alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
February 2024

STORAGE 1000 ACRE-FEET COMPUTED* RELEASE - C.F.S. EVAPORATION** PRECIP**

DAY ELEV IN LAKE CHANGE INFLOW

C.F.S. POWER SPILL OUTLET C. F. S. INCHES INCHES

1,511.7

1 2,305.70 1,530.6 18.9 9,762 202 0 0 14 0.04 1.40

2 2,306.68 1,542.6 12.0 6,299 258 0 0 7 0.02 0.20

3 2,307.43 1,551.8 9.2 4,862 209 0 0 14 0.04 0.02

4 2,308.22 1,561.5 9.7 5,078 145 0 0 29 0.08 0.35

5 2,309.65 1,579.2 17.7 8,953 0 0 0 22 0.06 2.20

6 2,310.68 1,592.1 12.8 6,487 0 0 0 15 0.04 0.11

7 2,311.42 1,601.3 9.3 4,916 229 0 0 15 0.04 0.00

8 2,311.97 1,608.2 6.9 3,806 300 0 0 26 0.07 0.17

9 2,312.42 1,613.9 5.7 3,219 283 0 0 74 0.20 0.00

10 2,312.80 1,618.7 4.8 2,770 342 0 0 11 0.03 0.00

11 2,313.16 1,623.3 4.6 2,588 278 0 0 15 0.04 0.00

12 2,313.48 1,627.3 4.1 2,337 276 0 0 15 0.04 0.00

13 2,313.75 1,630.8 3.4 2,021 276 0 0 19 0.05 0.00

14 2,314.23 1,636.9 6.1 3,297 198 0 0 22 0.06 0.31

15 2,314.64 1,642.1 5.2 3,069 434 0 0 0 0.00 0.52

16 2,315.01 1,646.8 4.7 2,666 287 0 0 0 0.00 0.32

17 2,315.60 1,654.4 7.6 3,820 0 0 0 8 0.02 0.00

18 2,316.50 1,665.9 11.6 5,847 0 0 0 15 0.04 0.87

19 2,318.05 1,686.0 20.0 10,224 113 0 0 8 0.02 0.96

20 2,319.81 1,708.9 23.0 11,588 0 0 0 12 0.03 1.30

21 2,320.94 1,723.8 14.8 7,495 0 0 0 12 0.03 0.35

22 2,321.74 1,734.3 10.6 5,335 3 0 0 8 0.02 0.12

23 2,322.38 1,742.8 8.5 4,350 66 0 0 12 0.03 0.00

24 2,322.87 1,749.3 6.5 3,656 359 0 0 20 0.05 0.00

25 2,323.32 1,755.3 6.0 3,291 198 0 0 74 0.19 0.00

26 2,323.70 1,760.4 5.1 2,897 313 0 0 31 0.08 0.00

27 2,324.06 1,765.2 4.8 2,883 424 0 0 39 0.10 0.00

28 2,324.41 1,769.8 4.7 2,638 272 0 0 4 0.01 0.00

29 2,324.87 1,776.0 6.2 3,411 272 0 0 35 0.09 0.05

TOTALS 264.5 139,565 5,737 0 0 576 1.52 9.25

ACRE-FEET 264,500 276,827 11,379 0 0 1,142

Comments: * COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, PUMPING AND EVAPORATION

 ** Evaporation and precipitation records taken from station at Trinity River Hatchery.

Precipitation

This month = 9.25

October 01, 2023 To date = 27.54

Release (ACRE-FEET)

Power 11,379 Outlet 0

Spill 0 Total 11,379

SUMMARY 

Historical Archive and Report Database

Trinity Lake Daily Operations

Run Date: 3/28/2024
#### § 1824.12 How many times must BLM publish a notice?

The number of times that BLM will publish or cause to be published a notice depends on the publication requirements for the particular action involved. You should see the applicable law and the regulations governing specific BLM resource programs for information on the requirements for publication for a particular action.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo VALLEJO-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40195.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

james Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for United States of America.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Pablo Vallejo-Moreno.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Pablo Vallejo-Moreno (Vallejo) appeals his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1826 for attempted illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported. Vallejo asserts that the district court erred in concluding that his prior state felony conviction for simple possession of cocaine and *266marijuana was an “aggravated felony” for purposes of § 1326(b). Vallejo’s argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. *See United States v. Rivera,*265 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir.2001); *United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez,*130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997).

Vallejo also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. This challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Vallejo contends that *AlmendarezTorres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Vallejo properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *AlmendarezTorres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

Vallejo argues that the district court erred in ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release and that this condition should therefore be vacated. He contends that the collection of his DNA violates the Fourth Amendment. Vallejo concedes that the issue is not ripe for review but raises the issue to preserve it for further review. *See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu,*428 F.3d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert, filed*(Jan. 9, 2006) (05-8662). As Vallejo concedes, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue. *See id.*

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 735.09

 733.88

 732.65

 731.56

 730.23

 728.98

 727.52

 726.06

 726.67

 727.24

 727.79

 730.14

 738.19

 743.77

 746.78

 749.16

 751.07

 752.58

 753.78

 754.91

 756.36

 757.54

 758.27

 758.73

 760.56

 761.88

 762.50

 764.97

 772.24

 772.12

 1,798

 1,744

 1,690

 1,642

 1,586

 1,533

 1,473

 1,414

 1,439

 1,462

 1,484

 1,582

 1,943

 2,221

 2,383

 2,516

 2,627

 2,716

 2,788

 2,857

 2,945

 3,019

 3,065

 3,094

 3,210

 3,296

 3,337

 3,501

 4,011

 4,002

STORAGE

-66

-54

-54

-48

-56

-53

-60

-59

+25

+23

+22

+98

+361

+278

+162

+133

+111

+89

+72

+69

+88

+74

+46

+29

+116

+86

+41

+164

+510

-9

CHANGE

12

13

13

16

12

13

10

7

13

12

11

49

182

140

82

67

56

45

36

35

44

37

36

65

108

93

71

133

345

195

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 45

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 37

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 13

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 88

 200

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

APRIL 2003 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: June 11, 2003

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +2,138 1,951 0 873

ACRE-FEET +2,138 3,870 0 1,732

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 1,732

 1,732

 1,864

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tamara Sue BLYTHE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-4686.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided March 1, 2006.

David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

At a June 2005 revocation hearing, Tamara Blythe admitted to violations of her supervised release. The district court revoked her supervised release and ordered her to serve eight months’ imprisonment, a term within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. Blythe’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that, in his opinion, there exist no meritorious grounds for appeal. However, counsel addresses whether the district court erred by failing to expressly state that Blythe’s sentence was imposed upon consideration of the sentencing factors* set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), notwithstanding the statement in the court’s written judgment that the factors were considered. Although she was informed of her right to do so, Blythe elected not to file a pro se supplemental brief.

In accordance with *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), a sentencing court should determine the sentencing range under the Guidelines, consider the factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a), and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum. *See United States v. Hughes,*401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005). “A sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range ... is presumptively reasonable.” *United States v. Green,*436 F.3d at 456-57 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). With these principles in mind, we conclude that Blythe has not demonstrated plain error that affected her substantial rights. *See United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record for any meri*765torious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 Blythe did not object to the alleged omission at the sentencing hearing.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0104

_____________________________
R OBERTO L ABORI ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal

-- Orig inal Jurisdiction

.

March 27, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(A).

O STERHAUS , W INOKUR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Roberto Labori, pro se
, Petitioner

.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 133

 121

 130

 163

 174

 181

 162

 141

 132

 136

 127

 133

 134

 133

 133

 157

 190

 196

 191

 181

 217

 232

 257

 279

 289

 290

 316

 326

 314

 338

 340

 117

 115

 117

 132

 163

 164

 142

 128

 124

 126

 116

 122

 130

 123

 122

 130

 159

 188

 173

 171

 182

 217

 233

 260

 279

 287

 292

 300

 307

 313

 324

 125

 118

 123

 148

 169

 172

 151

 133

 128

 129

 120

 129

 132

 126

 126

 141

 173

 192

 181

 174

 199

 226

 245

 269

 284

 288

 309

 313

 310

 324

 331

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2011 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 24, 2011

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

30 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

30 DAY

AVG 

MEAN

 4,775

 4,723

 4,670

 4,642

 4,644

 4,643

 4,614

 4,563

 4,504

 4,452

 4,396

 4,356

 4,319

 4,277

 4,241

 4,217

 4,225

 4,265

 4,288

 4,301

 4,351

 4,431

 4,532

 4,664

 4,811

 4,959

 5,131

 5,302

 5,472

 5,657

 5,863

 159

 157

 156

 155

 155

 155

 154

 152

 150

 148

 147

 145

 144

 143

 141

 141

 141

 142

 143

 143

 145

 148

 151

 155

 160

 165

 171

 177

 182

 189

 195

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

30 DAY ACCUM MEAN and 30 DAY AVG MEAN columns are 30 day runnings, except for April 1 and September 1, 

 where they do not go back 30 days.

VERNALIS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
Exhibit 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION




In connection with the Annual Report of Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald R. Kimble, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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




/s/ Donald R. KimbleDonald R. Kimble(chief executive officer)March 14, 2011
§ 3137.80 What are participating areas and how do they relate to the unit agreement? ( a ) Participating areas are those committed tracts or portions of those committed tracts within the unit area that are proven to be productive by a well meeting the productivity criteria specified in the unit agreement.
( b ) You must include a description of the anticipated participating area(s) size in the unit agreement for planning purposes to aid in the mitigation of reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on NPR-A surface resources. The unit agreement must define the proposed participating areas. Your proposed participating area may be limited to separate producible intervals or areas.
( c ) At the time you meet the productivity criteria discussed in § 3137.82 of this subpart, you must delineate those participating areas.
[67 FR 17886, Apr. 11, 2002, as amended at 73 FR 6444, Feb. 4, 2008]
§ 18.405 Penalty procedures. Agencies shall impose and collect civil penalties pursuant to the provisions of the Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. sections 3803 (except subsection (c)), 3804, 3805, 3806, 3807, 3808, and 3812, insofar as these provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements herein. ( a ) The Department of the Interior implementation of the Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act of 1985 is found at 43 CFR part 35.
( b ) [Reserved]
[55 FR 6737, 6753, Feb. 26, 1990, as amended at 55 FR 6754, Feb. 26, 1990]
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! Marbleton

Big Piney

Merna Cora

Daniel

Pinedale

Boulder

LaBarge

T35N

T34N

T33N

T32N

T31N

T30N

T29N

T28N

T27N

T26N

T25N

R114W R113W R112W R111W R110W R109W R108W R107W R106W

T36N

La Barge Cre e k

T

26

N

T

33

N

R107W

T

36

N

R111E R110E

T

37

N

R115W

T

27

N

T

34

N

R109W

T

33

N

R108W

R108W T

33

N

Green Riv er

New Fork River

Green River

Green River

Cora

Daniel

T

28

N

R115W R114W R113W

T

26

N

T

25

N

T

27

N

R114W

UV235

£¤191

UV352

UV354

UV353

UV350

UV351

£¤189

UV235

Bureau of Land Management

State

Private

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!Marbleton

Big Piney

Merna Cora

Daniel

Pinedale

Boulder

LaBarge SUBLETTE

LINCOLN

SU B LE TT E

LI NC O L N

Map 2-33b

Green and New Fork Rivers

Special Recreation

Management Area

o

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

0 5 10 20

Kilometers

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

APPROVED PINEDALE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Green and New Fork Rivers Special

Recreation Management Area

ROCK SPRINGS FIELD OFFICE

Green and

New Fork Ri vers SRMA

U.S. F

O

R

E

S

T

S

E

R

VIC

E

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

SUBLETTE

LINCOLN
### §401. Leases for mining purposes of unallotted lands in Kaw Reservation

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to lease for mining purposes lands reserved from allotment to be used as a cemetery and not needed for that purpose, and lands reserved for school and agency purposes in the Kaw Reservation in the State of Oklahoma, and for the use and benefit of the members of the Kansas or Kaw Tribe of Indians, at public auction, upon such terms and conditions and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe: Provided, That the production of oil and gas and other minerals on such lands may be taxed by the State in which said lands are located in all respects the same as production on unrestricted lands, and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and directed to cause to be paid the tax so assessed against the royalty interests on said lands: Provided, however, That such tax shall not become a lien or charge of any kind or character against the land or the property of the Indian owner.

(Apr. 28, 1924, ch. 135, 43 Stat. 111.)
### §5209. Rules and regulations; repeals

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. All Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent with this chapter are repealed.

(June 26, 1936, ch. 831, §9, 49 Stat. 1968.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 509 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Epigmeneo REYNA-VELOZ, also known as Pedro Paz-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40627.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Thomas S. Berg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Epigmeneo Reyna-Veloz was convicted of one charge of illegal reentry into the United States and sentenced to serve 30 months in prison and a two-year term of supervised release. He argues that the district court erred by determining that his prior Texas felony conviction for burglary of a habitation was a crime of vio*283lence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). This argument is unavailing. *See United States v. Garcia-Mendez,*420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert, filed*(Dec. 15, 2005)(No. 05-8542).

Reyna-Veloz’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Reyna-Veloz contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Reyna-Veloz properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

Reyna-Veloz has shown no error in the judgment of the district court. Consequently, that judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### § 1865.0-3 Authority.

Section 316 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1746) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to correct patents and other documents of conveyance issued at any time pursuant to the laws relating to the disposal of the public lands where the Secretary of the Interior deems it necessary or appropriate to do so in order to eliminate errors.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. §1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Lawson Software, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert G. Barbieri, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and Performance Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | /s/ ROBERT G. BARBIERIRobert G. Barbieri Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial and Performance Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | July 29, 2004                                                                                                

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                            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 Annual Report of MM2 Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark Meller,
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                       /s/ Mark Meller
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Mark Meller
                                       President
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       October 15, 2007
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
John J. Coughlan, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lawson Software, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
July 29, 2003

|/s/ JOHN J. COUGHLANJohn J. Coughlan President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks