alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Duty of Disclosure

The duty of disclosure is ongoing throughout the Hague and orphan adoption processes and requires that you and any adult member of your household (AMH):
                - Give true and complete information to your home study preparer;
                - Disclose any other relevant information, such as physical, mental, or emotional health problems or behavioral issues;
                - Disclose any arrest, conviction, or other criminal history, in or outside the United States, even if the record of the arrest, conviction, or other criminal history was expunged, sealed, pardoned, or otherwise cleared;
                - Disclose any history of substance abuse, sexual abuse, child abuse or neglect, or family violence as an offender, even if closed or unsubstantiated; and
                - Notify your home study preparer and USCIS of any new event or information that might require you to submit an  updated home study .

Once you file a suitability application or a Form I-600 or Form I-800 petition, you should notify your home study provider and USCIS of any significant changes within the time frames outlined below.

**If you reside inside the United States or reside abroad and are immediately seeking an immigrant visa for your child after final petition approval. You must notify USCIS, your home study provider, and the Department of State visa-issuing post of any significant changes that occur before your child enters the United States.

If you do not disclose an event as required, we may deny or revoke your application or petition. If USCIS denies or revokes your application or petition because you failed to disclose required information, you will generally be barred from filing a new application or petition for one year.

06/23/2021

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
Exhibit 32

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Advanced Technologies Group, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

Dated: April 21, 2004                       By: /s/ Abel Raskas
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Abel Raskas
                                               President


Dated: April 21, 2004                       By: /s/ Alex Stelmak
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Alex Stelmak
                                               Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Consolidated Income of Solutia Inc. and Subsidiaries for
the three months ended March 31, 2000, and the Statement of Consolidated
Financial Position as of March 31, 2000. Such information is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such combined financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>         1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              29
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      523
<ALLOWANCES>                                        11
<INVENTORY>                                        396
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,168
<PP&E>                                           3,710
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,361
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,531
<BONDS>                                            793
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                         108
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,937
<SALES>                                            846
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   846
<CGS>                                              647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  20
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     73
<INCOME-TAX>                                        22
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 51
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        51
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46


</TABLE>
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 13, 2015

No. 04-15-00015-CR

Robert Alan QUEEMAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2063-CR

The Honorable Enrique Fernandez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 24**POWER OF ATTORNEY**     KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors of NORTEL NETWORKSLIMITED (the “Corporation”), which is about to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “SEC”), Washington, D.C. 20549, under the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Annual Report”) for the fiscal year ended December31, 2007, hereby constitutes and appoints David W. Drinkwater and Gordon A. Davies his or her trueand lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, with full power to act without theothers, for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to signsuch Annual Report and any and all amendments thereto, and other documents related thereto, withpower where appropriate to affix the corporate seal of the Corporation thereto and to attest saidseal and to file such Annual Report and amendments thereto, with all exhibits thereto, and any andall other information and documents in connection therewith, with the SEC, hereby granting untosaid attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform anyand all acts and things requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully asto all intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying andconfirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, may lawfully do or cause tobe done by virtue hereof.     INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed this Power of Attorneythis27th day of February, 2008.          /s/ J. H. BENNETT /s/ M. BISCHOFF /s/ J.B. HUNT, JR.     J.H. Bennett M. Bischoff J.B. Hunt, Jr.     /s/ K.M. JOHNSON /s/ J.A. MACNAUGHTON /s/ J.P. MANLEY     K.M. Johnson J.A. MacNaughton J.P. Manley     /s/ R.D. MCCORMICK /s/ C. MONGEAU /s/ H.J. PEARCE     R.D. McCormick C. Mongeau H.J. Pearce     /s/ J.D. WATSON  /s/ M.S. ZAFIROVSKI   J.D. Watson M.S. Zafirovski
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5870 

To restrict passports of certain sex offenders, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2010 

Mr. POE of Texas (for himself and Mr. COSTA) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To restrict passports of certain sex offenders, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RESTRICTION OF PASSPORTS OF CERTAIN SEX 

4 OFFENDERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of State may re6 voke, restrict, or limit a passport issued to an individual 

7 who is a sex offender (as defined in section 111(1) of the 

8 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 

9 U.S.C. 16911(4)) who is— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5870 IH

1 (1) included in the National Sex Offender Reg2 istry established pursuant to section 119 of such Act 

3 (42 U.S.C. 16919); or 

4 (2) required to register in a jurisdiction’s sex 

5 offender registry under title I of such Act and with 

6 respect to whom information may be maintained in 

7 the National Sex Offender Registry under such sec8 tion 119. 

9 (b) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 2011, 

10 and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall sub11 mit to Congress a report on the number of passports the 

12 Secretary has revoked, restricted, or limited in the pre13 ceding fiscal year under subsection (a) or any other provi14 sion of law. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos L. Surpris, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered June 18, 1985, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing the defense of entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence *(see,*Penal Law § 25.00 [2]). According to tape recordings of conversations between the defendant, a confidential informant and an undercover police officer, which were admitted into evidence, the defendant was clearly predisposed to commit this crime and the police merely afforded him the opportunity to do so *(see, People v Thompson,*47 NY2d 940; *People v Calvano,*30 NY2d 199). The defendant’s guilt of conspiring to sell narcotics was established beyond a reasonable doubt since these tape recorded conversations indicate that he entered into an agreement to sell a controlled substance, and the evidence further established that he actively pursued consummation of this deal by driving to Queens to meet with his "connection” and by telephoning the undercover police officer to tell him that his "connection” had not arrived, in furtherance of the agreement *(see, People v Bauer,*32 AD2d 463, *affd,*26 NY2d 915; *see also, People v Menache,*98 AD2d 335).

The defendant’s contention that his due process rights were violated because of police misconduct was not preserved for review, and, in any event, is without merit. The record is devoid of any credible evidence indicating that the police manufactured the crime which otherwise would not likely have occurred, or engaged in conduct repugnant to a sense of justice, that the defendant was initially reluctant and was subsequently overcome by repeated solicitations or the spectre of enormous gain, or that the police were not considering the proper law enforcement objectives, to wit, the prevention of crime and the protection of the public *(cf. People v Isaacson,*44 NY2d 511).

Finally, the sentence imposed was not harsh or excessive. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.
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 annual report of The Quantum Group, Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending October 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald
B. Cohen , Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and
in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
          Report.

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


Signed on February 14, 2005



/s/ DONALD B. COHEN
--------------------------------------------------
DONALD B. COHEN
Chief Financial Officer of The Quantum Group, Inc.
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Vaccine Claims/Office of Special Masters

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("Vaccine Program") comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 ("Vaccine Act"). See Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (1986) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34). The Vaccine Act became effective October 1, 1988. It establishes the Vaccine Program as a no-fault compensation program whereby petitions for monetary compensation may be brought by or on behalf of persons allegedly suffering injury or death as a result of the administration of certain compulsory childhood vaccines. Congress intended that the Vaccine Program provide individuals a swift, flexible, and less adversarial alternative to the often costly and lengthy civil arena of traditional tort litigation.All vaccine claims are managed and adjudicated by the congressionally created Office of Special Masters, which consists of eight special masters who are appointed to serve for four year terms. The Office of Special Masters is established within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims which appoints and removes the special masters and to which the special masters' decisions are appealed. A special master has two primary functions: case management, which involves overseeing the collection of information and setting time frames for its submission; and decision making, which involves determining the types of proceedings necessary for presenting the relevant evidence and ultimately weighing the evidence in rendering a final, enforceable decision. In each case, the special master actively and frequently interacts with the parties, generally through counsel representing petitioner and a Department of Justice attorney representing the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to ensure that the case progresses effectively and efficiently. The parties are also given several opportunities early on in the case to ask questions, raise concerns, discuss generally how the system works, and, if appropriate, learn the special master's tentative conclusions and findings. Throughout the entire process, the special master makes every effort to balance Congress's vision of streamlined proceedings with the parties' right to a fair opportunity to present their cases. The special masters' rules, orders, and other published communications, such as the special masters' Guidelines for Practice Under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, likewise evoke a philosophy of guidance, cooperative effort, informality, and reasonable speed in presenting and deciding the case.

Go back to the Vaccine Claims page

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6027 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect youth from exploitation 

by adults using the Internet, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2010 

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. DANIEL E. 

LUNGREN of California, and Mr. RODRIGUEZ) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect youth 

from exploitation by adults using the Internet, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Our Children 

5 Act of 2010’’. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 6027 IH

1 SEC. 2. RETENTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS AND INFORMA2 TION THAT MAY BE USEFUL TO LAW EN3 FORCEMENT RELATING TO CHILD EXPLOI4 TATION BY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION 

5 SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR DISCLOSURE PUR6 SUANT TO WARRANT, SUBPOENA, OR COURT 

7 ORDER. 

8 Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(h) RETENTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS AND INFOR11 MATION THAT MAY BE USEFUL TO LAW ENFORCEMENT

12 RELATING TO CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION BY ELEC13 TRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR DIS14 CLOSURE PURSUANT TO WARRANT, SUBPOENA, OR

15 COURT ORDER.—A provider of an electronic communica16 tion service or remote computing service shall retain for 

17 a period of at least two years all records or other informa18 tion pertaining to the identity of a user of a temporarily 

19 assigned network address the service assigns to that user. 

20 Any record or information retained under this subsection 

21 may be disclosed to law enforcement pursuant to warrant, 

22 subpoena, or court order under subsection (c) but only for 

23 use in connection with an investigation of child sexual 

24 expoitation.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Todd Equipment Leasing Co. Inc., Appellant, v Joseph J. Santacroce, as Sheriff of the County of Nassau, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent Sheriff of Nassau County to proceed with the service of an incoine\ execution, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated October 16, 1986, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

*832The petitioner seeks to compel the respondent Sheriff to collect on a judgment listed on a schedule of debts discharged in bankruptcy, pursuant to an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court of the District of Connecticut (Schwartz-berg, J.), dated January 30, 1981. The petitioner is not entitled to the mandamus relief requested.

Absent a judicial determination of nondischargeability of the debt in question, the order of discharge provided to the Sheriff is facially valid. Therefore, the respondent acted properly in refusing to collect on the scheduled debt. Mandamus will not lie to compel the respondent to violate a court order *(see, e.g., Matter of Burr v Voorhis,*229 NY 382; *Matter of Fried v Fox,*49 AD2d 877). Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6058 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To ensure that the housing assistance programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the 

Department of Veterans Affairs are available to veterans 

and members of the Armed Forces who have serviceconnected injuries and to survivors and dependents of 

veterans and members of the Armed Forces. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6058 RFS

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wounded Warrior and 

5 Military Survivor Housing Assistance Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING PROGRAMS. 

7 The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

8 and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall take such ac9 tions as may be necessary to ensure that the housing as10 sistance programs administered by such Secretaries, in11 cluding mortgage insurance and home loan programs, are 

12 accessible by and available to, and address the particular 

13 needs and circumstances of, veterans and members of the 

14 Armed Forces who have service-connected injuries and 

15 survivors and dependents of veterans and members of the 

16 Armed Forces. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 10-15

IN RE: ADMISSION AND PRACTICE COMMITTEE

O R D E R

It is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 2(a)(1) of the Court's Rules of Admission and Practice, 

that the following individuals have been appointed by the Court to serve as members of the

Committee on Admissions and Practice: 

Theodore C. Jarvi, Esq. has been appointed, effective July 30, 2015, for a term expiring on 

July 30, 2018;

.

DATED: August 4, 2015 FOR THE COURT:

/s/Gregory O. Block 

GREGORY O. BLOCK

Clerk of the Court
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000156 10-OCT-2016 08:15 AM
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Anderson BURR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7255.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2011.

Decided: May 17, 2011.

Seth Allen Neyhart, Stark Law Group, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Anderson Burr seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. *235§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burr has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*