alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF

TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rewards Network Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, George S. Wiedemann, President and Chief Executive 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:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



August 5, 2004



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ George S. Wiedemann                                  
|George S. Wiedemann President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Patrick Nicole SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden; Charles M. Condon, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-6894.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 5, 2003.

Decided Aug. 18, 2003.

Patrick Nicole Scott, Appellant pro se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Scott, a South Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Scott that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Scott failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. *See Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Scott has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

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.

*DISMISSED.*

..........
# Minority Enterprise Development Week, 2008 

The opportunities of America make our land a beacon of hope for people from every corner of the world.  America's minority-owned businesses contribute greatly to our economy and the richness of our country. During Minority Enterprise Development Week, we recognize minority entrepreneurs and recommit ourselves to fostering an environment where everyone can attain the American dream. 

In America, people's dreams matter more than their background.  Across our country, minority business owners are working hard to achieve their goals and helping to extend the promises of America to their fellow citizens.  These businesses and their employees are vital contributors to our national prosperity. 

My Administration has lowered taxes, supported pro-growth policies, and enacted an economic stimulus package to encourage small and medium-sized business growth.  By keeping more money in the hands of families and small businesses, they can save, invest, spend, and give back to their communities.  Our economy is resilient and dynamic because Americans are the most industrious, creative, and enterprising people in the world and because we believe in a free market economy that rewards those qualities. 

During Minority Enterprise Development Week, we recognize the value minority entrepreneurs and their employees add to our country.  They are vital to our Nation's economic strength and an essential part of our national heritage. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim August 31 through September 6, 2008, as Minority Enterprise Development Week. I call upon all Americans to celebrate this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities to recognize the many contributions of our Nation's minority enterprises. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fifth day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third. 

[FR Doc. E8-20195

Billing code 3195-01-P
#### BROWN et al. v. MAYFIELD.

No. 7840.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Oct. 31, 1952.

See also, 45 So.2d 912.

Meadors, Shaw & Meadors, Ho-mer, for appellant.

Blanchard, Goldstein, Walker & O’Quin,. Shreveport, for appellee.

McINNIS, Judge.

This is a suit for a declaratory judgment in plaintiffs’ favor decreeing them to be the owners of % interest in the oil, gas and other minerals underlying certain lands in-, the Haynesville field in Claiborne Parish.

Judgment was rendered and signed in the district court in favor of plaintiffs.

Defendant appeals suspensively and de-volutively to this court.

The record is bare of any proof, of the-value of the mineral interest. in contest. In the minutes of court is incorporated! the following stipulation: “It is stipulated, by counsel for -both plaintiffs and defendant that the property involved in this suit is. worth more than $100.00 but less- than: $2,000.00.”

Our appreciation of the law is that jurisdiction for purposes of appeal cannot be-conferred by agreement of the parties. Martin v. Carroll, 220 La. 481, 56 So.2d 843; Tucker v. Woodside, 218 La. 708, 50 So.2d 814 and cases cited.

For these reasons this cause is remanded to the district court for the purpose of taking evidence as to the value of the mineral interest in contest. Costs of this appeal to be equally divided between plaintiffs and defendant, taxing other costs to-await final determination of the controversy.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.5

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Prime Hospitality Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas
W. Vicari, Chief 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:

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

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

/s/ Douglas W. Vicari
    -----------------

Douglas W. Vicari
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003
18586.

#### Gary *v.*Johnson *et al.*

Argued May 12, 1954

Decided May 31, 1954.

*Clinton J. Morgan, Andrews & Covington,*for plaintiff in error.

*Newell Edenfield, Parker, Clary & Kent,*contra.

Sutton, Justice.

1. Where a marriage contract is entered into between a man and woman, and later a divorce is granted to the wife but not to the husband, and the husband’s disabilities under the marriage contract are not removed as provided in Code (Ann.) § 30-122; and where he later enters into another marriage contract with another woman, who sues him for divorce and his disabilities are removed under that marriage contract in the second divorce proceeding; and he thereafter enters into a third marriage contract with another woman without his disabilities under the first marriage contract ever having been removed, his first spouse still being in life, the third marriage contract is invalid, for the reason that he was not eligible to enter into said marriage contract as he was under a disability to marry again by reason of the first marriage contract. *Bell*v. *Bell,*206 *Ga.*194 (56 S. E. 2d 289).

2. Code (Ann.) § 30-122 (Ga. L. 1946, p. 90), providing that, “when a divorce shall be granted, the jury or the judge, as the case may be, shall determine the rights and disabilities of the parties,” is not violative of the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions, as contended by the plaintiff in error, on the ground that said statute is so vague, indefinite, and discriminatory as to deny equal protection and due process of law.

3. Under these circumstances and the law applicable thereto, the third purported wife could not legally maintain the present action against a sheriff and his bondsmen for damages for the alleged negligent homicide of such named person as her husband, on the theory that she was his lawful wife. The ruling in *Dillard*v. *Dillard,*197 *Ga.*726 (30 S. E. 2d 621), cited and relied on by counsel for the plaintiff in error; does not authorize or require a ruling in the present case different from the one here made.

4. Consequently, the trial judge did not err in sustaining the defendants’ plea in bar to the present suit and in dismissing the action, on the ground that the plaintiff was not .the lawful widow of the deceased.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 19 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.19

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                            Joint Resolution

 
Providing for the appointment of Walter E. Massey as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by 
reason of the expiration of the term of Frank A. Shrontz of Washington 
on May 4, 2000, is filled by the appointment of Walter E. Massey of 
Georgia. The appointment is for a term of 6 years and shall take effect 
on the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6910 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6910

                   For the relief of Igor Klyuchenko.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2022

Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Igor Klyuchenko.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR IGOR KLYUCHENKO.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Igor Klyuchenko shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Igor Klyuchenko enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall 
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Igor Klyuchenko, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 2, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the aliens' 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the aliens' birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Igor 
Klyuchenko shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### CITY OF HOLLYWOOD et al. v. STATE ex rel. WINTERS.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division A.

July 29, 1936.

C. H. Landefeld, Jr., of Hollywood, for plaintiffs in error.

Casey & Walton, of Miami, and Hope Strong, of Winter Park, and William K. Whitfield, of Tallahassee, for defendant in error.

DAVIS, Justice.

In this case it was stipulated and agreed by counsel for plaintiffs in error and by counsel for defendant in' error that the legal questions involved in the above-styled cause are identical with those involved in that certain cause wherein the City of Fort Lauderdale et al. are plaintiffs in error and State ex rel. Elston Bank & Trust Company, etc., is defendant in error (Fla.) 169 So. 584, which last-mentioned case has this day been decided by affirming the .judgment rendered therein. It has further been stipulated' between the counsel aforesaid that this cause may be disposed of upon the basis of the briefs and argument submitted in the said Fort Lau-derdale Case this day decided.

Therefore, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties filed herein and in consideration of the disposition of the companion case aforesaid, it is now considered, ordered, and adjudged that the judgment of the circuit court appealed from in this case be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Affirmed.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and TERRELL, BROWN, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

ELLIS, P. J., not participating.
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 33

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting

the right to a clean, safe, and sustainable environment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 6, 2001

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States respecting the right to a clean, safe, and sustainable environment.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States:
2

•HJ 33 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. All citizens of the United States shall

3 have a right to a clean, safe, and sustainable environment,

4 which right shall not be denied or abridged by the United

5 States or any State.

6 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to imple7 ment this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Macromolecular Structure and Function C Study Section, October 6, 2008, 8 a.m. to October 7, 2008, 6 p.m., Georgetown Suites, 1111 30th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 21, 2008, 73 FR 49465-49467.                 

The meeting will be held one day only October 6, 2008. The meeting time and location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public. 

Dated: August 28, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-20645 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
176 La. 248

#### STATE of Louisiana v. George WOODS.

No. 32112.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 3, 1933.

Mark C. Pickrel and A. W. Lewis, both of Lake Charles, for appellant.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John J. Ro-bira, Dist. Atty., and Sam H. Jones, Asst. Dist Atty., both of Lake Charles (James ■O’Niell, Asst, to Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the State.

ROGERS, J.

Defendant was indicted for murder and found guilty as charged in an unqualified verdict. He appeals from the verdict and the sentence imposed thereunder.

There is no bill of exception nor assignment of errors in the record. We find no error in the proceedings. Under these circumstances, there is nothing for us to do, but to affirm the verdict and sentence.

For the reasons assigned, the verdict and sentence herein appealed from are affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Piero Angelo MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-31081.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

*399PER CURIAM.*

Piero Angelo Morales pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of distribution of cocaine and ecstasy. The district court sentenced him to 115 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release. Morales now appeals the district court’s judgment. Morales argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in litigating his involuntariness claim during sentencing.

As a general rule, this court declines to review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, although we may do so in exceptional cases. *See United States v. Higdon,*832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir.1987); *United States v. Gibson,*55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir.1995); *see also Massaro v. United States,*— U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). This is not the exceptional case. Accordingly, we decline to review Morales’ ineffective-assistance claim in this direct appeal. The judgment of the district court is 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,211,332
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,001,155
<ALLOWANCES>                                   242,692
<INVENTORY>                                  9,066,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,291,977
<PP&E>                                      42,173,662
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,503,252
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,516,098
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,526,612
<BONDS>                                     15,144,738
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,047
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,774,701
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,516,098
<SALES>                                     41,442,780
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,685,528
<CGS>                                       32,718,007
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,753,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             629,169
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,302,763
<INCOME-TAX>                                   846,511
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,456,252
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,456,252
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
        

</TABLE>