alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Leadership

                - Ur M. Jaddou , Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
                - Jennifer B. Higgins , Deputy Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
                - Felicia Escobar Carrillo , Chief of Staff, Office of the Director
                - Josh Wodka , Deputy Chief of Staff, Mission Operations and Engagement, Office of the Director
                - Glendaly Sanchez , Acting Deputy Chief of Staff Operations, Office of the Director
                - A. Ashley Tabaddor , Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel
                - Stephen Dove , Chief, Office of the Executive Secretariat
                - Katherine Lotspeich , Chief, Office of Performance and Quality
                - Connie Nolan , Associate Director, Service Center Operations Directorate
                - Ted H. Kim , Associate Director Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate
                - Larry C. DeNayer , Associate Director, Management Directorate
                - Matthew D. Emrich , Associate Director, Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate
                - Michael Valverde , Associate Director, Field Operations Directorate
                - Tammy Meckley , Associate Director, Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate
                - Carrie M. Selby , Associate Director, External Affairs Directorate
                - Avideh Moussavian , Chief, Office of Policy & Strategy
                - Angela Y. Washington , Chief, Office of Privacy
                - Susan Dibbins , Chief, Administrative Appeals Office
                - Kristinn Coleman , Chief, Office of Investigations
                - Paula Thomas , Chief, Office of Equal Opportunity and Inclusion

12/08/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
# If You Feel Sick, Do Not Come to Your USCIS Appointment; Please Cancel and Reschedule It

USCIS wants to ensure the safety of those whom we serve and our employees. Please do not visit a USCIS office if you are sick or start to feel symptoms of being sick. We will help you reschedule your appointment, without penalty, when you are better. If you have an illness or are exhibiting symptoms, we recommend you cancel and reschedule your USCIS appointment. Some illnesses and symptoms include:
                - A cold or the flu
                - Fever or nausea
                - Severe headaches or body aches
                - Muscle or stomach pain, chest pain or difficulty breathing
                - Vomiting or diarrhea
                - Active tuberculosis (TB)
                - Mumps, measles, chickenpox
                - Other contagious disease

## If you need to reschedule an appointment

Please follow the instructions on your appointment notice to reschedule your appointment. **There is no penalty if you reschedule your appointment.**

## If you come to a USCIS office when you are sick

For the safety of our employees and those that we serve, if you or someone with you appears ill or meets any of the conditions listed above, the officer may cancel your appointment or interview. We will assist you in rescheduling your appointment, without any penalty.

05/17/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
EXHIBIT
10.3

     

    Accelerated
Venture Partners, LLC

    1840
Gateway Drive, Suite 200

    Foster
City, CA 94404

     

    March 25,
2010

    


    Accelerated
Acquisitions V, Inc.

    1840
Gateway Drive Suite 200

    Foster
City, CA 94404

    


    Re:           Tender
of shares for cancellation

    


    Gentlemen:

    


    By this
letter, the undersigned tenders for cancellation 1,979,760 of the 5,000,000
shares of common stock par value $0.0001 of Accelerated Acquisitions, V, Inc.
(the “Company”) which it holds.  Following the cancellation of such
shares, Accelerated Venture Partners, LLC will hold a total of 3,020,240 of the
Company’s Common Shares.

    


    Sincerely,

    


    ACCELERATED
VENTURE PARTNERS, LLC

    


    
      
        
          	
                  By:

                	
                        
                    /s/
      Timothy Neher

                  

                
	 
      	
                  Timothy
      Neher, Managing
Member

                


        

      

    


    
      
         


      

      
        1
#### Underhill *v.*Collins.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

Appeal—Review.

Where, in an action for rent reserved on a written lease, the evidence is conflicting as to whether the landlord assented to the surrender of the premises, and the jury find for plaintiff, the verdict will not be disturbed.

Appeal from special term, Kings county.

Action for rent reserved on a written lease by Jeronemus S. Underhill against Samuel Collins, who abandoned the premises before the expiration of the term. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Defendant abandoned the premises because of gambling in the building, and sent the keys to plaintiff, who refused to accept them, and they were afterwards placed on plaintiff’s desk. Plaintiff re-rented the premises for a short while during the term of the lease, and credited the rent to defendant.

Argued before Barnard, P. J„ and Pratt and Dykman, JJ.

P. *Q. Eckerson,*for appellant. *Walter S. Logan, (Charles M. Demond,*of counsel,) for respondent.

*681Pratt, J.

At request of defendant, the court charged the jury that, if the landlord rented the premises to other parties without notifying the defendant that he should do so, the verdict must be for the defendant. There was testimony given by the plaintiff that he refused to accept the surrender, and told defendant he would hold him for the rent. In view of the charge given, as above quoted, we must understand that the jury believed in the landlord’s evidence. They were entirely justified in so doing. If defendant’s liability was supposed to be of any value, no reason is apparent why the landlord should have been willing to release it. And the fact that the keys were once refused by the landlord, and at a subsequent time were put upon his desk in his absence, was strong corroboration of plaintiff’s testimony. The court fairly left to the jury whether the landlord assented to the surrender. No error was committed, and the verdict must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5840 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5840

  To prevent the participation of the Attorney General in any lawsuit 
that seeks to invalidate certain provisions of Arizona law relating to 
aliens unlawfully present in the United States without first satisfying 
                          certain conditions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2010

    Mr. Hunter (for himself, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. 
Marchant, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Hall 
   of Texas, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. 
Tiahrt, Mr. Carter, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Duncan, Mrs. Myrick, 
  Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Royce, and Mr. 
Franks of Arizona) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prevent the participation of the Attorney General in any lawsuit 
that seeks to invalidate certain provisions of Arizona law relating to 
aliens unlawfully present in the United States without first satisfying 
                          certain conditions.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sanctuary City Prevention Act of 
2010''.

SEC. 2. IN GENERAL.

    The Attorney General may not expend funds made available in any 
provision of law to participate in any lawsuit that seeks to invalidate 
those provisions of the Arizona Revised Statutes amended by Arizona 
Senate Bill 1070, 49th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., Ch. 113 (Az. 2010) (as 
amended by Arizona House Bill 2162, 49th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., Ch. 211 
(Az. 2010)) until the date that the Attorney General submits to the 
Congress a report setting forth a plan to enforce the immigration laws 
(as such term is defined in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))) in any State or subdivision of 
a State that has in effect any law, policy, or procedure in 
contravention of subsection (a) or (b) of section 642 of the Illegal 
Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
1373).
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                                VERTICALNET, INC.

                  CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
          RELATING TO A PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


      I, John A. Milana, Chief Financial Officer of Verticalnet, Inc., a
Pennsylvania corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

      (1) The Company's periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2002 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                      * * *


_________________________
John A. Milana
Chief Financial Officer
Date: November 7, 2002
Exhibit 13.1

CHINA MOBILE LIMITED

Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned, LI Yue, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of China Mobile Limited (the
Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 25, 2013



/s/ LI YueName:

LI YueTitle:

Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION



  Certification by the Principal 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





         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Iroquois
Gas Transmission System, L.P., a limited partnership organized under the laws of
the State of Delaware (the "Partnership"), does hereby certify that, to the best
of such officer's knowledge:


     1.         The accompanying Annual Report of the Partnership on Form 10-K
          for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
          with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
          Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.         Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Partnership.




                                                      /s/    Jay Holm
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    President

                                                    March 31, 2005




                                                      /s/    Paul Bailey
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

                                                    March 31, 2005





                                       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 annual report of Cygni Investments, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer and principal
financial officer of the Company, hereby 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 results of
          operations of the Company.

Date:  March 28, 2007

/s/ Carl Suter
Carl Suter, President and Treasurer
(Principal executive officer
and principal financial officer)
# C_2021483EN.01000101.xml

| 1.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 483/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 483/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10492 – SILVER LAKE / CVC / SPHINX / RAC JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 483/01)

On 24 November 2021, 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 and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ 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 policy’ 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 32021M10492. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10492. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas France, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered December 2, 1985, and an amended judgment of the same court (Boklan, J.), rendered January 3, 1986.

Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.2

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Infinity  Capital  Group,  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
"Report") I, Theodore A. Greenberg,  Chief Financial  Officer,  Chief Investment
Officer and Secretary of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 USC section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.

Dated: September 20, 2006


Name: Theodore A. Greenberg

/s/Theodore A. Greenberg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Position: Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer and Secretary


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 99.4











CERTIFICATIONS





Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in her capacity as an officer of SPACEHAB, Incorporated (SPACEHAB), that, to the best of her knowledge, the
Quarterly Report of SPACEHAB on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of SPACEHAB.








Date: November 13, 2002











/s/  JULIA A. PULZONEJulia A. PulzoneSenior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
#### Schell *v.*Elkins *et al.*

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

May 12, 1890.)

Mortgages—Foreclosure Sale—Reduction oe Taxes.

Where completion of title under a foreclosure sale is postponed, and in the mean time taxes on the property are reduced under the arrearages act, (Laws N. "ST. 1883, c. 114,) the purchaser is entitled to allowance for the tax as it stood when his hid was made.

Appeal from special term, Kings county.

Foreclosure proceedings instituted by Edward Schell, trustee of Mary Pay-, son Cargill, against George B. Elkins and others. An order was entered denying plaintiff’s motion to be released from his purchase at the foreclosure sale, and setting aside the order continuing the sale, and directing the sheriff to make a new report allowing plaintiff less on account of taxes and interest, and plaintiff appeals.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*Edward H. Schell, (James 0. Hoyt*and *Frederick A. Ward,*of counsel,) for appellant. *J. Ralph Burnett, J. Hunt Betts,*and *Sherman Evarts,*( *William D. Veeder,*of counsel,) for respondents.

Barnard, P. J.

The plaintiff, in 1875, obtained a decree for the foreclosure and sale of certain mortgaged premises in Brooklyn. Ko sale was made under the decree until April, 1881, when the plaintiff bought in the property for $15,000. The taxes then upon the property were $4,505.53, which were, by condition of sale, to be deducted. The title under this sale was left unperfected until 1889, when the sale was adjudged a good sale, and the plaintiff was required to complete the purchase and take title under it. The taxes on the property in 1889 had been reduced, under chapter 114 of Laws of 1883, to the sum of $8,026. The sheriff, on giving the deed, allowed the tax as it stood when the bid was made, and the order appealed from corrects this by allowing only the reduced tax, under the arrearages act above mentioned.

I think the sheriff’s report was correct. The order appealed from is based upon the statement in it that the sale should have been closed on the 4th of May, 1881. If that had been done, an allowance of the tax as it then stood would have been a matter of course. A subsequent reduction under a law-two years later would not have inured to the benefit of the mortgagor or his representatives, but to the exoneration of the land which the plaintiff owned. The arrearage law was designed to reduce a tax on the land to a sum which it justly ought to pay at the time of the passage of the act. The tax was not necessarily bad, but it had become so large that it was deemed better to reduce it, and get payment, than to sell the land for the larger amount, and lose it, as the act states that the tax has become greater than the assessed value of the land in some states. The accounting should be as of 4th May, 1881, allowing the tax as it then stood. The debt was then $11,437.31; the costs and interest on the amount, $440.23; the sheriff’s fees, $211.50; the tax is $4,505.53. This would leave a debt on May 4, 1881, of $1,594.37. The order should be modified so as to conform to this result.