alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 110–424—OCT. 15, 2008 122 STAT. 4819 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6083 (S. 2942): 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110–784 (Comm. on the Judiciary). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

July 29, 31, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 30, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–424 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To authorize funding to conduct a national training program for State and local 

prosecutors. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TRAINING FOR STATE AND LOCAL PROSECUTORS. 

The Attorney General is authorized to award a grant to a 

national nonprofit organization (such as the National District Attorneys Association) to conduct a national training program for State 

and local prosecutors for the purpose of improving the professional 

skills of State and local prosecutors and enhancing the ability 

of Federal, State, and local prosecutors to work together. 

SEC. 2. COMPREHENSIVE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION. 

The Attorney General may provide assistance to the grantee 

under section 1 to carry out the training program described in 

such section, including comprehensive continuing legal education 

in the areas of trial practice, substantive legal updates, support 

staff training, and any other assistance the Attorney General determines to be appropriate. 

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General 

to carry out this Act $4,750,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 

through 2012, to remain available until expended. 

Approved October 15, 2008. 

Grants. 

42 USC 3721 

note. 

Oct. 15, 2008 

[H.R. 6083] 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLAW
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 Electronic Clearing House, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joel M.
Barry, 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, 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.


/s/ Joel M. Barry



Joel M. Barry
Chief Executive Officer
December 21, 2005
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Mary Anne DeYoung, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of 1mage 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(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 registrant 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 registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

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

         c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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):

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

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

Date: April 15, 2005



/s/ Mary Anne DeYoung
--------------------------------------------------------
Mary Anne DeYoung
Vice President, Finance and Principal Financial Officer


                                       52
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 134 

To adjust the boundary of Redwood National Park in the State of California. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To adjust the boundary of Redwood National Park in the 

State of California. 

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 ‘‘Redwood National 

5 Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY ADJUST7 MENT. 

8 Section 2(a) of the Act of Public Law 90–545 (16 

9 U.S.C. 79b(a)) is amended— 
2 

•S 134 IS

1 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘(a) The 

2 area’’ and all that follows through the period at the 

3 end and inserting the following: ‘‘(a)(1) The Red4 wood National Park consists of the land generally 

5 depicted on the map entitled ‘Redwood National 

6 Park, Revised Boundary’, numbered 167/60502, and 

7 dated February, 2003.’’; 

8 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as des9 ignated by paragraph (1)) the following: 

10 ‘‘(2) The map referred to in paragraph (1) shall be— 

11 ‘‘(A) on file and available for public inspection 

12 in the appropriate offices of the National Park Serv13 ice; and 

14 ‘‘(B) provided by the Secretary of the Interior 

15 to the appropriate officers of Del Norte and Hum16 boldt Counties, California.’’; and 

17 (3) in the second sentence— 

18 (A) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and in19 serting the following: 

20 ‘‘(3) The Secretary;’’ and 

21 (B) by striking ‘‘one hundred and six thou22 sand acres’’ and inserting ‘‘133,000 acres’’. 

Æ
#### Donald Alan MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-360.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 14, 1978.

Angus M. Stephens, Jr., Coral Gables, Lawrence A. Freeman, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Paul H. Zacks, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting:

The appellant’s probation was revoked after he was charged with violating a condition of probation which prohibited him from operating a motor vehicle. When the appellant was placed on probation, his driver’s license was revoked and he was forbidden to drive. Subsequently, while his conviction was being appealed, he obtained a duplicate driver’s license and rented an automobile. He testified at the revocation hearing that he only obtained the duplicate license because it was required by the car rental agency and he did not drive the car himself but had others do so for him. During this time he was a patient in a private hospital. The only testimony about not driving the vehicle was a probation officer’s hearsay statement that a rental agency employee had told him that he observed the appellant driving. I do not believe that statement was sufficient to sustain a revocation of probation. *Demchak v. State,*351 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3


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 Verisity Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles G. Alvarez,
Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S). 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S).
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.



Date:  August 10, 2002                             /s/ Charles G. Alvarez
-----------------------------                      -----------------------------
                                                   Charles G. Alvarez
                                                   Vice President of Finance and
                                                   Administration and Chief
                                                   Financial Officer
No. 00-6816.

#### Jones *v.*Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 424]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ424.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 4819]]

Public Law 110-424
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To authorize funding to conduct a national training program for State 
     and local prosecutors. <<NOTE: Oct. 15, 2008 -  [H.R. 6083]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: 42 USC 3721 
note.>> 
SECTION 1. TRAINING FOR STATE AND LOCAL PROSECUTORS.

    The <<NOTE: Grants.>> Attorney General is authorized to award a 
grant to a national nonprofit organization (such as the National 
District Attorneys Association) to conduct a national training program 
for State and local prosecutors for the purpose of improving the 
professional skills of State and local prosecutors and enhancing the 
ability of Federal, State, and local prosecutors to work together.
SEC. 2. COMPREHENSIVE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION.

    The Attorney General may provide assistance to the grantee under 
section 1 to carry out the training program described in such section, 
including comprehensive continuing legal education in the areas of trial 
practice, substantive legal updates, support staff training, and any 
other assistance the Attorney General determines to be appropriate.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General to 
carry out this Act $4,750,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 
2012, to remain available until expended.

    Approved October 15, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6083 (S. 2942):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110-784 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            July 29, 31, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 30, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
No. 00-7005.

#### Romero-Gonzalez *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

/- 

April 12, 1939 / 

%I?. 6. Y. Cunningham 

County Auditor 

Bavarro County 

Coreioana, Texas 

Deer sir: 

ed queastion has 

XI on the above statee and four OS the 

or~the payment of 

separate and'.diethe state, (8) aosf 

paid by th8 dofenof Criialnul Prooeawe 

0ompensstLon of any witness 

eubpoenasd or ettaohed 

&me before any oourt OT 

, out of the. qotity.of hfa realfelony.aeae, aad rho appears in 

bligatlons or eaoh reoognlaanoo 

B further provide0 nitnese fee* 

ed only to en& wltnsases aa-may have 

been summoned on ths 6worn written applioetioa of the 

State*s attorney or the defendant-or hfS attorney as 

prorlded in Artiols 463, Uode of Crlalnal Protiedurs, 

whloh sworn application mat be made at the time of 

the proouring of the tsttbpoena,ttaohmeat for, or 

recogniaunoe or, the witness. 
Mr. 3. Y. Cunnlnghsm, April 12, 1939, Page 2 

Artiole 1036, Code of Criminal ?rocedure, 

supra, applies only to out of county witnesses In 

felony oases before the Rlstrlot Courts and hos no appllcation as to witnesses In misdemeanor oases In the oounty 

courts. 

ArtIdle 473, Code of Crimlnsl Procedure, provides: 

Where ‘a witnese reeldee out of the 

oounty In whloh the proseoution la pendlng, the State or the defendant shall be 

entitled, either In term or In vaoatlonk 

to a eubpoona to oompel the attendanoe of 

suoh witness on epplioatlon to the proper 

olerk or magistrate. Suoh epplloatlon 

shell be In the manner end form as prwlded &.n Artiole 463, Code of Criminal Prooedure.” 

The above quoted stahute~ epplles only to witneases In felonyoases, who reside out of the oountg 

In which the proaeoutlon is pendlng, and has no application whatsoever to witneaaea who reside out of the 

county, In which the proseontion le pending In mlsdemeapor oaeee. . * 

. . s- . . . . 

Relative to ooats paid by the defendant, In orlmlnal action, Artlole 1078, Code of Criminal Procedure 

provides: 

@Wtnesaee In orImlne1 oaaea shall 

be allowed one dollar and fifty oente a 

day for eaoh day they a’re In ettendanoe 

upon the oourt, and air oenta for each 

mile they may travel In golng to or returning from the plaoe of trial.” 

After a therough eeardh of the statutes we 

are unable to find any authority that authorizes or 

preaorlbed the manner by whloh out of oounty wltneesee 

may be reoognlzed, subpoenaed or atteohed in misdemeanor 

oases In the oounty ootrrte, nor do we find any atatutee 

providing for the oompensatlon of out of county rltneeeee 

in misdemeanor oaaee. 
bz. E. Y. Cunningham, April 12, 1939, Peee 2 

You are respectfully advised that it is the 

opinion of this Department that the statutes do not 

make any provisions by whloh out of county witnesses 

may be recognized, subpoeneed or attached In misdemeanor 

oases in the oounty courts, nor do the statutes provide 

for the oompensation of out of county witnesses in suoh 

08888. 

Trusting that the foregoing answers your idquiry, we remain 

Very truly yours 

ATTGRH'EYGENERAL OFTEXAS 

Ardell Willlams 

Assistant, 

AWlAW
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,235,127
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,718,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,301
<INVENTORY>                                  6,729,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,289,211
<PP&E>                                      10,746,407
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,875,702
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,152,629
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,790,680
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    250,000
<COMMON>                                        23,124
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,178,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,152,629
<SALES>                                     26,182,821
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,182,821
<CGS>                                       21,555,459
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,555,459
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,514,276
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             475,057
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                638,029
<INCOME-TAX>                                   192,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            446,029
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   446,029
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19


</TABLE>
I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in

I took

in
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________

ANTHONY C. KENNEY

, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee.

__________________________

2013

- 5003

_____________________ _____
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in case no. 12

- CV

- 0521 , Judge Christine O.C.
Miller

.

__________________________

ON MO TION

__________________________

P ER C URIAM

.

O R D E R

The United States moves for summary affirmance of
the Uni ted States Court of Federal Claims order dismis sing Anthony C. Kenney’s complaint for lack of jurisdi ction

. Case: 13-5003 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 03/05/2013ANTHONY KENNEY v

. US 2

On August 16, 2012, Mr. Kenney filed the underl y ing complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, naming as defendants Travel ers Indemnity Insurance C arrier, Looney, Nichols & Johnson

, Michael D. Antko wiak, and an entity called the Board of Review Employment Co mmission. As the Court of Federal Claims explained, Mr. Kenney’s complaint a p pears to request a “ review of the
denial of his workman’ s compensat ion and unemploy ment claims as apparently appealed to the United States Court
of A p peals for the Tenth Circuit. ”

When a complaint names private parties, rather than federal agencies, the Court of Federal Claims lacks juri sdiction to hear those matters. United States v. Sherwood

, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (“[I]ts jurisdiction is confined to the rendition of money judgments in suits brought for relief against the United States, and if the relief sought is against others than the United States, the suit as t o them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.” (citations omitted) )

. W e agree with the Court of Federal Claims that the complaint itself is “unintell i gible [, and] [t]he court cannot ascertain the basis on which jurisdiction is claimed

a gainst the United States other than from [Mr. Kenney’s]
reference to ‘d e fault [judgment] to every case filed or appealed to the 10 th Circuit Court that is en d less to plaintiff[’s] workers comp and une m ployment benefits claims[.] . . .’”

When the position o f the government in arguing that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdi c tion was “ so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substa n tial question regarding t he outcome of the appeal exists, ” summary affirmance is appropriate. Joshua v. United
State s , 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Because Mr. Kenney’s co m plaint fails to set forth a jurisdictional basis

, Case: 13-5003 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 03/05/2013ANTHONY KENNEY v

. US 3

summary affi r mance of the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing the co m plaint is appropriate.

Accordingly

,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The United States ’ motion is granted. The jud gment of the Court of Federal Claims is summarily a ffirmed

. (2) All pending motions are denied

. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly
Clerk

s 2 5 Case: 13-5003 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 03/05/2013
#### Vanda R. MAGEE, Administratrix of the Estate of Janice Faye Magee, Deceased v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY.

No. 49382.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 25, 1977.

Michael J. Malouf, Jackson, for appellant.

Wise Carter Child Steen & Caraway, William M. Dalehite, Jr., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; Russel D. Moore, Judge.

Before PATTERSON, P. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ., and NEAL B. BIG-GERS, Commissioner.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GILLESPIE, C. J., INZER, P. J., and SMITH, ROBERTSON, BROOM and LEE, JJ., concurring.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                  Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                  --------------------------------------------
                    As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 of the
                    -----------------------------------------
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                           --------------------------


In connection with the Quarterly Report of VillageEDOCS (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, K. Mason Conner, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.


                                                    /s/ K. Mason Conner
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  August 14, 2002
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 Quarterly Report of Big Sky Industries II, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, President 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:





(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: January 16, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President

Big Sky Industries II, Inc.