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

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.

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 ‘‘Sea of Okhotsk Fish5 eries Enforcement Act of 1995’’.
2

•HR 715 RH

1 SEC. 2. FISHING PROHIBITION.

2 The Central Bering Sea Fisheries Enforcement Act

3 of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 1823 note) is amended—

4 (1) in section 302, by inserting ‘‘and the

5 Central Sea of Okhotsk’’ after ‘‘Central Bering

6 Sea’’; and

7 (2) in section 306—

8 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3),

9 (4), (5), and (6) in order as paragraphs (3),

10 (4), (5), (6), and (7); and

11 (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the

12 following:

13 ‘‘(2) CENTRAL SEA OF OKHOTSK.—The term

14 ‘Central Sea of Okhotsk’ means the central Sea of

15 Okhotsk area which is more than two hundred nau16 tical miles seaward of the baseline from which the

17 breadth of the territorial sea of the Russian Federa18 tion 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 Enof the United States. Central Sea of Okhotsk by vessels and nationals forcement Act of 1992 to prohibit fishing in the

FEBRUARY 21, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60341 S u m m ary C al en da r S A LVA D O R C A B A L L E R O -H E R N A N D E Z , P et i t i on er v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U . S . A T T O R N E YG E N E R A L , R esp on d en t

P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder of

t h e B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 094- 953- 167 B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d D AV IS an d W IE N E R , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * S alvad or C abell ero- H erna n dez peti t i on s th i s c ou rtf or r evi ew of

t h e B oard o f Im m ig r a t io n A p p e a ls ’ d e c is io n s u m m a r il y a ff ir m in g t h e I m m ig r a t io n J u d g e ’s (“ IJ”) ord er d en yin g h i s ap p l i ca ti o n f or ca n cell a ti on of rem ov a lpu rsu a n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1229 b(b) ( 1) . Peti t i on er c on t est s th e m erit s of t h e I J’ s det erm i n ati on th a t he w a s statu torily in eli gible f or ca n cell a ti on of rem ov a lbe ca u se h e fail edto United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D Februar y 3, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-60341 Document: 00511019853 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 09- 60341

2 de m o ns t r at e t he r e qui s i t e ha r ds hi p. Fur t he r , Pet i t i o ne rc hall e nge s t he c o n s tit u tio n a l b a s is o f 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 2 9 b (b ) a n d1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B ). “T h is co u r tla c k s ju r is d ic tio n to re v ie w th e IJ ’ s [d is c r e tio n a r y] h a r d s h ip d e te r m in a tio n ” u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b )(1 ). R u ed av. A sh cr oft , 380 F . 3d 831, 831 ( 200 4) . P e titi on er’ s r em ai n i n g constit u t i on alcl ai m s are m erit l ess. P et i t i on er r ai ses a du e process chal l en ge t o 8 U . S . C . § 12 29b (b) ( 2) on beh al f of h i s A m eri can chi l dren , bu t “ [l] egal orders of dep ort ati on t o t h ei r parents do not violate a n y co n sti tu ti on a lri gh t of citi ze n ch i l d ren . . . . ” Go n za lez - Cu e v a sv . I NS , 515 F. 2d 1222, 1224 ( 5t h C i r . 1975) . Pet i t i onernextc l ai m s t hat § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) vi o l a t e s t heA d m i ni s t r a t iv e Pr o c e d ur e A c t( “APA” ) , bu t“ t heAPA d oe s n ot ap p l y to de p orta ti on h ea ri n gs u n d er [th e Im m i gr a ti on an dN a ti on a l i ty A ct] . ” Ri v e r a - Cr u zv . I NS , 9 4 8 F .2 d9 6 2 , 9 6 7 n .5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). F o rth e s e re a s o n s , p e tit io n fo rre v ie w is D E N IE D . Case: 09-60341 Document: 00511019853 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

DANIEL C. HARRIS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 674 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2

                Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Paradise, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jack M.
Laskowitz, as Chief Financial Officer of Paradise, Inc., certify 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 my knowledge:


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

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of
          operations of Paradise, Inc.



       /s/ Jack M. Laskowitz            Date:  May 13, 2005
       -----------------------------
       Jack M. Laskowitz
       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### Paula LUA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-55462.

D.C. No. CV-01-0240-MLR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 21, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Paula Lua appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendant in her Rehabilitation Act and Title VII action alleging race, gender, and disability discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Margolis v. Ryan,*140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lua’s Rehabilitation Act and Title VII claims because Lua *995failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her employer disciplined and terminated her due to a discriminatory or retaliatory motive. *See Newland v. Dalton,*81 F.3d 904, 906 (9th Cir.1996) (concluding that a termination based on misconduct rather than the disability itself is not a violation of the Rehabilitation Act); *Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co.,*26 F.3d 885, 891-92 (9th Cir.1994) (Title VII and retaliation); *see also Forsberg v. Pac. Bell N.W. Tel. Co.,*840 F.2d 1409, 1418-19 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[PJurely conclusory allegations of alleged discrimination, with no concrete, relevant particulars, will not bar summary judgment.”).

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lua’s discovery request because none of her requested documents would provide particulars to establish pretext. *See Maljack Prods., Inc. v. GoodTimes Home Video Corp.,*81 F.3d 881, 887-88 (9th Cir.1996) (affirming the district court’s denial of a discovery motion because there was no showing how discovery would have affected summary judgment).

Lua’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The Lincoln National Bank, Special Admr., *v.*Phares, Admr., et al. (Two cases.)

(Nos. 23522 and 23523

Decided May 11, 1932.)

*Messrs. Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly*and *Mr. Henry B. Street,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Carl Phares,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petitions in error be, and tbe same are hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said causes.

*Petitions in error dismissed.*

Jones, Matthias, Allen, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1
        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
            UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:
1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
  required  to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
  10-K  of  GMACM  Home  Loan  Trust  2006-HLTV1  (the  "Exchange  Act  periodic
  reports");
2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
  do 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,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
  information  required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
  this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
  based on my knowledge and the  compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
  servicer  compliance  statements  required in this  report  under Item 1123 of
  Regulation  AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
  the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing  agreements
  in all material respects; and
5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
  asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
  compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed  securities required to be
  included  in this report in  accordance  with Item 1122 of  Regulation  AB and
  Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been  included as an exhibit to this
  report,  except as otherwise  disclosed in this report. Any material instances
  of noncompliance  described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
  on Form 10-K.

  In giving the  certifications  above, I have reasonably  relied on information
  provided to me by the following  unaffiliated  parties:  JPMorgan  Chase Bank,
  N.A. and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.

Date:  March 26, 2007
By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      --------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Executive Vice President
Exhibit 32.2

                Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Paradise, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jack M. Laskowitz, as Chief Financial Officer of Paradise, Inc., certify
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 my knowledge:


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

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of
          operations of Paradise, Inc.



       /s/ Jack M. Laskowitz            Date:  November 15, 2004
       -----------------------------
       Jack M. Laskowitz
       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000074856
<NAME> OREGON METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                             855
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,328
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (938)
<INVENTORY>                                     55,739
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,043
<PP&E>                                         100,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                (65,286)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,297
<BONDS>                                         24,160
<COMMON>                                        10,911
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,108
<SALES>                                        107,199
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               107,199
<CGS>                                           92,486
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   92,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,643
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,093
<INCOME-TAX>                                       544
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                549
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       549
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 15




November 16, 1999



Orion Capital Corporation
Farmington, Connecticut

We have made a review, in accordance with standards  established by the American
Institute of Certified Public  Accountants,  of the unaudited  interim financial
information of Orion Capital  Corporation and subsidiaries for the periods ended
September 30, 1999 and 1998, as indicated in our report dated November 16, 1999;
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  September  30,  1999 is
incorporated  by  reference  in  Registration  Statements  No.  2-80636  and No.
333-58941 on Form S-8 relating to the Orion Capital  Corporation  1982 Long-Term
Performance  Incentive Plan, No. 333-58905 on Form S-8 relating to Orion Capital
Corporation  Equity  Incentive  Plan, No. 2-63344 and No.  333-58889 on Form S-8
relating to the Orion Capital 401(K) and Profit  Sharing Plan, No.  33-59847 and
No.  333-58939 on Form S-8 relating to the Orion Capital  Corporation 1994 Stock
Option Plan for  Non-Employee  Directors,  No. 333-55671 on Form S-8 relating to
Orion Capital  Corporation  Employees'  Stock Purchase Plan, and No.333-62951 on
Form S-8 relating to Retirement  Savings Plan for Employees of Guaranty National
Insurance Company.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report,  pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the  Securities  Act of  1933,  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



Hartford, Connecticut
#### Lilley *v.*Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant.

Argued Oct. 30, 1907.

Appeal, No. 162, Oct. T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Washington Co., Feb. T., 1890, No. 216, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Thomas Lilley, Executor, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, successors to the Pittsburg, Virginia & Charleston Railway Company.

Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.

Appeal dismissed.

*453January 6, 1908:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Stewart,

This is an appeal by the defendant from the same judgment that was considered in the case just decided, ante, p. 447. By agreement of counsel the appeal is dismissed at appellant’s costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Richard MIRELEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-3153.

D.C. No. 01-CR-20116-GTV.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 6, 2003.

*287ORDER ON REHEARING

This case is before the court on a petition for rehearing from our previous decision in *United States v. Mirelez,*No. 02-3153, 2002 WL 31667914, 52 Fed.Appx. 106 (10th Cir. Nov. 27, 2002). In that order and judgment, we affirmed Mr. Mirelez’s conviction, declining to consider his arguments regarding the admissibility of certain evidence because the evidence in question had not been provided for our review. In his petition for rehearing, Mr. Mirelez pointed out that while not previously included in the record before us, the exhibit had in fact been designated as part of the record. With the exhibit now before us, we grant the petition for rehearing and again affirm the decision of the district court.

Mr. Mirelez argues on appeal that the district court erred in admitting his driving record as a self-authenticating document. We review a district court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Hanzlicek,*187 F.3d 1228, 1236 (10th Cir.1999).

Self-authentication is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 902, which states:

Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following: ... (4) Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any Act of Congress or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.

Fed.R.Evid. 902(4).

The exhibit that is the subject of this petition is a copy of Mr. Mirelez’s driving record. This driving record is an official record maintained by the State of Kansas and filed in the Driver Control Bureau of the Division of Vehicles, Department of Revenue, State of Kansas.1 The exhibit contains not only the record itself, but a notarized certification of the correctness of that record executed by a Certification/Suspension Clerk in the Driver Control Bureau and notarized. Suppl. Ree., exhib. 2 at 1. Accordingly, the exhibit satisfies the requirements of the Rule 902(4) pertaining to self-authentication, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the driving record into evidence.

We GRANT the petition for rehearing and AFFIRM Mr. Mirelez’s conviction.

1

. Because the driving record qualifies as a public record under F.R.E. 803(8), and is thus excepted from the hearsay rule, Mr. Mirelez’s arguments regarding hearsay are without merit.
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATIONS 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 Second Quarter Report of OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 5, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David L. Omachinski, Chief Operating and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 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:	July 23, 2003 | By: | /S/DAVID L. OMACHINSKI                       
|                    |     |                                              
|                    |     | David L. Omachinski                          
|                    |     | Executive Vice President, Chief Operating and
|                    |     | Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director    







This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not 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 has been provided to OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. and will be retained by OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.