alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BEDFORD
HOLDINGS, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             10,878
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                     0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                   0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                     0
<PP&E>                                             21,990
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     75,149
<SHORT-TERM>                                            0
<PAYABLES>                                              0
<REPOS-SOLD>                                            0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                     0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                      0
<LONG-TERM>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           21,263
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,074,301)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       75,149
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                       0
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                                  573
<COMMISSIONS>                                       6,779
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                           0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                153,144
<COMPENSATION>                                     50,564
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (202,047)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       (202,047)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (202,047)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.01)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2
                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 Quarterly Report of Manchester Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Elan Yaish, Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

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

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


Date: March 11, 2004        /S/ Elan Yaish
                               -----------------------------------------

                            Elan Yaish
                            Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                              Inland Resources Inc.
                        410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700
                             Denver, Colorado 80202


                                 March 26, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Release Nos. 33-8070; 34-45590;
35-27503; 39-2395; IA-2018; IC-25464; FR-62; File No. S7-03-02, this letter is
to confirm that Inland Resources Inc. has received assurance from its
independent public accountants, Arthur Andersen LLP ("Arthur Andersen"), that
Arthur Andersen's audit of our consolidated financial statements as of December
31, 2001 and for the year then ended (the "Audit") was subject to Arthur
Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice
to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
with professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur
Andersen personnel working on the Audit, availability of national office
consultation, and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur
Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the Audit.



                                             INLAND RESOURCES INC.



                                             /s/ Bill I. Pennington
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             President & Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                          Item 6 (a), Exhibit 11



                  Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund
             Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Common Share
                                For the Periods


<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                  January 1, 1998        January 1, 1997 
                                      through                through
                                  March 31, 1998         March 31, 1998  
                                  --------------         --------------
                                    (unaudited)            (unaudited)
<S>                                 <C>                <C> 
Net Income (Loss)                    $    4,169            $  (8,173)
                                     ==========            =========

Weighted Average Number of
Common Shares Outstanding             2,210,434              250,000
                                     ==========            =========

Earning (Loss) per Common Share      $     0.00            $    (.03)
                                     ==========            =========
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1955 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1955

To redesignate the Raystown Lake located on the Raystown Branch of the 
      Juniata River in Pennsylvania, as the ``Bud Shuster Lake''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2001

  Mr. Young of Alaska (for himself, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. 
   DeFazio) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To redesignate the Raystown Lake located on the Raystown Branch of the 
      Juniata River in Pennsylvania, as the ``Bud Shuster Lake''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Raystown Lake located on the Raystown Branch of the Juniata 
River in Pennsylvania shall be known and redesignated as the ``Bud 
Shuster Lake''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the lake referred to in section 1 shall 
be deemed to be a reference to the ``Bud Shuster Lake''.
                                 <all>
```
* 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

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10706

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDRES BARBOSA-GIL, also known as Andres

Barboas-Guel, also known as Andres

Guel Barbosa,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CR-44-ALL-L

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andres Barbosa-Gil appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Barbosa-Gil complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. 

Barbosa-Gil thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the

maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 
No. 03-10706

-2-

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Barbosa-Gil acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

V.

ExxonMobil Corporation, et al.

O R D E R

Civil No. 07-cv-60

All of the judges in this district were recused from

presiding over this case. Accordingly, the case shall be

referred to the District of Rhode Island; sitting by designation.

The recusal of all of the judges on this court gives rise to

an "emergency" with respect to the referred case as that term is

used in 28 U.S.C. § 636(f). I therefore concur in the assignment

of a magistrate judge from the designated district to perform the

duties specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c).

SO ORDERED.

May 2, 2007

cc: Clerk, USDC, Rhode Island

Jeffrey K. Sands, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 11 Filed 05/07/07 Page 1 of 2
Concurring Order

I concur that an emergency exists as specified above and

that for the duration of this case Magistrate Judge David L. Martin

is assigned to perform such duties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c)

as may be assigned to him/her by the district judge to whom this

case is assigned.

Chief J4Llge, Assignee District

Date:

cc: Jeffrey K. Sands,.Esq.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 11 Filed 05/07/07 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Simulations Plus, Inc., a California
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended November 30,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
Walter S. Woltosz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Momoko A. Beran,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify,
pursuant of ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that
to his/her 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/S/ WALTER S. WOLTOSZ
-----------------------
Walter S. Woltosz
Chief Executive Officer
January 16, 2005


/S/ MOMOKO A. BERAN
-----------------------
Momoko A. Beran
Chief Financial Officer
January 16, 2005

(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Simulations Plus, Inc. and will be retained by Simulations Plus,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin Cruz, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 421]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered January 22, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing a sentence of 20 years to life, with a mandatory surcharge and crime victims assistance fee in the sum of $210.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the mandatory surcharge and crime victims assistance fee *566from the sum of $210 to the sum of $155; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court erred in imposing a mandatory surcharge and crime victims assistance fee in the sum of $210 since Penal Law § 60.35 required a mandatory surcharge and crime victims assistance fee in the sum of $155 at the time the criminal acts underlying the instant convictions were committed (see Penal Law § 60.35; *People v Moye,*4 AD3d 488, 489 [2004]).

The issue of the excessiveness of the defendant’s sentence is not properly before this Court since he waived his right to appeal.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Crane, J.P., Luciano, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 426

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1811

[Report No. 107–688] 

To provide permanent funding for the payment in lieu of taxes program, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2001

Mr. MCINNIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2002

Additional sponsors: Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. WALDEN of Oregon, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. BALDACCI, Mr. 

SIMPSON, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. OTTER, 

Mr. HERGER, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. OSE, 

Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. THUNE, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. FROST, 

Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. STUMP, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. DOOLEY of California, 

Mr. SCHAFFER, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. CANNON, and Mr. WILSON of South 

Carolina 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2002

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

A BILL

To provide permanent funding for the payment in lieu of 

taxes program, and for other purposes.
2

•HR 1811 RH 

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 ‘‘PILT and Refuge Rev5 enue Sharing Permanent Funding Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMANENT FUNDING FOR PILT AND REFUGE REV7 ENUE SHARING. 

8 (a) PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES.—Section 6906 of 

9 title 31, United States Code, is amended to read as fol10 lows: 

11 ‘‘§ 6901. Authorization of appropriations 

12 ‘‘There is authorized to be appropriated such sums 

13 as may be necessary to the Secretary of the Interior to 

14 carry out this chapter. Beginning in fiscal year 2002 and 

15 each fiscal year thereafter, amounts authorized under this 

16 chapter shall be made available to the Secretary of the 

17 Interior, out of any other funds in the Treasury not other18 wise appropriated and without further appropriation, for 

19 obligation or expenditure in accordance with this chap20 ter.’’. 

21 (b) REFUGE REVENUE SHARING.—Section 401(d) of 

22 the Act of June 15, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 715s(d)), relating 

23 to refuge revenue sharing, is amended by adding at the 

24 end the following: ‘‘Beginning in fiscal year 2002 and each 

25 fiscal year thereafter, such amount shall be made available 
3

•HR 1811 RH 

1 to the Secretary, out of any other funds in the Treasury 

2 not otherwise appropriated and without further appropria3 tion, for obligation or expenditure in accordance with this 

4 section.’’. 
Union Calendar No. 426

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1811

[Report No. 107–688] 

A BILL

To provide permanent funding for the payment in 

lieu of taxes program, and for other purposes. 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2002

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
#### STEINTHAL v. ARLINGTON SAMPLE BOOK CO.

No. 6464.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Feb. 4, 1938.

*749Harry Langsam, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Russel W. Leary, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

John F. Thaete and Walter T. Fahy, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before BUFFINGTON, THOMPSON, and BIGGS, Circuit Judges.

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania holding Steinthal patent No. 1,941,634 valid and infringed, but denying to plaintiff-appellant damages or profits. Sometime in July, 1933, while the appellant’s application for a patent was pending, his licensee manufactured a considerable number of loose-leaf books in accordance with the invention. These books contained no notice that they were manufactured in accordance with a pending patent. .On January 2, 1934, the Steinthal patent issued and on and after that date all loose-leaf books' manufactured by the licensee under the patent were marked “Patent No. 1,941,634.” In 1935 the appellee manufactured loose-leaf books and admittedly used as a model the books manufactured by the licensee prior to the patent. Suit was instituted on April 1, 1936, and upon the same day the appellee discontinued manufacturing the infringing device. The District Court refused to allow an accounting. The sole question is in respect to the construction of 35 U.S.C.A. § 49, which provides: “It shall be the duty of all patentees and their assigns and legal representatives, and of all persons making or vending any patented article for or under them, to give sufficient notice to the public that the same is patented; either by fixing thereon the word ‘patent,’ together with the number of the patent, or when, from the character of the article, this can not be done, by fixing to it, or to the package wherein rone or more of them is inclosed, a label containing the like notice: Provided, however, That with respect to any patent issued prior to April 1, 1927, it shall be sufficient to give such notice in the form following, viz.: ‘Patented,’ together with the day and year the patent was granted; and in any suit for infringement by the party failing so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the plaintiff, except on proof that 'the defendant was duly notified of.the infringement and continued, after such notice, to make, use, or vend the article so patented.” It is admitted that the loose-leaf book which the appellee copied contained no notice of the patent and that the appellee was not given actual notice of the pending patent.

The so-called “marking statute” requires more than registration in the Patent Office. Until such time as the manufactured article is marked “patented” there is no actual notice to the public that the article is protected by the patent laws.

The decree of the District Court' is affirmed.
|                                                   |   |                    |                      | Percentage               |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                                                   |   |                    |                      | of                Voting |   |
|                                                   |   |                    |                      | Securities               |   |
|                                                   |   | State                of |                      | Owned                By  |   |
|                                                   |   | Incorporation           |                      | Registrant               |   |
|                                                   |   |                    |                      |                     |   |
| Compupower                Corporation                  |   |                    | Delaware                  |                     |   | 100 | % |
|                                                   |   |                    |                      |                     |   |   |   |
| Value                Line Securities, Inc.             |   |                    | New                York   |                     |   | 100 | % |
|                                                   |   |                    |                      |                     |   |   |   |
| The                Vanderbilt Advertising Agency, Inc. |   |                    | New                York   |                     |   | 100 | % |
|                                                   |   |                    |                      |                     |   |   |   |
| Value                Line Publishing, Inc.             |   |                    | New                York   |                     |   | 100 | % |
|                                                   |   |                    |                      |                     |   |   |   |
| Value                Line Distribution Center, Inc.    |   |                    | New                Jersey |                     |   | 100 | % |
|                                                   |   |                    |                      |                     |   |   |   |
| EULAV                Asset Management, LLC             |   |                    | Delaware                  |                     |   | 100 | % |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-94-PB

Peter Mitrano

O R D E R

The defendant has moved through counsel to continue the

trial scheduled for May 19, 2009, citing a scheduling conflict

with the trial date and the need for additional time to engage in

plea negotiations. 

Having noted the government’s objection to a continuance, 

the court will continue the trial from May 19, 2009 to July 7,

2009 to allow the parties time engage in plea negotiations or 

properly prepare for trial. In agreeing to continue the trial,

the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for

the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice served in granting

a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial.

No further continuances will be granted.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 12, 2009

Case 1:08-cr-00094-PB Document 95 Filed 05/12/09 Page 1 of 2
2

cc: Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00094-PB Document 95 Filed 05/12/09 Page 2 of 2