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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 715 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  Union Calendar No. 22
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 715

                          [Report No. 104-42]

 To amend the Central Bering Sea Fisheries Enforcement Act of 1992 to 
prohibit fishing in the Central Sea of Okhotsk by vessels and nationals 
                         of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1995

     Mr. Young of Alaska (for himself, Mr. Saxton, and Mr. Studds) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                               Resources

                           February 21, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Central Bering Sea Fisheries Enforcement Act of 1992 to 
prohibit fishing in the Central Sea of Okhotsk by vessels and nationals 
                         of the United States.

    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 ``Sea of Okhotsk Fisheries Enforcement 
Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. FISHING PROHIBITION.

    The Central Bering Sea Fisheries Enforcement Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 
1823 note) is amended--
            (1) in section 302, by inserting ``and the Central Sea of 
        Okhotsk'' after ``Central Bering Sea''; and
            (2) in section 306--
                    (A) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), 
                and (6) in order as paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), and 
                (7); and
                    (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
            ``(2) Central sea of okhotsk.--The term `Central Sea of 
        Okhotsk' means the central Sea of Okhotsk area which is more 
        than two hundred nautical miles seaward of the baseline from 
        which the breadth of the territorial sea of the Russian 
        Federation is measured.''.
                                     

                                                  Union Calendar No. 22

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 715

                          [Report No. 104-42]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To amend the Central Bering Sea Fisheries Enforcement Act of 1992 to 
prohibit fishing in the Central Sea of Okhotsk by vessels and nationals 
                         of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           February 21, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
#### Lee Andrew Barnett v. State.

No. 25419.

October 24, 1951.

Hon. Claude Wm. Knight, Jr., Judge Presiding.

*Ross Hoffman,*Brady for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for the unlawful sale of whisky in a dry *397area, and as a second offender. The punishment was assessed at a fine of $500 and thirty days in jail.

Neither the complaint nor the information alleges the name of the purchaser of the whisky. As to this, the allegation is that appellant “did then and there unlawfully sell intoxicating liquor, towit; whisky in violation of said law.” Under Arts 406 and 416, C.C.P., in order “to charge an unlawful sale, it is necessary to name the purchaser.”

Such allegation is not necessary where the name of the purchaser is unknown, in which event the pleading must so allege.

In the instant case, the state relied upon the testimony of Summerlin, an agent of the Texas Liquor Control Board, who testified to having purchased whisky from appellant upon the date alleged. The state, therefore, knew the name of the purchaser and, in order to comply with the mandate of the statute, was required to name the purchaser in the complaint and information. Attesting authorities are: Jones v. State, 115 Tex. Cr. R. 418, 27 S.W. 2d 653; Whittlesey v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 497, 262 S.W. 757; Loftin v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 401, 261 S.W. 1031; Lewis v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 152, 259 S. W. 1087; Hoover v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 91, 259 S.W. 1088; Alexander v. State, 29 Texas 495, 496. The Lewis and Hoover cases, supra, are directly in point and controlling.

At the close of the testimony, the appellant challenged the sufficiency of the information to charge any offense under the law by motion for an instructed verdict, which was overruled.

The information being fatally defective, the judgment is reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.

Opinion approved by the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF 4/30/99 AND CONSOLIDATED EARNINGS FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                         280,071
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,138,836
<ALLOWANCES>                                   575,000
<INVENTORY>                                 16,240,502
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,564,035
<PP&E>                                      19,552,114
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,117,325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              55,276,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,897,103
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,812
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,271,680
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                55,276,457
<SALES>                                     88,159,189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            88,159,189
<CGS>                                       79,238,098
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               79,238,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,171,206
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,749,885
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,052,784
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,697,101
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59


</TABLE>
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4042

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located

house’’.York, as the ‘‘Ted Weiss United States Courtat 500 Pearl Street in New York City, New
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4042

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located at 500

Pearl Street in New York City, New York, as the ‘‘Ted

Weiss United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4042 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION

2 The Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in

3 New York City, New York, shall be known and designated

4 as the ‘‘Ted Weiss United States Courthouse’’.

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

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

8 States courthouse referred to in section 2 shall be deemed

9 to be a reference to the ‘‘Ted Weiss United States Court10 house’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 27,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40387

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee 

v. 

JUAN CANAS CERVANTES-SANDOVAL, 

 Defendant - Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:14-CR-810-1 

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Canas Cervantes-Sandoval appeals the sentence he received 

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. The sole issue is whether 

the district court committed reversible error in imposing a sixteen-level 

increase under U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on its 

determination that Cervantes-Sandoval was previously deported following a 

conviction for a crime of violence (“COV”). 

 

* 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

December 13, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40387 Document: 00513794418 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2016
No. 15-40387

2 

Cervantes-Sandoval contends that his prior conviction for aggravated 

assault under Ga. Code § 16-5-21(a) is not a COV because the least culpable 

act under the statute: (1) does not meet the generic, contemporary definition of 

“aggravated assault” in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2; and (2) does not have as an element 

the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another. 

The arguments that Cervantes-Sandoval has raised are identical to 

those rejected by this Court in United States v. Torres-Jaime, 821 F.3d 577, 

581–85 (5th Cir. 2016). As Cervantes-Sandoval concedes, Torres-Jaime is 

binding precedent that forecloses his arguments, even in the wake of Mathis v. 

United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). See United States v. Hernandez-Cifuentes, 

No. 16-40550, 2016 WL 6210703, at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 24, 2016). Accordingly, 

for the reasons explained in Torres-Jaime, the district court did not err in 

determining that Cervantes-Sandoval’s prior conviction for aggravated assault 

was a COV and applying the sixteen-level § 2L1.2(b) enhancement. The 

judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-40387 Document: 00513794418 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2016
#### George Wahlheimer, Appellant, v. William Bianchi and Others, Respondents.

— Judgment modified by striking out extra allowance, and as modified affirmed, without costs. Ro opinion. Settle order on notice.
#### James A. Tedford v. Solomon Lichtenstein.

Motion granted to the extent stated in memorandum per curiam. Settle-order on notice.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 680

To extend the time for construction of certain FERC licensed hydro projects.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1995

Mr. SOLOMON (for himself and Mr. MCNULTY) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To extend the time for construction of certain FERC licensed

hydro projects.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION.

4 Notwithstanding the limitations of section 13 of the

5 Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Com6 mission, upon the request of the licensee or licensees for

7 FERC projects numbered 4244 and 10648 (and after rea8 sonable notice), is authorized in accordance with the good

9 faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of

10 such section 13 and the Commission’s procedures under

11 such section, to extend the time required for commence-
2

•HR 680 IH

1 ment of construction for each of such projects for up to

2 a maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This section

3 shall take effect for the projects upon the expiration of

4 the extension (issued by the Commission under such sec5 tion 13) of the period required for commencement of con6 struction of each such project.

Æ
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 MapInfo Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Mark P. Cattini, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

             (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
#### In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Donald Gene HIATT, Deceased.

No. 69633.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 10, 1996.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1997.

Jerome R. Mandelstamm, St. Louis, for appellant.

Mark S. Vincent, Union, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shona Scott, daughter of decedent, appeals from the trial court’s order awarding the Personal Representative of the Estate, Linda Sue Hiatt, $24,854.17 for reimbursement of expenses paid to preserve the estate’s assets. Scott purports to have four points relied on, though she does not reference them in the Argument section of her brief. In her argument, she alleges the trial court erred in awarding the reimbursement expenses because the personal representative failed to uphold her fiduciary duty to the estate and that the personal representative failed to close the estate within the time required by § 473.540, RSMo 1986. We affirm.

We note that neither Scott nor any other interested party ever properly brought these questions before the trial court. Contentions not put before the trial court will not be considered on appeal. *Matter of Conserv. Estate of Moehlenpah,*763 S.W.2d 249, 256 (Mo.App. E.D.1988). As nothing further is therefore before the court, we affirm the order of the trial court. Rule 84.16(b).
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 of NMS Communications Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert P. Schechter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

|/s/ ROBERT P. SCHECHTERRobert P. Schechter
Chief Executive Officer
April 1, 2008 | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

This Certification shall not be deemed part of the Report or incorporated by reference into any of the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission by implication or by any reference in any such filings to the Report.

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0                      95
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                  81,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                     359
<INVENTORY>                                          0                  71,475
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                 161,633
<PP&E>                                               0                 291,113
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                 115,428
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                 412,188
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                  85,547
<BONDS>                                              0                 110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                     103
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                  71,024
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                 412,188
<SALES>                                        159,922                 443,510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,922                 443,510
<CGS>                                          133,070                 374,491
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  156,766                 422,239
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (823)                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                  10,123
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,104                  12,462
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,891                   5,113
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (653)                   (414)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,544                   5,527
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,544                   5,527
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29                    0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27                    0.57


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightning Gaming, Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the period ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  (the “Report”), each of us certifies as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
of the United States Code, to the best of our respective knowledge, that:
 
 (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Registrant at the dates and for the periods indicated.
 
 A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
 
 This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
 Date: August 14, 2009
 By:  /s/ Brian Haveson
 Brian Haveson
 Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 Date:  August 14, 2009
 By:  /s/ Robert Ciunci
 Robert Ciunci
 Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 15
                                        
                                        
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
  of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.
Santa Rosa, California

We have reviewed, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the unaudited
interim financial information of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the periods ended January 31, 1996 and 1995 as
indicated in our report (which report makes reference to the report of
other accountants), dated February 14, 1996.  Because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in
your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31,
1996, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements
No. 33-41050, No. 33-26271, No. 33-12276, No. 33-48808, No. 33-65132,
and No. 33-60891 on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement No. 33-61177
and No. 33-65319 on Form S-3.

We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to
Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act, is not considered a part of the
Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a
report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

San Francisco, California
March 14, 1996
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Gallman, Appellant.

[678 NYS2d 517]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), rendered January 16, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s *891assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606).

The defendant has failed to raise any nonfrivolous issues in his supplemental *pro se*brief. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 95-30292

_____________________

MELVIN ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ED DAY, Warden, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(94 CV 1977)

_________________________________________________________________ (August 9, 1995) Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See Local Rule 47.6.
A F F I R M E D.