alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 annual report on Form 10-K of Tier Technologies, Inc., (the“Company”), for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Ronald L. Rossetti, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated:  December 13, 2006 /s/ Ronald L. Rossetti   Ronald L. Rossetti, Chief Executive Officer
ex102to8k06937_12012010.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 




	
GORDON SILVER

	
E-Filed On ___________________


	
GERALD M. GORDON, ESQ.

	  
	
Nevada Bar No. 229

	  
	
E-mail:  ggordon@gordonsilver.com

	  
	
THOMAS H. FELL, ESQ.

	  
	
Nevada Bar No. 3717

	  
	
E-mail:  tfell@gordonsilver.com

	  
	
JOHN P. WITUCKI, ESQ.

	  
	
Nevada Bar No. 10800

	  
	
E-mail:  jwitucki@gordonsilver.com

	  
	
3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy., 9th Floor

	  
	
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

	  
	
Telephone (702) 796-5555

	  
	
Facsimile (702) 369-2666

	  
	
Attorneys for Debtors

	  










UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT


 


FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA


 



 




	
In re:


 


RIVIERA HOLDINGS CORPORATION


 


o Affects this Debtor.

	
 Case No.:  10-22910-LBR


 Chapter 11 Jointly Administered with:


 


 10-22913-LBR                 Riviera Operating Corp.


 10-22915-LBR                 Riviera Black Hawk, Inc.


 


 Date:     N/A


 Time:     N/A


	
xAffects all Debtors.


	
o Affects RIVIERA OPERATING CORPORATION


	
o Affects RIVIERA BLACK HAWK, INC.









 


 




NOTICE OF (i) EFFECTIVE DATE OF PLAN; AND (ii) DEADLINE FOR FILING 

REQUESTS FOR PAYMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS AND PROFESSIONAL


FEE CLAIMS, INCLUDING CLAIMS UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)


 


NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that as of December 1, 2010, all conditions precedent to the effectiveness of the Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) [Docket No. 257], as confirmed by the Order Confirming Plan [Docket No. 352] entered by the Court on November 17, 2010, have been met and the Effective Date1 of the Plan shall be December 1, 2010, for all purposes.


 


NOTICE IS FURTHER HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Administrative Claim Bar Date for filing requests for payment of all Administrative Claims against the Debtors, including claims pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 503(b), shall be the first Business Day occurring on or after the sixtieth (60) day after the Substantial Consummation Date.

 





	
GORDON SILVER


	  
	  
	
By:

	

 




	  	
GERALD M. GORDON, ESQ.


	  	
THOMAS H. FELL, ESQ.


	  	
3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy., 9th Floor


	  	
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169


	  	
Attorneys for Debtors




















1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134151 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134151 COA: 273808 Oakland CC: 04-196772-FH TAMERRA MARIE WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 23, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND th is case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.

l0917 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2007

Clerk
----

(2004/C 65 E/199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2626/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Call for review of the Lhasa urban development plan

The committee overseeing implementation of the Unesco Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage has urged the Chinese authorities to review their urban development plan for Lhassa, the capital of Tibet. The decision was taken during the 27th session of the Unesco World Heritage Committee, held in Paris from 30 June to 5 July 2003. The committee made a series of recommendation to the Chinese authorities, with a view to mitigating the negative impact on the World Heritage values of this property caused by development pressures and called for the implementation of a national policy for the protection of the remaining historic traditional buildings in Lhasa. In 2002 the Chinese authorities demolished historic Tibetan houses in Lhasa (www.savetibet.org/News), raising serious concerns about Beijing's commitment to fulfil its obligations to the Unesco Convention. The committee also called for demolition to be stopped, ‘particularly in the Shol area’. Shortly afterwards, experts from Unesco and Icomos (International Council on Monuments and Sites) conducted missions to Lhasa in October 2002 and April 2003 respectively.

What steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take to ensure that the Chinese authorities meet their obligations and act upon Unesco's requests? Does it intend to suspend funding for all projects in Tibet if the Chinese authorities continue to fail to act on the requests made by the international community regarding the protection and conservation of Tibetan culture and heritage?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2003)

Protection of the rights of minorities and, in particular their cultural identity, is one of the topics regularly raised by the European Union in its bilateral human rights dialogue with China. The European Union will continue to use this process to put forward its viewpoint to the Chinese authorities.

The Commission has always taken steps to ensure that the cooperation programmes implemented in the autonomous region of Tibet serve first and foremost the interests of the local Tibetan population which is itself concerned for the European Union to have a presence in the region. The Commission therefore considers that any interruption in these programmes would inevitably have a negative impact on the local population.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,405,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,671,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,632,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,911,000
<PP&E>                                       3,725,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,310,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,088,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    41,638,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (39,258,595)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,310,000
<SALES>                                     22,269,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,269,000
<CGS>                                       12,975,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,975,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (3,521,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             599,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                204,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            175,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   175,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND AS OF
MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                  0000919601
<NAME> VENDALUX CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,168
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1274
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2437)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (214)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (214)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (214)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>
# C_2008313EN.01005501.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/55

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case F-49/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2005 promotion procedure)

(2008/C 313/97)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and G. Corstens, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade A*11 pursuant to the 2005 promotion procedure and, second, a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as partly inadmissible and partly unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as partly inadmissible and partly unfounded;

| 2. | Orders Mr Nijs to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Nijs to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006, p. 26.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6231

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY DALE NORRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (6:05-cr-01163-HMH-3; 6:07-cv-70102-HMH)

Submitted: August 20, 2008 Decided: September 8, 2008

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny E. Watson, Sr., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.

W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Leesa Washington,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Dale Norris pled guilty to conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, and

three counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.

He was sentenced to 120 months in prison on each count; the

sentences run concurrently. Norris now appeals, contending that,

under United States v. Kimbrough, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 558

(2007), the district court should not have imposed the statutory

minimum sentence but should instead have taken into consideration

the disparity in sentencing between offenses involving cocaine

powder and those involving crack. Because Norris did not raise

this claim below, our review is for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim.

P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993). 

Norris was statutorily subject to a minimum sentence of

120 months in prison. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2000). In

Kimbrough, the Supreme Court found that a sentencing court may

consider the disparity between the sentencing guidelines’ treatment

of crack and powder cocaine. Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 573.

However, the Court also agreed with the government’s assertion that

“sentencing courts remain bound by the mandatory minimum sentences

prescribed [by statute].” Id. Thus, the statutorily prescribed

minimum sentence at issue in this case is unaffected by Kimbrough.

See United States v. Harris, 531 F.3d 507, 516 (7th Cir. 2008) (no

need for Kimbrough remand when defendant received statutory minimum
3

sentence); United States v. Black, 523 F.3d 892, 892-93 (8th Cir.

2008) (Kimbrough did not authorize district court to sentence

defendant below statutorily mandated minimums).

We conclude that there was no plain error in this case.

Moreover, the sentence is reasonable. See Gall v. United States,

128 S. Ct. 586, 594-97 (2007) (stating standard of review); United

States v. Farrior, F.3d , 2008 WL 2971779, at *10 (4th Cir.

Aug. 5, 2008) (No. 07-4498) (“a statutorily required sentence . . .

is per se reasonable”). We therefore affirm. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at January 31, 1999 and the Consolidated Statement of
Operations for the Year Ended January 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                         693,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,520,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 22,818,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,878,000
<PP&E>                                      63,944,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (32,310,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              75,594,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,726,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,392,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                75,594,000
<SALES>                                    131,491,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           131,491,000
<CGS>                                       40,648,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               82,998,000    
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,824,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   355,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,469,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,469,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .94
<FN>
<F1>Provision for doubtful accounts and inventory provision included in total
costs.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2010179EN.01003201.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — EMC Development v Commission

(Case T-432/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European cement market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Harmonised standard for cement - Binding nature - Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 EC to horizontal cooperation agreements)

(2010/C 179/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EMC Development AB (Luleå, Sweden) (represented by: M. Elvinger and W. -N. Schelp, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially É. Gippini Fournier and B. Doherty, and subsequently by É. Gippini Fournier and J. Bourke, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2005) D/205249 of 28 September 2005 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against European Portland cement producers, the European Cement Association (Cembureau) and the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) in relation to the European cement market.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders EMC Development AB to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EMC Development AB to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6776

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REGGIE LAMAR KELLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (3:04-cr-00998-CMC-1; 3:07-cv-70131-CMC)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reggie Lamar Kelley, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Christopher

Todd Hagins, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*Although Kelley also filed a notice of appeal challenging the

district court’s separate order dismissing his post-judgment motion

as a successive § 2255 motion, Kelley does not address the district

court’s dismissal of that motion in his informal brief and has

therefore waived appellate review of that order. See Local Rule

34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the

informal brief.”). 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Reggie Lamar Kelley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.*

 The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

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

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.

2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Kelley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3678 

To redesignate the lock and dam located in Modoc, Illinois, commonly known 

as the Kaskaskia Lock and Dam, as the ‘‘Jerry F. Costello Lock and 

Dam’’, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2013 

Mr. ENYART (for himself, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, Mr. RUSH, Mr. ROSKAM, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. GUTIE ́RREZ, Mrs. 

BUSTOS, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. QUIGLEY, 

Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. FOSTER, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. 

DUCKWORTH, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, and Mr. HULTGREN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To redesignate the lock and dam located in Modoc, Illinois, 

commonly known as the Kaskaskia Lock and Dam, as 

the ‘‘Jerry F. Costello Lock and Dam’’, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION. 

4 The lock and dam located in Modoc, Illinois, author5 ized by the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construc6 tion, repair, and preservation of certain public works on 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3678 IH

1 rivers and harbors, and for other purposes’’, approved 

2 July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 927), and commonly known as the 

3 Kaskaskia Lock and Dam, is redesignated as the ‘‘Jerry 

4 F. Costello Lock and Dam’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the lock 

8 and dam referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

9 a reference to the ‘‘Jerry F. Costello Lock and Dam’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS