alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3459

___________ Gary A. Ebeck, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 16, 1999 Filed: November 23, 1999

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gary A. Ebeck received a 240-month sentence after pleading guilty to kidnapping and firearm charges. In June 1996, Ebeck filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, which the district court denied on the merits. This court denied Ebeck's request for a certificate of appealability. In April 1997, Ebeck filed a second § 2255 motion, raising the same claims presented in his first motion and adding two new claims. The district court denied Ebeck's second motion b ecause Ebeck failed to obtain the certification from this court required before filing a second § 2255 motion. This court again denied Ebeck's request for a certificate of-2-

appealability. In May 1998, Ebeck filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, raising "claims previously stated in a § 2255 motion." (Ebeck's Reply Br. at 1). The district court construed the Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion anddenied the motion, stating Ebeck did not receive the required certification from this court before filing his successive motion.
Ebeck appeals, contending the district court should not have treated his Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion. We disagree. A Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from the denial of a § 2255 motion and raising claims of a postconviction relief nature, as Ebeck's does, should be construed as a successive § 2255 motion. See Guinanv. Delo , 5 F.3d 313, 316-17 (8th Cir. 1993); Blair v. Armontrout , 976 F.2d 1130, 1134 (8th Cir. 1992). A successive § 2255 motion requires certification by this court before filing, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255 (Supp. II 1996), and the district court properly denied Ebeck's motion because Ebeck did not comply with this requirement, see UnitedStates v. Rich , 141 F.3d 550, 553 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 1156 (1999); Felker v. Turpin , 101 F.3d 657, 660-61 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
We thus affirm the district court's denial of Ebeck's Rule 60(b) motion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the annual report of StemGen, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Simon Dawson, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: November 19, 2019BY: /s/ Simon DawsonSimon DawsonCEO and Chairman of the Board  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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 13.2  Section 906 Certification  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland, a chartered corporation incorporated under the laws of Ireland (Bank of Ireland), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:  The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the twelve months ended December 31, 2012 (the Report) of The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bank of Ireland.  Date: 27 March 2013/s/Andrew KeatingName: Andrew KeatingTitle: Group Chief Financial Officer
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3634 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 109 Main Street in Swifton, Arkansas, as 

the ‘‘George Kell Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3634 EH

1 SECTION 1. GEORGE KELL POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 109 Main Street in Swifton, Ar4 kansas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘George 

5 Kell Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘George Kell Post Of10 fice’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 2, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3634 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostArkansas, as the ‘‘George Kell Post Office’’. al Service located at 109 Main Street in Swifton,
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the annual report of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. on
Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2015 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.

I, Jun Ohta, Director of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc., certify that, to the best
of my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.

Date: July 22, 2015



|             |  |         
|------------ |  | --------
|/s/ Jun Ohta
|Name:        |  | Jun Ohta
|Title:       |  | Director
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Juan Alvarez Gottwald and Axiom, S.A. 

De C.V.,

 

 Appellants,

v.

Rosa Delgado Dominguez de Cano, Lucio 

Mario Cano Barraza, Mario Sergio 

Delgado Dominguez, Blanca Delgado de 

Urquidi, Jesus Ignacio Delgado 

Dominguez and Patricia Alvares Ozuna

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00046-CV

Appeal from the

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2013DCM2366)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellees’ Rosa Delgado Dominguez de Cano, Lucio Mario 

Cano Barraza, Mario Sergio Delgado Dominguez, Blanca Delgado de Urquidi, Jesus Ignacio 

Delgado Dominguez and Patricia Alvares Ozuna third motion for extension of time within which 

to file the brief until January 8, 2017. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE THE BRIEF OF APPELEES’ WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. John P. Mobbs, the attorney for Appellees’ Rosa 

Delgado Dominguez de Cano, Lucio Mario Cano Barraza, Mario Sergio Delgado Dominguez, 

Blanca Delgado de Urquidi, Jesus Ignacio Delgado Dominguez and Patricia Alvares Ozuna

forward the same to this Court on or before January 8, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of November, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
---

MOEN AND COMPANYCHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

|Member:                                                 |                                     
|------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------
|Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants             | Securities Commission Building      
|Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia  | PO Box 10129, Pacific Centre        
|Institute of Management Accountants (USA) (From 1965)   | Suite 1400  701 West Georgia Street
|                                                        | Vancouver, British Columbia         
|Registered with:                                        | Canada V7Y 1C6                      
|Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (USA) (PCAOB) | Telephone: (604) 662-8899           
|Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB)             | Fax: (604) 662-8809                 
|Canada - British Columbia Public Practice Licence       | Email: moenca@telus.net             

---

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS REVIEW REPORT

To the Directors and Shareholders of 
  Online Innovation, Inc. (A Delaware Corporation) 
  (A Development Stage Company)

We have reviewed the accompanying Balance Sheets of Online
  Innovation, Inc. (A Delaware Corporation) (A Development Stage Company) as of
  March 31, 2004 and March 31, 2003, and the Statements of Income, Retained Earnings
  (Deficit), Cash Flows and Stockholders Equity for the nine month periods
  then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys
  management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established
  by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
  financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures
  to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial
  and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted
  in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which
  is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as
  a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications
  that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be
  in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

Moen and Company

(Signed)

Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 
  May 10, 2004

Independent Accountants and Auditors

---
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

05/31

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.06 N 76.88 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

●

●

★ ●

● ●

●
# Pennsylvania Guard leaders meet with Lithuanian partners

/ Published Dec. 15, 2021

FORT INDIANTOWN GAP, Pa. – The Pennsylvania National Guard hosted Lithuanian dignitaries during a Dec. 14 visit as part of the National Guard Bureau’s State Partnership Program.

Lithuania and Pennsylvania have been partners under the program for almost 29 years. The SPP is guided by State Department foreign policy goals and facilitates military-to-military engagements. These engagements help build relationships between the United States and foreign nations.

Arvydas Anušauskas, the Lithuanian minister of national defence, and Audra Plepytė, Lithuanian ambassador to the United States, visited Fort Indiantown Gap and met with Pennsylvania National Guard leaders including Maj. Gen. Mark Schindler, adjutant general.

“As we embark on the 29th year of our strong partnership, we are excited to continue our journey together and realize the new accomplishments we will achieve that mutually improve both of our organizations,” said Schindler. “Despite the known and unknown challenges we may encounter in our present day, given the complex operating environment, we have the trust and confidence that Lithuania and Pennsylvania will stand together through it all.”

Brig. Gen. Laura McHugh, deputy adjutant general-Army, and Brig. Gen. Mark Goodwill, assistant adjutant general-Air, also participated in the meeting.

Discussion included future initiatives between Lithuania and the Pennsylvania National Guard and a reaffirmation of the commitment between the two partners to deter common threats.

Pennsylvania Guard leaders took the official Lithuanian party on a tour of Fort Indiantown Gap, which included capability briefings on a Stryker armored vehicle and a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter. They then took an hour-long aerial tour in the helicopter around Fort Indiantown Gap and the Harrisburg area.

Earlier in the week, Anušauskas met with U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III at the Pentagon. They signed a reciprocal defense procurement agreement to improve conditions for mutual industrial cooperation, acquisition of defense items and increased interoperability between the U.S. and Lithuanian Armed Forces.

“As a representative of one of the most exposed to Russia threat regions, I would like to underline how much the U.S. friendship and support mean to us,” said Anušauskas. “Our countries are united by common defense commitment and common values, which are challenged every day.”
#### May and Daniels v. Keep.

1. Certiorari — supreme court. — The supreme court has authority to grant a common law *e&i'tiorari*returnable before it, to the judgment of a justice of the peace, and will allow the writ where an execution has issued on the judgment returnable before the next term of the circuit court in that county, security being first filed with the clerk.

2. Same. — Upon application for such writ, cause must be shown why the application is made here, and not to the circuit court.

(1 *Chcmd.*285.)

THIS was a motion made before the supreme court at the Juue term, 1849, for the allowance of a common law *certio-rari,*to remove the proceedings and judgment of the justice before whom the same was tiled, to this court. This motion was founded upon a petition showing a judgment rendered against the applicants by the justice, and also the errors in the proceedings and judgment before Mm, and showing also an an excuse on the part of the defendants, for not having availed themselves of the benefit of an appeal from the judgment, to the circuit court. The petition prayed the allowance of the common law *certiorari,*by this court, because the circuit court within the jurisdiction of wMch the matter arose, would not be in session before the execution already issued on the judgment would be returnable.

*J, A. Sleeper,*in support of the motion,

cited the following authorities : Sess. Laws of 1844, *\*4, p. 17 ; §§ 3 and 8 of art. 7, of the Const.; 5 Wend. 98; 7 id. 667, 508; 7 Cow. 587 ; 9 Wend. 433.

The court determined that it had the power to authorize the issuing of the writ; but in ordinary cases would not feel itself bound to allow it indiscriminately, where there was an opportamity of making application to a circuit court at a term of such a court, and in accordance with this view of the case ordered that the writ issue in case a bond should be executed and filed with the clerk by the parties making this motion.
Exhibit 32.2 – CFO 906 Certification



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
NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) I, Barry Baer, hereby 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) 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 operation
of the Company.



|Date: April 1, 2013 | /s/ Barry S Baer                                                      
|------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    | Barry S Baer                                                          
|                    | Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
Durum Wheat 2022

Production by County

for Selected States

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service

Bushels

Not Estimated

< 250,000

250,000 - 499,999

500,000 - 999,999

1,000,000 - 1,999,999

2,000,000 - 3,999,999

4,000,000 +
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2913 

To ensure that Write Your Own companies can sell private flood insurance 

products that compete with National Flood Insurance Program products. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To ensure that Write Your Own companies can sell private 

flood insurance products that compete with National 

Flood Insurance Program products. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON NON-COMPETE REQUIRE4 MENT FOR WRITE YOUR OWN COMPANIES 

5 UNDER THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE 

6 PROGRAM. 

7 Section 1345 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 

8 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4081) is amended by adding at the end 

9 the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2913 IS

1 ‘‘(f) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE OTHER FLOOD COV2 ERAGE.— 

3 ‘‘(1) WRITE YOUR OWN PROGRAM DEFINED.— 

4 In this subsection, the term ‘Write Your Own Pro5 gram’ means the program under which the Federal 

6 Emergency Management Agency enters into a stand7 ard arrangement with private property insurance 

8 companies to— 

9 ‘‘(A) sell contracts for flood insurance cov10 erage under this title under their own business 

11 lines of insurance; and 

12 ‘‘(B) adjust and pay claims arising under 

13 the contracts described in subparagraph (A). 

14 ‘‘(2) PROHIBITION ON NON-COMPETE

15 CLAUSE.—The Administrator may not, as a condi16 tion of participating in the Write Your Own Pro17 gram or in otherwise participating in the utilization 

18 by the Administrator of the facilities and services of 

19 insurance companies, insurers, insurance agents and 

20 brokers, and insurance adjustment organizations 

21 pursuant to the authority in this section, nor as a 

22 condition of eligibility to engage in any other activi23 ties under the National Flood Insurance Program 

24 under this title, restrict any such company, insurer, 

25 agent, broker, or organization from offering and sellVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:23 Oct 02, 2021 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2913.IS S2913

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2913 IS

1 ing private flood insurance (as that term is defined 

2 in section 102(b) of the Flood Disaster Protection 

3 Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(b))). 

4 ‘‘(3) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE/SUBSIDY AR5 RANGEMENT.—After the date of enactment of this 

6 subsection, the Administrator may not include in 

7 any agreement entered into with any insurer for par8 ticipation in the Write Your Own Program any pro9 vision establishing a condition prohibited under 

10 paragraph (2).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">884 West End LLC, - <br><br>against<br><br>Eliezer Rosman, Respondent-Tenant, - and - Steven Brick, Estee Nichtberger a/k/a Estee Brick, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe", Respondents-Undertenants-Respondents.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Petitioner-landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jack Stoller, J.), dated January 11, 2016, which conditioned the grant of its motion to discontinue the holdover summary proceeding without prejudice upon the payment of respondents' legal fees and the preclusion of landlord from conducting duplicate discovery in a future licensee holdover proceeding against respondents.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Jack Stoller, J.), dated January 11, 2016, affirmed, with $10 costs. </p><p>Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in conditioning the discontinuance of this holdover summary proceeding on the payment of respondents' reasonable attorneys' fees (CPLR 3217[b]; <i>see Tucker v Tucker</i>, 55 NY2d 378, 383-384 [1982]), where petitioner-landlord sought to discontinue its possessory claim nearly three years after service of the holdover petition and after substantial discovery was completed (<a href="../2005/2005_04494.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Carter v Howland Hook Hous. Co., Inc., </i>19 AD3d 146</a> [2005]; <i>Beigel v Cohen, </i>158 AD2d 339 [1990]; <a href="../2008/2008_50970.htm" target="_blank"><i>PSA 190 Ave. B Assoc., LP v Ejoh</i>, 19 Misc 3d 141</a>[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50970[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2008]). </p><p>Contrary to petitioner's interpretation, the additional condition imposed by Civil Court merely precluded landlord from conducting duplicate discovery in a future licensee holdover proceeding against respondents. In the particular circumstances present, this was also a provident exercise of discretion (<i>see </i>CPLR ยง3217[b]; Siegel, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons. Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3217:13 at 734). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: December 06, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**





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





**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**





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





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Airspan Networks, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) for the period ended October 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),





I,
      Peter
      Aronstam, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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:
      November 11, 2005


By:
            /s/
                PETER ARONSTAMPeter
                Aronstam*Chief
                Financial Officer*


**A
      signed original of this statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Airspan Networks, Inc. and will be retained by Airspan Networks, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**