alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Patrick J. Pedonti, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2004 of SS&C Technologies, 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 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. [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained
in SEC Release 34-47986];

c. 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

d. 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 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: August 5, 2004                       By:/s/ Patrick J. Pedonti

                                               Patrick J. Pedonti
                                               Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                10,605
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                 7,480
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                       3,725
<TRADING-ASSETS>                           0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>           30,945
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                 4,445
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                   4,400
<LOANS>                              169,156
<ALLOWANCE>                            1,751
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       232,610
<DEPOSITS>                           214,449
<SHORT-TERM>                               0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                    1,081
<LONG-TERM>                              427
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                               6,184
<OTHER-SE>                             6,536
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>       232,610
<INTEREST-LOAN>                       10,985
<INTEREST-INVEST>                      1,510
<INTEREST-OTHER>                         550
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                      13,045
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                     5,651
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     5,679
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                  7,366
<LOAN-LOSSES>                            260
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                         0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                        6,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        1,649
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>             1,034
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                           1,034
<EPS-BASIC>                              .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                             32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                          4.78
<LOANS-NON>                              527
<LOANS-PAST>                              14
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                           0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                       1,550
<CHARGE-OFFS>                            (74)
<RECOVERIES>                              15
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                      1,751
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                   1,751
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                        0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                    0



</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1136 

To extend the termination date for the exemption of returning workers from 

the numerical limitations for temporary workers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2009 

Mr. STUPAK (for himself, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. 

COSTA, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. 

RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. 

PLATTS, Mr. KRATOVIL, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. MARKEY

of Massachusetts, Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. 

LOBIONDO, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. 

BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. LYNCH, Mr. WELCH, Ms. 

BORDALLO, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. HOYER, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. PITTS, 

Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. PAYNE, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. CAO, Mr. KIND, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. 

BOUSTANY, and Mr. CARNEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To extend the termination date for the exemption of returning workers from the numerical limitations for temporary 

workers. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1136 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Save Our Small and 

3 Seasonal Businesses Act of 2009’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF RETURNING WORKER EXEMPTION 

5 TO H–2B NUMERICAL LIMITATION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 214(g)(9)(A) of the Im7 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(9)(A) is 

8 amended, by striking ‘‘an alien who has already been 

9 counted toward the numerical limitation of paragraph 

10 (1)(B) during fiscal year 2004, 2005, or 2006 shall not 

11 again be counted toward such limitation during fiscal year 

12 2007.’’ and inserting ‘‘an alien who has been present in 

13 the United States as an H–2B nonimmigrant during any 

14 1 of the 3 fiscal years immediately preceding the fiscal 

15 year of the approved start date of a petition for a non16 immigrant worker described in section 

17 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) shall not be counted toward such lim18 itation for the fiscal year in which the petition is approved. 

19 Such alien shall be considered a returning worker.’’. 

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

21 subsection (a) shall take effect as if enacted on October 

22 1, 2008. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Exhibit 32

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

      This Certification is intended to accompany the Quarterly Report of SVB
Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002. To the best of their knowledge, the undersigned, in their
respective capacities as set forth below, hereby certify 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 operation
            of the Company.

/s/ Robert P. Corcoran
-------------------------------------------
Robert P. Corcoran, Chief Executive Officer               Date:  August 13, 2003


/s/ Keith B. McCarthy
-------------------------------------------
Keith B. McCarthy, Chief Financial Officer                Date:  August 13, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to SVB Financial Services, Inc. and
will be retained by SVB Financial Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Joe McMillan v. STATE.

No. 15819.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 8, 1933.

See, also, 57 S.W.(2d) 125.

Henry Tirey, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

CALHOUN, Judge.

The offense, selling intoxicating liquor; the punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No defect either in the indictment or procedure has been pointed out or has been perceived. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT
                        --------------------------------

I,  Mair  Faibish,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  Synergy  Brands,  Inc.  ("the
Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         1.   The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended
              December  31,  2004  ("the   Report")   fully  complies  with  the
              requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange
              Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: March 30, 2005

                                             /s/ Mair Faibish
                                             --------------------
                                                 Mair Faibish
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1407

To prohibit government-to-government and commercial arms sales to any

country that is participating in or cooperating with the boycott of Israel

by Arab countries.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 18, 1993

Mrs. MALONEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL

To prohibit government-to-government and commercial arms

sales to any country that is participating in or cooperating with the boycott of Israel by Arab countries.

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 ‘‘Arab Boycott Arms

5 Sales Prohibition Act’’.
2

•HR 1407 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ARMS SALES TO COUNTRIES PAR2 TICIPATING IN OR COOPERATING WITH THE

3 ARAB BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL.

4 (a) GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT SALES.—Sales

5 may not be made under the Arms Export Control Act to

6 any country described in subsection (c).

7 (b) COMMERCIAL EXPORT SALES.—Licenses may not

8 be issued under section 38 of the Arms Export Control

9 Act with respect to a sale to any country described in sub10 section (c).

11 (c) COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO PROHIBITIONS.—This

12 section applies with respect to any country that is listed

13 pursuant to section 999(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue

14 Code of 1986 as a country which requires or may require

15 participation in or cooperation with the boycott of Israel

16 by Arab countries.

Æ
Agenda – August 2016 Refunding 

Treasury Dealer Meetings – July 28 - July 29, 2016 

Dealer ___________________ 

To allow more time for discussion, please e-mail your responses prior to 12:00 PM on Monday, July 25, 2016 to 

Debt.Management@treasury.gov and NY.QTR@ny.frb.org. Even if you are not scheduled to meet with Treasury officials this 

quarter, your responses are still appreciated. 

I. Marketable Borrowing Estimates 

 Central 

Estimate 

Range that would not 

surprise you 

 Low/High 

 July-September 2016 / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 October-December 2016 / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 FY 2017 Total Net Marketable Borrowing 

 FY 2018 Total Net Marketable Borrowing / 

 FY 2019 Total Net Marketable Borrowing / 

 

II. Budget Deficit and Growth Estimates 

 FY 2017 / 

 FY 2018 / 

 FY 2019 / 

 Real GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2016 

 Real GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2017 

 Nominal GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2016 

 Nominal GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2017 

 

III. Quarterly Note and Bond Issuance Estimates 

 3-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / / 

 10-year note (Aug) / 

 10-year note reopening (Sep/Oct) / / - / 

 30-year bond (Aug) / 

 30-year bond reopening (Sep/Oct) / / 

 2-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / / 

 5-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / / 

 7-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct ) / / / / - / / 

 5-year TIPS reopening (Aug) 

 10-year TIPS reopening (Sep) 

 30-year TIPS reopening (Oct) 

 2-year FRN reopening (Aug/Sep) 

 2-year FRN (Oct) 

 

IV. Bill Issuance Estimates 

 52-week bill (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / / 

 Total change in bills outstanding 8/16 - 10/16 / 

 Total change in bills outstanding FY 2016 / 

 CMB issuance Aug‘16 – Oct ‘16 (size/date) / / / / 

Discussion Topics 

1. Please discuss your latest economic and fiscal forecasts for FY2017 and FY2018. Do you believe the current financing 

schedule is well-suited to meet Treasury’s financing needs though the end of FY2017? FY2018? 

2. In the most recent quarter, Treasury allowed for a minimum of one day between the auction and settlement date for bills, 

and may expand this policy to all issuance. Please comment on the considerations associated with implementing this 

time lag into the auction calendar. In particular, how can Treasury best accommodate weeks with holidays and a high 

volume of auctions? Should Treasury avoid Friday auctions? When adjustments are necessary, please comment on the 

relative merits of a longer vs. a shorter when-issued period. 

3. The United Kingdom Debt Management Office (UK-DMO) recently instituted a number of changes to their gilt auction 

format. Please describe the changes and comment on the drivers that led to the adoption of these modifications. What 

are the costs and benefits for all gilt market stakeholders associated with implementing these framework changes? Are 

any of these framework changes applicable to the US primary debt market? If so, please elaborate.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
                         OF TITLE 18 UNITED STATES CODE


         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of CITGO Petroleum Corporation (the "Registrant"), does
hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003
of the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.



Dated:   August 18, 2003                         /s/  Eddie R. Humphrey
      ---------------------                      ------------------------------
                                                 Name:  Eddie R. Humphrey
                                                 Title: Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1450

SIDNEY B. HARR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RICHARD H. BRODHEAD; DAVID F. LEVI; DUKE UNIVERSITY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David 

Schroeder, District Judge. (1:11-cv-00263-TDS-JEP)

Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sidney B. Harr, Appellant Pro Se. Dixie Thomas Wells, ELLIS & 

WINTERS, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sidney B. Harr appeals the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant 

Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss his 

complaint alleging Defendants violated his civil rights. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we deny Harr’s motion to schedule oral argument and 

affirm the district court’s judgment. See Harr v. Brodhead, No. 

1:11-cv-00263-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C. March 5, 2012). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
           Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, J. Patrick Tinley, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of
         Ross Systems, Inc.

2.       Based on my knowledge, this amendment 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 amendment.


Date: October 30, 2003
                                                /s/ J. Patrick Tinley
                                                -------------------------------
                                                J. Patrick Tinley
                                                Chairman and Chief Executive
                                                Officer
Order entered November 4, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00819-CR

BRIAN JASON WHITE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-80670-2013

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On October 1, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to 

pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment for the 

reporter’s record; (3) LaTresta Ginyard is the court reporter who recorded the proceedings; and 

(4) Ms. Ginyard’s explanation for the delay in filing the record is the length of the trial and her 

workload; Because Ms. Ginyard did not tender the record until November, 3, 2015, we DO 

NOT ADOPT the finding that she would file the record by October 31, 2015.

We ORDER the reporter’s record filed as of the date of this order.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
#### McBRIDE v. STATE.

No. 20389.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 7, 1939.

R. H. Good, of Cooper, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The opinion delivered herein on April 26, 1939, is withdrawn and the following substituted therefor:

■ The offense is possession of intoxicating liquor in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of $100 and confinement in jail for 60 days.

The offense was alleged to have been committed on the 5th day of May, 1938. The applicable penalty is set forth in Sec. 41 of Art. 666, Vernon’s Ann.Tex. P.C. We quote the penalty as follows: “Any person who violates any provision of Article I of this Act for which a specific penalty is not provided shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year.” In the charge the court instructed the jury as to the penalty as follows: “Our statutes further provide that any person found guilty of the unlawful possession of alcoholic beverage containing more .than one-half of one percent by volume for the purpose of sale in any dry area in this state, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100, and not more than $1000, or by' confinement in the *316county jail for not more than one year, *or by both such fine and imprisonment.”*(Italics ours.) Under Section 41, supra, the jury are not at liberty to fix the punishment at both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail. The italicized language should have been omitted from the charge of the court. In view of the fact thát the jury fixed the punishment at a fine of $100 and confinement in jail for 60 days, it becomes our duty to order a reversal of the judgment.

It is observed that the complaint and information were drawn under the law as it existed prior to the passage of the present Liquor Control Act, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 — 1 et seq. The prosecution should have proceeded under the present law. In the event of another trial a complaint and information should be presented charging the offense as defined under the present statute.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2011-0914; Dir ID 2010-NM-166-AD