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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

No. 05-30356 Plaintiff-Appellee,

D.C. No. v. 

CR-04-00301-016-

ADRIAN GARCIA, MJP

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

No. 05-30391 Plaintiff-Appellee,

D.C. No. v. 

CR-04-00301-003-

IVAN TORRES, MJP

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 05-30415

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.

v. CR-04-00301-007-

M MJP IGUEL PLASCENCIA-ALVARADO,

also known as Esteban Garcia-  ORDER

Morales also known as Angel GRANTING

Caloca, PETITION FOR

Defendant-Appellant. REHEARING AND

AMENDING

OPINION 

Filed April 17, 2008

4099
Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Kim McLane Wardlaw and

Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The panel has voted to grant the joint petition for panel

rehearing filed by Appellants Adrian Garcia (case no. 05-

30356) and Miguel Plascencia-Alvarado (case no. 05-30415).

Judges Wardlaw and Fisher voted to deny the joint petition

for rehearing en banc and Judge Wallace recommended denying the joint petition for rehearing en banc. 

The full court has been advised of the joint petition for

rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a

vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P.

35. 

Appellants’ joint petition for panel rehearing is

GRANTED and the petition for rehearing en banc, is

DENIED. 

The opinion filed on November 19, 2007, and appearing at

507 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2007) is amended. The superseding

amended opinion will be filed concurrently with this order. 

The parties may file a petition for rehearing based on the

amended opinion.

4100 UNITED STATES v. GARCIA

PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2008 Thomson/West.
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 Electronic  Game Card, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending  September  30, 2005, as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Linden  Boyne,
Treasurer/Secretary 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, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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/ Linden Boyne
                      ----------------------------
                      Linden Boyne
                      Secretary / Treasurer
                      (Principal Financial Officer)

Date : November 14 , 2005


                                       24
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4790 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 196

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4790

                          [Report No. 103-637]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To designate the United States courthouse under construction in St. 
      Louis, Missouri, as the ``Thomas F. Eagleton United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 1, 1994

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                 House Calendar No. 196
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4790

                          [Report No. 103-637]

  To designate the United States courthouse under construction in St. 
      Louis, Missouri, as the ``Thomas F. Eagleton United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 1994

 Mr. Gephardt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

                             August 1, 1994

Additional sponsors: Mr. Clay, Mr. Wheat, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Emerson, Mr. 
            Volkmer, Ms. Danner, Mr. Talent, and Mr. Hancock

                             August 1, 1994

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse under construction in St. 
      Louis, Missouri, as the ``Thomas F. Eagleton United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse under construction at 111 South Tenth 
Street in St. Louis, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the 
``Thomas F. Eagleton United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Thomas F. 
Eagleton United States Courthouse''.
```
- NJ 1973
#### § 95.355 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 4379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-721]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, 
Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 6, 2006, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Interchangeable Virtual 
Instruments Foundation, Inc. has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Advantest Corporation, Tokyo, Japan; and 
Honeywell Tech Solutions, Bangalore, India have withdrawn as parties to 
this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Interchangeable Virtual Instruments 
Foundation, Inc. intends to file additional written notification 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 29, 2001, Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, 
Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 
Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on July 30, 2001 (66 FR 
39336).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 20, 
2005. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on August 12, 2005 (70 FR 47232).

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 06-721 Filed 1-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 76.1508 Network non-duplication. ( a ) Sections 76.92 through 76.95 shall apply to open video systems in accordance with the provisions contained in this section.
( b ) Any provision of § 76.92 that refers to a “cable community unit” or “community unit” shall apply to an open video system or that portion of an open video system that operates or will operate within a separate and distinct community or municipal entity (including unincorporated communities within unincorporated areas and including single, discrete unincorporated areas). Any provision of § 76.92 that refers to a “cable television community” shall apply to an open video system community. Any provision of § 76.92 that refers to a “cable television system's mandatory signal carriage obligations” shall apply to an open video system's mandatory signal carriage obligations.
( c ) Any provision of § 76.94 that refers to a “cable system operator” or “cable television system operator” shall apply to an open video system operator. Any provision of § 76.94 that refers to a “cable system” or “cable television system” shall apply to an open video system except § 76.94 (e) and (f) which shall apply to an open video system operator. Open video system operators shall make all notifications and information regarding the exercise of network non-duplication rights immediately available to all appropriate video programming provider on the system. An open video system operator shall not be subject to sanctions for any violation of these rules by an unaffiliated program supplier if the operator provided proper notices to the program supplier and subsequently took prompt steps to stop the distribution of the infringing program once it was notified of a violation.
( d ) Any provision of § 76.95 that refers to a “cable system” or a “cable community unit” shall apply to an open video system or that portion of an open video system that operates or will operate within a separate and distinct community or municipal entity (including unincorporated communities within unincorporated areas and including single, discrete unincorporated areas).
[61 FR 28708, June 5, 1996, as amended at 83 FR 7630, Feb. 22, 2018]
#### The Title Guaranty & Surety Company, Respondent, *v.*The Culgin Pace Contracting Company et al., Appellants.

(¿Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

February, 1910.)

Discovery and inspection — Inspection of books, papers and premises: Right to remedy — When allowed in general — To *devise*a technical defense: Procedure — Extent of discovery — Right to copy.

The defendants’ right to a copy of a document under sections 803 and 804 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not to be defeated by the affidavit of plaintiff’s officer that the plaintiff believes it is only a scheme to devise technical defenses to avoid a fair and honest liability.

Appeal by the defendants, Culgin Pace Contracting Company, Surplus Realty Company, and John B. Pace, individually and as a member of the alleged firm of Culgin & Pace, from an order of the City Court of the city of Hew , York, denying their motion for a discovery and inspection and permission to take copies of the contract described in the complaint herein.

Pace, Stimpson & Arroyo (Elias B. Goodman, of counsel), for appellants.

Adrian T. Kiernan, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an appeal from an order of the City Court denying a motion made by certain of the defendants for an inspection and leave to copy a contract of indemnity which was given to the plaintiff, i Sections 803 and 804 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide that in a proper case the defendant is entitled to a discovery from his adversary “ of a book, document or other paper in his possession or under his control, relating to the merits of the action, or of the defense therein,” and also to an *“*inspection and copy or permission to take a copy.” It is not claimed that the appellants herein did. not *158show the materiality and necessity for such inspection and to copy the instrument, and the respondent’s attorney states in his brief that “ the respondent is not contending that this Court has not the power and authority to order a discovery of a document that is the basis of a suit.” It objects, however, to the appellants having a copy, “ for it believes that it is only a scheme to devise technical defenses to avoid a fair and honest liability.”

The record shows no facts that support the assertion that the appellant is not acting in good faith. Moreover, one of the purposes of the section of the Code is to allow the appellant to obtain information as to the true character of the instrument sued upon; and," if it appears from the instrument that there is any defense, even technical, which the law recognizes, he should he given the opportunity to plead such ■ defense. The order must, therefore, he reversed and the motion granted.

Lehman and Bijur, JJ., concur; Seabury, J., taking no part.

' Order reversed, with'" ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.
32.1
      Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of Genesis Capital Corporation
      of
      Nevada pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002








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 on Form 10-QSB of Genesis Capital
      Corporation of Nevada (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2006
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      the undersigned Richard Astrom, Chief Executive Officer of Genesis Capital
      Corporation of Nevada, 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 results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      February 13, 2007





/s/
      RICHARD ASTROM


Richard
      Astrom


Chief
      Executive Officer
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5096

To amend the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation Act of 1972

to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for operating and administrative expenses and to require a plan for the orderly dissolution of

the Corporation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 23, 1994

Mr. VENTO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation Act of 1972 to authorize appropriations for fiscal

year 1995 for operating and administrative expenses and

to require a plan for the orderly dissolution of the Corporation.

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 ‘‘Pennsylvania Avenue

5 Development Corporation Reauthorization Act of 1994’’.
2

•HR 5096 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

2 Section 17(a) of the Pennsylvania Avenue Develop3 ment Corporation Act of 1972 (40 U.S.C. 885(a)) is

4 amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:

5 ‘‘There are further authorized to be appropriated for oper6 ating and administrative expenses of the Corporation

7 $2,738,000 for fiscal year 1995.’’.

8 SEC. 3. DISSOLUTION AND SUCCESSION PLAN.

9 (a) SUBMISSION OF PLAN.—The Board of Directors

10 of the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation

11 shall prepare and submit to the Congress, not later than

12 March 31, 1995, a dissolution and succession plan that

13 provides for the timely dissolution of the corporation and

14 an orderly transition to such dissolution. The plan shall—

15 (1) set forth a proposed plan under which an

16 existing Federal agency or agencies could meet all

17 ongoing Federal responsibilities relating to the devel18 opment plan referred to in section 5 of the Penn19 sylvania Avenue Development Corporation Act of

20 1972 (40 U.S.C. 874);

21 (2) detail the incremental steps that will accom22 plish the dissolution of the Corporation; and

23 (3) specifically address the requirements of the

24 Federal Triangle property (as defined in section

25 10(5) of the Federal Triangle Development Act (40

26 U.S.C. 1109(5))) and describe means that will en-
3

•HR 5096 IH

1 sure appropriate construction at and post-construc2 tion development of the property.

3 (b) FAILURE TO SUBMIT PLAN.—If the Board of Di4 rectors of the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corpora5 tion does not submit the dissolution and succession plan

6 required by subsection (a) to the Congress on or before

7 March 31, 1995, the corporation may not obligate or ex8 pend, after March 31, 1995, funds appropriated for fiscal

9 year 1995 under section 17(a) of the Pennsylvania Avenue

10 Development Corporation Act of 1972 (40 U.S.C. 885(a)).

11 (c) APPLICATION NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 3(b)

12 OF PADC ACT OF 1972.—This section shall apply not13 withstanding section 3(b) of the Pennsylvania Avenue De14 velopment Corporation Act of 1972 (40 U.S.C. 872(b)).

Æ
No. 11-5040.

#### Williams *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for
    the fiscal period ended March 31, 2005 (the
    Report) fully complies with the applicable
    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
    Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|
| | (3) the information contained in the Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Company.                                                                                             



| |                    
| | -------------------
| | /s/ Gregg A. Waldon
| |                    



| |                                                   
| | --------------------------------------------------
| | Gregg A. Waldon                                   
| | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
| | Secretary and Treasurer
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 74 FR 23956, May 22, 2009, 77 FR 30411, May 23, 2012, 82 FR 25538, June 2, 2017, and corrected at 83 FR 4153, Jan. 30, 2018. Nomenclature changes to part 36 also appear at 83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018, and 84 FR 4360, Feb. 15, 2019.

§ 36.361 Depreciation and amortization expenses—Account 6560. ( a ) This account includes the depreciation expenses for telecommunications plant in service and for property held for future telecommunications use. It also includes the amortization expense for tangible and intangible asserts.
( b ) Expenses recorded in this account shall be separated on the basis of the separation of the associated primary Plant Accounts or related categories.
31.1     Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of Genesis Capital
         Corporation of Nevada pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
         of 2002

I, Richard Astrom, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Genesis Capital Corporation of Nevada;

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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date:February 14, 2006


/s/ RICHARD ASTROM
-----------------------
Richard Astrom
Chief Executive Officer
#### IN THE MATTER OF SCOTT SIEGELMAN.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 757)

(386 SE2d 162)

Per curiam.

Scott Siegelman filed a petition for voluntary surrender of license. He admitted that he had pled guilty to two charges of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and that by committing those crimes he had violated Standard 66 of Rule 4-102 of the Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of Georgia. The special master recommends that this court allow Mr. Siegelman to voluntarily surrender his license. This recommendation is approved and adopted.

*All the Justices concur.*

*648Decided December 5, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Joe David Jackson, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.