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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 718 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 718

 To designate the Federal building located at 158-15 Liberty Avenue in 
 Jamaica, Queens, New York, as the ``Floyd H. Flake Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2019

  Mr. Meeks introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Federal building located at 158-15 Liberty Avenue in 
 Jamaica, Queens, New York, as the ``Floyd H. Flake Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 158-15 Liberty Avenue in Jamaica, 
Queens, New York, shall be known and designated as the ``Floyd H. Flake 
Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Floyd H. Flake 
Federal Building''.
                                 <all>
```
The Honorable Thomas C. Mummert III, United States Magistrate Judge for the 1

Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2565

___________

James H. Cody, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

Hillary B. Zimmerman; McPherson * District Court for the

Land, L.P.; Gerard T. Carmody; * Eastern District of Missouri.

Matthew D. Richardson; Missouri Title *

Guaranty Company, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 3, 1997

 Filed: December 16, 1997

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James H. Cody appeals from the order of the District Court dismissing his

1

complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim. After carefully reviewing the
-2-

record and the parties& briefs, we affirm the District Court&s judgment. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
##### 



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 Form 10-Q of Dean Holding Company (the Company) for
the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Barry A. Fromberg, Executive
Vice President 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 the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

/s/ Barry A. FrombergBarry A. FrombergExecutive Vice President and Chief
Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2003


Note:
    
    This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 902 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed, except to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
255 La. 151

#### MICHIGAN WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY v. Eula Mae FRUGE, Elroy Hebert, Clifford Hebert.

No. 50230.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1970.

In re: Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 227 So.2d 606 ; 227 So.2d 615; 227 So.2d 616. ■

Writ refused. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
EXHIBIT 23.1




                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We  consent  to  the incorporation by reference in Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc.'s
previously  filed  Registration  Statements  on  Form  S-8  (File Nos. 33-61752,
33-80918,  33-86940,  33-93088,  333-77233,  333-50774, 333-50776), Registration
Statement  on  Form S-4 (File No. 333-88802), and Registration Statement on Form
S-3  (File  No. 333-89156) of our report dated June 7, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated  financial  statements  of  Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. included in
this  Annual  Report  (Form  10-K)  for  the  fiscal  year ended April 28, 2002.


     /s/  Ernst  &  Young

New  Orleans,  Louisiana
June  28,  2002
No. 10087.

#### St. Mark's Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons No. 7. *v.*Darrow et al., Trustees, et al.

Decided March 17, 1908.

Er*398ror to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. J. T. Holmes,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Krumm, Krumm & Krumm; Mr. George S. Peters*and *Messrs. Henderson, Livesay & Burr,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
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 Daxor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, David Frankel, 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 and 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 Daxor
Corporation.

| |                          
| | -------------------------
| | /s/ David
  Frankel      
| |                          
| |                          
| | David
  Frankel          
| | Chief Financial
  Officer
| | November 13,
  2007      
| |                          
|

-19-

---
Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-8 (File Nos. 33-61752, 33-80918, 33-86940, 33-93088, 333-77233,
      333-50774, 333-50776, 333-111498, 333-123233, 333-123234), on Form S-4 (File
      Nos. 333-88802, 333-115419) and on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-89156, 333-115810)
      of
      our reports dated July 7, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial
      statements and schedule of Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc., Isle of Capri Casinos,
      Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
      financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
      reporting of Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc., included in this Annual Report
      (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006.





ERNST
      & YOUNG LLP





New
      Orleans, Louisiana


July
      7,
      2006
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: CITY OF VALLEJO, CA,

 Debtor,

MICHAEL LIONEL,

 Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, CA;

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

FIREFIGHTERS IAFF UNION LOCAL

1186,

 Appellees.

No. 12-60042

BAP Nos. 12-1020, 12-1021

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Kirscher, Jury, and Pappas, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2013** 

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

FILED

DEC 31 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Michael Lionel, a creditor and member of the International Association of

Firefighters IAFF Union Local 1186 (“IAFF”), appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy

Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing as moot his appeals of the bankruptcy

court’s orders regarding a settlement agreement between Chapter 9 debtor City of

Vallejo and IAFF. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de

novo a determination that an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision is moot. 

Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat’l Mass Media

Telecomm. Sys., Inc.), 152 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed the appeals as moot because Lionel did not

seek or obtain a stay pending appeal and the settlement agreement has been fully

executed, including the distribution of funds to third parties, rendering the

bankruptcy court unable to fashion effective and equitable relief. See Motor

Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d

869, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing equitable mootness).

Appellees’ motion for leave to file a limited surreply is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 12-60042
**Exhibit 32.2**
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
I, Amy Vidrine Samson, Chief Financial Officer of Crown Crafts, Inc. (the“Company”), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:
1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the periodending September 26, 2004 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.
Dated: November 10, 2004                                                        /s/ Amy Vidrine Samson   Amy Vidrine Samson, Chief Financial Officer
#### James B. FRANKLIN et al., Appellants, v. William R. BOYD and Katherine L. Boyd, Appellees.

No. 72-371.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 15, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 15, 1973.

*192Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Horton, Schwartz *&*Perse, Miami, Broad *&*Cassel and Lewis Horwitz, Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant defendants and counter-plaintiffs seek review of a final judgment based upon a jury verdict in favor of the appellees wherein the jury found for appellees in their claim for conversion of certain shares of corporate stock and for the appellants on a counter-claim based on a promissory note. The jury’s verdict assessed damages •in favor of the appellee plaintiffs in the amount of $78,125.62 less $38,470.80 found due on the counter-claim. Subsequently, the trial court, on motion, added the sum of $10,967.55 as accrued interest to the final j udgment.

The appellants present a number of contentions in seeking reversal of the judgment. On consideration thereof in light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, we find all appellants’ contentions to be without merit, save one, to-wit: it was error for the trial judge to award interest subsequent to a jury verdict that omitted any finding as to interest.

We are of the opinion that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the trial court was unauthorized to assess any interest as an additional element of damages after the jury had failed to do so. Grayson v. Fishlove, Fla.App.1972, 266 So.2d 38; Vacation Prizes, Inc. v. City National Bank of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 352; Wabash Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Holloway, Fla.App. 1962, 139 So.2d 145. Factually, the instant cause differs from Cantor v. Drapkin, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 542 in that the jury in no way indicated their desire or intent to include interest in their damage award. We, therefore, affirm the judgment as to the amount assessed by the jury and set forth in its verdict, to-wit: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiffs on their claim and for the defendant in their counterclaim and assess for the plaintiffs damages in the sum of $78,125.62 less $38,470.80 — Total—($39,654.-82) Dollars”, and reverse that part of the judgment that allowed interest in said claim in the amount of $10,967.55.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
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 Daxor Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
Feldschuh,M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

                                          /s/ Joseph Feldschuh, M.D.
                                          Joseph Feldschuh, M.D.
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          November 12, 2003


                                       7
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3582]


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


FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Security for the Protection of the Public Financial 
Responsibility To Meet Liability Incurred for Death or Injury to 
Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages; Notice of Issuance of 
Certificate (Casualty)

    Notice is hereby given that the following have been issued a 
Certificate of Financial Responsibility to meet Liability Incurred for 
Death or Injury to Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages pursuant to 
the provisions of Section 2, Public Law 89-777 (46 U.S.C. 817(d)) and 
the Federal Maritime Commission's implementing regulations at 46 CFR 
Part 540, as amended:

Showa Line Ltd., Showa Cruise Management Ltd., Magpie Shipping S.A. and 
Oceanic Cruise Ltd., 2-3 Ochisaiwaicho 2 Chome Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, 
Japan
Vessel: Oceanic Grace

    Dated: February 10, 1997.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3582 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

      In connection with the quarterly report of DataMetrics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel
Bertram, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Rafik Moursalien, the
Controller of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that:

            (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.

      DATAMETRICS CORPORATION

      By:   Daniel Bertram
         ----------------------
            Daniel Bertram, CEO

      Dated: May 1, 2006
             -----------

      By:   Rafik Moursalien
         -------------------------------
            Rafik Moursalien, Controller

      Dated: May 1, 2006
             -----------


page 18 of 18
# 2009-10-013
EXHIBIT 31.B

                                 Certifications

I, Charles A. Braun, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Hector Communications
    Corporation;

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 annual
    report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
    information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officers 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
        annual 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 evaluations; 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
        case of an annual report) 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 officers 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 registrant's board of
    directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

    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: March 29, 2005

 /s/ Charles A. Braun
----------------------------
Charles A. Braun
Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Jose MARTINEZ-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-50271.

D.C. No. CR-00-02049-JTM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Francisco Jose Martinez-Ruiz appeals the 70-month sentence imposed following his jury trial conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We affirm.

Martinez-Ruiz contends that the district court erred in several respects at sentencing by applying a two-level upward adjustment to his base offense level for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Because he raises these contentions for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. *See United States v. Antonakeas,*255 F.3d 714, 727 (9th Cir. 2001).

Martinez-Ruiz firsts contends that he did not have notice of the district court’s intent to apply the enhancement. However, even if there was error, we conclude that Martinez-Ruiz’s sentence should not be reversed because he has failed to demonstrate that any lack of notice affected his substantial rights. *See Antonakeas*at 728 (stating that sentencing error is not “plain” where it has no affect on the actual sentence); *United States v. Dunnigan,*507 U.S. 87, 98, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993) (concluding that enhancement is mandatory upon a determination of perjury).

Martinez-Ruiz next contends that the district court made insufficient findings to support its application of the enhancement. We conclude that the district court made *802adequate findings because it found by clear and convincing evidence that Martinez-Ruiz had willfully testified falsely at trial on a material matter. *See Dunnigan*at 95 (concluding that district court’s finding of obstruction of justice is sufficient if it encompasses all of the factual predicates of perjury).

Finally, Martinez-Ruiz contends that the district court erred when it found that he committed perjury. We disagree. *See United States v. Ancheta,*38 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.1994); *cf., United States v. Garcia,*135 F.3d 667, 671 (9th Cir.1998) (noting that the factfinder’s choice between two permissible views of the evidence cannot be clearly erroneous). Accordingly, the district court did not -err in its application of the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice.

We decline to consider Martinez-Ruiz’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because it is more appropriately raised in a habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *See United States v. Reyes-Platero,*224 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir.2000).1

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. All outstanding motions are denied.