alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. 997 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

An Act 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a water contract between 

the United States and the East Bench Irrigation District. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘East Bench Irrigation District 

Water Contract Extension Act’’. 

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND WATER CONTRACT. 

The Secretary of the Interior may extend the contract for water 

services between the United States and the East Bench Irrigation 

District, numbered 14–06–600–3593, until the earlier of— 

(1) the date that is 4 years after the date on which the 

contract would have expired if this Act had not been enacted; 

or 

(2) the date on which a new long-term contract is executed 

by the parties to the contract. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION:


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


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


Certification of Principal Financial Officer

In  connection  with  the Quarterly Report of Sentry Technology Corporation (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I, Joan E.
Miller, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
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) and
          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/ JOAN E. MILLER
                                    -------------------------------------

                                    Joan E. Miller
                                    Vice President -Finance and Treasurer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

                                    May 15, 2007


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 the Company and will be
retained  by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or  its  staff  upon  request.

This  certification  accompanies  this Report on Form 10-QSB pursuant to Section
906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  and shall not, except to the extent
required  by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended  (the "Exchange Act").  Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent  that  the  Company  specifically  incorporates  it  by  reference.
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF LUKA MUCIC, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SAP SE

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 SAP SE (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29,
2016 (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies 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 March 29, 2016 |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ Luka Mucic          |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Luka Mucic              |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer |  | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gildardo BUSTAMANTE-OLAGUE, also known as Gilardo Bustamante, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-51094

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 22, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*146Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bem-porad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HAYNES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gildardo Bustamante-Olague (Busta-mante) pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1826. The district court sentenced him to 57 months of imprisonment, within the guidelines range of imprisonment of 57 to 71 months. He argues that his within-guidelines sentence is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

When, as here, the district court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, the sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. *United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Review is for abuse of discretion. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

This court has rejected Bustamante’s argument that a prior conviction should not be used to increase both the offense level and the criminal history score, i.e., the double-counting argument. *See, e.g., United States v. Duarte,*569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.2009). This court has also rejected Bustamante’s assertion that his illegal reentry was simply an international trespass. *See, e.g., United States v. Aguirre-Villa,*460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir.2006).

As Bustamante acknowledges, his fast-track argument is foreclosed. *See United States v. Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d 554, 562-64 (5th Cir.2008). As for Busta-mante’s personal history and circumstances, he has not shown that any irrelevant or improper factor was considered, that any relevant factor was not considered, or that the court’s weighing of those factors was a “clear error of judgment.” *United States v. Cooks,*589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1930, 176 L.Ed.2d 397 (2010).

Bustamante’s disagreement with the court’s assessment of the referenced factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. *See Alonzo,*435 F.3d at 554.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 31.1




                                    CERTIFICATION
                               PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                           OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Yonglin Du, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB/A of Dahua 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) 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 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:   September 15, 2006


/s/ Yonglin Du
-----------------------------
Yonglin Du, President & CEO
Exhibit 99.2

                                Equity One, Inc.

                              Officer's Certificate

                          Annual Statement of Servicer

     Equity One ABS, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-1
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to the provisions of the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement for the above
captioned series (the "Agreement"),  the undersigned hereby certifies that he is
an officer of Equity One, Inc. (the "Servicer"), and does hereby further certify
that:

     1. A review of the activities of the Servicer  during the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2001 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under
his supervision; and

     2. To the best of his  knowledge,  based on such  review,  the Servicer has
fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under the Agreement  throughout  such fiscal
year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Servicer as of this 5th day of March, 2002.

                                        EQUITY ONE, INC.

                                        By: /s/ Dennis J. Lauria
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Dennis J. Lauria, Vice President
#### WALDICK, Appellant, v. PRUDENTIAL LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 9, 1907.)

Action by Edward Waldick against the Prudential Life Insurance Company of America and others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE OF ADVANCED GAMING TECHNOLOGY, INC. AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 AND THE RELATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           165
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    142
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                       69
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1283
<PP&E>                                          2571
<DEPRECIATION>                                   710
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           9301
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         244
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1697)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10279
<SALES>                                          510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 510
<CGS>                                            107
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    107
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 839
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               292
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (734)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (734)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.02)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 177 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 177

  Designating the week of May 15 through May 21, 2011, as ``National 
                          Public Works Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 10, 2011

    Mrs. Boxer (for herself and Mr. Inhofe) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Designating the week of May 15 through May 21, 2011, as ``National 
                          Public Works Week''.

Whereas public works infrastructure, facilities, and services are of vital 
        importance to the health, safety, and well-being of the people of the 
        United States;
Whereas the public works infrastructure, facilities, and services could not be 
        provided without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals, 
        including engineers and administrators, who represent State and local 
        governments throughout the United States;
Whereas public works professionals design, build, operate, and maintain the 
        transportation systems, water infrastructure, sewage and refuse disposal 
        systems, public buildings, and other structures and facilities that are 
        vital to the people and communities of the United States; and
Whereas understanding the role that public infrastructure plays in protecting 
        the environment, improving public health and safety, contributing to 
        economic vitality, and enhancing the quality of life of every community 
        of the United States is in the interest of the people of the United 
        States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates the week of May 15 through May 21, 2011, as 
        ``National Public Works Week'';
            (2) recognizes and celebrates the important contributions 
        that public works professionals make every day to improve--
                    (A) the public infrastructure of the United States; 
                and
                    (B) the communities that public works professionals 
                serve; and
            (3) urges individuals and communities throughout the United 
        States to join with representatives of the Federal Government 
        and the American Public Works Association in activities and 
        ceremonies that are designed--
                    (A) to pay tribute to the public works 
                professionals of the United States; and
                    (B) to recognize the substantial contributions that 
                public works professionals make to the United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### GOULD, Appellant, v. GOULD, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 25, 1907.)

Action by Katherine O. Gould against Howard Gould. D. Nicoll, for appellant. C. J. Shearn, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. INGRAHAM, J., dissents.
#### Peter C. Gagliardo, Appellant, v Krista Orton, Defendant, and Omar Hussain et al., Respondents.

[944 NYS2d 920]—

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated May 9, 2011, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Omar Hussain, Tanveer Hussain, and Ruvina Hussain which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion of the defendants Omar Hussain, Tanveer Hussain, and Ruvina Hussain which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is denied.

In support of that branch of the motion of the defendants Omar Hussain, Tanveer Hussain, and Ruvina Hussain (hereinafter collectively the respondents) which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, the respondents relied on excerpts of the transcripts of the depositions, among others, the plaintiff and Omar Hussain, which contained conflicting testimony as to the facts surrounding the accident, including whether Omar Hussain violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1141 and 1163, and, if so, whether those violations were a proximate cause of the plaintiffs accident and alleged injuries. Thus, the respondents failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and we need not examine the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851*1276[1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the respondents’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Skelos, J.E, Florio, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
# C_2021502EN.01002101.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — JMS Sports v EUIPO — Inter-Vion (Spiral hair elastics)

(Case T-823/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community design representing a spiral hair elastic - Disclosure of the earlier designs - Disclosure on the Internet - Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Equality of arms - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)

(2021/C 502/31)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: JMS Sports sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: D. Piróg and J. Słupski, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Inter-Vion S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: T. Grucelski and T. Gawliczek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2019 (Case R 1573/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Inter-Vion and JMS Sports.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders JMS Sports sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Inter-Vion S.A. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders JMS Sports sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Inter-Vion S.A.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1135
BRENDA MATTINGLY NORMAN, formerly known as Brenda C. Mattingly, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-97-3040-JFM) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: February 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Mindy Gae Farber, David K. Heasley, JACOBS, JACOBS & FARBER, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Sean D. Wallace, County Attorney,Rhonda L. Weaver, Associate County Attorney, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting summaryjudgment to the defendant on the plaintiff’s action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Norman v. Prince George’s County , No. JFM-97-3040 (D. Md. Jan. 5, 1999). We dispense withoral 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