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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5376 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5376

To prohibit universal service support of commercial mobile service and 
      commercial mobile data service through the Lifeline program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2014

 Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit universal service support of commercial mobile service and 
      commercial mobile data service through the Lifeline program.

    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 ``Stop Taxpayer Funded Cell Phones Act 
of 2014''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LIFELINE SUPPORT FOR MOBILE SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--A provider of commercial mobile service or 
commercial mobile data service may not receive universal service 
support under sections 214(e) and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 
(47 U.S.C. 214(e); 254) for the provision of such service through the 
Lifeline program of the Federal Communications Commission.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Commercial mobile data service.--The term ``commercial 
        mobile data service'' has the meaning given such term in 
        section 6001 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 
        Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1401).
            (2) Commercial mobile service.--The term ``commercial 
        mobile service'' has the meaning given such term in section 332 
        of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332).
                                 <all>
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

David A. Rosenzweig

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP

1301 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10019-6022

Tel: (212) 318-3035

Email: david.rosenzweig@nortonrosefulbright.com

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re

PG&E Corporation

- and -

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Debtor(s).

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

APPLICATION FOR

ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY

PRO HAC VICE

Pursuant to B.L.R. 1001-2(a) and Civil L.R. 11-3, David A. Rosenzweig, an active

member in good standing of the bar of the State of New York and of the United States

Bankruptcy Court and United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, among

other courts, hereby applies for admission to practice in the Northern District of California on a

pro hac vice basis representing Adventist Health System/West, a California religious non-profit

corporation, Feather River Hospital, a California religious non-profit corporation, and Paradise

Retirement Residence LLP d/b/a Feather Canyon.

In support of this application, I certify on oath that:

1. I am an active member in good standing of a United States Court or of the highest

court of another State or the District of Columbia, as indicated above;

2. I agree to abide by the Standards of Professional Conduct set forth in Local Rule

1 1-4, and agree to become familiar with the Local Rules and the Bankruptcy

Dispute Resolution Program of this Court; and

98907561.1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5351 Filed: 01/13/20 Entered: 01/13/20 11:32:53 Page 1 of

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. An attorney who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who

maintains an office within the State of California has been designated as cocounsel in the above-entitled action. The name, address and telephone number of

that attorney is:

Rebecca J. Winthrop

Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP

555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

(213) 892-9200

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: January 9,2020 /s/DavidA. Rosenzweig

David A. Rosenzweig

98907561.1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5351 Filed: 01/13/20 Entered: 01/13/20 11:32:53 Page 2 of

2
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5685 

To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to require 

congressional notification not less than 15 days after a reward is authorized under the Rewards for Justice Program of the Department of 

State, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2014 

Mr. MCCAUL (for himself and Mr. ROYCE) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 

1956 to require congressional notification not less than 

15 days after a reward is authorized under the Rewards 

for Justice Program of the Department of State, 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 ‘‘Rewards for Justice 

5 Congressional Notification Act of 2014’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5685 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION OF REWARD. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 36 of the State Depart3 ment Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708) is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the 

6 following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(4) REPORTS ON REWARDS AUTHORIZED.— 

8 Not less than 15 days after a reward is authorized 

9 under this section, the Secretary of State shall sub10 mit to the appropriate congressional committees a 

11 report, which may be submitted in classified form if 

12 necessary, detailing information about the reward, 

13 including the identity of the individual for whom the 

14 award is being made, the amount of the reward, the 

15 acts with respect to which the reward is being made, 

16 and how the reward is being publicized.’’; and 

17 (2) in subsection (k)(2), by striking ‘‘Inter18 national Relations’’ and inserting ‘‘Foreign Affairs’’. 

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

20 subsection (a)(1) takes effect on the date of the enactment 

21 of this Act and applies with respect to any reward author22 ized under section 36 of the State Department Basic Au23 thorities Act of 1956 on or after the date of the enactment 

24 of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ex10_5.htm


 

EXHIBIT 10.5

 


Employment Contract of Lau Thai Chim :

Employer: Wide Broad Group Limited    Employee: Lau Thai Chim





Representative: Mr.Liu Ruisheng





Position: Independent non-executive Director





Job Duty: According to the experience, providing the independent and objective opinion for assisting the board of directors.





Effective Period: 2 years, Effective date: July 1st, 2009





Remuneration: HKD$180,000/year will be paid in the last day for every quarter in four installments.
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 Xenacare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bobby Story, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| |                        
| |                        
| | /s/ Bobby Story        
| | Bobby Story            
| | Chief Financial Officer
| | April 15, 2010
Exhibit 35.1

HomEq Servicing


                              ANNUAL CERTIFICATION


      Re:   Securitized Asset Backed Receivables, LLC Trust, Series 2007-NC1
            (the "Trust"), issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing
            Agreement, dated as of 01/01/2007 (the "Pooling and Servicing
            Agreement"), by and among Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC,
            as depositor (the "Depositor"), Deutsche Bank National Trust
            Company, as trustee (the "Trustee"), and Barclays Capital Real
            Estate Inc. d/b/a HomEq Servicing, as servicer (the "Servicer").

I, Arthur Q. Lyon, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the
HomEq Servicing Division of Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc. d/b/a HomEq
Servicing, hereby certify to the Depositor and the Trustee and their officers,
directors, and affiliates, pursuant to Section 3.22 of the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement, that:

         A review of the activities of the Servicer for the Calendar year ending
         December 31, 2007, and to the best of my knowledge, based on such
         review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
         Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects, except as
         noted below.

         Foreclosure was not initiated in accordance with the timeframes
         established by its servicing agreements and the servicing criteria set
         forth in 1122(d)(4)(vii) of Regulation AB and therefore represents an
         instance of material noncompliance.


Date:   March 13, 2008


/s/ Arthur Q. Lyon
---------------------
Arthur Q. Lyon
Executive Vice President and CEO
HomEq Servicing Division
Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc.


Barclays Officer's Certificate
Securitized Asset Backed Receivables, LLC Trust, Series 2007-NC1
#### Charles E. McDowell, Respondent, v. The New York and Sea Beach Railway Company, Appellants.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
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 Unizan Financial Corp.s (the
Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roger L. Mann, 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, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 5, 2005 |  | /s/ ROGER L. MANN                    
|                     |  | Roger L. Mann                        
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL JAMES HICKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

M. BOBBALLA; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17255

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01332-EFB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted February 14, 2017***

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Michael James Hicks appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-17255 

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his 

medical treatment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo the district court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), 

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007), and for an abuse of 

discretion its denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 

F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We reverse and remand.

The district court improperly denied Hicks’ request to proceed in forma 

pauperis because Hicks made plausible allegations that he was “under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint, including 

that the inadequate physical therapy he received caused paralysis in his left arm 

and his prescribed pain medication puts him at heightened risk for liver disease

because he suffers from hepatitis C. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews, 493 

F.3d at 1055 (an exception to the three-strikes rule exists “if the complaint makes a 

plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical 

injury’ at the time of filing”).

REVERSED and REMANDED.
Exhibit 4.2
 AEI 2007 INCENTIVE PLAN
(as Amended and Restated as of December 14, 2009)
 Purpose.
 Term.
 Definitions.
 Appreciation Right
 Award
 Board
 Code
 Committee
 Common Stock
 Company
 Date of Grant
 Deferral Period
 Director




---



##### 



Evidence of Award
 Foreign Taxes
 Grant Price
 Management Objectives
  Market Value per Share
 Option Price
  2




---



##### 



Participant bona fide
 Performance Share
 Performance Period
 Performance Unit
 Plan
 Recoupment Policy
 Restricted Shares
 Restricted Stock Units
 Spread
 Stock Option
 Subsidiary
  3




---



##### 



Shares Available Under Plan.
 Stock Options.
       4




---



##### 



Appreciation Rights.
   5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



Restricted Shares.
          7




---



##### 



Restricted Stock Units.
      Performance Shares and Performance Units.
    8




---



##### 



Annual Incentive Compensation.
   9




---



##### 



Transferability.
 Adjustments.
    10




---



##### 



Fractional Shares.
 Withholding Taxes.
    11




---



##### 



provided, however ,
    12




---



##### 



Code Section 457A.
       13




---



##### 



Administration of the Plan.
     Amendments and Other Matters.
    14




---



##### 



Governing Law.
  15
#### Oliver M. Arkenburgh, Respondent, v. Robert H. Arkenburgh, Appellant.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.
Exhibit 32.1

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


In connection with the annual report of PSPP Holdings, Inc.
on Form 10-QSB, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cherish Adams, Chief Executive Officer
(or equivalent thereof) and Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)
of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

      (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


                              /s/ Cherish Adams
                              -------------------------
                              Cherish Adams
                              Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)


                              February 16, 2007
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
                           OF THE UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of ADVANCED 3-D  ULTRASOUND  SERVICES,
INC.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2004,  as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, David  Weintraub,  Chief  Executive  Officer and 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, 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.

/s/ David Weintraub

-----------------------------------
David Weintraub
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
July 28, 2004
Exhibit E 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 522-2 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 18:38:39 Page 1

of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 522-2 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 18:38:39 Page 2

of 3
þÿThe Press Democrat - Feb 14, 2019 -  -  - C5

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 522-2 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 18:38:39 Page 3

of 3
EXHIBIT 12.1
 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Simcere Pharmaceutical Group;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 consolidated 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 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)
    
    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(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
this 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 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
function):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls 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
controls over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ Jinsheng RenName:
    Jinsheng RenTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51072 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. JU A N JO SE VA SQ U E Z- G A R C I Aal so know n as, C es i l i o M i r anda D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 08- C R

- 1532- 1
B ef ore SM ITH , ST E W A R T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Ju an Jo s e Vas que z - G ar c i a (Vas que z ) a ppe al s t he 7 7- m o nt h s e nt e n ce i m po s e d b y t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o l l o w i ng hi s guil t y- pl e a c o nvi c t i o n f o rb e i ng f

o und un l a wf u l l yp r e s e n ti n t h e Un i t e dS t a t e s s u b s e q u e n tt o h a v i n gb e e n r e m o ve d. S ee8 U
. S. C
. § 1326. H e a r gues t hat t he w i t hi n- gui del i nes se nt enc e i m pos ed by t h e di st ri ctcourti s un reasona bl e becau se t h e sentence i s great er t h an necessary t o f ul f i l lt he s e nt e nc i ng pur po s e s of 18 U
. S. C. § 3 55 3( a)
. Relyi ng o n Ki m br ough United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 51072

2 v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S. C t . 558 ( 200 7 ), he argu es t h at t h e i l l egal reentry G ui de l i ne , U
. S. S. G
. § 2 L1. 2, i s f l awed be c aus e i ti s no te m pi r i c al l y ba s e d. R eg a rd l ess of w h eth er a “pa rti cu l a r G u i d eli n e is
. . . em p i ri ca l l y-b a s e d ,” t h i s c ou rt“ presum e[ s] a sen te n ce w i t h i n t h e current versi on of t h e G u i del i n es to be rea son a b l e, a n d t h e de fen d a n t m u st reb u t t h a t pre su m p ti on to d e m on strate su b stan tive u n rea son a b l en ess . ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Mo ndr ago nSa nt i ago , __F. 3d __, N o. 07- 41099, 2009 W L 7828 94, at *3, *9 ( 5t h C i r . M ar . 26, 200 9)
. T h e di st ri ct court i m posed t h e 77-m on t h sentence af t er c om m en t i n g on V asqu ez’ s c on t i n u ed d i sregard f or t h e l aw af

t er h is la st i l l egal reentry c o nvi c t i o n. Gi ve n t h e d i st r i c tc o ur t ’ s c o m m e nt ar y, i tc anno tb e s ai d t hatt he court fai l ed to consi der t h e fact ors of S ect i on 355 3( a)
. V asqu ez h as not r ebu t t ed th e p r e s u m p tio n th a t his sen ten ce is reas on a b le
. S ee Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 2009 W L 782894 at*9
. AF F I RMED.