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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 115 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 115

  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Sugar Ray 
    Robinson should be recognized for his athletic achievements and 
                      commitment to young people.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2003

 Mr. Rangel submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Sugar Ray 
    Robinson should be recognized for his athletic achievements and 
                      commitment to young people.

Whereas Sugar Ray Robinson was born in Detroit, Michigan, on May 3, 1920;
Whereas, in 1932, Robinson moved to New York City where he started boxing as an 
        amateur, going undefeated in 89 bouts, and winning the Golden Gloves 
        featherweight title in 1939;
Whereas, in 1940, he began boxing professionally and fought at New York City's 
        Madison Square Garden for the first time;
Whereas, in 1946, he won his first world title as a welterweight, and then held 
        the middleweight title for 5 years between 1951 and 1960;
Whereas after retiring for a time he returned to box a series of exciting 
        matches before permanently retiring on December 10, 1965;
Whereas in a career spanning 25 years, he won 175 of 202 bouts with 109 
        knockouts;
Whereas his grace, speed, power, and mastery of the ring earned him 
        international acclaim as one of the greatest fighters in boxing history;
Whereas Sugar Ray Robinson was elected into the Boxing Hall of Fame in 1967;
Whereas, in 1969, he established the Sugar Ray Robinson Youth Foundation; and
Whereas Sugar Ray Robinson died in Culver City, California, on April 12, 1989, 
        at the age of 68: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
Sugar Ray Robinson should be recognized as one of history's greatest 
professional boxers, whose dedication to boxing and commitment to young 
people have earned him a permanent place in sports history.
                                 <all>
```
CAPITAL INCOME BUILDER, INC.

                             ARTICLES SUPPLEMENTARY
                           INCREASING AUTHORIZED STOCK
                      AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 2-105(c) OF
                      THE MARYLAND GENERAL CORPORATION LAW

                  Capital Income Builder, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the
"Corporation") having its principal address at 32 South Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, hereby certifies to the State Department of Assessments and
Taxation of Maryland that:

                  FIRST: In accordance with Section 2-105(c) of the Maryland
General Corporation Law, the Board of Directors has increased the authorized
Capital Stock of the Corporation to 400,000,000 shares of Common Stock (par
value $.01 per share).

                  SECOND: The Corporation is registered as an open-end
investment company under the Investment Act of 1940.

                  THIRD: (a) As of immediately before the increase the total
number of shares of stock of all classes which the Corporation has authority to
issue is 400,000,000 shares of Common Stock (par value $.01 per share).

                                    (b) As increased the total number of shares
of stock of all classes which the
Corporation has authority to issue is 1,000,000,000 shares of Common Stock (par
value $.01 per share).

                                    (c) The aggregate par value of all shares
having a par value is $4,000,000
before the increase and $10,000,000 as increased.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Capital Income Builder, Inc., has caused
these Articles Supplementary to be signed and acknowledged in its name and on
its behalf by its Chairman of the Board and attested by its Secretary on this
23rd day of May, 2003.


                                                    CAPITAL INCOME BUILDER, INC.


By       /s/ Vincent P. Corti                By      /s/ James B. Lovelace
         Vincent P. Corti                            James B. Lovelace
         Secretary                                   Chairman of the Board

                  THE UNDERSIGNED, Chairman of the Board of Capital Income
Builder, Inc., who executed on behalf of said Corporation the foregoing Articles
Supplementary to the Charter, of which this certificate is made a part, hereby
acknowledges, in the name and on behalf of said Corporation, the foregoing
Articles Supplementary to the Charter to be the corporate act of said
Corporation, and further certifies that, to the best of his knowledge,
information and belief, the matters and facts set forth therein with respect to
the approval thereof are true in all material respects under penalty of perjury.


Date:    May 23, 2003                        By       /s/ James B. Lovelace
                                                      James B. Lovelace
                                                      Chairman of the Board
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof PALIGENT INC. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),Salvatore A. Bucci, as Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officerof the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to the best of his knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 12, 2005 | by:    | /s/ Salvatore A. Bucci                |   |
|----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                       |   | Salvatore A. Bucci                    |
|                       |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                       |   | (Principal Financial Officer)         |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Form 10-Q
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,270,338
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      15,276,981
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            12,464,966
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      44,078,857
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        44,261,875
<LOANS>                                    249,248,677
<ALLOWANCE>                                    902,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             318,500,497
<DEPOSITS>                                 260,984,109
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          9,525,672
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,251
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,955,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             318,500,497
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             15,202,739
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,713,357
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               125,292
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            18,041,388
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           9,702,255
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        8,339,133
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           (144,617)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,688,752
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,130,501
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   5,130,501
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,300,432
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.57
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,662,800
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               902,800
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              902,800
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           277,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        625,800
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
      (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 registrant, 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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over 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 accepted accounting principles;
 (c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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
 (d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  (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 registrant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 registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date:  August 19, 2009
    /s/ Michael C. KeefeMichael C. KeefePresident, Chief Financial Officer and
   General Counsel
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Tax Equalization Program Amendment Letter



 Exhibit 10.17 
  

					
	

	 	Colfax Corporation
	 	8730 Stony Point Pkwy
	 	Suite 150
	 	Richmond, VA 23235
	 	
	 	tel	 	804.560.4070
	 	fax	 	804.560.4076
		 	www	 	colfaxcorp.com

 December 19, 2008 
 Michael K. Dwyer 
 2001 Rose Family Drive 
 Midlothian,
VA 23112 USA 
 Dear Mike: 
 This letter relates to our letter of
understanding dated December 28, 2007 and is intended to clarify certain terms of the tax equalization program described in that letter of understanding. Payments to you or on your behalf will continue to be made as described in the letter of
understanding except to the extent altered by this letter. 
 You will receive any payment you are entitled to under the tax equalization program that
qualifies as a “tax gross-up payment,” as defined in regulations under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, no later than the end of the next taxable year following the taxable year in which you remit the related taxes. Further,
any amount you are entitled to have paid on your behalf that qualifies as a “tax gross-up payment” will be paid no later than the end of the next taxable year following the taxable year in which you become entitled to have such a payment
made on your behalf. 
 Any reimbursements you are entitled to under the tax equalization program for unpaid taxes assessed following a tax audit or
litigation addressing the existence or amount of a Federal, state, local, or foreign tax liability will also be made no later than the end of the next taxable year following the taxable year in which the taxes that are the subject of the audit or
litigation are remitted to the taxing authority. Where no taxes are remitted as a result of the audit or litigation, you will receive payment, or a payment on your behalf will be made, by the end of the taxable year immediately following the taxable
year in which the audit is completed or there is a final and nonappealable settlement or other resolution of the litigation. 
 These changes have been made
in connection with recent modifications to the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 409A”), and these provisions shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with regulations under Section 409A.

 Please let me know if you have any questions. 
 Sincerely,

  

					
	 /s/ Steven W. Weidenmuller
	 		 	
	Steven W. Weidenmuller	 		 	
	SVP Human Resources	 		 	
			
	 /s/ Michael K. Dwyer
	 		 	 December 23, 2008

	Michael K. Dwyer	 		 	Date
#### Ernestine RENCHER, Appellant v. Tishaura O. JONES, Appellee.

No. 12-3269.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 15, 2013.

Filed: April 23, 2013.

Ernestine Rencher, Saint Louis, MO, pro se.

Doreen D. Dodson, Susan Nell Rowe, Stolar Partnership, argued, Saint Louis, MO, for Appellee.

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ernestine Rencher appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary *631judgment in her employment-discrimination case. Upon careful de novo review of the record before the district court and the parties’ submissions on appeal, *see Torgerson v. City of Rochester,*643 F.3d 1031, 1042-43 (8th Cir.) (en bane) (standard of review), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 513, 181 L.Ed.2d 349 (2011), we affirm for the reasons explained in the district court’s thorough opinion. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Katharine S. Hayden

 

v. : Crim. No. 11-471 (KSH)

 

ROD PEREZ : SCHEDULING ORDER

IT IS, hereby ORDERED that in response to the

Defendant’s filing of a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to a violation

of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C Section 3161 that:

The Government’s Response is due: December 12, 2011 at

5:00 p.m.

Defendant’s Reply is due: December 14, 2012

Oral argument and decision: December 16, 2012 

at 11:00 am.

 /s/Katharine S. Hayden

 

KATHARINE S. HAYDEN

United States District Judge

Date: December 15, 2011
**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 quarterly report of ThermoEnergy Corporation (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Andrew Melton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
      to
      the best of my knowledge,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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








Date:
      August 21, 2006





By:
      /s/
      Andrew Melton


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


Name:
      Andrew Melton


Title:
      Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERAH NJOKI KARINGITHI, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-70885 

Agency No. A087-020-992 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted October 11, 2018

San Francisco, California

Before: McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Serah Njoki Karingithi petitions for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of 

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and deny the petition.

1

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1 We address Karingithi’s contention that the Immigration Court lacked jurisdiction 

in this matter in an Opinion filed contemporaneously with this memorandum 

disposition.

FILED

JAN 28 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

The BIA correctly found that Karingithi was ineligible for asylum because 

her application was filed more than a year after she entered the United States. See 

8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Karingithi’s plan to obtain other lawful immigration 

status was not an “extraordinary circumstance” excusing her late filing. See 

8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). None of the examples of extraordinary circumstances 

listed at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5) include planning to apply for a visa or adjustment 

of status, nor is such a plan “of a similar nature or seriousness” as the enumerated 

examples. Gasparyan v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1130, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Karingithi was 

ineligible for withholding of removal. See Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 

1164 (9th Cir. 2017). At most, Karingithi established she was subject to

“unfulfilled threats,” which does not compel the conclusion that she was subject to 

past persecution. Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000). And while there 

is no doubt “that female genital mutilation constitutes persecution,” Benyamin v. 

Holder, 579 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir. 2009), Karingithi has not shown a “clear 

probability” that she will be subject to female genital mutilation upon return to 

Kenya, see Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION DENIED.
[916 NYS2d 459]

#### Branic International Realty Corp., Appellant, v Phillip Pitt, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December 22, 2010

*30APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Rosenberg Calica & Birney LLP,*Garden City, for appellant. *West Side SRO Project,*New York City *(Martha Weithman*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated June 9, 2009, reversed, with $10 costs, respondent’s motion for summary judgment denied, petitioner’s cross motion for summary judgment granted and final judgment directed in favor of petitioner upon its claim for possession. Execution of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 30 days from the service of a copy of this order with notice of entry. Appeal from order, dated December 3, 2009, insofar as appealable, dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Pursuant to an agreement between petitioner, the owner of a single room occupancy (SRO) hotel, and nonparty Human Resources Administration of the City of New York (HRA), petitioner made available certain rooms in its building for emergency temporary housing of HRA’s clients. HRA paid a nightly rate for the rooms directly to petitioner. Pursuant to this agreement, HRA placed respondent Phillip Pitt, a nonparty to the agreement, in a room in petitioner’s building.

HRA’s agreement with petitioner expired in December 2006. Thereafter, HRA informed petitioner that HRA was cancelling the placement of respondent in petitioner’s building. In response to this cancellation, petitioner served upon respondent a “Notice of Termination of License and/or Notice to Quit,” and commenced this holdover proceeding on the ground that respondent’s license to occupy the premises had expired. Respondent moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that he was a rent-stabilized tenant entitled to continued occupancy. Petitioner cross-moved for summary judgment on the petition. Civil Court granted respondent’s motion, denied the cross motion and dismissed the petition on the ground that respondent was a “permanent tenant” under the Rent Stabilization Code who could not be evicted in a licensee holdover summary proceeding. We reverse.

HRA placed respondent in the SRO unit and paid the rent for the room, and no express or implied landlord-tenant relationship existed between petitioner and respondent (see 9 NYCRR 2520.6 [d], [j]; *but see Kanti-Savita Realty Corp. v Santiago,*18 *31Misc 3d 74 [2007]). Therefore, respondent was merely a licensee of HRA (see *Rosenstiel v Rosenstiel,*20 AD2d 71 [1963]; see *also Helping Out People Everywhere v Deich,*155 Misc 2d 707 [1992], *affd*160 Misc 2d 1052 [1994]), not a “permanent tenant” entitled to the protections afforded by the Rent Stabilization Code *(see*9 NYCRR 2520.6 £j]). Since respondent’s license was revoked and he has no right to continued possession *(see*RPAPL 713 [7]), petitioner’s cross motion for summary judgment on its claim for possession should have been granted.

McKeon, EJ., Shulmajst and Hunter, Jr., JJ., concur.