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

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE, ACCOUNTING AND

FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Pacific Ventures, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2006, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I Gerry Jardine, President of the Company, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (1)  the Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

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

 

/s/Gerry JardineGerry JardinePresident/DirectorMarch 13, 2006
Order entered November 23, 2015 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01318-CV 

IN RE BOBBY DUNCAN, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 296-53157-2014 

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges and Justice Stoddart 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT 

 CHIEF JUSTICE
1The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for

the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations

of the Honorable Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate

Judge for the District of Minnesota.

___________

No. 96-2800

___________

George F. Cummings, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Minnesota.

J. W. Tippy, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 10, 1996

 Filed: December 13, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

George Cummings appeals the district court's1

 dismissal of his

28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. Having carefully reviewed the

record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the judgment was

correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. IV-11-019.R

Contact: Victor Dricks (817) 860-8128

 Lara Uselding (817) 276-6519

 May 9, 2011 

 E-Mail: OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov

REISSUED TO REFLECT CHANGE IN MEETING DATE

NRC TO DISCUSS 2010 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 

FOR WATERFORD 3 NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house for May 12, in 

Kenner, La., and will be available to discuss and answer questions about the 2010 safety 

performance of the Waterford 3 nuclear plant. The plant, located in Killona, La., is operated by 

Entergy Operations, Inc.

The open house is informal and scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at the Hilton New Orleans 

Airport Hotel, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner. 

There will be no formal presentation by NRC staff at the meeting. The NRC staff will be 

available to answer questions from the public on the safety performance of Waterford 3, as well as 

the NRC=s role in ensuring safe plant operation.

 AThe NRC continually reviews the performance of Waterford 3 and the nation=s other 

commercial nuclear power facilities,@ NRC Region IV Administrator Elmo E. Collins said. AThis 

meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety 

performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant.@

The NRC said Waterford 3 operated safely during 2010 and will receive the detailed 

inspection regime during 2011 that is used by the NRC for plants that are operating well. These

inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection 

specialists from the Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas.

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant officials addresses the performance of 

the plant during 2010 and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the 

NRC website at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/wat_2010q4.pdf.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV

 612 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 400

 Arlington, TX 76011-4125

Telephone: (817) 860-8128

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov
Current performance information for Waterford 3 is available on the NRC website at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/WAT3/wat3_chart.html.

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC’s website.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40258

Summary Calendar

 

WILLIAM B. BARREE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THOMAS PRASIFKA, Warden; WILLIAM NEWSOME;

BOBBY DEL BOSQUE; DOUGLAS DRETKE, Regional

Director; ALLAN POLUNSKY; RANDOLPH T. MCVEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-99-CV-500

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

 December 21, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William B. Barree, Texas state prisoner # 727996, appeals

from the dismissal of his civil rights claims as frivolous and

for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). He

argues that 1) he was denied due process because he was deprived

of access to funds in his inmate trust-fund account; 2) the

district court abused its discretion in denying his Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b) motion without providing written reasons for the denial;

and 3) the district court abused its discretion in denying him
No. 00-40258

-2-

leave to amend his complaint. Barree also requests a temporary

restraining order (TRO) from this court. 

The district court did not err in dismissing Barree’s

complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See

§ 1915A(b)(1); see Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir.

1999); Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). 

The alleged violation of prison policies does not, by itself,

give rise to a constitutional violation. Hernandez v. Estelle,

788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986); Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d

1235, 1251 (5th Cir. 1989). Nor does the denial of prison

grievances raise a constitutional issue. See Hernandez, 788 F.2d

at 1158. 

Barree states that he is not challenging the court’s denial

of “specific portions” of his Rule 60(b) motion, but, rather, is

challenging “the denial as a whole.” Arguments must be briefed

in order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225

(5th Cir. 1993). Claims not adequately argued in the body of the

brief are deemed abandoned on appeal. Id. at 224-25. By failing

to raise any specific arguments as to the denial of his Rule

60(b) motion, Barree largely has abandoned the issue for purposes

of appeal. See id. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in declining to enter written reasons in denying

Barree’s final Rule 60(b) motion. See Travelers Ins. Co. v.

Liljeberg Enters., Inc., 38 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Because as amended Barree’s complaint was subject to

dismissal, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Barree leave to amend his complaint. See Avatar
No. 00-40258

-3-

Exploration, Inc. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 933 F.2d 314, 321

(5th Cir. 1991).

Barree’s motion for a TRO is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1239

DAVE L. DIXON; JULIANA K. DIXON,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING COMPANY, C/O Lawyers Incorporating 

Service Company; HSBC BANK USA, National Association, C/O The Corporation 

Trust Incorporated; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, 

INC., C/O Sharon Horstkamp,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-01710-DKC)

Submitted: March 22, 2021 Decided: April 2, 2021

Before KEENAN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dave L. Dixon and Juliana K. Dixon, Appellants Pro Se. Daniel A. Glass, ECKERT 

SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dave L. Dixon and Juliana K. Dixon seek to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing their civil complaint without prejudice and denying their motion to amend with 

leave to refile. This court may exercise jurisdiction over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The district court’s 

dismissal of the Dixons’ complaint without prejudice “raises questions about the finality 

of the dismissal order, as dismissals without prejudice naturally leave open the possibility 

of further litigation in some form.” Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 610 (4th Cir. 

2020) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___, No. 

20-759, 2021 WL 666419 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2021).

In Bing, we concluded that the without-prejudice dismissal was a final, appealable 

order for three reasons: (1) the plaintiff had failed to identify any facts that could be added 

to his complaint to cure the pleading deficiency; (2) the district court had directed the case 

to be closed after dismissing the complaint; and (3) the plaintiff had elected to stand on his 

complaint. Id. at 615. Weighing these factors here, we conclude that the district court’s 

order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district 

court with instructions to allow the Dixons to file an amended complaint. See Goode v. 

Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015), abrogated in part by

Bing, 959 F.3d at 614-15. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
Exhibit 23.1

 

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors

HSBC Finance Corporation

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-134419 and No. 333-134419-01) on Form S-3 of HSBC Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I of our attestation report dated March 12, 2010 with respect to each of HSBC Finance Corporation, as Servicer, HSBC Card Services Inc., and HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc. (the “HSBC Companies) and its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB applicable to the servicing of credit card receivables related to the HSBC Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I’s asset-backed securitization transactions and securities publicly issued on or after January 1, 2006 (the Platform), except for the servicing criteria identified in Schedule I of the “Report on Compliance With Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant To Item 1122 ofRegulation AB Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” (Management’s Report) as “Not Applicable” which each of the individual HSBC Companies has determined are not applicable to the activities performed with respect to the Platform, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009.  Our attestation report appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of HSBC Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I.  

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois

March 24, 2010
### §319. Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication

(a)(1) There is in the Department an Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication. There is at the head of the Office a Director.

(2) The Director shall be a career appointee in the Senior Executive Service.

(3) The Director reports directly to the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary concerning matters within the responsibility of the Office.

(b)(1) The Director is responsible for making the final agency decision within the Department on the merits of any employment discrimination complaint filed by an employee, or an applicant for employment, with the Department. The Director shall make such decisions in an impartial and objective manner.

(2) No person may make any ex parte communication to the Director or to any employee of the Office with respect to a matter on which the Director has responsibility for making a final agency decision.

(c) Whenever the Director has reason to believe that there has been retaliation against an employee by reason of the employee asserting rights under an equal employment opportunity law, the Director shall report the suspected retaliatory action directly to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary, who shall take appropriate action thereon.

(d)(1) The Office shall employ a sufficient number of attorneys and other personnel as are necessary to carry out the functions of the Office. Attorneys shall be compensated at a level commensurate with attorneys employed by the Office of the General Counsel.

(2) The Secretary shall ensure that the Director is furnished sufficient resources in addition to personnel under paragraph (1) to enable the Director to carry out the functions of the Office in a timely manner.

(3) The Secretary shall ensure that any performance appraisal of the Director of the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication or of any employee of the Office does not take into consideration the record of the Director or employee in deciding cases for or against the Department.

(Added Pub. L. 105–114, title I, §102(a)(1), Nov. 21, 1997, 111 Stat. 2280.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 105–114, title I, §102(c), Nov. 21, 1997, 111 Stat. 2281, provided that: "Section 319 of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 21, 1997]."

#### Reports on Implementation

Pub. L. 105–114, title I, §102(b), Nov. 21, 1997, 111 Stat. 2281, required the Director of the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication of the Department of Veterans Affairs to submit to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and to Congress reports on the implementation and the operation of the office, with the first report due not later than Apr. 1, 1998, and subsequent reports due not later than Jan. 1, 1999, and Jan. 1, 2000.
### [§404. Renumbered §474]
#### Nacional Financiera, S. A., Respondent, v. Banco de Ponce, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 923.]
H. R. 1883

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1601–

1 Main Street in Jacksonville, Florida, as the ‘‘Eddie Mae Steward Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

1601–1 Main Street in Jacksonville, Florida, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Eddie Mae Steward Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Eddie Mae

Steward Post Office’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
§ 2007.4 Publication regarding requests. ( a ) Whenever a request is received which conforms to these regulations or which is accepted pursuant to § 2007.2 a statement of the fact that the request has been received, the subject matter of the request (including if appropriate, the TSUS item number or numbers and description of the article or articles covered by the request), and a request for public comment on the petitions received shall be published in the Federal Register.
( b ) Upon the completion of a review and publication of any Presidential action modifying the GSP, a summary of the decisions made will be published in the Federal Register including: ( 1 ) A list of actions taken in response to requests; and
( 2 ) A list of requests which are pending.
( c ) Whenever, following a review, there is to be no change in the status of an article with respect to the GSP in response to a request filed under § 2007.0(a), the party submitting a request with respect to such articles may request an explanation of factors considered.
( d ) Whenever, following a review, there is to be no change in the status of a beneficiary country with respect to the GSP in response to a request filed under § 2007.0(b), the GSP Subcommittee will notify the party submitting the request in writing of the reasons why the requested action was not taken.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2119 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2119

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To provide for the conveyance of Federal lands, improvements, 
  equipment, and resource materials at the Oxford Research Station in 
   Granville County, North Carolina, to the State of North Carolina.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2119

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To provide for the conveyance of Federal lands, improvements, 
  equipment, and resource materials at the Oxford Research Station in 
   Granville County, North Carolina, to the State of North Carolina.

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

SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, OXFORD RESEARCH STATION, GRANVILLE COUNTY, 
              NORTH CAROLINA.

    (a) Conveyance Required.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
convey, without consideration, to the State of North Carolina all 
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel of 
Federal real property consisting of approximately 4.28 acres and 
administered as part of the Oxford Research Station in Granville 
County, North Carolina. The conveyance shall include all improvements, 
equipment, and resource materials at the research station.
    (b) Description of Real Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
description of the real property to be conveyed under subsection (a) 
shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost 
of the survey shall be borne by the State.
    (c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require 
such additional terms and conditions in connection with the conveyance 
under subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect 
the interests of the United States.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 5, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Annual Report of Pure Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 for the period ending December 31, 2001 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William K. White, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Dated:  August 2, 2002               /s/ William K. White
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     William K. White
                                     Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
                                     Officer
###### Editorial Note on Subpart F of Part 9701

#### Editorial Note:

At 73 FR 58435, Oct. 7, 2008, the application of subpart F to part 9701 was rescinded.

#### § 9701.602 Waivers.

When a specified category of employees is covered by the adverse action provisions established under this subpart, 5 U.S.C. 7501 through 7514 and 7531 through 7533 are waived with respect to that category of employees. The provisions in 5 U.S.C. 7521 and 7541 through 7543 are not waived.
### §40728. Establishment of best practices for evidence retention

#### (a) In general

The Director of the National Institute of Justice, in consultation with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and government laboratories, shall—

(1) establish best practices for evidence retention to focus on the preservation of forensic evidence; and

(2) assist State, local, and tribal governments in adopting and implementing the best practices established under paragraph (1).

#### (b) Deadline

Not later than 1 year after December 16, 2016, the Director of the National Institute of Justice shall publish the best practices established under subsection (a)(1).

#### (c) Limitation

Nothing in this section shall be construed to require or obligate compliance with the best practices established under subsection (a)(1).

(Pub. L. 108–405, title IV, §414, as added Pub. L. 114–324, §13(a), Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1958.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 14136f of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.