alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

 

Pursuant to section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer ofAustralia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, a public company incorporatedunder the laws of Victoria, Australia (the “Company”), hereby certifies, that:

 

The Annual Report on Form20-F for the year ended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Dated: December 17, 2004

 
|   |                    | /s/ P R Marriott |
|--------|-------------------------|------------------|
|   | P R Marriott            |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

The foregoing certificationis being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, UnitedStates Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as separatedisclosure document

 

 

----

----
**Exhibit12.1**

 

*CERTIFICATION(302)*

 

I,John McFarlane, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form20-F of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited – the registrant;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this annual report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this annual report,fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officers andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b)    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as ofa date within 90 days prior to the filingdate of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c)             presentedin this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officers andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)     allsignificant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and haveidentified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)    any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’sinternal controls; and

 

6.     The registrant’s other certifying officers andI have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significantchanges in internal controls or in otherfactors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to thedate of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.

 
| Dated: December 19, 2003 |
|-------------------------------|
|                          |
|                          |
| /s/ J McFarlane               |   |
| **J McFarlane**               |
|                          |
| Chief Executive Officer       |

 

----
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3175 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to suspend 

temporarily the process of imposing restructuring sanctions on such 

schools and local educational agencies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 12, 2011 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to suspend temporarily the process of imposing 

restructuring sanctions on such schools and local educational agencies. 

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 ‘‘School and Local Edu5 cational Agency Resources Efficiency Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3175 IH

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF IMPOSING SANC2 TIONS ON SUCH SCHOOLS AND LOCAL EDU3 CATIONAL AGENCIES. 

4 Section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Edu5 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316) is amended by add6 ing at the end of the following: 

7 ‘‘(i) TEMPORARY SUSPENSION.— 

8 ‘‘(1) SUSPENSION.—Beginning in the 2011– 

9 2012 school year through the date described in para10 graph (2), a school or local educational agency shall 

11 not be identified for restructuring under this section, 

12 and restructuring shall not be required by reason of 

13 being so identified, except that a school or local edu14 cational agency that as of the end of the 2011–2012 

15 school has been identified for corrective action or re16 structuring under this section may continue to be so 

17 identified and be subject to any specific corrective 

18 action or restructuring that was required, as of the 

19 date of enactment of the School and Local Edu20 cational Agency Resources Efficiency Act, by reason 

21 of being so identified. 

22 ‘‘(2) SUNSET.—Paragraph (1) shall cease to 

23 apply beginning on the earlier of— 

24 ‘‘(A) the last day of the 2012–2013 school 

25 year; or 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3175 IH

1 ‘‘(B) the date of the enactment of an Act 

2 reauthorizing this Act.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3192 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3192

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
   Veterans Affairs to inter in national cemeteries individuals who 
    supported the United States in Laos during the Vietnam War era.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 13, 2011

  Mr. Costa (for himself, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Courtney, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. 
Bordallo, Mr. Petri, Mr. Kind, and Mr. Honda) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
   Veterans Affairs to inter in national cemeteries individuals who 
    supported the United States in Laos during the Vietnam War era.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR INTERMENT IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 2402(a) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(10) Any individual who--
                    ``(A) the Secretary determines served in combat 
                support of the Armed Forces (including combat support 
                involving any covert action of the United States, as 
                defined in section 503(e) of the National Security Act 
                of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413b)) in the Kingdom of Laos during 
                the period beginning on February 28, 1961, and ending 
                on May 15, 1975; and
                    ``(B) at the time of the individual's death was a 
                citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully 
                admitted for permanent residence in the United 
                States.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this Act shall apply 
with respect to an individual dying on or after January 1, 2011.
                                 <all>
```
#### Catherine Flore TCHENTCHEU, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-1632.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 9, 2008.

Decided: June 20, 2008.

Ronald D. Richey, Law Office of Ronald D. Richey, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney General, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Shahrzad Baghai, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Catherine Flore Tchentcheu, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks to petition for review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2000). The INA defines a refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to her native country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000). An applicant can establish refugee status based on past persecution in her native country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2006). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground. *Ngarurih v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir.2004).

An applicant has the burden of demonstrating her eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006); *Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales,*445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.2006). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). This court will reverse the Board “only if the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *Rusu v. INS,*296 F.3d 316, 325 n. 14 (4th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

*226We find substantial evidence supports the Board’s adverse credibility finding and the record does not compel a different result. Accordingly, we will not disturb the Board’s denial of Tchentcheu’s applications for asylum and withholding from removal.

We also find because Tchentcheu did not establish her identity or her opposition party membership, substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of her application for relief under the CAT.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

As Trustee for Lehman Mortgage Trust

Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-8,

Appellant,

v.

GEORGE E. BUCHANAN a/k/a G. EUGENE BUCHANAN and

JO ANNE BUCHANAN,

Appellees.

No. 4D19-1416

[May 20, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016CA001099.

Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, Emily Rottmann, and C. H. Houston, III of 

McGuireWoods LLP, Jacksonville, for appellant.

W. Trent Steele of Steele Law, Hobe Sound, for appellees.

GERBER, J.

The bank appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment of dismissal 

against the bank and in the borrowers’ favor after a non-jury trial. The 

bank argues the trial court erred in three respects: (1) finding the bank 

did not prove it owned and was entitled to enforce the note when the note 

was lost; (2) finding the bank did not prove it satisfied the condition 

precedent of having mailed a default letter to the borrowers at their 

changed address; and (3) denying the bank’s two declaratory judgment 

counts to declare certain quit claim deeds legally sufficient.

We conclude the circuit court erred on the second argument. However, 

that error is harmless, because we conclude on the first argument that the 

bank did not present sufficient competent substantial evidence to prove it 

owned and was entitled to enforce the note when the note was lost. Thus, 

we affirm the final judgment as to the bank’s mortgage foreclosure and reestablishment of lost note counts (Counts I and II) without further 

comment.
2

We also affirm the final judgment as to the bank’s declaratory judgment 

counts (both inadvertently labeled Count III) without further comment.

Affirmed.

GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       7,720,718
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          74,397
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             7,200,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 27,334,155
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         388,800
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           388,800
<LOANS>                                     79,139,707
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,100,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             122,928,013
<DEPOSITS>                                  89,802,181
<SHORT-TERM>                                 9,771,013
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            479,355
<LONG-TERM>                                  6,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,733
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,858,731
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             122,928,013
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,708,471
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,304,748
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               168,531
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,181,750
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,299,726
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,704,688
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,477,062
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  348,325
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,876,745
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                324,031
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     324,031
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   324,031
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.51
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               751,675
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,100,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,004,728
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         95,272


</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 13-3574

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Cassandra Lynn Dismang lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________ Submitted: May 1, 2014 Filed: May 6, 2014 [Unpublished]

____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Cassandra Lynn Dismang directly appeals the district court’s 1 judgment revoking her supervised release and sentenci ng her to 15 months in prison. After
1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Dismang had violated the conditions of her supervised release, and did not abuse its discretion by revoking her s upervised release. See United States v. Miller , 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). This c ourt also concludes that the district court committed no procedural se ntencing error, and the 15-month sentence, which was below the Guidelines range a nd was the sentence Dismang requested, was not substantively unreasonable. Seeid. at 915-17 (discussing procedural-error and substantive-reasonableness tests); see also United States v. McCully , 407 F.3d 931, 934 (8th Cir. 2005) (where defendant receive d sentence at bottom of Guidelines range as requested, she cannot challenge r easonableness of sentence on appeal). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET - UNAUDITED AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          34,891
<SECURITIES>                                    37,100
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (831)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,531
<PP&E>                                          15,907
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,393)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,714
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,791
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,885
<CGS>                                            9,699
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,839
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,208
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,196
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,012
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Frank and Clements

STAFFORD (COUNTY OF) SCHOOL BOARD AND VIRGINIA MU NICIPAL GROUP SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0002-04-2 PER CURIAM MAY 18, 2004 ROBIN DALE WILLIS

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Ralph L. Whitt, Jr.; Jennifer C. Williamson; Whitt & Associates, on briefs), for appellants. (Wesley G. Marshall, on brief), for appellee.

Stafford (County of) School Board and its in surer appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (1) awarding medical bene fits and temporary total disability benefits to Robin D. Willis (claimant), (2) finding that claimant proved she sustained a new injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment on December 4, 2002, and (3) finding that her disability was causally relate d to the December 4, 2002 compensable injury by

accident. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons st ated by the commission in its final opinion. See Willis v. Stafford (County of) School Board , VWC File No. 212-54-35 (Dec. 5, 2003). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - adequately presented in the materials before th e Court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Optimal Group Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge:





1)
the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (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.








Dated           August 7, 2009







By:

/s/ Neil S. WechslerNeil S. WechslerCo-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer








The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of this report or as a separate disclosure document.