alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OKLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2002 of Sport
Chalet, Inc. (the "Company") fully complied with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in such report.

/s/   CRAIG L. LEVRA
------------------------------------
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President


/s/   HOWARD K. KAMINSKY
-------------------------------------
Executive Vice President-Finance,
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary


                                       48
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50392 Summary Calendar

FRANK IVY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CV-824

- - - - - - - - - - January 30, 1998 Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Frank Ivy, federal prisoner # 52524-080, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant in this 28 U.S.C. § 1331 civil action for return of seized property. Ivy argues that the DEA should be liable for the loss of his property; that the district court abused its discretion in not ruling on his oral motion for return of property; and that the district court was not limited to consideration of equitable relief but that the district court had jurisdiction to awardNo. 97-50392 -2- monetary damages pursuant to Bivens , the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 702, and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2675. He also argues that the district court erred in holding that his state law remedies were adequate. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons given by the district court. Ivy v. United States , No. A-95-CA824-JN (W.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 1997).
AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1920 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1920

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To extend for 6 months the period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of 
                  the United States Code is reenacted.

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

SECTION 1. SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR WHICH CHAPTER 12 OF TITLE 
              11, UNITED STATES CODE IS REENACTED.

    (a) Amendments.--Section 149 of title I of division C of Public Law 
105-277 (11 U.S.C. 1201 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``January 1, 2004'' each place it appears 
        and inserting ``July 1, 2004''; and
            (2) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``June 30, 2003'' and inserting 
                ``December 31, 2003''; and
                    (B) by striking ``July 1, 2003'' and inserting 
                ``January 1, 2004''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on January 1, 2004.

            Passed the Senate November 25, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1920

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To extend for 6 months the period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of 
                  the United States Code is reenacted.
```
EXHIBIT 99.1



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 Quarterly Report of Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher M. Gleeson, 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; 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/ Christopher M. GleesonChristopher M. Gleeson Chief Executive Officer May 2, 2003
#### JOSEPH G. SCIARRILLO v. MARIA SCIARRILLO.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from June 30,
1996 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           8,533
<SECURITIES>                                 2,410,280
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,535
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   458
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,438,806
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,224,297
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           159
<OTHER-SE>                                     214,150
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,438,806
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,395
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,128
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,967
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .83
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                  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 transition report of Nimbus Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael Wellikoff, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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.


Date: December 11, 2003


/s/Michael Wellikoff
----------------------------------
Michael Wellikoff
Interim Chief  Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12


                              EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO
                        NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN
                      FOR EMPLOYEES OF ACQUIRED COMPANIES


         THIS EIGHTH AMENDMENT (the "Eighth Amendment") is made effective as of
the 20th day of January, 2000, by PER-SE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation formerly known as Medaphis Corporation (the "Company").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted the Medaphis Corporation
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Employees of Acquired Companies, as amended
(the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Company has duly authorized an amendment of the Plan to reflect the recent name
change of the Company, and to decrease the number of shares available for grant
pursuant to the Plan from 1,505,000 shares (as adjusted to reflect a
one-for-three reverse stock split effective November 23, 1999) to 1,320,000
shares.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the name
"Medaphis Corporation" from the Plan and replacing such name with the name
"Per-Se Technologies, Inc."

         FURTHER, Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting Section 3
of the Plan in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

                                     "ss. 3

                         SHARES RESERVED UNDER THE PLAN

         There shall be 1,320,000 shares of Stock reserved for issuance under
         this Plan, and such shares of Stock shall be reserved to the extent
         that the Company deems appropriate from authorized but unissued shares
         of Stock and from shares of Stock which have been repurchased by the
         Company. Furthermore, any shares of Stock subject to an Option that
         remain unissued after the cancellation or expiration of such Option
         thereafter shall again become available for use under this Plan."


         FURTHER, except as specifically amended by this Eighth Amendment, the
Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Eighth Amendment.


<PAGE>   2

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Eighth Amendment to be
executed on the day and year first above written.


                                   PER-SE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



                                   By: /s/ ALLEN W. RITCHIE
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Allen W. Ritchie
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer


ATTEST:



By:/s/ RANDOLPH L. M. HUTTO
   ----------------------------------
   Randolph L. M. Hutto
   Secretary
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50848

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-1949-1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Gutierrez-Garcia (Gutierrez) appeals the 44-month withinguidelines sentence he received following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. 

Gutierrez argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to meet the 

sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He specifically contends that the 

guidelines sentencing range was too severe in light of his difficult personal 

history, his benign motives for returning, and his minimal criminal history. 

* 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

July 9, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50848 Document: 00512691087 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2014
No. 13-50848

Additionally, Gutierrez asserts that his sentence is not entitled to a 

presumption of correctness because the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2, is not empirically based, as it gives undue weight to a defendant’s prior 

convictions.

We review sentences for substantive reasonableness, in light of the 

§ 3553(a) factors, under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). As he concedes, Gutierrez’s empirical data argument 

is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 

528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 

357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, Gutierrez’s sentence, which is in the 

middle of the applicable guidelines range, is presumed reasonable. See United 

States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). His general disagreement 

with the propriety of his sentence and the district court’s weighing of the 

§ 3553(a) factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that 

attaches to a within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 

173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 

(5th Cir. 2008).

Gutierrez has not demonstrated that the district court abused its 

discretion by sentencing him to a within-guidelines sentence of 44 months in 

prison. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Consequently, the judgment of the district 

court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-50848 Document: 00512691087 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2014
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.33

                   AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT DATED JULY 29, 1999


         This amendment (the "Amendment") to Agreement ("Agreement") dated July
29, 1999 by and between Dr. Graham J. Siddall ("Siddall") and Credence Systems
Corporation ("Credence") is dated as of March 7, 2000.

         WHEREAS, the Company and Siddall entered into the Agreement to cover a
variety of employment matters;

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors and Dr. Siddall would like to amend the
Agreement to modify one of the provisions therein;

         NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that for good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree that the section
entitled "Change of Control" be and hereby is amended and restated to read in
full as follows:

                  "CHANGE OF CONTROL: Provided the parties enter into a mutual
                  general release, mutual nondisparagement and nonsolicitation
                  and confidentiality agreement, in the event of a (i) Change of
                  Control (as defined in the Credence Systems Corporation
                  Addendum to the Stock Option Agreement), and (ii) at any time
                  after such Change of Control, the Company or its successor
                  terminates you without Cause or you leave for Good Reason or
                  you die, the Company or its successor shall pay you or your
                  estate as soon as practicable after such date of termination
                  an amount equal to 200% of your then effective annual base
                  salary and 200% of your target bonus and the Company shall
                  immediately accelerate the vesting on all your unvested stock
                  options."

         RESOLVED FURTHER that no other changes shall be made to the Agreement
with this Amendment and the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as
so amended by this Amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties below hereby ratify and approve this
Amendment.

                                       CREDENCE SYSTEMS CORPORATION


                                       /S/WARREN T. LAZAROW
                                       -----------------------------------------


                                       /S/GRAHAM J. SIDDALL
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       GRAHAM J. SIDDALL
#### Eaton *v.*The State, on the Relation of Baird.

*Friday, January*26, 1844.

An information in the nature of *quo warranto,*under the statute, for usurping, &e. an office, should be exhibited by the prosecuting attorney, and should commence as follows: ./2. *B.,*prosecuting attorney of the-judicial circuit of the state of *Indiana,*comes here into the Circuit Court of the county of-, on, &c., and for the said state, on the relation of C. *D.,*of, &c., according to the form of the statute in such case made and ■ provided, gives the Court here to understand and be informed, &c.

APPEAL from the *Randolph*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

— This was an information in the nature of *quo warranto.*The information commences as follows : The state of Indiana, on the Relation of *George W.*Baird, v. *Ariel K. Eaton.*On information for writ of *quo warranto.*The said *George W.*Baird, the relator in this behalf, for and in the name of the state of Indiana, comes now here into the said *Randolph*Circuit Court, by *John M.*Wallace, prosecuting attorney of the eleventh judicial circuit of the state of Indiana, and gives the Court now here to understand and be informed, that said *Ariel K.*Eaton, late of said county, gentleman, on the 15th of September, 1841, was then and there county auditor, &c.

Special demurrer to the information, assigning as cause of demurrer, that the relator, instead of the prosecuting attorney, gives the Court to.understand, &c. Demurrer overruled, and judgment of ouster rendered against the defendant.

The statute on the subject of these informations enacts, that whenever any person or persons shall usurp, &c., any public office, &c., it shall be lawful for the prosecuting at*66torney of the proper Circuit Court, to exhibit and file in said Court one or more informations against such person or persons in the nature of *quo*warranto, on the relation of any person or persons desiring to prosecute the same, who shall be mentioned in such information or informations as the relator or relators against the person, persons, or associations thus charged, and to proceed, &c. R. S. 1838, p. 408.

*J.*Smith, for the appellant.

*J.*Brownlee, for the appellee.

According to this statute, which is similar to the statute of *Anne*on the subject, the information in question is defective for the cause assigned in the demurrer. The information should have been exhibited, not by the relator, but by the prosecuting attorney, and should have commenced as follows : *John M. Wallace,*prosecuting attorney of the eleventh judicial circuit of the state of Indiana, comes here into the Circuit Court of the county of Randolph, on, &c., and for the said state, on the relation of *George W.*Baird, of, &c., according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, gives, the Court here to understand and be informed, &c.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed at the costs of the relator. Cause remanded, &c.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00216-CR

Mario CASTILLO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 299th District Court, Travis County, Texas

Trial Court No. D-1-DC-09-207014

Honorable Karen Sage, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE BARNARD

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED April 20, 2016.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Presented to

in recognition of your 

service and leadership

to become a 

Gold Award Girl Scout.

Your dedication and 

commitment to making 

the world a better place 

is an inspiration to the 

next generation of leaders.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1651

For the relief of Gustav F.K. Wallner. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2003

Mr. STEVENS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Gustav F.K. Wallner.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE. 

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for pur5 poses of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

6 1101 et seq.), Gustav F.K. Wallner shall be held and con7 sidered to have been lawfully admitted to the United 

8 States for permanent residence as of the date of the enact9 ment of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee. 

10 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS. 

11 Upon the granting of permanent residence to Gustav 

12 F.K. Wallner as provided in this Act, the Secretary of 
2

•S 1651 IS 

1 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1 dur2 ing the current fiscal year the total number of immigrant 

3 visas available to natives of the country of the alien’s birth 

4 under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

5 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).

Æ
#### In the Matter of Clarence McCants, Appellant, v Brion D. Travis, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole Services, Respondent.

[788 NYS2d 625]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Keegan, J.), entered March 8, 2004 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Since the determination giving rise to this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner has reappeared before the Board of Parole and again was denied parole release. Given petitioner’s subsequent reappearance before the Board in December 2004, the instant matter is now moot and must be dismissed *(see Matter of Benitez v New York State Div. of Parole,*10 AD3d 743 [2004]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.