the 
Commission the text of such item not later than 24 hours after the 
Secretary of the Commission has received dissenting statements from all 
Commissioners wishing to submit such a statement with respect to such 
item.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to an item that is adopted after the date that is 30 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### BRUSH, Respondent, v. LONG ISLAND R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 22, 1896.)

Action by Juliet Brush against the Long Island Railroad Company.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals denied. The consent of this court is not necessary for the appellant to appeal to the court of appeals. See 42 N. Y. Supp. 103.
Exhibit 31.01**CERTIFICATION**I, Bruce L. Cleland, Chief Executive Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc., the managing operator ofThe Campbell Fund Trust (the “Trust”), certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Trust; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       By: /s/ Bruce L. Cleland              Bruce L. Cleland    Chief Executive Officer    November 14, 2005  
E 2