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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 392 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 392

      For the relief of Natasha Oligovna Russo and Anya Oligovna.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2003

  Mr. Bachus introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      For the relief of Natasha Oligovna Russo and Anya Oligovna.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR NATASHA OLIGOVNA RUSSO AND 
              ANYA OLIGOVNA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Natasha Oligovna Russo and 
Anya Oligovna shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa 
or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Natasha Oligovna Russo or Anya 
Oligovna enters the United States before the filing deadline specified 
in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have entered and remained 
lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment 
of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Natasha Oligovna Russo and 
Anya Oligovna, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer 
to reduce by 2, during the current or next following fiscal year, the 
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 
the country of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Natasha 
Oligovna Russo and Anya Oligovna shall not, by virtue of such 
relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the 
Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.2

                    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


     The  undersigned  hereby  certifies,  pursuant  to, and as required  by, 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Geneva Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB for the period  ended  March 31,  2003 fully  complies  with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended,  and that  information  contained in such  Quarterly  Report on Form
10-QSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 15, 2003                      By:/s/ Stephen J. Mayer
                                            ___________________________
                                            Stephen J. Mayer
                                            Chief Financial Officer,
                                            Executive Vice President and
                                            Secretary

     The foregoing  certification  is being furnished solely pursuant 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 is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
Retention Bonus Agreement Form



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 October __, 2005 
  
 [Name of Employee] 
 [Address] 
 [Address] 
  

	 	Re:	Retention Bonus 

  
 Dear __________, 
  
 We are pleased to offer you a cash incentive to remain employed with the Company. We are offering you the retention bonus described in this letter
agreement because we recognize that you are critical to the success of our future business operations and you have the potential to make a significant impact on our future growth. 
  
 In consideration of your continued employment, you will be eligible to receive a retention bonus equal to 150% of your
annual base salary in effect on October 19, 2005 (the “Retention Bonus”). For example, if your annual base salary is $200,000, you would eligible to receive a Retention Bonus in the amount of $300,000. 
  
 The Retention Bonus shall be payable in two equal cash payments, the first on
October 19, 2006 and the second on October 19, 2007, on the condition that you are still employed by the Company through the date of payment; provided that if (i) you are earlier terminated without Cause, or (ii) you resign for
Good Reason, as such terms are defined in your Change of Control agreement, the full amount of the bonus then unpaid shall be payable, upon delivery of a full release in satisfactory form to the Company, on the date that is six (6) months
following the date of termination of employment. 
  
 The terms of
this letter agreement cannot be modified except in a written document signed by a duly authorized officer of the Company and you. The obligations in this letter agreement shall survive, and not be affected by, a Change of Control and shall be
binding on SumTotal and its successors. Nothing in this letter agreement shall modify or affect the terms of your Change of Control agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 If you agree to the terms of this letter agreement, please sign below and return this letter to Donald Fowler at SumTotal
Systems. Thank you in advance for your continued service to the Company. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter agreement. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  
 Donald E. Fowler 
 Interim CEO and Chair of SumTotal Systems, Inc. 
  
 Agreed: 
  
 ___________________        Date: ____________
October 5, 2005 

Comment on WiFi Threats: http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers/wifi_outsider.pdf 

 and http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers/wifi_insider.pdf

I agree with Mr. Epstein concerning the threat WiFi equipped systems pose to electronic voting 

systems. I am somewhat concerned that this discussion is focused on WiFi and not Optical and 

RF in general. Any method of communicating with the voting system including optical or other 

RF communications systems presents an equivalent threat. 

A number of existing voting systems are equipped with IrDA (Infrared Data Association) optical 

wireless ports. These systems support communications with the DRE voting systems at data rates 

up to 115 Kb/s. 

In Diebold System's AccuVote TS systems these ports are supported using Microsoft's Windows 

CE with Winsock. This makes the application interface easy to program to, and all required 

drivers are already installed in the OS. 

It is interesting that the VVSG currently under development, while mentioning this technology 

does nothing to restrict or prevent its use, not even on Election Day. 

It is understandable that communications technology be used for pre election preparation, but is 

totally irresponsible and inexcusable to allow it to be used during an election. The presence of 

this technology makes it possible to upload to the voting system anything that is desired after the 

final "Logic and Accuracy" test have been performed, thus totally compromising the system. 

Even the ability to transmit as much as a single frame (even an error frame) of data could be 

sufficient to alter the approved behavior of the system. 

I submitted a short paper discussing this issue to the TGDC entitled Comment on Wireless 

Requirements, at http://vote.nist.gov/ECPosStat.htm. I believe this to be a highly likely line of 

attack on voting systems unless the technical community is vocal in exposing this threat before it 

becomes accepted practice to install optical ports in voting systems. I hope that you will use your 

influence to draw attention to these flaws as well as to the threat of WiFi. 

Thank You, 

James C. Johnson
Exhibit
      32.1




Certification
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Delek Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Leonard Sternheim,
      President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, 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 result of operations of the Company.




Dated:
              February 23, 2007
            
            /s/
              Leonard SternheimLeonard Sternheim,
              President,
                Chief Executive Officer
August 2001 

Devices used to Measure Fat Content in Animal Carcasses – 

Update 

By: Dick Suiter 

On July 11, 2001,ASTM sponsored an organizational meeting at the DoubleTree 

Downtown Hotel in Kansas City, MO, to continue the determination of the standards 

necessary for devices used to measure fat content in animal carcasses and to discuss the 

scope and title for the activity. Representatives from ASTM, the Grain Inspection, 

Packers, and Stockyards Administration branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

USDA, Animal research Center, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, NIST, NCWM, 

three State Departments of Agriculture, two State Universities, producers, producer 

associations, several meat packing companies and device manufactures attended the 

meeting. There were a total of 22 individuals in attendance. During the meeting, the 

name and scope of the committee were developed, four subcommittees were formed, 

Chairs of the subcommittees were selected and two Task Groups were formed. The 

structure and scope is as follows: 

Title: ASTM Committee F 10 on Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Systems 

Subcommittees:

F 10.10 Design Specifications; Richard Suiter, Chair 

F 10.20 Device Performance Criteria; Darryl Brown, Chair 

F 10.30 User Requirements; Duane Short, Chair 

F 10.40 Predictive Accuracy; Dave Meisinger, Chair 

Task Group for Executive Committee Officers: John Edmonds, Ray Bjornson, 

Mohammad Koohmaraie 

Task Group for Bylaws: Drew Azzara, James Vanderwielen 

Scope: The Committee will develop standards for livestock, meat, and poultry evaluation 

systems. The work of this Committee will be coordinated with other organizations and 

governmental entities having mutual interests. 

 The group was unanimously in favor of continuing the effort under the organization of 

ASTM. 

Another meeting may be scheduled later in the year to review progress of the 

Subcommittee and Task Groups. That meeting again is to be held somewhere in the 

Midwest to facilitate attendance by user and producer groups and other interested parties. 

For additional background on this issue see the February 2001 issue of the Weights & 

Measures Quarterly. To be added to the list of interested parties, contact Dick Suiter 

(NIST) by e-mail at rsuiter@nist.gov or by phone at (301) 975-4406.
EXHIBIT 2 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-2 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:2248
From: Scott Drury

To: Elizabeth Fegan; Katrina Carroll; erhow@birdmarella.com

Cc: Michael Kanovitz

Subject: RE: TikTok

Date: Sunday, September 27, 2020 4:54:13 PM

Attachments: image001.png

56. TikTok"s Resp to Objector Mark S"s Mot to Enforce Prelim Inj.pdf

Beth:

Thank you for the quick response. To the extent you have not seen TikTok’s most recent filing, I am

attaching it here. The purpose of the call is to open a dialogue regarding the respective matters, and

the call need not be lengthy. If there is any time between Tuesday and Friday that works, let me

know. If not, let me know what works for you.

--Scott

From: Elizabeth Fegan <beth@feganscott.com> 

Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 4:26 PM

To: Scott Drury <drury@loevy.com>; Katrina Carroll <kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com>;

erhow@birdmarella.com

Cc: Michael Kanovitz <mike@loevy.com>

Subject: RE: TikTok

Hi Scott,

This is a tough week for a call. We are familiar with the complaint, settlement,

and briefs in the other case - if there is something we should be aware of

outside those documents, please feel free to forward our way.

Sincerely,

Beth

Elizabeth A. Fegan | Fegan Scott LLC | 312.741.1019

From: Scott Drury <drury@loevy.com> 

Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 3:06 PM

To: Katrina Carroll <kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com>; erhow@birdmarella.com; Elizabeth Fegan

<beth@feganscott.com>

Cc: Michael Kanovitz <mike@loevy.com>

Subject: TikTok

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-2 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2249
Counsel:

Congratulations on your appointment as lead counsel in the TikTok MDL (“MDL”). For those of you

who do not know me, I am counsel for the Objector Mark S. in the matter T.K. v. ByteDance

Technology Company, Ltd., 1:19-cv-7915 (N.D. Ill.) (Blakey, J.) (“T.K.”). Given the overlapping nature

of T.K. and the MDL – e.g., overlapping facts/issues, classes and settlements – I believe it would be

helpful to schedule a conference call to discuss the two matters. Please let me know your availability

on September 29, 2020 at 2:30 pm (CDT). Dial-in information is set forth below. If you are

unavailable at that time, please let me know alternatives dates/times. I look forward to speaking

with you.

DIAL-IN

605-472-5232

Access Code: 333851

--Scott

_______________________

Scott R. Drury

LOEVY & LOEVY

311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60607

312.243.5900

drury@loevy.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 126-2 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:2250
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.S.W., A/K/A. D.W., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.L.W., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 376 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: N.C.W.

- M, A/K/A N.W., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.L.W., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 377 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF:: N.A.W., A/K/A. N.W., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.L.W., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 378 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.E.M., A/K/A. D.M., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.L.W., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 379 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of September, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0138. GREGORY GRAY et al. v. CITIBANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR

CMLTI ASSET TRUST.

This case originated as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. After

an adverse ruling, defendants Gregory and Earlene Gray appealed to the superior

court, which entered a writ of possession in favor of the plaintiff. The Grays then

filed this direct appeal. The plaintiff-appellee has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing

that the trial court’s order is not directly appealable. We agree. 

Because the superior court’s order disposed of a de novo appeal from a

magistrate court decision, the Grays were required to follow the discretionary appeal

procedure to obtain review of the superior court’s order. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1);

English v. Delbridge, 216 Ga. App. 366, 367 (454 SE2d 175) (1995). Their failure to

follow this procedure deprives us of jurisdiction to consider this direct appeal.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

September 09, 2021

09/09/2021
#### STATE v. PERSON

No. 269P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 227

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 July 1997. Motion by Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 23 July 1997.
Exhibit 31.2   CERTIFICATION  I, Michael P. Wilson, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Timberline Resources Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements 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 small business issuer's other certifying officers 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: January 16, 2007.  /s/ Michael P. Wilson _______________________ Michael P. Wilson (CFO)
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We have issued our reports dated February 10, 2005 (exceptfor Note 15, as to which the date is February 24, 2005), accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule in the Annual Report of Eagle Hospitality Properties Trust, Inc. and the combined financial statements of its predecessorcompanies on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Eagle Hospitality Properties Trust, Inc. on Forms S-3 (FileNo. 333-128800, effective October 4, 2005, File No. 333-128799, effective January 13, 2006 and File No. 333-128798, effective October 24, 2005) and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-119516, effective October 4, 2004).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Cincinnati, Ohio 

March 3, 2006
Exhibit 13.2

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code), the undersigned officer of LG Display Co., Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date: May 3, 2011



/S/ JAMES JEONGJames (Hoyoung) JeongDirector/ Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to LG Display Co., Ltd. and will be retained by LG Display Co., Ltd. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case: 1:20-cr-00256 Document #: 5 Filed: 06/17/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:17

Case: 1:20-cr-00256 Document #: 5 Filed: 06/17/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:18
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Miller, Appellant.

(No. 1981

Decided November 11, 1948.)

*Mr. Mathias Heck,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr.. Herbert M. Jacobson,*for appellee.

*Mr. Walter L. Connors,*for appellant.

By the Court.

This cause is submitted on motion-of ■ plaintiff, appellee herein, to dismiss the appeal on-the ground that no bill of exceptions was filed. After-considering the assignments of error and the treatment of the errors assigned by defendant, appellant herein, in her brief, we conclude that a bill of exceptions will be required to exemplify the errors complained of. There being no bill of exceptions and the time within which a bill of exceptions may be filed having expired, the motion to dismiss the appeal will be sustained.

*Motion sustained.*

Wiseman, P. J., Miller and Hornbeck, JJ., concur..