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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 576 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       October 6, 1998.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4259) to allow Haskell Indian Nations University and the Southwestern 
Indian Polytechnic Institute each to conduct a demonstration project to test the 
feasibility and desirability of new personnel management policies and 
procedures, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. After general debate the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Each section 
of the bill shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused 
it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic 
vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic 
voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**EXHIBT 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Mesaba Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  August 14, 2003 | By:                                                    |  /s/  Paul F. Foley  |   |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                    | Paul F.  Foley                                         |                      |
|                    | President  and Chief Executive Officer                 |
|                    |                                                   |                      |
| Dated:  August 14, 2003 | By:                                                    |  /s/  Robert E. Weil |   |
|                    | Robert E.  Weil                                        |                      |
|                    | Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|                         |                                                        |                           |        |  |

 

A signed original of thiscertification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

1

----
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                November 7, 2005 | by:    |                                                                            |
|---------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   | Hillard                C. Gardner                                               |
|                                  |   | Senior                Vice President and Chief Financial                Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF ICG FUNDING, LLC FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
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-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          12,862
<SECURITIES>                                         0 <F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0 <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0 <F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0 <F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,593
<PP&E>                                               0 <F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0 <F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,116
<BONDS>                                          4,699
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          128,233
<PREFERRED>                                          0 <F1>
<COMMON>                                             0 <F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                         745
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,793
<SALES>                                              0 <F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0 <F1>
<CGS>                                                0 <F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0 <F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 <F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 <F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (414)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,964
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0 <F1>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,964
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 <F1>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 <F1>
<CHANGES>                                            0 <F1>
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,964
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0 <F1>



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 13.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Group Limited (the “Company”) forthe annual period ended 31 December 2006 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Rick Medlock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Periodic Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Date: 27 April 2007
EXHIBIT
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
      quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 of BrightStar Information Technology
      Group, Inc. (the “Form 10-QSB”), I, Brian Burnett, Chief Executive Officer, of
      BrightStar Information Technology Group, Inc., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





|(1) | such
              Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 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 such Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
              ended
              September 30, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
              financial condition and results of operations of BrightStar Information
              Technology Group, Inc.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to BrightStar Information Technology Group,
      Inc. and will be retained by BrightStar Information Technology Group, Inc.
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





Date:
              December 21, 2006
            By:
            /s/ James
              J.
              CahillJames
                J. Cahill
              Chief
                Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
HAVANA REPUBLIC, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FORM 10-QSB FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER 31,1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                        JUL-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                   387,389
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                             10,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                              762,791
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,461,035
<PP&E>                                   781,375
<DEPRECIATION>                           192,010
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         2,518,376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    385,983
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                              760,906
<COMMON>                               4,175,459
<OTHER-SE>                            (3,062,436)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           2,518,376
<SALES>                                  655,027
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         655,027
<CGS>                                    366,142
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            366,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         696,278
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        (407,393)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       285,660
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (684,081)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (684,081)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                            (684,081)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.02)



</TABLE>
#### Juan Carlos VARGAS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-60106.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Jan. 4, 2005.

Salvador Colon, Colon *&*Olvera, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

*370Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Leonard Aaron Schaitman, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division — Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, John S. Koppel, for Respondent.

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Carlos Vargas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Vargas asserts that he has suffered past persecution and fears future persecution on account of his imputed political opinion as a result of his family having strong ties to the military.

Although Vargas identifies the standard of review for withholding of removal applications, he fails to address the issue in the body of the brief. Accordingly, the withholding of removal claim is deemed abandoned. *See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS,*809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986).

When, as here, the BIA adopts without opinion the IJ’s decision, this court reviews the IJ’s decision. *Gomez-Mejia v. INS,*56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir.1995). Here, the IJ’s determination that Vargas has not shown past persecution or a well founded fear of future persecution if returned to El Salvador was supported by substantial evidence. *Id.*Accordingly, Vargas’ petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.
**Exhibit 99.3**

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

Capital One Auto Finance, Inc.

3901 Dallas Parkway

Plano, Texas 75093

 

And

 

JP Morgan Chase Bank

Structured Finance

4 New York Plaza

6th Street

New York, NY 10001

 

We have examined management’sassertion, included in the accompanying *Reportof Management on Compliance*, that Capital One Auto Finance, Inc.(“COAF”),a wholly owned subsidiary of Capital One Financial Corporation, complied in allmaterial respects with the requirements of Sections 2.4(a), 2.4(b), 2.4(c), 3.7, 3.8, 3.9(a), 3.11, 4.2, 4.3(a),4.5, 4.6, and 10.2(e) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 25,2004 regarding the Capital One Auto Finance Trust, 2004-A Class ANotes (the “Agreement”), which was filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K on June 9,2004, for the year ending December 31,2004.  Management is responsiblefor COAF’s compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinionon management’s assertion about COAF’s compliancebased on our examination.

 

Our examination wasconducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the U.S.Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and, accordingly, included examining,on a test basis, evidence about COAF’s compliancewith those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances.  Webelieve that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legaldetermination on COAF’s compliance with specifiedrequirements.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that COAF complied with the aforementioned Sections ofthe Agreement for the year ended December 31, 2004 is fairly stated, inall material respects.

 

 
| /s/ ERNST &  YOUNG LLP |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |
|                            |
| March 15, 2005             |

 

----
9612.

#### Lynchburg Shoe Company *v.*Daniel.

Decided January 14, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of *Morgan—W.*H. Gurr, judge pro has vice. February 18, 1918.

*Erle B. Askew, J. L. Dowling,*for plaintiff.

*E. L. Smith,*for defendant.

Jenkins, J.

1. As between tlie original parties, the consideration of a contract is ordinarily open to inquiry for the purpose of showing either that the consideration was originally illegal, and for this reason the promise so predicated was void, or that the consideration has subsequently failed' in whole or in part, so as no longer to support the promise as made. If such be the real purport and intent of the plea, there results no infringement of the rule which forbids the variance by parol of the expressed terms of a written instrument. It is only when a defendant, under the guise of seeking to inquire into the consideration, is in fact using such privilege merely as a pretext, for the purpose of varying the written terms of the promise itself, that the inhibition of the parol evidence, rule- becomes applicable. *Rheney*v. *Anderson,*22 *Ga. App.*417 (96 S. E. 217).

2. Thus, in a suit against a surety on a promissory note, his plea setting up that he was induced to sign the note by the false and fraudulent representations of the plaintiff’s agent that in consideration of the defendant signing as surety, the plaintiff would proceed to furnish to the principal (a mercantile business) additional goods in a named amount, which promise the plaintiff had failed and refused to perform, and which failure resulted in injury and increased the risk and hazard to defendant, was not subject to general demurrer. *Marchman*v. *Robertson,*77 *Ga.*40. What was said by this court in the case *of McKee*v. *Hurst,*21 *Ga. App.*571 (94 S. E. 886), is not in conflict with the holding here made, since that ruling was based upon the idea that the surety, in subsequently renewing the notes, waived any such defense, he being estopped by reason of his knowledge then had of the facts, or by his negligence in failing to know them.

3. There was evidence sustaining the defendant’s plea, and the judgment of the trial court, overruling the motion for a new trial, can not bo disturbed on the theory that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-1 No. 333-119480-11 and Form S-4 No. 333-115560-15) of Nalco Holdings
LLC and in the related Prospectus of our reports dated February 28, 2006, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Nalco Holdings
LLC, Nalco Holdings LLC management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Nalco Holdings LLC, included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Chicago, Illinois
February 28, 2006
```
#### The People v. Henry Parkhurst.

*Excessive sentence.*

A sentence of imprisonment exceeding the limit allowed by statute can he reversed only for the excess (Oomp. L. § 7998), hut if on reversal, the proper time has already expired he is entitled to an immediate discharge.

Error to Muskegon. (Russell, J.)

April 18.

April 18.

Embezzlement. Respondent was convicted.

Affirmed in part.

Attorney General *Jacob J. Van Riper*for the People.

*Cook, DeLong & Fellows*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The defendant is in confinement in the House of Correction at Ionia, under a sentence for one year, for an ofíense the punishment of which by statue can be for three months oidy. Under the statute (Comp. L.. § 7998) the judgment should be reversed for the excess only ; but as three months have now expired, the defendant is entitled to an immediate discharge.

Ordered accordingly. *t,*
10325.

#### Luke *v.*Gilley.

Decided April 22, 1919.

Trover; from city court of Nashville—Judge Christian. December 30, 1918. (Bill of exceptions signed by Judge Lovett.)

*R. A. Hendricks,*for plaintiff in error.

*William, Story, J. P. Knight,*contra.

Stephens, J.

An ordinary final bill of exceptions in a case, civil or criminal, should be presented to the judge who presided in the cause, and "certified by him, except in case of his dying subsequently to the ruling complained of and before the statutory period for certifying has expired. Where, just before the expiration of a term of office of a judge of a city court, he overrules a motion for a new trial, the bill of exceptions complaining of this ruling should be tendered to him and signed and certified by him; and his successor in office has no power to sign and certify it. Civil Code, §§ 6152, 6155; *Scott*v. *State,*5 *Ga. App.*812 (63 S. E. 936). This court is therefore without jurisdiction in this ease, and the writ of error is

*Dismissed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*