alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[i,S. Department of .lustice

Iinitcd States \larshals Serviqc

PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETUR*T

&,c /,i.'r, rii titti .' ltti 5::;',.;;s, tl.i l:ll.t.\,r 1r, i.5.111,ti,,t./'

Pt.\tvflt:lj

Elizabeth Gonzalez

t) I r lr I:N l).\\.1

Janet Dhillon

COtIR-l C'r\Str Nl I\llllrtt

20c2111

lYPl: ()lr I'llOL l:!

S. C

\

fo Strl{\'li ol{ I)trSC l{lP I Ir)\ N r\\lt: C)1" I\l)lVlDt-i^I-. Cl)\ II'>,\\ \'. L ( )lil)()lt.\ I l( )\. I

()ir Pt{()lrlrtt I \

U.S. Attorney General

( )lt ('( )\l)tr\l\

SER\/E

AT AI)l)Rl:SS /Stt'et'l or R[''l), .lltLu rttt,'ttr,\7.;. ( rir. .\tiitr ut]d /,ll'(',,xbt

219 S. Dearborn St.,sth Floor, Chicago, lL 60604

SITRVICIT C'()PY l0 Rt QLI:S1 lrR :\'l N,\\ll-. ,\Nt),\l)I)Rl:SS lll:l.O\\

1ll Tcltphone ,\unthtrs, uttd E:tinutcl 'l intcs .-ltuilahle Jitr Seritel:

{)tir!'f ()rr?iniltor rcqLrcstirlg scr\l.r (ru hchalfoL- [ nt-,flX ttt-f'

I t)t,t,t'\it),\\t

t trl-lrPi l()\l NL-r\llll;R

sp..\cE BEt,o\\'t'oR trst- oF t"s.It.\RSHAt. o\t,\'- Do Nol-\\'RlTu Bul,0\\'l'llls t,l\E

[)liirict ()1

t)r r*in

\,, )4

I ncl.norleds.'rccclpl iirr thc totill

nLrnr bt'r o1- lroccss indicatctl

rSigit oitlt li'r L'S.ll ).\5 il ntor,'

Iit,trt tttt. t:S.11 -'\-t is :;ul,;ttitttilt

Slqn,itrrc ol'.\Lrthirrl/c.l I IS\lS [)cf,Lrtr or ( icrl.

Nrtnr.' arid lrtle r\l lndl\ rJrtitl scrr r'r1 ( il t!t)t iltr\r11 dho\ r') I ) alc'

oil)4/ 't n,,

'I ttttt

/u

E rrrr

fl f'n,

Srgr.r.ilul.' o[ [' S \lar;lul or [)cpilt\

.-. -''-,

Scn tcc lc'c

ir

laJ.Uc>

l,rtrl \lLlcarr' ('hrrg"'s

I ti!,'ludiilg tlklaLt\ ot \)

^KK

lrrrruarrlrng I:ee I otal Charges

("5. 5 g

\Jr.rtrie [)e1.,,-'tt i i\nrollnl o\\cd to U S \lirrsli:rl+ or

(.\m1)ur11 ol' Rclilrd* )

Rl:\ t..\RF,.S r, lhr nilc 5e -() r.n/ 0rr k

FILET}

JUN 2 4 202[ft

THOMAS G. BRUTON

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

lrorrl IrS\[-]3i

PR{()R VtrRSlO\s (llr R* lilS .l lllS li()lt\l \Rl: ()US()l }r-ll

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 14-1 Filed: 06/24/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:253
#### Burch *v.*Whittington.

The defendant, in a suit by the agent of a county, appeared and confessed judgment. *Held,*that he could not afterwards, in error, contend that the suit should have been brought by the county commissioners.

ERROR to the *Scott*Circuit Court. — Debt by Whittington, a~ gent of *Scott*county, against *Burch*for money due to the county. Judgment by confession for the plaintiff.

Howk, for the plaintiff.

Thornton, for the defendant.

Holman, J.

The plaintiff in error contends, that this suit should have been instituted by the commissioners of *Scott*coun-ty, and not by the agent. If such he the case, he should have made the discovery at an earlier period. He not only appeared in the Circuit Court, but acknowledged that he could not gainsay or deny the plaintiff’s action. If he could not gainsay or deny the action in the Circuit Court, he cannot be permitted to do it here (1).

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.

(1)

 A judgment by confession is a release of errors. *Lewis*v. *Brackenridge,*ante, pp. 112, 116, and note 5.
9507.

#### CLARK *v.*THE STATE.

The evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to sustain the verdict, • and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Decided April 2, 1918.

Indictment for larceny of cow; from Mitchell superior court— Judge Harrell. June 9, 1917.

*Johnson & Warren,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. G. Bell, solicitor-general, F. A. Hooper,*contra.

Harwell, J.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for stealing a cow belonging to the farm of Jackson Brothers. The State’s evidence showed that the cow described in the indictment was missing, and was found in the possession of one McDaniel; and he testified that he bought the cow from one Bozeman. Bozeman testified that he (Bozeman) bought the cow from the defendant, and gave him $10 for her. The defendant made no statement in explanation of his possession. The_only ’ witness introduced by the defendant testified that the cow that he saw the defendant put in Bozeman’s pasture was of a description different from that given in the indictment. The motion for a new trial was based upon the general' grounds only. It is not necessary to add anything further to the headnote.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*'Broyles, P. J., and*Bloodworth, *J., concur.*
Exhibit 13      CERTIFICATIONS

I, Tor Olav Tr0im,  Director and  President and Kate  Blankenship,  Director and
Secretary of CalPetro  Tankers (Isle of Man) Limited (the  "Company"),  certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, that:

1.   The Annual  Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the annual  period ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/ Tor Olav Troim
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        Tor Olav Troim
                                                        Director and President


                                                        /s/ Kate Blankenship
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        Kate Blankenship
                                                        Director and Secretary

                                                        Date: June 30, 2005

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.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P. II (the
registrant);
 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The registrant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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:  March 31, 2010
    /s/ Jerry PascucciJerry PascucciCeres Managed Futures LLC
President and Director
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned, Geir L. Liland, Chief Financial Officer of Crosshair Exploration & Mining Corp. (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



| | (4) | the annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended April 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (5) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |     |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|                       |  |     |  | /s/ Geir L. Liland     
|Date: October 31, 2006 |  | By: |  | Geir L. Liland,        
|                       |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
I

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4835

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Public

Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend

COBRA continuation coverage for surviving spouses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 14, 1998

Mr. LAMPSON (for himself, Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, and Mr. FROST) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Commerce, and Education and the Workforce, 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 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

of 1974, the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal

Revenue Code of 1986 to extend COBRA continuation

coverage for surviving spouses.

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 ‘‘COBRA Extension Act

5 of 1998’’.
2

•HR 4835 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF COBRA CONTINUATION COVERAGE

2 FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES.

3 (a) ERISA AMENDMENT.—Section 602(2)(A) of the

4 Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29

5 U.S.C. 1162(2)(A)) is amended by inserting after clause

6 (v) the following new clause:

7 ‘‘(vi) GENERAL RULE FOR SURVIVING

8 SPOUSES.—In the case of a qualifying

9 event described in section 603(1), the date

10 on which the surviving spouse becomes en11 titled to benefits under title XVIII of the

12 Social Security Act.’’.

13 (b) PHSA AMENDMENT.—Section 2202(2)(A) of the

14 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb–2(2)(A)) is

15 amended by inserting after clause (iv) the following new

16 clause:

17 ‘‘(v) GENERAL RULE FOR SURVIVING

18 SPOUSES.—In the case of a qualifying

19 event described in section 2203(1), the

20 date on which the surviving spouse be21 comes entitled to benefits under title XVIII

22 of the Social Security Act.’’.

23 (c) INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AMENDMENT.—Sec24 tion 4980B(f)(2)(B)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of

25 1986 (relating to period of continuation coverage) is
3

•HR 4835 IH

1 amended by inserting after subclause (V) the following

2 new subclause:

3 ‘‘(VI) GENERAL RULE FOR SUR4 VIVING SPOUSES.—In the case of a

5 qualifying event described in section

6 4980B(f)(3)(A), the date on which the

7 surviving spouse becomes entitled to

8 benefits under title XVIII of the So9 cial Security Act.’’.

10 (d) EFFECTIVE DATES.—The amendments made by

11 this section shall apply to qualifying events occurring be12 fore or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
EXHIBIT
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Report of Physical Property Holdings Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Darrie Lam, 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/
      Darrie Lam***


Darrie
      Lam


Chief
      Financial Officer





August 14,
      2007
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 12

       COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK
                             DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                       March 31,
                                                  2000        1999
                                               ----------------------

<S>                                            <C>         <C>
Net income                                     $  685,041  $  614,611
Fixed charges:
Income before fixed charges                    $  685,041  $  614,611
Fixed charges, as above
Preferred stock dividend requirements          $  450,225  $  450,225
Fixed charges including preferred
  stock dividends                              $  450,225  $  450,225
Ratio of income to fixed charges and
  preferred stock dividend requirements              1.52        1.37

</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 8, 2019

NO. 03-18-00691-CV

Superior HealthPlan, Inc. and William Brendle Glomb, MD, Appellants

v.

Linda Badawo, Individually, and as Next Friend of D. B. (formerly known as D. M.), 

a Minor, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES KELLY AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on October 16, 2018. 

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no 

reversible error in the trial court’s interlocutory order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial 

court’s interlocutory order. The appellants shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this 

Court and in the court below.
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

---

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Webster Preferred Capital Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to his
knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |                                             
|------------ |  | --------------------------------------------
|May 11, 2007 |  |                                             
|             | 
|             |  | /s/ Gregory S. Madar                        
|             |  | Gregory S. Madar                            
|             |  | Senior Vice President                       
|             |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Release 33-8238, dated June 5, 2003, this certification is
being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

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
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 667

To amend the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act of 1996 to provide for an exception to limited eligibility for SSI

and food stamps for totally and permanently disabled permanent resident

aliens.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 11, 1997

Mr. DIAZ-BALART (for himself and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means,

and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 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 the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide for an exception

to limited eligibility for SSI and food stamps for totally

and permanently disabled permanent resident aliens.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 667 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO LIMITED ELIGIBILITY FOR SSI

2 AND FOOD STAMPS FOR TOTALLY AND PER3 MANENTLY DISABLED PERMANENT RESI4 DENT ALIENS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal

6 Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

7 of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)) is amended by adding after

8 subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraph:

9 ‘‘(E) TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DIS10 ABLED PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIENS.—Para11 graph (1) shall not apply to an alien who—

12 ‘‘(i) is lawfully admitted to the United

13 States for permanent residence under the

14 Immigration and Nationality Act; and

15 ‘‘(ii) has a total and permanent dis16 ability which arose after the alien was ad17 mitted to the United States.’’.

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

19 subsection (a) shall be effective as if included in the enact20 ment of title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work

21 Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

Æ
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Sandra L. Johnson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/sandra-l-johnsonnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-71","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TgnOgK129t\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-71\/\">STS-71<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-71\/embed\/#?secret=TgnOgK129t\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-71” — NASA\" data-secret=\"TgnOgK129t\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/sts071-s-002.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
9623.

#### Hightower *v.*The State.

Decided May 1, 1918.

Writ of error; from city court of Dublin.

*J. 8. Adams,*for plaintiff in error. *8. P. New, solicitor,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. No cause can be carried to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals.upon a bill of exceptions so long as the case is pending in the court below, unless a final disposition of the cause, or a. disposition final as to some material party thereto, would have been made if the court had rendered the decision or judgment which the plaintiff in error claims should have been rendered therein. Civil Code (1910), § 6138.

2. A plea in abatement, whether traversed or untraversed, can not be sustained, without evidence to support it. *Wells*v. *State,*118 *Ga.*556 (9) (45 S. E. 443).

3. The sustaining of a demurrer to a plea in abatement and the overruling or the striking of the plea is not a final judgment in the ease, and a direct bill of exceptions assigning error thereon can not be maintained. The decision which the plaintiff in error claims should have been rendered on this question would not have been a final disposition of the case. *Jackson*v. *State,*76 *Ga.*551 (4); *McElroy*v. *State,*123 *Ga.*546 (51 S. E. 596).

4. Under the foregoing rulings and the facts of this case, the bill of exceptions was prematurely brought.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Earwell, J., concur.*