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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 374 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 374

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 26 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Designating August 2, 1994, as ``National Neighborhood Crime Watch 
                                 Day''.

Whereas neighborhood crime is of continuing concern to the American people;
Whereas the fight against neighborhood crime requires people to work together in 
        cooperation with law enforcement officials;
Whereas neighborhood crime watch organizations are effective at promoting 
        awareness about, and the participation of volunteers in, crime 
        prevention activities at the local level;
Whereas neighborhood crime watch groups can contribute to the Nation's war on 
        drugs by helping to prevent their communities from becoming markets for 
        drug dealers; and
Whereas citizens across America will soon take part in a ``National Night Out'', 
        a unique crime prevention event which will demonstrate the importance 
        and effectiveness of community participation in crime prevention efforts 
        by having people spend the period from 9 to 10 o'clock postmeridian on 
        August 2, 1994, with their neighbors in front of their homes: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That August 2, 1994, is 
designated as ``National Neighborhood Crime Watch Day'', and the 
President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling 
upon the people of the United States to observe such day with 
appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                             FORM 10-Q CERTIFICATION

I, Marc Fierman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Source Interlink Companies, 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 we 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 (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 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 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 controls over
financial reporting.

September 9, 2004                            /s/ Marc Fierman
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Marc Fierman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      25,296,283
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  175,079
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,828,421
<PP&E>                                         167,214
<DEPRECIATION>                                 111,166
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,884,469
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          511,917
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,391
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,370,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,884,469
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,297,588
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,297,588)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,297,588)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,297,588)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1102

AN ACT

To make permanent chapter 44 of title 28, United

States Code, relating to arbitration.
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1102

AN ACT

To make permanent chapter 44 of title 28, United States

Code, relating to arbitration.

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 ‘‘Court Arbitration Au5 thorization Act of 1993’’.
2

•HR 1102 EH

1 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF REPEAL.

2 Section 906 of the Judicial Improvements and Access

3 to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. 651 note), and the item relating

4 to such section in the table of contents contained in section

5 3 of such Act, are repealed.

6 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

7 Section 905 of the Judicial Improvements and Access

8 to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. 651 note) is amended—

9 (1) in the first sentence by striking ‘‘for the fis10 cal year’’ and all that follows through ‘‘4 fiscal

11 years,’’; and

12 (2) in the third sentence by striking ‘‘, except

13 that’’ and all that follows through ‘‘this Act’’.

14 SEC. 4. ARBITRATION TO BE ORDERED IN ALL DISTRICT

15 COURTS.

16 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF ARBITRATION.—Section

17 651(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read

18 as follows:

19 ‘‘(a) AUTHORITY.—Each United States district court

20 shall authorize by local rule the use of arbitration in civil

21 actions, including adversary proceedings in bankruptcy, in

22 accordance with this chapter.’’.

23 (b) ACTIONS REFERRED TO ARBITRATION.—Section

24 652(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

25 (1) in paragraph (1)—
3

•HR 1102 EH

1 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph

2 (A) by striking ‘‘and section 901(c)’’ and all

3 that follows through ‘‘651’’ and inserting ‘‘a

4 district court’’; and

5 (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking

6 ‘‘$100,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$150,000’’; and

7 (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘$100,000’’

8 and inserting ‘‘$150,000’’.

9 (c) CERTIFICATION OF ARBITRATORS.—Section

10 656(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by

11 striking ‘‘listed in section 658’’.

12 (d) REMOVAL OF LIMITATION.—Section 658 of title

13 28, United States Code, and the item relating to such sec14 tion in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter

15 44 of title 28, United States Code, are repealed.

16 SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

17 Section 901 of the Judicial Improvements and Access

18 to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. 652 note) is amended by strik19 ing subsection (c).

Passed the House of Representatives October 12,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### BRADFORD v. STATE.

No. 21360.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 15, 1941.

W. S. Shipp and J. W. Thomas, both of Belton, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for swindling, punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record. In this condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
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 Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John P.
Burke, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

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

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



|                       |  |  |  |                                                                                                               
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 6, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ JOHN P. BURKE                                                                                             
|                       |  |  |  | John P. Burke                                                                                                 
|                       |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Treasurer of Trump Entertainment Resorts,
Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,115,304
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,396,974
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,512,278
<PP&E>                                      26,084,097
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,609,858
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,764,841
<BONDS>                                      7,280,935
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     96,104
<COMMON>                                        48,185
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,042,681
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,609,858
<SALES>                                      3,341,894
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,341,894
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,073,908
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,088,918
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             639,156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,460,088)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,444,959)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### JOYNES v. JONES FINE BREAD CO.

No. 2281.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Feb. 13, 1941.

Travis McCown arid Stansell Bryan, both of Waco, for appellant.

Tom P. Scott, of Waco, for appellee.

TIREY, Justice.

Plaintiff C. W. Joynes brought this suit to recover damages for injuries which he claimed his wife, Leta Joynes, suffered from eating bread mariufactured by the defendant Jones Fine Bread Company. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and from an adverse judgment the plaintiff has appealed.

At the request of plaintiff, the court prepared and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court’s findings of fact were substantially as follows: (a) That the loaf of bread in question was manufactured by defendant and sealed in a wrapper before delivery to the retail grocer ; (b) that plaintiff’s wife purchased the loaf of bread and carried it home and ate a portion thereof, and after eating same, she noticed something in the remaining portion of the loaf which appeared discolored; that she ate other foods at the same time she ate the bread, and became nauseated some six hours after eating; (c) that the defendant was not negligent in the manufacture, inspection and marketing of the bread, and was not negligent in the respects alleged in plaintiff’s petition; (d) that the illness of Leta Joynes was not caused by the condition of the bread, and that such illness was not proximately caused by the negligence of the defendant or its agents. The court concluded as a matter of law, substantially, that there was no sufficient, competent evidence that the bread in question was unwholesome so as to be unfit for human consumption; that plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the eating of the bread resulted or proximately resulted in the illness of Leta Joynes; and that defendant was in nowise liable to plaintiff for any damages sustained by reason of the facts alleged in his petition.

 Appellant, in his brief, does not directly challenge any of the findings made by the trial court, but merely assails the entry of the judgment on the ground that the evidence made out a prima facie case *1113of negligence ahd that there was sufficient evidence to support a judgment for damages in favor of plaintiff. Notwithstanding the assignments of error made by the plaintiff are general, we have considered each of them, and have very carefully reviewed the statement of facts, and in our opinion, the evidence adduced is ample to support the findings made by the trial court and the judgment entered thereon. In a case tried to the court without the intervention- of a jury, the appellate court will take the view of the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party. Anderson v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W. 142, writ refused; Green v. Noah, Tex.Civ.App., 24 S.W.2d 1113, point 1, page 1115.

We have carefully considered all assignments of error and each of them is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.1

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 Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc., Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Holdings, L.P. and
Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Funding, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald J. Trump,
the Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, 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 Companies.

|/s/ DONALD J. TRUMP                                                                                                                                                     | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                                                                                                                                        | 
|Donald J. Trump Chief Executive Officer of Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Holdings, L.P. Trump Hotels
& Casino Resorts Funding, Inc. | 

November 14, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

MELANY RAMOS, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

MICHAEL AND DONNA JONES, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 493 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 8th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50398 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GEORGE LAWRENCE ANDREWS, also known as Larry Andrews, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:02-CR-258-2

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, George Lawrence Andrews raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Scroggins , 411 F.3d 572, 576-77 (5th Cir. 2005), which held that the Due Process Clause does not bar the application of Justice Breyer’s remedy opinion in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), when resentencing defendants in light of Booker . TheNo. 05-50398 -2- Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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 LeCroy Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Thomas H. Reslewic, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
               operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
               indicated.


         February 10, 2005                          /s/ Thomas H. Reslewic
                                                    ----------------------
                                                        Thomas H. Reslewic
                                                        Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.