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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 405 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 405

To amend the Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification, Conversion, 
  and Stabilization Act of 1990 to give priority in the provision of 
  community economic adjustment assistance to those communities most 
 seriously affected by reductions in defense spending, the completion, 
 cancellation, or termination of defense contracts, or the closure or 
                 realignment of military installations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 14 (legislative day, January 30), 1995

   Ms. Snowe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification, Conversion, 
  and Stabilization Act of 1990 to give priority in the provision of 
  community economic adjustment assistance to those communities most 
 seriously affected by reductions in defense spending, the completion, 
 cancellation, or termination of defense contracts, or the closure or 
                 realignment of military installations.

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

SECTION 1. PRIORITY FOR PROVISION OF COMMUNITY ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT 
              ASSISTANCE TO MOST SERIOUSLY AFFECTED COMMUNITIES.

    Section 4103(a) of the Defense Economic Adjustment, 
Diversification, Conversion, and Stabilization Act of 1990 (division D 
of Public Law 101-510; 104 Stat. 1851; 10 U.S.C. 2391 note) is amended 
by adding at the end the following new sentences: ``In making economic 
adjustment assistance available under such title, the Economic 
Development Administration shall ensure that priority is given to those 
communities identified as the most substantially and seriously affected 
by the closure or realignment of a military installation or the 
curtailment, completion, elimination, or realignment of a major defense 
contract or subcontract. The Administration shall identify such 
communities through the use of objective evidence, such as increasing 
unemployment.''.
                                 <all>
```
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 603

To nullify an executive order that prohibits Federal contracts with companies

that hire permanent replacements for striking employees, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 23, 1995

Mr. FAIRCLOTH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To nullify an executive order that prohibits Federal contracts

with companies that hire permanent replacements for

striking employees, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION. 1. NULLIFICATION OF ORDER.

4 Any executive order, or other rule or order, that—

5 (1) prohibits Federal contracts between the

6 United States and a contractor;

7 (2) requires the debarment of a contractor from

8 an award of a Federal contract; or

9 (3) imposes other sanction on a contractor,
2

•S 603 IS

1 on the basis that such contractor or organizational unit

2 thereof has permanently replaced lawfully striking employ3 ees of such contractor shall have no force or effect.

Æ
#### H. G. HICKS et al., Petitioners, v. CONTINENTAL CARBON PAPER MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF DALLAS, Respondent.

No. A-10329.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 7, 1964.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 4, 1964.

Crocker & McDonald, Fort Worth, for petitioners.

Tom James, Dallas, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (380 S.W.2d 737) is correct under Article 12.14, Title 122A, Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Statutes. It is unnecessary for us to consider the question of whether the charter of the corporation involved in the case, together with its right to do business, was subject to revival and reinstatement.

The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, William Whittle, Vice President and Treasurer of Big Bear Gold Corporation, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Big Bear Gold 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 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: July 20, 2004

/s/ William Whittle					William Whittle
Vice President and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 23.2
 
              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 333-11747, 333-36117, 333-43139, and 333-63047) pertaining to
the Aspect Development, Inc. 1992 Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan, 1996
Outside Directors Stock Option Plan, 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the
1997 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan and Options Granted Under the Cadis, Inc.
1991 Stock Option Plan and Assumed by Aspect Development, Inc., of our report
dated January 26, 1998 except with respect to paragraph 3 of Note 4, as to
which the date is August 14, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Aspect Development, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-
K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.
 
                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Palo Alto, California
March 30, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMO
BIOANALYSIS CORPORATION'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY
2, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                                 62,957
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          60,289
<ALLOWANCES>                                            5,571
<INVENTORY>                                            42,044
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      176,431
<PP&E>                                                 36,955
<DEPRECIATION>                                         11,462
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        401,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 128,356
<BONDS>                                                10,181
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  181
<OTHER-SE>                                            210,424
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          401,281
<SALES>                                               227,082
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      227,082
<CGS>                                                 112,677
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         112,677
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       16,859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          648
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      7,903
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        20,155
<INCOME-TAX>                                            8,155
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    12,009
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           12,009
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.70
        

</TABLE>
|   | (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/              Joseph C.              Formichelli                                                        |   |   |        |
| Joseph                C. FormichelliChief                Executive OfficerNovember                14, 2007 |   |   |        |

----
EXHIBIT 10.1

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

                                                         Made at Vancouver, B.C.
Principal Amount:               US$150,000                    September 14, 2000

FOR  VALUE  RECEIVED,   COMMUNICATE.COM,   INC.,  a  Nevada   corporation,   and
COMMUNICATE.COM, INC., an Alberta corporation (the "Companies"), and BRYAN LIEW,
the president of the Companies,  all with offices at Vancouver,  B.C. (together,
the  "Borrower"),  jointly and severally  promise to pay to the order of PACIFIC
CAPITAL MARKETS INC. (the "Lender"),  a British  Columbia company with an office
at Suite  600,  1100  Melville  Street,  Vancouver,  B.C.  on demand  the sum of
$150,000  lawful money of United  States (the  "Principal  Sum")  together  with
interest on the  Principal Sum from  September  14, 2000,  both before and after
maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate (as defined below).

For the purposes of this  promissory  note,  Interest  Rate means 9 per cent per
annum.

Interest at the Interest Rate will be calculated monthly not in advance from and
including September 14, 2000, compounded monthly and payable monthly on the last
banking  day of each  month.  If the  Borrower  fails  to make  any  payment  of
interest,  the Borrower will pay compounded  interest on the unpaid  interest on
the last banking day of each month until paid.

The Borrower is entitled to prepay the  Principal Sum in whole or in part at any
time or from time to time.

The Borrower hereby waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of
dishonour of this promissory note.

COMMUNICATE.COM, INC.
A Nevada corporation




-------------------------------
Bryan Liew                        Bryan Liew




-------------------------------
Cameron Pan                       Signature of witness to Bryan Liew's signature



COMMUNICATE.COM, INC.
An Alberta corporation

                                  Name of witness


-------------------------------   Address of witness
Bryan Liew



-------------------------------
Cameron Pan                       Occupation of witness
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant toSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal financial officer of SMTC Corporation (the “Company”), does herebycertify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

1) the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended April 3, 2011 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 Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 3, 2011 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: May 6, 2011

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SMTC Corporation and will beretained by SMTC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

**AERO MARINE ENGINE, INC.****Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 QuarterlyReport of Aero Marine Engine, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity indicated below, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to hisknowledge:

1.             The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 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 operation of the Company as of and for the period covered in theReport.

By:          /s/RaymondBrouzes                                                                             Raymond Brouzes, President and Chief Financial Officer

Date:       February 11, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7374

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIE REYNOLDS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley,

Jr., District Judge. (6:90-cr-00054; 6:93-cv-00357)

Submitted: January 18, 2008 Decided: February 12, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Willie Reynolds seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, treating

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motions, and dismissing them on that basis. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000);

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

(2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong

and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is

likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-

38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose

v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reynolds has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and

dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Reynolds’ notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Winestock, 340
- 3 -

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Reynolds’ claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion. 

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.

DISMISSED
[No. 34419.

*En Banc.*

November 19, 1959.]

#### *In the Matter of the Application of*Agnes Monroe *for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.*
      *1*

J. *Hugh Aaron,*for petitioner.

*The Attorney General and Michael R. Alfieri, Assistant,*for respondent.

Reportéd in 346 P. (2d) 667.

*108Weaver, C. J.

Agnes Monroe was charged with the crime of “Aiding and Abetting the Commission of Grand Larceny” in Yakima county.

At her arraignment, she told the trial court, in answer to its questions, that she was a member of the Blackfoot tribe. The trial court was also advised that the offense was committed in Wapato, which, it would know, was within the Yakima Indian reservation.

She expressly waived counsel and entered a plea of guilty; was adjudged guilty; and sentenced to the state penitentiary for a period of not more than fifteen years. No challenge was then made to the jurisdiction of the superior court.

She is before this court on a petition for a writ of *habeas corpus.*

It is conceded, in this proceeding, that she is enrolled in the Blackfoot-Cree tribe and maintains her tribal relations; that the offense with which she is charged was committed in Wapato, Washington, which is within the Yakima Indian reservation and in “Indian country.”

“Larceny” is one of the crimes enumerated in the Ten Major Crimes Act which places exclusive jurisdiction thereof in the courts of the United States when the alleged crime is committed by an Indian in “Indian country.” 18 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 1153.

There has been a question raised *sua sponte*in this court as to whether “aiding and abetting the commission of grand larceny” is the equivalent of larceny under the Ten Major Crimes Act.

Under the laws of the United States, one who aids or abets in the commission of an offense against the laws of the United States is punishable as a principal. 18 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 2. This, also, is the law in the state of Washington. RCW 9.01.030.

We conclude, therefore, that petitioner, an Indian, was charged with a crime within the purview of the Ten Major Crimes Act committed in “Indian country.” This is sufficient to place exclusive jurisdiction over petitioner in the courts of the United States.

*109For the reasons stated in more detail in our opinion, *In re Wesley v. Schneckloth, ante*p. 90, 346 P. (2d) 658 (1959), the writ of *habeas corpus*shall issue, and respondent is ordered to release petitioner from custody.

Donworth, Rosellini, Ott, Foster, and Hunter, JJ., concur.

Hill, J.

(dissenting)—The writ of *habeas corpus*is granted in this case for reasons stated in detail in the majority opinion in the Joseph Joe *Wesley*case *(In re Wesley v. Schneckloth*(1959), *ante*p. 90, 346 P. (2d) 658).

As in the *Wesley*case, the petitioner here (Agnes Monroe) entered a plea of guilty to the charge against her (one of the Ten Major Crimes) in the superior court. It is conceded that no jurisdictional issue was raised.

The issues argued are the same as in the *Wesley*case. I dissent from the conclusion of the majority, and would deny the writ. My views are expressed more fully in my dissent in *In re Wesley, supra.*

Mallery and Finley, JJ., concur with Hill, J.