alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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, 2014 (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 24, 2015



/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 12.1



Certifications



Certification pursuant to Section 302 Sarbanes Oxley Act by the Chief Financial Officer of Telecom Italia Media S.p.A.



I, Enrico Parazzini, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Telecom Italia Media
S.p.A.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
any untrue statement of a 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 misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) [Reserved]



(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the
companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial
reporting; and



5. The companys other certifying
officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies
and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.



Date: June 30, 2006

| |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  |                  
| |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------
| |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Enrico Parazzini
| |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                |  | Enrico Parazzini 
| |  |  |  |     |  | Title:               |  | Managing Director
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of **FIRSTBINGO.COM** (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Thomas Sheppard, Chief Executive 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 7th day of April, 2004.

 
/s/ Thomas SheppardThomas SheppardChief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

Misc. No. 2-06

IN RE: FEE SCHEDULE O R D E R

It is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 45(f), that the following revised schedule of fees approved by

the Court is announced. 

For filing Notice of Appeal or Petition for Extraordinary Relief in this Court, 

but not when the Court orders case redocketing for its administrative convenience $50.00 

For filing Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(fee set by that court, payable to this Court) 450.00#

For reproducing a paper copy from original documents or from microfiche or 

microfilm reproductions of original records, per copy page .50*

For each microfiche sheet of film or microfilm jacket copy of any Court record,

when available 3.00 

For reproducing audio or video tape recording, including cost of materials 15.00 

For searching Court records, per name or item searched 15.00*

For retrieval of a Court record from a Federal Records Center or National Archives 25.00 

For certifying a document or paper, whether certification is made directly on 

the document or by separate instrument 5.00 

For application for admission to practice before the Court 30.00 

For a certificate of admission to practice, suitable for framing:

(fee set by, and payable to, printer)

attorney 34.00#

nonattorney 28.00#

For a Certificate of Good Standing 5.00

DATED: March 30, 2006 FOR THE COURT:

* Indicate services on behalf of the United States

 if information is available through electronic access NORMAN Y. HERRING

 Clerk of the Court

# Changes effected by this Order
150% of the HHS Poverty Guidelines for 2024*

Monthly Basis

Persons in 

family unit

48 Contiguous 

States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii

1 $1,882.50 $2,351.25 $2,163.75

2 $2,555.00 $3,192.50 $2,937.50

3 $3,227.50 $4,033.75 $3,711.25

4 $3,900.00 $4,875.00 $4,485.00

5 $4,572.50 $5,716.25 $5,258.75

6 $5,245.00 $6,557.50 $6,032.50

7 $5,917.50 $7,398.75 $6,806.25

8 $6,590.00 $8,240.00 $7,580.00

For each 

additional 

person add

$672.50 $841.25 $773.75

* As required by section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 

of 1981 (Pub. L. 97-35 - reauthorized by Pub. L. 105-285, Section 201 

(1988)).
150% of the HHS Poverty Guidelines for 2024*

Annual Basis

Persons in 

family unit

48 Contiguous 

States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii

1 $22,590 $28,215 $25,965

2 $30,660 $38,310 $35,250

3 $38,730 $48,405 $44,535

4 $46,800 $58,500 $53,820

5 $54,870 $68,595 $63,105

6 $62,940 $78,690 $72,390

7 $71,010 $88,785 $81,675

8 $79,080 $98,880 $90,960

For each 

additional 

person add

$8,070 $10,095 $9,285

* As required by section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 

of 1981 (Pub. L. 97-35 - reauthorized by Pub. L. 105-285, Section 201 

(1988)).
#### James Beckett, Appellant, v Audrey H. Beckett, Defendant, and County of Saratoga, Respondent.

Harvey, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Doran, J.), entered December 9, 1986 in Saratoga County, which denied plaintiffs motion to proceed as a poor person.

Approximately three months after being transferred by the Commissioner of Correctional Services to a correctional facility in Saratoga County, plaintiff commenced a divorce action against defendant and moved to proceed as a poor person. Although no evidence was presented indicating that either *969plaintiff or defendant had any prior contacts with Saratoga County, plaintiff commenced the action there and sought to have that county pay his court costs based upon the assertion that his physical presence there as an inmate made him a resident of that county. Saratoga County opposed the motion. Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed as a poor person upon the ground that plaintiff was not a resident of Saratoga County. This appeal ensued.

Initially, we note that determination of a motion to proceed as a poor person is within the sound discretion of the court considering the motion *(see, Smith v Smith,*2 NY2d 120, 123; 21 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 127:20, at 333-334). It is clear that "residence” is not generally synonymous with "domicile” and that it is not necessary to show an intent to make a place a permanent home in order to establish residence there *(Matter of Newcomb,*192 NY 238, 250; *see, Antone v General Motors Corp.,*64 NY2d 20, 30). Mere physical presence, however, is not necessarily sufficient to establish residence *(see, e.g., Siegfried v Siegfried,*92 AD2d 916, *Katz v Siroty,*62 AD2d 1011). Here, plaintiff was a resident of Nassau County prior to his incarceration. His current presence in Saratoga County is not the result of a voluntary decision on his part. He is there at the discretion of the Commissioner and can be involuntarily transferred to a facility in another county at any time *(see,*Correction Law § 23; *Matter of Cole v Smith,*84 AD2d 942, *appeal dismissed*55 NY2d 877). We conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiff failed to establish that he was a resident of Saratoga County for purposes of proceeding as a poor person.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
# cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Mont E. Tanner Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF N EVADA CLERK'S ORDER 

# 2 (0)-1947
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-312-052]

Take notice that on April 17, 2001, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), tendered for filing an Errata Letter Filing in the above-referenced docket.

Tennessee states that the Errata Letter Filing contains a complete copy of a Gas Transportation Agreement between Tennessee and Virginia Power Energy Marketing, Inc. (VEPCO) pursuant to Tennessee's Rate Schedule FT-A (FT-A Service Agreement). Tennessee further states that the copy of the FT-A Service Agreement that was filed on April 11, 2001 in this docket inadvertently omitted certain pages of the agreement.

                    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-10322  Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

October 2, 2018.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00837- CR

IN RE LESLIE FOSTER, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16CR1600



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 25, 2018, relator Leslie Foster filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017 ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to appoint new counsel to represent him in the pending appeal of his criminal conviction, Case No. 14

- 17

- 00893

- CR

.2

The jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to issue writs of mandamus is prescribed by section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code, which provides that a court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus to enforce its jurisdiction or against certain judges identified in section 22.221 (b) . Tex. Gov’ t Code § 22 .221

. Because
relator does not seek a writ of mandamus to enforce the jurisdiction of this court or
a writ against a judge, but rather asks this court to appoint new counsel , we lack jurisdiction of relator’s petition

. Additionally, because relator is represented by counsel in his pending appeal, his pro se mandamus petition presents nothing for this court’s review. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App . 2007) ; Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means that a relator’s pro se mandamus petition should be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s
review. See Gray v. Shipley , 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.

– Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding).
For these reasons, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and Brown. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
(7 Misc. Rep. 687.)

#### HERDER v. BLOOMER.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

April 2, 1894.)

Negligence—Failure to Lock Door—Larceny of Goods.

Defendant leased a room to plaintiff for storage of goods, reserving a part of the room for his own use. One provision of the agreement between the parties was that defendant should see that the doors were properly locked after use by him. *Beld*that, where plaintiff’s goods were stolen in consequence of defendant’s failure to lock the door, defendant was liable for the value of the goods, without proof of collusion between. , him and the thief.

Appeal from second district court.

Action by Peter Herder against Theophilus J. Bloomer to recover from the defendant $95 for type stolen from the plaintiff, from a loft which plaintiff had rented from the defendant for the purpose of storing type and other material, with the condition that the defendant was to retain part of the same for his own use. The complaint alleges that the defendant was negligent in his use of the loft, in that he did not see that the doors were properly locked after he had used same. There was a judgment dismissing the complaint. «Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BISCHOFF and GIEGERICH, JJ.

S. S. Bennett, for appellant.

J. Callahan, for respondent.

*267BISCHOFF, J.

The basis of the plaintiff’s cause of action is-the negligence of the defendant in the performance of a duty assumed by the latter under an agreement between the parties. This agreement, as alleged, was that the defendant should exercise due care in securing the door of the plaintiff’s loft, when malting use of the same for the purposes of ingress to and egress from a certain, part of the premises reserved to the uses of such defendant. Apparently, the agreement in question formed part of the mutual agreements between the parties, in their relation, respectively, of tenant and landlord; and it would seem, also, that an injury to the plaintiff by the theft of his goods was a contingency naturally within the-contemplation of the parties when malting the agreement. Therefore, the defendant may be answerable in damages for this result of his negligence, when established. See Add. Torts, c. 1, § 1. The justice, in holding that the plaintiff must prove collusion between the defendant and the thief, and in rejecting the offer of proof of the-defendant’s negligence, obviously misconceived the nature of the action; and the resulting dismissal of the complaint was error which requires a reversal of the judgment. Judgment reversed, and a new-trial ordered, with costs to appellant, to abide the event.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5950 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to count a period of observation status in a hospital exceeding 24 hours toward satisfying the 3- 

day inpatient hospital requirement for coverage of skilled nursing facility 

services under Medicare. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2010 

Mr. COURTNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to count 

a period of observation status in a hospital exceeding 

24 hours toward satisfying the 3-day inpatient hospital 

requirement for coverage of skilled nursing facility services under Medicare. 

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 ‘‘Improving Access to 

5 Medicare Coverage Act of 2010’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5950 IH

1 SEC. 2. COUNTING A PERIOD OF OBSERVATION STATUS IN 

2 A HOSPITAL EXCEEDING 24 HOURS TOWARD 

3 THE 3-DAY INPATIENT HOSPITAL REQUIRE4 MENT FOR COVERAGE OF SKILLED NURSING 

5 FACILITY SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(i) of the Social Se7 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(i)) is amended by adding at 

8 the end the following: ‘‘For purposes of this subsection, 

9 an individual who is in a period of observation status in 

10 a hospital that exceeds 24 hours shall be deemed to have 

11 been an inpatient during such period of observation status 

12 and the individual’s leaving the hospital after such period 

13 of status shall be treated as a discharge from the hos14 pital.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 subsection (a) shall apply to periods of observation status 

17 beginning on or after January 1, 2010, but applies to a 

18 period of post-hospital extended care services that was 

19 completed before the date of the enactment of this Act 

20 only if an administrative appeal is or has been made with 

21 respect to such services not later than 90 days after the 

22 date of the enactment of this Act. Notwithstanding any 

23 other provision of law, the Secretary of Health and 

24 Human Services may implement such amendment through 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5950 IH

1 an interim final regulation, program instruction, or other2 wise. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10374]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

[Docket No. 2001-29]

Notification of Change in Hours of Operation for Public Reference 
Room

AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) is giving notice of the 
change in hours of operation for its public reference room. Subsequent 
to the effective date of this Notice, OTS's Public Reference Room will 
be accessible by appointment.

DATES: This Notice is effective on May 15, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott E. Schwartz, Senior Attorney, 
Office of Chief Counsel, General Law Division, (202) 906-6361, Office 
of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice serves to inform the public of 
the change in the hours of operation of OTS's Public Reference Room. 
Through a recent reorganization, OTS's Dissemination Branch, housing 
its Public Reference Room, has become part of the General Law Division 
in the Office of Chief Counsel. OTS's Public Reference Room is located 
on the lower level of the OTS Building at 1700 G Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20552. To make an appointment for access to the Public 
Reference Room, you may call 202-906-5922, send an E-mail to 
[email protected], or send a facsimile transmission to 202-906-
7755. (Prior notice identifying the Public Reference Room materials you 
will be requesting will assist us in serving you.) Appointments will be 
scheduled on business days between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. In most cases, 
appointments will be available the next business day following the date 
a request is received. Upon entering the OTS Building at the scheduled 
appointment time, you will check in with the guard on duty who will 
notify the Public Reference Room staff of your arrival and give you 
directions to the Room. Amendments to OTS's regulations at 12 CFR part 
505 to reflect the new procedures and hours of operation will be 
included in the next OTS technical amendments rulemaking.

    Dated: April 20, 2001.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Ellen Seidman,
Director.
[FR Doc. 01-10374 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-P
```