alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Filing Instructions for Form I-600, Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative

**NOTE:**
                - The “Where to File” guidance in the Form I-600A and Form I-600 instructions refers the public to this website for filing location guidance. Please use these instructions.
                - Only USCIS can adjudicate a Form I-600A, Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition, or determine parental suitability and eligibility in a “concurrent” Form I-600 filing that does not contain an underlying valid and approved Form I-600A.
                - The Department of State can never accept a Form I-600A, Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition, or determine parental suitability or eligibility in a “concurrent” Form I-600 filing that does not contain an underlying Form I-600A approval.  But Department of State can accept certain Form I-600 petitions that are based on valid and approved Form I-600A applications in countries where USCIS does not have an office provided that the prospective adoptive parents are, at some point during the adoption process, physically present in the jurisdiction of the US Embassy or consulate designated to act on the petition.

09/10/2021

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
EXHIBIT 10.2

                             AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                   TO

                 1999 SHARE OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN

     ElderTrust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the Company),
hereby amends the terms of the ElderTrust 1999 Share Option and Incentive
Plan (the 1999 Plan) as follows:

1.  Section 3(c) of the 1999 Plan is hereby amended by replacing the
phrase In the event that, at the beginning of the last sentence of
Section 3(c) with the following new phrase:

     Except as otherwise provided in the Award agreement, in the event
that,

2.  In all other respects the 1999 Plan is unchanged.

                              *   *   *

     This Amendment No. 2 to 1999 Share Option and Incentive Plan was
duly adopted and approved by the Board of Trustees of the Company on
April 28, 2003.


                                    /s/ D. Lee McCreary, Jr
                                    D. Lee McCreary, Jr.
                                    Secretary
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dorothy Hall Bowers, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, DiFlorio, J. — manslaughter, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnny Rivera, Appellant.

Judgement, of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered August 12, • 1985, convicting defendant of murder in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *25from 20 years to life, is unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing defendant’s sentence to a term of imprisonment of from 15 years to life, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed.

Defendant was tried and convicted for his role as an accomplice to an armed robbery in which the victim was killed by the codefendant. The trial evidence revealed that defendant’s role in this crime was as a lookout. Under the felony murder doctrine, defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree. Due to the nature of the defendant’s participation in this crime and his minor prior criminal record, a sentence of 20 years to life was excessive. Accordingly, we reduce defendant’s sentence to a term of imprisonment of from 15 years to life.

We have examined defendant’s other points raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Kassal, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
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 eLinear, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB/A  (Second  Amendment)  for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carole Hlozek, Principal Accounting 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  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

(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/ Carole Hlozek
-------------------------
Carole Hlozek,
Principal Accounting Officer
December 19, 2003


     A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to  eLinear,  Inc.  and  will  be  retained by eLinear, Inc. and
furnished  to  the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




<PAGE>
# Explore my Options

Check out your options regarding tasks or immigration paths that you may want to complete while visiting our site.****

06/01/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emmanuel Chuckwudi EKWURUKE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10732

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 8, 2011.

Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Phelesa M. Guy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Office of the U.S. Trustee, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Emmanuel Chuckwudi Ekwuruke appeals the 42-month sentence he received after he was convicted of embezzling, abstracting, purloining, or misapplying $485,059.76 from Bank of America, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656, and embezzling, stealing, purloining, or converting to his use tax payer remittance checks in excess of $1,000, in violation of § 641. He argues that his within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable because there was no actual loss, his offense was unsophisticated, he has no criminal history, and he made a serious effort to pursue his education when criminal charges were pending.

This court reviews a sentence for procedural error and for substantive reasonableness. *Gall v. United*States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,*517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008). A sentence within the guidelines range is presumed reasonable. *United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir.2009); *United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Ekwuruke has not rebutted this presumption because he has not shown that the district court failed to account for a sentencing factor that should have been accorded substantial weight, gave substantial weight “to an irrelevant or improper factor,” or made “a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” *See United States v. Cooks,*589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1930, 176 L.Ed.2d 397 (2010). The Guidelines permit the district court to punish a defendant for intended loss. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(A)(ii)). Further, Ekwuruke’s history and characteristics did not require a sentence lower than the sentence the guidelines provide. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); *Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 360, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Accordingly, his sentence is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
389 P.2d 122

#### ARIZONA SERVICE COMPANY, a corporation, and Arizona Corporation Commission, George Senner, E. T. Williams, Jr., and Jack Buzard, as members of the Commission, Appellants, v. John VISCO and Arizona Mill Supply, Inc., Appellees.

No. 7227.

Supreme Court of Arizona. En Bane.

Feb. 5, 1964.

Robert Pickrell, Atty. Gen., and Fennemore, Craig, Allen & McClennen, Phoenix, for appellants.

R. G. Langmade, Phoenix, for appellees.

*247NABOURS, Superior Court Judge.

The controversy between these parties to this action was determined on its merits in Visco v. State ex rel. Pickrell, 95 Ariz. 154, 388 P.2d 155, decided December 26, 1963. This appeal therefor is dismissed as moot.

LOCKWOOD, V. C. J., and STRUCKMEYER, BERNSTEIN and JENNINGS, JJ., concur.

Note: Chief Justice JESSE A. UDALL, having disqualified himself, the Honorable WILLIAM W. NABOURS, Judge of the Superior Court of Yuma County, Arizona, was called to sit in his stead and participate in the determination of this appeal.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
K. Hilger, 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/ JAMES K. HILGER

James K. Hilger
Chief Financial Officer
August 16, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pyramid Breweries Inc. and will be retained by Pyramid Breweries
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Smith Barney Potomac Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci

Jerry Pascucci
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
President and Director

Date: May 15, 2008

---
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Sajan, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shannon Zimmerman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 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/ Shannon ZimmermanShannon Zimmerman, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentMarch 30, 2011







Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Sajan, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy Clayton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 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/ Timothy ClaytonTimothy Clayton, Chief Financial OfficerMarch 30, 2011
#### Peterson, Appellant, *v.*Swan, Respondent.

*(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.*

June 27, 1890.)

Appeal from jury term.

Action by John Peterson against John Swan.

Argued before Freedman and Ingraham, JJ.

*959*Hart & Price,*for appellant. *Hill, Wing & Shoudy,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. See 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. Rep. 151.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9724]

[[Page 20943]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:  Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee will hold a 
meeting on May 3, 2000, at the North Tahoe Conference Center, 1318 N. 
Lake Blvd. Kings Beach CA 96143. This Committee, established by the 
Secretary of Agriculture on December 15, 1998, (64 FR 2876) is 
chartered to provide advice to the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Federal Interagency Partnership on the protection of the environmental 
and economic health of the Lake Tahoe Region.

DATES: The meeting will be held May 3, 2000 beginning at 9:00 a.m. and 
ending at 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the North Tahoe Conference 
Center, 1318 N. Lake Blvd. Kings Beach, CA 96143.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Gee or Jeannie Stafford, Lake Tahoe 
Basin Management Unit, Forest Service, 870 Emerald Bay Road Suite 1, 
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, (530) 573-2642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The committee will meet jointly with the 
Lake Tahoe Basin Executive Committees. Items to be covered on the 
agenda include: [1] Update of the Chapter renewal and announcement of 
new member: [2] budget subcommittee report ;[3] status report on summer 
events; [4] usefulness of the Committee to the Federal Partnership: [5] 
TRPA proposal to expedite EIP implementation; [6] update on Washoe 
Tribe issues and projects; [7] US Postal Service response to the 
Committee letter; and [8] open public comment. All Lake Tahoe Basin 
Federal Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested 
citizens are encouraged to attend. Issues may be brought to the 
attention of the Committee during the open public comment period at the 
meeting or by filing written statements with the secretary for the 
Committee before or after the meeting. Please refer any written 
comments to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit at the contact address 
stated above.

    Dated: April 7, 2000.
Edmund Gee,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 00-9724 Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
```
A92A0922.

#### FULTON v. THE STATE.

(422 SE2d 257)

Carley, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of three counts of child molestation. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdicts.

1. Over appellant’s objection, the trial court ruled that out-of-court statements attributed to the victim were admissible pursuant to OCGA § 24-3-16. This evidentiary ruling is enumerated as error.

“The record shows . . . that as to each of the State witnesses who related statements made to them by the child, the trial court conducted a hearing outside the presence of the jury and determined that the circumstances provided sufficient indicia of reliability.” *Hutton v. State,*192 Ga. App. 239, 240 (2) (384 SE2d 446) (1989). “Examination of the transcript of the hearing and trial establishes a sufficient showing of indicia of reliability, within the meaning of OCGA § 24-3-16, as to all out-of-court statements made by the victim, which were testified to by witnesses in the presence of the jury.” *Gregg v. State,*201 Ga. App. 238, 241 (3b) (411 SE2d 65) (1991). Accordingly, this enumeration is without merit.

2. The trial court’s refusal to allow appellant’s character witnesses to answer a certain question is enumerated as error. However, as in *Hess v. State,*132 Ga. App. 26, 31 (5) (207 SE2d 580) (1974), the record demonstrates that no proffer was made as to what the character witnesses’ answers would have been. “Not having done so, [appellant] has failed to show that the testimony would have benefited [him] or that its rejection was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a reversal of the conviction[s]. [Cits.]” *Miller v. State,*162 Ga. App. 759, 760 (1) (292 SE2d 481) (1982).

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Pope and Johnson, JJ., concur.*

*354Decided September 8, 1992.

*J. Stanley Rhymer,*for appellant.

*Thomas C. Lawler III, District Attorney, Debra K. Turner, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.
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


In connection with the report on Form 10-K of Advanced Technologies Group, Ltd.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), the
undersigned, Alex Stelmak, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

     (1)  The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: April 29, 2010

                                           /s/ Alex Stelmak
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Alex Stelmak
                                           Chief Executive Officer,
                                           Chairman of the Board and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2003



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Secure
Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. McNulty, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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/    JOHN E. MCNULTY                                           
|                                                                 
|John E. McNulty Chairman and Chief Executive Officer May 15, 2003
changeinacct.htm






  



  







  










	
Item 4.01
	
Changes in Registrant’s Certifying Accountant.




 





 

On October 1, 2009, Commercial National Financial Corporation, (“Corporation’) was notified that the audit practice of Beard Miller Company LLP (“Beard”) an independent registered public accounting firm, was combined with ParenteBeard LLC (“ParenteBeard”) in a transaction pursuant to which Beard combined
its operations with ParenteBeard and certain of the professional staff and partners of Beard joined ParenteBeard either as employees or partners of ParenteBeard. On October 1, 2009, Beard resigned as the auditors of the Corporation and with the approval of the Audit Committee of the Corporation’s Board of Directors, ParenteBeard was engaged as its independent registered public accounting firm.

 

Prior to engaging ParenteBeard, the Corporation did not consult with ParenteBeard regarding the application of accounting principles to a specific completed or contemplated transaction or regarding the type of audit opinions that might be rendered by ParenteBeard on the Corporation’s financial statements, and ParenteBeard did not
provide any written or oral advice that was an important factor considered by the Corporation in reaching a decision as to any such accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue.

 

The report of independent registered public accounting firm of Beard regarding the Corporation’s financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 did not contain any adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion and were not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles.

 

During the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, and during the interim period from the end of the most recently completed fiscal year through October 1, 2009, the date of resignation, there were no disagreements with Beard on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedures,
which disagreements, if not resolved to the satisfaction of Beard would have caused it to make reference to such disagreement in its reports.

 

The Corporation provided Beard with a copy of this Current Report on Form 8-K prior to its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission and requested that Beard furnish the Corporation with a letter addressed to the Securities and Exchange Commission stating whether it agrees with above statements and, if it does not agree, the respects
in which it does not agree. A copy of the letter, dated October 5, 2009, is filed as Exhibit 16 (which is incorporated by reference herein) to this Current Report on Form 8-K.