alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 5690 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To remove the African National Congress from treatment as a terrorist organization 

for certain acts or events, provide relief for certain members of the African 

National Congress regarding admissibility, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS FROM 

TREATMENT AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATION FOR CERTAIN ACTS OR EVENTS. 

Section 691(b) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, 

and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (division J of Public 

Law 110–161; 121 Stat. 2365) is amended by inserting ‘‘the African 

National Congress (ANC),’’ after ‘‘the Karenni National Progressive 

Party,’’. 

SEC. 2. RELIEF FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE AFRICAN NATIONAL 

CONGRESS REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY. 

(a) EXEMPTION AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation 

with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may determine, in such Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, that 

paragraphs (2)(A)(i)(I), (2)(B), and (3)(B) (other than clause (i)(II)) 

of section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)) shall not apply to an alien with respect to activities undertaken in association with the African National Congress in opposition to apartheid rule in South Africa. 

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress that 

the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security 

should immediately exercise in appropriate instances the authority 

in subsection (a) to exempt the anti-apartheid activities of aliens 

who are current or former officials of the Government of the 

Republic of South Africa. 

SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN AFFECTED INDIVIDUALS FROM CERTAIN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DATABASES. 

The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of National Intelligence, 

shall take all necessary steps to ensure that databases used to 

determine admissibility to the United States are updated so that 
H. R. 5690—2 

they are consistent with the exemptions provided under section 

2. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
DENIED and Opinion Filed June 4, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00637-CV 

IN RE SHAWN OLALI, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. MC-24-00091 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Kennedy 

Opinion by Justice Kennedy 

Before the Court is pro se relator’s May 28, 2024 petition for writ of 

mandamus. After a bench trial, a municipal court found relator guilty of assault by 

physical contact and fined relator $500 plus court costs. The Dallas County Criminal 

Court of Appeals No. 1 affirmed the judgment. In this original proceeding, relator 

asks this Court to do the following: (1) “[o]rder the judge to vacate the original 

order” and to “issue a new order that complies with the rules and judicial 

convention,” (2) “[o]rder the appellate county court to rule on [relator’s] motion for 

rehearing or issue mandamus in the absence of the action so that a notice of appeal 

may be filed and sent to this [C]ourt,” and/or (3) take relator’s mandamus petition 
 –2– 

“as an appeal by right and have the briefs and records in the county court of criminal 

appeals be taken as the briefs and records in this [C]ourt.” 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In 

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). After reviewing relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude 

that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to the requested relief. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a). 

240637F.P05 

/Nancy Kennedy/

NANCY KENNEDY 

JUSTICE
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 1, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20264

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GABRIEL ROLANDO RODRIGUEZ, also known as 

Ariel Macias,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CR-291-1

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gabriel Rolando Rodriguez seeks to appeal the sentence

following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana and

conspiracy to launder money. Rodriguez did not file a notice of

appeal from the judgment entered June 10, 2002. Instead, almost

two years later, Rodriguez filed a pro se motion for an out-oftime appeal, which the district court granted.
No. 04-20264

-2-

“[A] district court does not have the authority to create

appellate jurisdiction simply by ordering an out-of-time direct

criminal appeal. Compliance with the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure is imperative.” United States v. West, 240 F.3d 456,

459 (5th Cir. 2001). West addresses the proper procedures for

granting an out-of-time appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See

id. at 459-61.

We therefore VACATE the district court’s order granting the

out-of-time appeal, and we REMAND the case. On remand, the

district court should treat Rodriguez’s motion for an out-of-time

appeal in accordance with West and Castro v. United States, 540

U.S. 375, 383 (2003). 

ORDER VACATED; CASE REMANDED.
* District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by

designation.

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

November 11, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 03-50037

ANDRE J. BREAUX; VIRGINIA BREAUX

Plaintiffs - Appellants

VERSUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HEALTHSOUTH TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, doing business as H ealthsouth Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation Center; CHAD R. MALESICH, Physical Therapist

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas, San Antonio

SA-00-CV-1483-EP

Bef ore DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges and LITTLE *

, District Judge.

PER CURIAM: **

The only qu estion presented in this case is whether the

district court abused its discretion in refusin g to accept a2

supplemental affidavit of an expert filed in support of a motion

for reconsideration of the court’s order granting summary judgment

in favor of the defendant. At the time the district court ruled on

t he motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff had not submit ted

summary judgment evidence establishing the requisite standard of

care in this action alleging failure to properly treat and care for

the plaintiff. After the court ruled on the motion, the plaintiff

then moved for reconsideration and for the first time attached an

affidavit purporting to establish the requisite standard of care.

At the time the affidavit was filed, the time allotted for

discovery had passed and the trial was imminent. Under these

circumstances we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in refusing to accept the plaintiff’s new evidence filed

in support of the motion for reconsideration.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32


Page 1 of 1 Page




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 
 In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Internet Infinity, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report), I, George Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:
 
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and
 
 (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: July 12, 2004
By:
/s/ George MorrisGeorge MorrisChairman and Chief Executive Officer
 
 The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.
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 Annual Report of Pacific Biometrics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
L. Hartzmark, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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: September 28, 2005

                                       /s/ Michael L. Hartzmark
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Michael L. Hartzmark
                                       Interim Chief Financial Officer
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60178

Summary Calendar

ABDUL KARIM

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A78 556 522

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Abdul Karim, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA)’s February 2007 denial of his motion to reopen his

removal proceedings. Karim contends that the BIA erred because he satisfies

the four conditions set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1)(ii), making his application

for adjustment of status amenable to the immigration judge’s (IJ) jurisdiction.

The Government argues that the use of the definite article “the” in

§ 1245.2(a)(1)(ii)(A)-(D) means that, while the IJ in Karim’s case would have had

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 2, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60178

2

jurisdiction over the adjustment application Karim filed before leaving for

Pakistan and which was based on his former wife’s (Angela Allen) I-130 relative

alien visa petition, the new adjustment application Karim has filed based on his

current wife’s (Nikki Herbst) I-130 petition is not amenable to IJ jurisdiction.

Under a plain reading of the regulation, the Government’s argument is

unassailable because the adjustment application that Karim wants an IJ to

adjudicate is not “the previously filed application” that was based on Allen’s I130 alien relative visa petition. § 1245.2(a)(1)(ii)(B) (emphasis added); see S.D.

ex rel. Dickson v. Hood, 391 F.3d 581, 595 (5th Cir. 2004) (“We have consistently

held that a regulation should be construed to give effect to the natural and plain

meaning of its words.”).

Karim argues that the BIA erred in it its factual finding that he had not

filed a new I-485 adjustment application based on Herbst’s I-130 petition. He

also argues that the BIA should administratively close his removal proceedings

so that he can await the adjudication of his currently pending I-485 adjustment

application. After Karim filed his brief in this case, the BIA considered these

arguments in the context of a reconsideration motion filed by Karim. In a

decision dated June 13, 2007, the BIA acknowledged the factual error but

maintained thatit did not affectthe BIA’s February 2007 decision. The BIA also

refused Karim’s request to administratively close the removal proceedings.

Karim has not challenged the BIA’s June 2007 order addressing those

arguments. 

For the foregoing reasons, Karim’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial

of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings is DENIED.
**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**

| (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/                Edward E. Cohen*   |  |
|----------------------------------------|--|
| Edward                E. Cohen         |
| Chief                Executive Officer |
| November                8, 2006        |
|                                   |
exv4w11



 




EXHIBIT 4.11




BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY FINANCE CORPORATION




OFFER TO EXCHANGE




$700,000,000 principal amount of its 4.75% Senior Notes
Due 2012




unconditionally guaranteed by Berkshire Hathaway Inc., which
have been registered




under the Securities Act of 1933, for any and all
4.75% Senior Notes Due 2012,




unconditionally guaranteed by Berkshire Hathaway Inc.




Instructions from Beneficial Owner



     
The undersigned acknowledge(s) receipt of your letter and the
enclosed Prospectus and the related Letter of Transmittal in
connection with the offer by the Company to exchange the
Exchange Notes for Outstanding Notes.



     
This will instruct you to tender the principal amount of
Outstanding Notes indicated below held by you for the account of
the undersigned, upon the terms and subject to the conditions
set forth in the Prospectus and the related Letter of
Transmittal.



     
The undersigned represents that (i) the Exchange Notes
acquired pursuant to the Exchange Offer are being obtained in
the ordinary course of the undersigned’s business,
(ii) the undersigned is not engaging, does not intend to
engage, and has no arrangement or understanding with any person
to participate in the distribution of such Exchange Notes,
(iii) the undersigned is not an “affiliate,” as
defined under Rule 405 of the Securities Act, of the
Company and (iv) the undersigned is not acting on behalf of
any person or entity that could not truthfully make these
statements. If the undersigned is a broker-dealer, it
acknowledges that it will deliver a copy of the Prospectus in
connection with any resale of the Exchange Notes.






		
	 	
    Sign Here
	 
	 	
     

	 	
    Signatures(s)











 





Securities which are to be tendered:




Tender all of the Outstanding Notes




Aggregate Principal Amount*




o     Outstanding
Notes 






 





Name(s) (Please Print)




 





Address




 





Zip Code




 





Area Code and Telephone No.




Dated:  
                     ,
2005







 







		
	* 	
    Unless otherwise indicated, it will be assumed that all of the
    Outstanding Notes listed are to be tendered.



2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 06, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 06, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20I0020. SYNDEL KABCHEF V. DONNIE CRAIG, PICKENS COUNTY SHERIFF ET AL. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: SUCV2017000076
In re A.C.J. and P.A.G.S. appealed by DSS and GAL.

No. 713P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Thomas W. Jordan, Jr., Deputy County Attorney, for Durham Co. SDD & GAL.

Annick Lenoir-Peek, Houston, TX, for Claretta Cook.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Petitioners (Durham County DSS and Guardian) on the 20th day of December 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the (Respondent Mother), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of April 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of December 2005 by Petitioners (Durham County DSS and Guardian) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*923"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of April 2006."
Exhibit32.1

GLOBAL SIGNAL INC.

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global Signal Inc., (the"Company") on Form  10-Q for the periodending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Wesley R. Edens, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|           |                                                                                                                     |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)  | The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and |

|           |                                                                                                                                                    |
|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

/s/  Wesley R. Edens

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Wesley R.Edens Chief Executive Officer May 13, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Wesley R. Edens and will be retained by GlobalSignal, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

This certificationaccompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act,be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "ExchangeAct"). Such certification will not be deemed to beincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that theregistrant specifically incorporates it by reference.

----
# EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Chilco River Holdings Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Tom Yu Liu, Chief Executive Officer and Principal
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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
                    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:  August 16, 2006 | By:   /s/ Tom Yu Liu
       __________________________________________
           Tom Yu Liu
           Chief Executive Officer       
           (Principal Executive Officer)
|---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
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 Annual Report of
Internet Infinity, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March
31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Morris, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, 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)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  July
      7, 2009/s/ George
    MorrisGeorge
      MorrisChief
      Financial Officer




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