alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Cienega Creek Holdings Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),
the undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,
herby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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


Date:  May 20, 2008


/s/ Michael A. Klinicki
-------------------------------------
Michael A. Klinicki, C.F.O., Treasurer and
principal accounting officer
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5968 

To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the amount 

of leverage made available to small business investment companies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 

Mr. KNIGHT (for himself, Ms. MENG, and Mr. CURBELO of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small 

Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to 

increase the amount of leverage made available to small 

business investment companies. 

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 ‘‘Small Business Invest5 ment Opportunity Act of 2016’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INDIVIDUAL SBIC LEVERAGE LIMIT INCREASE. 

7 Section 303(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Small Business In8 vestment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 682(b)(2)(A)(ii)) is 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5968 IH

1 amended by striking ‘‘$150,000,000’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘$170,000,000’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 24

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a dedication ceremony

incident to the placement of a bust of Raoul Wallenberg in the Capitol.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 10 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Mr. PELL (for himself, Mr. STEVENS, and Mr. FORD) submitted the following

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and

Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a

dedication ceremony incident to the placement of a bust

of Raoul Wallenberg in the Capitol.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. DEDICATION CEREMONY AND PLACEMENT OF

4 A BUST OF RAOUL WALLENBERG IN THE

5 CAPITOL.

6 The rotunda of the Capitol may be used on November

7 2, 1995, for a ceremony incident to the placement of a

8 bust of Raoul Wallenberg in the Capitol as previously au9 thorized by Congress.
2

•SCON 24 IS

1 SEC. 2. SECURITY AND PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

2 The Capitol Police Board shall take such action with

3 respect to security as may be necessary to carry out sec4 tion 1. The Architect of the Capitol shall make appropriate

5 physical preparations for the ceremony referred to in

6 section 1.

Æ
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                       EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     THREE MONTHS                        SIX MONTHS
                                        ENDED                               ENDED
                                       JUNE 3O,                           JUNE 30,
                                   1997         1996                  1997         1996
                                   ----         ----                  ----         ----

<S>                           <C>          <C>                   <C>           <C>         
  WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES       7,517,069    5,111,782             7,497,798     4,309,859
  OUTSTANDING

  NET LOSS                    ($1,429,512) ($1,459,953)          ($3,954,565)  ($2,499,213)
                              -----------  -----------           -----------   ----------- 

  PRIMARY LOSS PER SHARE           ($0.19)      ($0.29)               ($0.53)       ($0.58)
                              -----------  -----------           -----------   ----------- 

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fortress Investment Group LLC (the ‘‘Company’’) for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), Wesley R. Edens, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

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

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

/s/ Wesley R. Edens
Wesley R. Edens
Chief Executive Officer
March 26, 2008

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

---
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 IDT Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Marcelo Fischer, Senior Vice President of Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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; and




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




Date: December 12, 2011





/s/    MARCELO FISCHERMarcelo Fischer

Senior Vice President of Finance

(Principal Financial Officer)





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 IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDT Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### L. RUTHER, Appellant v. SEQUENTIAL BRANDS GROUP INC., Appellee

No. 17-7125

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: November 17, 2017

*4L. Ruther, Pro Se

BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Millett, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 84(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s August 11, 2017 order be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellant’s case without prejudice on the ground that the complaint did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Appellant’s complaint did not contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction or of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
#### Emil HORWITZ, Appellant, v. FOOD TOWN, INCORPORATED and Elmo Harelson, Appellees.

No. 22979.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 7, 1966.

R. Boatner Howell, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., Hyman R. Friedman, New York City, for appellant.

Hamlet D. May, Baton Rouge, La., for appellees.

Before JONES and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENBERRY, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This was a diversity action by a real estate broker licensed under the laws of New York, but not licensed under the laws of Louisiana, for a brokerage fee. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Its opinion is reported at 241 F.Supp. 1. We are of the view that Woods v. Interstate Realty Company, 337 U.S. 535, 69 S.Ct. 1235, 93 L.Ed. 1524 (1949) is controlling and the Judgment must be

Affirmed.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 764

To amend the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 to require that determinations concerning the status of a child as an Indian child be prospective

from the child’s date of birth, and that determinations of membership

status in an Indian tribe be based on the minority status of a member

or the written consent of an initial member over the age of 18, and

for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 8 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

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

to the Committee on Indian Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 to require

that determinations concerning the status of a child as

an Indian child be prospective from the child’s date

of birth, and that determinations of membership status

in an Indian tribe be based on the minority status of

a member or the written consent of an initial member

over the age of 18, 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,
2

•S 764 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Indian Child Welfare

3 Improvement Act of 1995’’.

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

5 (a) INDIAN CHILD.—Paragraph (4) of section 4 of

6 the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1903(4))

7 is amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end

8 the following: ‘‘at the time of the child’s birth’’.

9 (b) MEMBER OF AN INDIAN TRIBE.—Section 4 of the

10 Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1903) is

11 amended—

12 (1) in paragraph (11), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

13 end;

14 (2) in paragraph (12), by striking the period at

15 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

16 (3) by adding at the end the following:

17 ‘‘(13) ‘member of an Indian tribe’ means an in18 dividual who—

19 ‘‘(A) is on the membership roll of an In20 dian tribe (or is otherwise considered a member

21 of an Indian tribe under consistently applied

22 policies and practices of the Indian tribe); and

23 ‘‘(B) initially has such membership sta24 tus—

25 ‘‘(i) before attaining the age of 19; or
3

•S 764 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) after attaining the age of 19,

2 upon providing written consent to such

3 membership.’’.

4 SEC. 3. RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP

5 NOT PERMITTED.

6 Section 101 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978

7 (25 U.S.C. 1911) is amended by adding at the end the

8 following:

9 ‘‘(e) For the purposes of any child custody proceeding

10 involving an Indian child, membership in an Indian

11 tribe—

12 ‘‘(1) shall be effective beginning on the date on

13 which the Indian child is admitted as a member of

14 an Indian tribe; and

15 ‘‘(2) may not be given a retroactive effect.’’.

16 SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

17 The amendments made by this Act shall apply to a

18 child custody proceeding (as defined in section 1903(1)

19 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C.

20 1903(1)) with respect to which, as of the date of enact21 ment of this Act, a final decree has not been entered.

Æ
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**254 CA 10-02125**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

JEFF CONIBER, DOING BUSINESS AS JEFF CONIBER TRUCKING, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CENTER POINT TRANSFER STATION, INC., MATTHEW W. LOUGHRY AND KENNETH LOUGHRY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

E. ROBERT FUSSELL, P.C., LEROY (E. ROBERT FUSSELL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
PIRRELLO, MISSAL, PERSONTE & FEDER, ROCHESTER (STEVEN E. FEDER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered February 2, 2010 in a breach of contract action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the cross motion of defendants for summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by providing that the cross motion is denied without prejudice and as modified the order is affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly concluded that it was premature to grant defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint at this stage of the litigation, in view of the limited discovery that has been conducted ( see CPLR 3212 [f]; Sportiello v City of New York , 6 AD3d 421). We further conclude, however, that the court should have denied the cross motion without prejudice ( see Hall v Rite Aid Corp. , 37 AD3d 1160). We therefore modify the order accordingly.

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
BOEM Seeks Public Involvement in Prepar ing an Environmental Assessment for a 2015 Geophysical 3D Ocean Bottom Se ismic Survey in Cook Inlet

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for a proposed seismic survey by SAExplor ation, Inc. (SAE). The proposed survey area covers approximately 698 square miles in lower C ook Inlet. The project is proposed to run from March 1, 2015 through December 15, 2015. Although the EA will include an analysis of proposed activities within the entire proposed project area, BOEM’s jurisdictional permit authority is limited to activities in the Outer C ontinental Shelf. BOEM is inviting the public to

comment on issues that should be considered in preparing the EA.

BOEM received SAE's 2015 Geological and Geophys ical (G&G) Permit application on April 21, 2014. The G&G Permit application was deemed complete with receipt of supplemental environmental information on October 29, 2014 and a final Plan of Operations was submitted on November 14, 2014. SAE's permit application 15-01 and an associated area coverage map are available for review at: http ://www.boem.gov/G-G-Survey-15-01.

BOEM is only accepting and considering public comments submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov , Docket No. BOEM-2014-0099). The deadline to receive these comments is Dec. 12, 2014 (midnight, EST). BOEM cautions that before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or othe r personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask BOEM (prominently at the beginning of your submi ssion) to withhold your personal identifying information from public view, BOEM cannot guaran tee that it will be able to do so. BOEM will not consider anonymous comments.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50537

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE ANTONIO CHAVEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P-02-CR-14-1

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Antonio Chavez appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Chavez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He

argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Chavez

thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the two-year

maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 
No. 02-50537

-2-

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Chavez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS RESTATED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR
THERMOQUEST CORPORATION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 29, 1996
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-29-1996
<CASH>                               183,328
<SECURITIES>                           1,752
<RECEIVABLES>                         76,273
<ALLOWANCES>                           5,000
<INVENTORY>                           61,424
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     328,586
<PP&E>                                76,333
<DEPRECIATION>                        23,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       529,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                115,645
<BONDS>                              105,063
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                 485
<OTHER-SE>                           285,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         529,853
<SALES>                              148,991
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     148,991
<CGS>                                 80,134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         80,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      10,783
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           5
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     3,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       21,668
<INCOME-TAX>                           9,139
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   12,529
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                          12,529
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.26
        

</TABLE>
#### Debby GENTHNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert HEDRICK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16611

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 17, 2017

Debby Genthner, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM *

Debby Genthner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from alleged rapes by a Fresno Police Department officer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Holcombe v. Hosmer,*477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal on the basis of claim preclusion); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Genthner’s action as barred by claim preclusion because both the instant action and Genthner’s prior action arose from the same primary right. *See Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.,*465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984) (to determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment, federal courts look to the law of the state in which the judgment was rendered); *Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara,*604 F.3d 1142, 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements of claim preclusion under California law and explaining that California’s doctrine of claim preclusion is based on a primary rights theory); *Brodheim v. Cry,*584 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2009) (“If two actions involve the same injury to the plaintiff and the same wrong by the defendant, then the same primary right is at stake even if in the second suit plaintiff pleads different theories of recovery, seeks different forms of relief and/or adds new facts supporting recovery.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and alteration omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.