alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. FRANK STUTTS.

(Filed 28 November, 1945.)

1. Intoxicating' liquor § 9(1—

In criminal prosecution for unlawful possession of illicit liquor, where tbe evidence tended to show that defendant on his arrest said that the whiskey belonged to him, it having been found in his room, the door of which he unlocked for the arresting officers to enter, an issue of fact is presented, notwithstanding a radical shift of position by defendant on the trial and denial of any knowledge of the liquor, hence motion to dismiss under 6. S., 15-173, was properly overruled.

2. Criminal Law § *62¡%*—

On conviction of unlawful possession of illicit liquor and finding by the court that same was a breach of the condition on which a former sentence was imposed, the sentence ordered for the breach of condition being for a term less than imposed for the present offense, both running concurrently, there is no prejudicial error.

Appeal by defendant from *Sinlc, J.,*at May Term, 1945, of Mooee.

Criminal prosecution on charge of unlawful possession of illicit liquor.

Tbe jury returned a verdict of guilty. Thereupon tbe court adjudged that tbe condition on which a sentence imposed at tbe January Term, 1941, was suspended bad been breached and ordered commitment. Defendant excepted.

Judgment was pronounced and defendant appealed.

*648
      *Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Rhodes, Moody and Tucher for the State.*

*W. Clement Barrett and H. F. Seawell, Jr., for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

When arrested the defendant said tbe whiskey belonged to him. It was found in a room in a shack occupied by him when on a fishing trip. He changed clothes in that room on the afternoon of his arrest and he unlocked the door thereto for the officers.

At the trial he made a radical shift of position and denied any knowledge of the liquor or its ownership. This presented an issue of fact for the jury. Hence the motion to dismiss under G. S., 15-173, was properly overruled.

A careful examination of the other exceptive assignments of error fails to disclose any cause for disturbing the verdict.

The sentence ordered in effect for breach of condition was for a term less than the sentence here imposed and is to run concurrently. Therefore, any error therein does not prejudice the defendant.

No error.
#### Horace B. Claflin and others, Appellants, v. Guy W. Clark and others.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. Mem. by

Learned, P. J.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

Pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned does hereby certifythat:

The Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
|                   |   | /s/ DAVID  R. CARLUCCI                           |
|-------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
| Date: May 4, 2007 |   | David R. Carlucci                                |
|              |   | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and  President |

 
|                   |   | /s/ LESLYE  G. KATZ                                |
|-------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Date: May 4, 2007 |   | Leslye G. Katz                                     |
|              |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and isnot being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to IMS Health Incorporated and will be retained by IMS HealthIncorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
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

I, Gary Corsi, Principal Financial Officer of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.) (the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Gary Corsi                                              

Gary Corsi

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

August 12, 2004

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 ("Section 906"), and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") or otherwise subject to liability under that section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent that this certification is expressly incorporated by reference into any such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Matter of Taxation of Hannah Eusten.

Decree affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
Comprehensive Credit
Facility Agreement of Maximum Amount (“Credit Facility
Agreement”)
Entered into by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd (“the Debtor”) and Shenzhen Caitian Branch,
Bank of Communications (the “Creditor”) Dated April 26, 2009

    


    Main
articles:

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Contract
      number: 4431702009C000000000;

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Maximum
      amount of credit facilities to be provided: RMB 200
    million;

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Term:
      from March 25, 2009 to March 25,
2010;

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Purpose
      of the loan is to provide working capital for the
    Debtor;

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Remedies
      in the event of breach of contract include adjustment of the credit
      amount, suspension of credit, imposition of punitive interest and overdue
      interest, an increase of guarantee deposit and the call back of loan
      principal and interest before
maturity.

            


    

    


    Headlines
of the articles omitted

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Definitions
      and explanations

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Prerequisite
      for using the comprehensive credit
facility

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Procedure
      on using the comprehensive credit
facility

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Declaration
      and Guarantee of the Debtor

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Obligations
      of the Debtor

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Transferring
      of the credit facility under the maximum
amount

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Disputation
      settlement

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Fee

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Attachment

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Validity

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Notification
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13558]



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



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY



Federal Energy Regulatory Commission




Notice Announcing Preliminary Permit Drawing



May 28, 2010.

    In the matter of: Three Rivers Park District, Project No. 13457-

000, BOST1 Hydroelectric LLC, Project No. 13458-000.



    On May 1, 2009, at 8:30 a.m., the Commission received two 

preliminary permit applications for proposed projects to be located at 

the existing Coon Rapids Dam on the Mississippi River in Hennepin and 

Anoka Counties, Minnesota.\1\ The applications were filed by Three 

Rivers Park District, for Project No. 13457 and BOST1 Hydroelectric 

LLC, for Project No. 13458.

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



    \1\ The Commission is open each day from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., 

except Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. 18 CFR 375.101(c) (2009). 

The applications were filed between 5 p.m. on Thursday April 30, 

2009, and 8:30 a.m. on Friday May 1, 2009. Under the Commission's 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, any document received after regular 

business hours is considered filed at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular 

business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2) (2009).

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



    Where all permit applicants are municipalities or all permit 

applicants are non-municipalities, and no applicant's plans are better 

adapted than the others' to develop, conserve, and utilize in the 

public interest the water resources of a region, the Commission issues 

a permit to the applicant who filed first in time.\2\ In this case, 

because two applications from entities not claiming municipal 

preference are deemed filed at the same time, the Commission will 

conduct a random tie breaker to determine priority. In the event that 

the Commission concludes that neither applicant's plans are better 

adapted than the other, priority will be determined accordingly.

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



    \2\ 18 CFR 4.37 (2009). See, e.g., BPUS Generation Development, 

LLC, 126 FERC ] 61,132 (2009).

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



    On June 8, 2010, at 2 p.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the 

Commission, or her designee, will, by random drawing, determine the 

filing priority for the two applicants identified in this notice. The 

drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the 

Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 

20426. The results of the drawing will be recorded by the Secretary or 

her designee. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary 

announcing the results of the drawing.



Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-13558 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Rory J. Cowan, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Lionbridge Technologies, Inc.; 

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 thestatements 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 theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for theregistrant and have: 

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

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 10, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 19 (Friday, January 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 5032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01709]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

January 26, 2016.
    The Department of the Treasury will submit the following 
information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of 
publication of this notice.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before February 29, 2016 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other 
aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for 
reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for 
Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 
20503, or email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2adabb0a3bdb197808f8b91918b8d8ca2adafa0cca7adb2cc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ec1c7dccfd1ddfbece3e7fdfde7e1e0cec1c3cca0cbc1dea0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a> and (2) Treasury PRA 
Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 8117, Washington, 
DC 20220, or email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0656544746727463677573747f28616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbebe9fafbcfc9dedac8cec9c295dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submission may be 
obtained by emailing <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8cdcdecdccf8fee9edfff9fef5a2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ffafadbebf8b8d9a9e8c8a8d86d1989089">[email protected]</span></a>, calling (202) 622-1295, or 
viewing the entire information collection request at www.reginfo.gov.

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

    OMB Control Number: 1510-0056.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: ACH Vendor/Miscellaneous Payment Enrollment Form.
    Form: SF 3881.
    Abstract: Form SF 3881 is used by federal agencies to gather 
essential payment data from vendors for processing payments through the 
Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) network to the vendor's financial 
institution.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Estimated Average Annual Burden per Response: 15 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 17,500.

Brenda Simms,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-01709 Filed 1-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4810-AS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5578 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5578

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the exclusion for 
    employer-provided educational assistance to employer payment of 
             interest on certain refinanced student loans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2014

 Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the exclusion for 
    employer-provided educational assistance to employer payment of 
             interest on certain refinanced student loans.

    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 ``Employer Participation in 
Refinancing Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYER PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON CERTAIN 
              REFINANCED STUDENT LOANS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 127(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
subparagraph (A), by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph 
(C), and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(B) the payment by an employer, whether paid to 
                the employee or to a lender, of any indebtedness of the 
                employee under a qualified education refinance loan or 
                any interest relating to such a loan, and''.
    (b) Qualified Education Refinance Loan.--Subsection (c) of section 
127 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 
end the following new paragraph:
            ``(8) Qualified education refinance loan.--The term 
        `qualified education refinance loan' means any indebtedness 
        used solely to refinance a qualified education loan (within the 
        meaning of section 221(d)(1)) with respect to which the lender 
        offers the borrower protection in the event of unemployment or 
        financial hardship (as reasonably determined by the lender, 
        including periods of forbearance or career assistance).''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment; Denial of Double Benefit.--Paragraph (1) 
of section 221(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
inserting before the period the following: ``, or for which an 
exclusion is allowable under section 127 to the taxpayer's employer by 
reason of the payment by such employer of any indebtedness on a 
qualified education loan of the taxpayer''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to expenses paid after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Rory J. Cowan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Stephen J. Lifshatz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to our knowledge, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/    RORY J. COWAN                 
|Rory J. Cowan Chief Executive Officer



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|                                           
|/s/    STEPHEN J.
LIFSHATZ                 
|Stephen J. Lifshatz Chief Financial Officer



August 6, 2004



1
*

 This case was decided by a quorum of the panel pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7691

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WALTER LOUIS INGRAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA92-116-JFM)

Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003

Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.*

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Louis Ingram, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter Louis Ingram appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See United States v. Ingram, No. CA-92-116-JFM

(D. Md. Sept. 18, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED