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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2323 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2323

  To amend title 23, United States Code, to permit the State of West 
Virginia to allow the operation of certain vehicles for the hauling of 
  coal and coal by-products on Interstate Route 77 in Kanawha County, 
                             West Virginia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2011

 Mrs. Capito introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 23, United States Code, to permit the State of West 
Virginia to allow the operation of certain vehicles for the hauling of 
  coal and coal by-products on Interstate Route 77 in Kanawha County, 
                             West Virginia.

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

SECTION 1. VEHICLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS--INTERSTATE SYSTEM.

    Section 127(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(13) The State of West Virginia may allow, by special 
        permit, the operation of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 
        of up to 126,000 pounds, and with loads conforming to such 
        single axle, tandem axle, and bridge formula limits as may be 
        established by the State, for the hauling of coal and coal by-
        products on Interstate Route 77 in Kanawha County, West 
        Virginia, between Exits 85 and 97.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Pedro MIRANDA; Maricela De Miranda-Chavez; Elaina Magali Miranda, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72506.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Charles E. Nichol, Esq., Law Office of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*948Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Miranda, Maricela de Miranda-Chavez, and their daughter Elaina Magali Miranda, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings and remand. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen, where the BIA considered the psychological report indicating petitioners’ U.S. citizen son’s mental health had deteriorated and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law”).

The remaining evidence petitioners presented with their motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence would not alter its prior discretionary determination that they failed to establish the requisite hardship. *See id.*at 600 (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen where “the only question presented is whether [the] new evidence altered the prior, underlying discretionary determination that [the petitioner] had not met the hardship standard.”) (internal quotations and brackets omitted).

We are unpersuaded by petitioners’ remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2320 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2320

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend 
  existing elective tax treatment for Alaska Native Settlement Trusts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2011

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend 
  existing elective tax treatment for Alaska Native Settlement Trusts.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF ELECTIVE TAX TREATMENT FOR ALASKA 
              NATIVE SETTLEMENT TRUSTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset provisions) shall not 
apply to the provisions of, and amendments made by, section 671 of such 
Act (relating to tax treatment and information requirements of Alaska 
Native Settlement Trusts).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall be 
effective upon the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
S. 971 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen 

An Act 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an increase in 

the limit on the length of an agreement under the Medicare independence at 

home medical practice demonstration 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 ‘‘Medicare Independence at Home 

Medical Practice Demonstration Improvement Act of 2015’’. 

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN THE LIMIT ON THE LENGTH OF AN AGREEMENT 

UNDER THE MEDICARE INDEPENDENCE AT HOME MEDICAL 

PRACTICE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. 

Section 1866E(e)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1395cc–5(e)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘3-year’’ and inserting ‘‘5- 

year’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 33.4b



|     |  |  |  |                                                                                         
|---- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  | 260 Interstate North Circle, SE Atlanta, GA
30339-2210 T 770.763.1000 
www.assurant.corn

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH

§1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii)

of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD

JANUARY 1, 2015 TO DECEMBER 31, 2015

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, the Asserting Party)
is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii) of
Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the Applicable Servicing Criteria) which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs with respect to all
mortgage backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the Platform Transactions). The Asserting Party used the criteria set
forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Asserting Party has assessed
its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the
Platform Transactions.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment
of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period,

American Security Insurance Company

Standard Guaranty Insurance Company

TrackSure
Insurance Agency, Inc.



|                                                                                                                                                     |  |             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|/s/ John Frobose                                                                                                                                    
|By:                                                                                                                                                  |  | John Frobose
|President of American Security Insurance Company and Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and Sr. Vice President of TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.

Date: February 8, 2016
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1636

___________

Ronnie E. Johnson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Floyd E. Emerson, Sr.; Vickie D. *

Gilliam; Walter E. Hussman, Jr.; * [UNPUBLISHED]

The Sentinel-Record, Inc.; Palmer *

Newspaper Group; Wehco Media, Inc.; *

Williams & Anderson, LLP; Jess *

Askew, III; John Does, 1-10; Jane *

Does, 1-11; John Does, 1-11, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2004 

Filed: October 15, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

-2-

Ronnie E. Johnson (Johnson) appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his civil

complaint brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,

18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Gardner v. First

Am. Title Ins. Co., 294 F.3d 991, 993 (8th Cir. 2002), we conclude the dismissal was

appropriate, and an extended discussion is not warranted. To the extent Johnson is

appealing the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel, we conclude the

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546

(8th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
EXHIBIT 32.2
                 Citizens Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


                In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Citizens
Financial   Corporation  (the   "Company")  for  the   quarterly  period   ended
September 30, 2003, as filed with the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report") I, Brent L. Nemec, Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer  of  the  Company, certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s.s. 1350, as  adopted
pursuant to s.s. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that, to the best of my
knowledge:

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.


                                  By:       /s/ Brent L. Nemec
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Brent L. Nemec
                                            Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 14, 2003
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-10104 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ARMANDO PAREDES-MUNOZ, also known as Ramon Paredes, also known as Armando Padres, Defendant-Appellant c/w No. 13-10108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ARMANDO PAREDES-MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-125-1 USDC No. 4:12-CR-143-1 U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 25, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk Case: 13-10104 Document: 00512419684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2013No. 13-10104 c/w No. 13-10108 Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * T h e Federal Public Defender appointed t o represent Arma n d o Paredes-Munoz has moved for leave to w ithdraw and has f iled a brief i n accordance with Anders v . California , 3 86 U.S. 7 38 (1967), and U nited States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Paredes-Munoz has not filed a response. We h av e r e v i e w ed counsel’s brief a nd the r elevant p ortions of t he record reflected therein. W e concur with counsel’s assessment that these consolidated appeals present n o nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accord ingly,
c o u nsel’s motion for leave t o withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R

. 42.2.

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et f orth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. 2 Case: 13-10104 Document: 00512419684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
Exhibit 10(a)



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM 


We
consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 65 to Registration Statement No. 333-142592
on Form N-1A of our report dated February 28, 2011, relating to
the financial statements and financial highlights of BlackRock Strategic Income Opportunities Portfolio,
a series of BlackRock Funds II (the “Fund”), appearing
in the Annual Report on Form N-CSR of the Fund for the year ended December 31, 2010. We also consent to the references to us under
the headings “Financial Highlights” in the Prospectus and “Financial Statements” in the Statement of Additional
Information, which are part of such Registration Statement. 


 


	/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
	Philadelphia,
    Pennsylvania
	December 22, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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
(the "Report") of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30,
2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and 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; and                     
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                           
|2) | the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



|July 31, 2015 | By | /s/ Arthur L. Smith    
|------------- | -- | -----------------------
|              |    | Arthur L. Smith        
|              |    | President and          
|              |    | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 35.5








Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation
60 WALL ST
NEW YORK, New York 10005-2836





| | RE: | Annual Statement of Compliance for Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, Commercial Mortgage Pass- Through Certificates,
Series 2013- CCRE7
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2013
(the “Agreement”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator
(“Wells Fargo”), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting
Period”):



(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the
Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and



(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on
such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the
Reporting Period.





March 1, 2016







BRIAN SMITH
Vice President
#### Maria RAMIREZ-COVARRUBIAS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73146.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*937Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.**

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Rosaura D. Rodriguez, Esq., Rios Cantor, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Anthony C. Payne, Esq., Jeffery R. Leist, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney *937General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Maria Ramirez-Covarrubias seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, *see Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that RamirezCovarrubias failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Ramirez-Covarrubias contends the IJ violated due process by exhibiting bias. Contrary to her contention, the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [she] was prevented from reasonably presenting [her] case.” *Colmenar v. INS,*210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
COURT OF APPEALS 

CATHERINE STONE 

 CHIEF JUSTICE 

KAREN ANGELINI 

SANDEE BRYAN MARION 

PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN 

REBECCA SIMMONS 

STEVEN C. HILBIG 

MARIALYN BARNARD 

 JUSTICES 

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 

CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER 

300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200 

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037 

WWW.4THCOA.COURTS.STATE.TX.US 

KEITH E. HOTTLE, 

CLERK 

TELEPHONE 

(210) 335-2635 

FACSIMILE NO. 

(210) 335-2762 

January 15, 2010 

Jon Hughes 

TDCJ-ID# 1536817 

Coffield Unit 

2261 FM 2054 

Tenneessee Colony, TX 75884 

E. Bruce Curry 

District Attorney - 216th Judicial 

District Court 

521 Earl Garrett Street 

Kerrville, TX 78028 

M. Patrick Maguire 

M. Patrick Maguire, P.C. 

327 Earl Garrett Street, Suite 103 

Kerrville, TX 78028 

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04-08-00864-CR 

 Trial Court Case Number: A-08--85 

Style: Jon William Hughes 

 v. 

 The State of Texas 

 The Pro Se's Petition for Discretionary Review has this date been received and filed in 

the above styled and numbered cause. Pursuant to Rule 68.7 (b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure the opposing party has 30 days to file a reply to the petition with the clerk. 

Very truly yours, 

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK 

__________________________________ 

John Davila 

Deputy Clerk, Ext 3220
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2019 (the “Report”) of Oaktree Strategic Income Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Armen Panossian , the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.





/s/    Armen PanossianName:    Armen PanossianDate: November 19, 2019
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION
OF THE chief FINANCIAL
OFFICER 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
(the "Report") of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31,
2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada Jr., the 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,



| | 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



|By | /s/ Antonio Estrada Jr. | 
|-- | ----------------------- | 
|   | Antonio Estrada Jr.     | 
|   | Chief Financial Officer | 
|   | May 5, 2015             |