alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
            UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:
1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
  required  to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
  10-K of  GMACM  Mortgage  Loan  Trust  2006-J1  (the  "Exchange  Act  periodic
  reports");
2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
  do not  contain  any untrue  statement  of a material  fact or omit to state a
  material  fact  necessary  to  make  the  statements  made,  in  light  of the
  circumstances  under which such  statements  were made,  not  misleading  with
  respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
  information  required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
  this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
  based on my knowledge and the  compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
  servicer  compliance  statements  required in this  report  under Item 1123 of
  Regulation  AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
  the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing  agreements
  in all material respects; and
5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
  asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
  compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed  securities required to be
  included  in this report in  accordance  with Item 1122 of  Regulation  AB and
  Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been  included as an exhibit to this
  report,  except as otherwise  disclosed in this report. Any material instances
  of noncompliance  described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
  on Form 10-K.


  In giving the  certifications  above, I have reasonably  relied on information
  provided  to me by the  following  unaffiliated  parties:  Wells  Fargo  Bank,
  National Association.


Date:  March 26, 2007
By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      --------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Executive Vice President
662 A.2d 567

#### JOSEPH MCBRIDE AND LAURIE MCBRIDE, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS, v. RAICHLE MOLITOR, USA, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT, AND MINSTAR, INC., TRADING AS TYROLIA, DEFENDANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued June 7, 1995

Decided July 17, 1995.

*423Before Judges SHEBELL and WALLACE.

*Michael D. Schottland*argued the cause for appellants *(Schott-land, Aaron & Manning,*attorneys; *Mr. Schottland*and *Nicholas C. Caliendo,*on the brief).

*Samuel A. DeGonge*argued the cause for respondent *(Law Offices of Samuel A. DeGonge,*attorneys; *Mr. DeGonge,*of counsel; *Samuel J. McNulty,*on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

 Following a bench trial, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint against the sole remaining defendant Raichle Molitor, USA. The court concluded that Massachusetts law applied to plaintiffs’ purchase contract for skis bought in Massachusetts from the Ski and Tennis Chalet, a retailer of Tyrolia ski products distributed in the United States by Raichle Molitor. Plaintiff Joseph McBride was injured in Massachusetts the first time he used the ski equipment. The court also found that plaintiffs had released Raichle Molitor by the' execution of a release at the time of purchase.

Plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of their complaint, urging that the trial court (1) should not have applied Massachusetts laws; (2) improperly expanded the scope of the retail agreement for which there was a lack of consideration; (3) improperly *424released Raichle Molitor, USA from liability; and (4) erred in ruling that the retail agreement is not a contract of adhesion.

The June 29, 1994 order of dismissal is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Fisher in his opinion reported at 283 *N.J.Super.*471, 662 A.2d 592 (Law Div.1995).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,675
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,163
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,475
<INVENTORY>                                     70,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,884
<PP&E>                                          60,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,898
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,609
<BONDS>                                         83,612
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,484
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,164
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   197,352
<SALES>                                        245,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               245,726
<CGS>                                          139,550
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  106,660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   105
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,423
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,012)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,394)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,618)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (750)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,368)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.99)


</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3442 

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 

to establish discretionary spending caps for each of fiscal years 2011 

through 2013. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2009 

Mr. HODES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Budget 

A BILL 

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to establish discretionary spending caps 

for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2013. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE DISCRETIONARY SPEND4 ING CAPS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraphs (1) through (13) of 

6 section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 

7 Deficit Control Act of 1985 are amended to read as fol8 lows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3442 IH

1 ‘‘(1) with respect to fiscal year 2011 for the 

2 discretionary category: $1,126,000,000,000 in new 

3 budget authority and $1,189,000,000,000 in outlays; 

4 ‘‘(2) with respect to fiscal year 2012 for the 

5 discretionary category: $1,150,000,000,000 in new 

6 budget authority and $1,193,000,000,000 in outlays; 

7 ‘‘(3) with respect to fiscal year 2013 for the 

8 discretionary category: $1,177,000,000,000 in new 

9 budget authority and $1,220,000,000,000 in out10 lays;’’. 

11 (b) EXPIRATION.—Section 275 of the Balanced 

12 Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 

13 U.S.C. 900 note) is amended by striking subsection (b). 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------


                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, the undersigned officer of PalWeb
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the Period Ended August 31, 2002 (the "Report"), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: October 14, 2002                        /s/ Paul A. Kruger
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Paul A. Kruger
                                               Chief Executive Officer




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C.ss.1350.
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 Justice
 On October 5, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the lawsuit entitled 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *The Atlas-Lederer Company, et al.,*
                     Civil Action No. 3: 91-CV-309. The United States filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The complaint seeks recovery of costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the United Scrap Lead Superfund Site in Concord Township, Miami County, Ohio. Two defendants are parties to the proposed Consent Decree: Ace Iron & Metal Company and Alan Levine. Ace Iron & Metal Company and Alan Levine collectively agree to pay $410,000 of the United States' response costs on an ability-to-pay basis. In return, the United States agrees not to sue the defendants under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *The Atlas-Lederer Company, et al.,*
                     D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-279B. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By email
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.*By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: 
                    *https://www.justice.gov/​enrd/​consent-decrees.*
                     We will provide a paper copy of the proposed Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $5.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. Randall M. Stone, Acting Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2017-22778 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM WILLIAMS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

JOHN C. MARSHALL,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-56417

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-04159-CAS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted Febuary 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner William Williams appeals from the district court’s

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. 

FILED

FEB 22 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-56417

Williams contends that the Governor’s 2004 decision reversing the Board of

Prison Terms’s decision finding him suitable for parole was not supported by

“some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. The only federal

right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is

what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case

correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011) (per curiam). 

Because Williams raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Jack B. Binion, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Horseshoe GamingHolding Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;   (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and   (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date: May 10, 2004 /s/ Jack B. Binion   Jack B. Binion   Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.2

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


     In connection with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of Lynch  Interactive
Corporation  (the  "Company") for the quarterly  period ended March 31, 2003, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  Robert E. Dolan, as Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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/ Robert E. Dolan
                                 Name: Robert E. Dolan
                                 Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 13, 2003



This   certification   accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Marilyn M. Clurman, Appellant, v Edgar M. Bronfman, Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 595]

—Order, Supreme Court, New *202York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered May 21, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly concluded that the failure to notify defendant guarantor, for more than a decade, of the obligor’s default in payment of the insurance premiums operated to discharge the guarantor of his obligations with respect thereto *(Andes Co-op. Daily Co. v Commercial Cas. Ins. Co.,*207 App Div 102, *affd*237 NY 622). The notice provision herein is distinguishable from that at issue in *Phoenix Acquisition Corp. v Campcore, Inc.*(81 NY2d 138) and was properly construed as a condition precedent by the court. In *Phoenix,*while the guaranty provided that the creditor, there a bank, would notify the guarantor of default in payment of any installment of principal or interest, it also provided that “ ‘[i]f any default shall be made in the payment of the above indebtedness, the [guarantor] hereby agrees to pay the same to the extent above provided [ ] without requiring protest or notice of nonpayment to the [guarantor]’ ” (81 NY2d, *supra,*at 141). No such language appears in the guaranty herein. Furthermore, with respect to tbe payment of the insurance premiums, the nature of what is guaranteed, and the provision providing for a 5-day period in which the guarantor must pay the premium due, demonstrate that notice to the guarantor was intended as a precondition to the guarantor’s liability.

The obligation to pay the May 1996 “alimony” installment terminated, pursuant to the unambiguous terms of the parties’ agreement, with the death of plaintiff’s ex-husband on May 15, 1996, five days prior to when it became due and owing.

We have reviewed plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.
#### Christopher George WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-6954.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 6, 2011.

Decided: April 15, 2011.

Christopher George Washington, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher George Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, without prejudice, for failure to comply with Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Washington seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.*
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 339 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 339

   To extend the expiration date of coupons issued under the digital 
                   television converter box program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2009

  Mr. Platts introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the expiration date of coupons issued under the digital 
                   television converter box program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Digital Television Coupon 
Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. COUPON EXPIRATION EXTENSION.

    (a) Amendment.--Section 3005(c)(1)(C) of the Digital Television 
Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171; 120 Stat. 
23) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(C) No expiration.--All coupons issued under this 
                section shall expire at the close of March 31, 2009.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to any coupon issued under section 3005 of the Digital Television 
Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 on or after the date of 
enactment of such Act.
                                 <all>
```