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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6959

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

COURTNEY OMAR BOYD, a/k/a Omar,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (4:06-cr-00005-MSD-FBS-3; 4:11-cv-00140-MSD)

Submitted: October 22, 2015 Decided: November 5, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Courtney Omar Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Courtney Omar Boyd appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration 

of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) motion. The court construed the Rule 60(b) motion 

as a successive § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and 

conclude that Boyd’s motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion, 

but in substance a successive § 2255 motion. See United States 

v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2015); see also

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005) (explaining how 

to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized 

successive habeas motion). Boyd is therefore not required to 

obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district 

court’s order. See McRae, 793 F.3d at 400. As noted by the 

district court, in the absence of prefiling authorization from 

this court, it lacked jurisdiction to hear Boyd’s successive § 

2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). 

Additionally, we construe Boyd’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 

(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on 

either:
3

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, 

that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Boyd’s claims do not satisfy either of 

these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
#### § 904.106 Homebuyers Association (HBA).

An HBA is an incorporated organization composed of all the families who are entitled to occupancy pursuant to a Homebuyers Ownership Opportunity Agreement or who are homeowners. It is formed and organized for the purposes set forth in § 904.304 of this part. The HBA shall be funded as provided in § 904.305 of this part. In the absence of a duly organized HBA, the LHA shall be free to act without the HBA action required by this subpart.
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SimonProperty Group, L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)          The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ David Simon                                                                                           |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| David Simon                                                                                               |   |
| Chief Executive Officer  of Simon Property Group, Inc., General Partner                              |   |
| Date: May 12, 2006                                                                                   |   |
| /s/ Stephen E. Sterrett                                                                                   |   |
| Stephen E. Sterrett                                                                                  |   |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  of Simon Property Group, Inc., General Partner |   |
| Date: May 12, 2006                                                                                   |   |

 

32

----
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3270

___________

Michael Wayne Ford, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Dora B. Schriro, Director, Missouri *

Department of Corrections; George *

Lombardi, Division Director, Missouri * Appeal from the United States

Department of Corrections; Steve Long, * District Court for the

Assistant Division Director of Missouri * Eastern District of Missouri.

Department of Corrections; Lisa Jones, *

Constituent Services Officer, Missouri *

Department of Corrections; Michael *

Payne, Internal Affairs Officer, *

Missouri Department of Corrections; *

David Williams, Internal Affairs *

Officer, Missouri Department of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Corrections; Michael Bowersox, *

Superintendent, Potosi Correctional *

Center; Charles Dwyer, Assistant *

Superintendent, Potosi Correctional *

Center; Donna McCondichie, Assistant *

Superintendent, Potosi Correctional *

Center; Gary Reed, Institutional *

Investigator, Potosi Correctional *

Facility; Thomas King, Institutional *

Investigator, Potosi Correctional *

Facility; Fred Johnson, Functional Unit *

Manager, Potosi Correctional Center; *

Sharon Gifford, Caseworker, Potosi *
-2-

Correctional Center, individually and *

in their official capacities, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: May 17, 2000

 Filed: June 2, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Michael Ford appeals from the final judgment entered in the

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissing under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), before service of process, Ford’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He also

seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which we grant. In his suit against a number

of Missouri prison officials, Ford alleged, in part, that defendants retaliated against him

for disclosing that a prison employee was bringing marijuana into the prison, and

reneged on a promise to impose no discipline for his participation in an investigation.

Because Ford’s complaint stated a claim, see, e.g., Cornell v. Woods, 69 F.3d 1383,

1388, 1389 (8th Cir. 1995), we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand

for further proceedings. We deny Ford’s request for appointment of counsel, without

prejudice to his right to file another such motion in the district court. 
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 285.800 How must I conduct my activities to comply with safety and environmental requirements? ( a ) You must conduct all activities on your lease or grant under this part in a manner that conforms with your responsibilities in § 285.105(a), and using: ( 1 ) Trained personnel; and
( 2 ) Technologies, precautions, and techniques that will not cause undue harm or damage to natural resources, including their physical, atmospheric, and biological components.
( b ) You must certify compliance with those terms and conditions identified in your approved SAP, COP, or GAP, as required under § 285.615(b), § 285.633(a), or § 285.653(b).
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

William H. Joyce, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of Nalco Holding Company(‘‘Nalco’’) and Bradley J. Bell, ExecutiveVice President and Chief Financial Officer of Nalco, in conjunctionwith the filing of Nalco’s 10-K financial report (the‘‘Report’’) with the Securities andExchange Commission, covering the period ending December31,  2005, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,as follows:

|          |                                                                                                                     |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| a.  | The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, and |

|          |                                                                                                                                   |
|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| b.  | The information in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations ofNalco. |

|  | /s/ William H.Joyce                        William H.JoyceChairman and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March2,  2006 |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | /s/ Bradley J.Bell                        Bradley J.BellExecutive Vice President and ChiefFinancialOfficerDate: March 2, 2006 |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

A signed originalof this written statement required by §906 has been provided toNalco Holding Company and will be retained by Nalco Holding Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
### §1356. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §35, 62 Stat. 991

Section, acts Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 390, §9, 37 Stat. 565; Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 370, §3, 42 Stat. 1006; Feb. 16, 1933, ch. 91, §3, 47 Stat. 817, related to appeals from district courts. See sections 1291, 1292, and 1294 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Sept. 1, 1948, see section 38 of act June 25, 1948, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 1 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
### §1013. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–272, §7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379

Section, Pub. L. 96–254, title I, §117, May 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 406, authorized Secretary of Transportation to exempt from requirements of the Safety Appliance Acts any railroad equipment when such requirements preclude development or implementation of more efficient railroad transportation equipment or other transportation innovations. See section 20306 of Title 49, Transportation.
§ 27.32 Tests to determine performance of the system. ( a ) *Laboratory tests for reliability and durability.* Five hundred successful consecutive tests[2] for gas detection, alarm action, and power shutoff in natural gas-air mixtures[3] shall be conducted to demonstrate acceptable performance as to reliability and durability of a methane-monitoring system. The tests shall be conducted as follows: ( 1 ) The methane detector component shall be placed in a test gallery into which natural gas shall be made to enter at various rates with sufficient turbulence for proper mixing with the air in the gallery. To comply with the requirements of this test, the detector shall provide an impulse to actuate an alarm at a predetermined percentage of gas and also provide an impulse to actuate a power shutoff at a second predetermined percentage of gas. (See §§ 27.21, 27.22, 27.23, and 27.24.)[4]
( b ) *Field tests.* MSHA reserves the right to conduct tests, similar to those stated in paragraph (a) of this section, in underground workings to verify reliability and durability of a methane-monitoring system installed in connection with a piece of mining equipment.
Footnotes -
27.32
[2] Normal replacements and adjustments shall not constitute a failure.
[3] Investigation has shown that, for practical purposes, natural gas (containing a high percentage of methane) is a satisfactory substitute for pure methane in these tests.
[4] At the option of MSHA, these tests will be conducted with dust or moisture added to the atmosphere within the gallery.
Exhibit 32.1 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 Annual Report of Great American Family Parks, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry Eastland, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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:  April 15, 2008By:/s/   Larry EastlandLarry Eastland
Chief Executive Officer
### §1302. Functions

Except as otherwise provided in the ICC Termination Act of 1995, or the amendments made thereby, the Board shall perform all functions that, immediately before January 1, 1996, were functions of the Interstate Commerce Commission or were performed by any officer or employee of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the capacity as such officer or employee.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title II, §201(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 933, §702; amended Pub. L. 104–287, §5(6), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3389; renumbered §1302, Pub. L. 114–110, §3(a)(3), Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2228.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The ICC Termination Act of 1995, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 104–88, Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 803. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1995 Amendment note set out under section 101 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

2015—Pub. L. 114–110 renumbered section 702 of this title as this section.

1996—Pub. L. 104–287 substituted "January 1, 1996" for "the effective date of such Act".

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

#### Abolition of Interstate Commerce Commission

Interstate Commerce Commission abolished by section 101 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
#### Michael P. Grace, II, Appellant, v. Real Property Owners, Inc., Respondent.

In an action under article 15 of the Real Property Law for a judgment declaring plaintiff’s ownership interest in certain premises known as Arthur Farm, and for other relief, plaintiff appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered November 16, 1959, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice; .and (2) from the judgment of said court, entered thereon on December 3, 1959, dismissing his complaint. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Judgment affirmed, with costs.' No opinion. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
,

~& PA/~ ‘ —

/

~

1/ I-.,

~ - ‘~ ~L1

/ /

_______ ______ -4

/ /

~W. 1l~d’A~ -

~a’~ ~ ~d.‘ -

,J/ / / /

~ A.~ ~

I, // /

4 , ~4# ~

A — / —

_____ .L_’~d d~.

.~, ~,

/

/

41 ‘~

I-, I

- F

/ /

—-4— ~ ~

/

gfrj’j —

/

1/

‘I

iV-2&~2~D

,

- -

/

i

- -, / - I ~~ / ~

• 4’ ~- ‘-44/ i-a~%~ ~ 6~ - /

./ I / / /

—~ / 4 4WAAY ~

1/ F

___ “ ~_t-~d A.~

/ 7/ ,/‘ /

- ~ 4’• -, •~~•A4W -#

- JJ / //

~ 7~u-rLa_7 - I ‘

• ‘~ ~ /~1L ~- ~/~w

441

// ,/1

~ ~ -, -

I-i

________________ ~W t2~ .~‘ ~ /

/ I /

/7A’.-l — “ F

~ ~ -~ -4 —-~ ~ __4’ -~

F

— —J4IL. d4..aIIE.IL.i1’

-4 4’ — 1 -

F

/F

4 4~~F 4 4 - ~••~••••••4 I— -

/

4 / •W~4~ ~• -4

~ ~4’~i A . J~

/

~

/

A~.’ ~ / —4 _7

r

_~i 4i~ ‘.4~d~d

/

~1-t4’~

Ih~ 1/ cA6~V

4)/~/

i~U~~

/

=20
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Susan M. Ziembiec, Appellant. Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 31, 1977, which adopted and affirmed a referee’s decision disqualifying the claimant from benefits upon the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. The record establishes that the claimant was employed as a temporary summer factory worker for the period of May 4, 1976 to and including September 20, 1976. The claimant’s work week was Monday through Friday and she testified that on Friday, September 17, 1976, her supervisor said to her "why come in for one day’s pay.” Following a hearing held upon the objection of the employer to the payment of benefits, the referee found: "On Friday, September 17, 1976, claimant was told by her foreman that she could leave her job at the end of that day or that she could continue to work through September 20. Claimant chose to quit on September 17.” The referee and the board have disqualified claimant upon the ground that she voluntarily quit her employment; however, that decision is not supported by substantial evidence. It is established that when the employer advances a termination date, the termination is involuntary *(Matter of Grieco [Levine],*41 AD2d 799). The actual effect of the urging by the supervisor as to not bothering to come in just for one day of work is exemplified by the testimony of the employer’s representative at the referee hearing: "If an employee took the option of leaving early, that was their problem.” It does not appear that it was the intent of the Legislature in providing for benefits to those persons who are unemployed through no fault of their own (Labor Law, *§*501) to create a system which would deny benefits to a naive employee who is enticed by her employer to leave a day before the previously established final day of employment (see *Matter of Grieco [Levine], supra;*cf. *Matter of McEvilley [Levine],*49 AD2d 774). Decision reversed, with costs, and matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Greenblott, J. P., Main, Larkin, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IMPSAT Fiber Networks on Form 10-Q for the period endingMarch 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Héctor Alonso, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

1. The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the registrant. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request. 

Date: May 15, 2006
### §§81 to 87. Repealed. July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIII, §1313, 58 Stat. 714

Section 81, act Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 114, §1, 27 Stat. 449, provided penalties for entry of vessels in violation of quarantine laws. See section 271 of this title.

Section 82, acts Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 114, §2, 27 Stat. 450; Aug. 18, 1894, ch. 300, 28 Stat. 372; Feb. 27, 1921, ch. 80, 41 Stat. 1149; Feb. 7, 1925, ch. 146, 43 Stat. 809; July 10, 1940, ch. 566, 54 Stat. 747, provided for bills of health. See section 269 of this title.

Section 82a, act Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 114, §13, as added Mar. 3, 1931, ch. 409, §1, 46 Stat. 1491, provided for duplicate bills of health. See section 269 of this title.

Section 83, act Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 114, §11, as added Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 836, 31 Stat. 1087, provided that vessels from foreign ports without bill of health not entering the United States were subject to quarantine regulations.

Section 84, act Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 114, §6, 27 Stat. 452, provided for disposition of infected vessels.

Section 85, act June 19, 1906, ch. 3433, §4, 34 Stat. 300, provided penalties for infractions of quarantine. See section 271 of this title.

Section 86, act Apr. 29, 1878, ch. 66, §1, 20 Stat. 37, prohibited entry of vessels and vehicles contrary to State quarantine laws. See sections 264 to 272 of this title. Compliance with State laws, see section 97 of this title.

Section 87, act Apr. 17, 1917, ch. 3, 40 Stat. 6, provided for payment of cost of fumigation and disinfection of foreign vessels.

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

#### Renumbering and Repeal of Repealing Act

Title XIII, §1313, formerly title VI, §611, of act July 1, 1944, which repealed these sections, was renumbered title VII, §711, by act Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 958, §5, 60 Stat. 1049; §713, by act Feb. 28, 1948, ch. 83, §9(b), 62 Stat. 47; title VIII, §813, by act July 30, 1956, ch. 779, §3(b), 70 Stat. 721; title IX, §913, by Pub. L. 88–581, §4(b), Sept. 4, 1964, 78 Stat. 919; title X, §1013, by Pub. L. 89–239, §3(b), Oct. 6, 1965, 79 Stat. 931; title XI, §1113, by Pub. L. 91–572, §6(b), Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1506; title XII, §1213, by Pub. L. 92–294, §3(b), May 16, 1972, 86 Stat. 137; title XIII, §1313, by Pub. L. 93–154, §2(b)(2), Nov. 16, 1973, 87 Stat. 604, and was repealed by Pub. L. 93–222, §7(b), Dec. 29, 1973, 87 Stat. 936.
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.524 How long do I keep records of casing pressure and diagnostic tests?

Records of casing pressure and diagnostic tests must be kept at the field office nearest the well for a minimum of 2 years. The last casing diagnostic test for each casing or riser must be retained at the field office nearest the well until the well is abandoned.

[76 FR 64462, Oct. 18, 2011. Redesignated at 77 FR 50894, Aug. 22, 2012]
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.433 What are the diverter actuation and testing requirements? When you install the diverter system, you must actuate the diverter sealing element, diverter valves, and diverter-control systems and control stations. You must also flow-test the vent lines. ( a ) For drilling operations with a surface wellhead configuration, you must actuate the diverter system at least once every 24-hour period after the initial test. After you have nippled up on conductor casing, you must pressure-test the diverter-sealing element and diverter valves to a minimum of 200 psi. While the diverter is installed, you must conduct subsequent pressure tests within 7 days after the previous test.
( b ) For floating drilling operations with a subsea BOP stack, you must actuate the diverter system within 7 days after the previous actuation. For subsequent testing, you may partially actuate the diverter element and a flow test is not required.
( c ) You must alternate actuations and tests between control stations.
[76 FR 64462, Oct. 18, 2011, as amended at 84 FR 21975, May 15, 2019]