alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leland W. Brantley, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Leland W. Brantley, Jr.Leland W. Brantley, Jr. Chief Financial Officer May 15, 2006
Ratavious A. BIDDLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5006

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Rose APUZZI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Rose Apuzzi, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American Medical Systems, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1450, No. 17-1699

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: November 1, 2017

Joseph L. Messa, Jr., MESSA & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Barbara R. Binis, Rachel B. Weil, REED SMITH LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Kim M. Watterson, REED SMITH LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; M. Patrick Yingling, REED SMITH LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Michael J. Farrell, Erik W. Legg, FARRELL, WHITE & LEGG PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia; for Ap-pellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Rose Apuzzi challenges the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the dismissal of her complaint for failure to comply with a discovery order and the court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion seeking to alter or amend the order denying her Rule 60(b) motion. After reviewing the record *285and the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Apuzzi’s motions. *See Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc.,*674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012); *Aikens v. Ingram,*652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments. *Apuzzi v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc.,*No. 2:14-cv-28603, 2017 WL 927612 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 8, 2017 & May 30, 2017). 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*
<PAGE>   1

REVIEW REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Catalina Marketing Corporation (a Delaware corporation) and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2000, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income
and cash flows for the three-month and nine-month periods ended December 31,
2000 and 1999. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.

We conducted our review 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 auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, 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 review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above for them to be in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States, the consolidated balance sheet of Catalina
Marketing Corporation and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
year then ended (not presented herein), and, in our report dated April 19, 2000,
we expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements. In our
opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of March 31, 2000, is fairly stated, in all material respects,
in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


Arthur Andersen LLP

Tampa, Florida,
         January 11, 2001
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Andrew Carlos DELFELD, also known as “Draven”, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11666 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 22, 2017

Brian W. McKay, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nelson Ebaugh, Esq., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Andrew Carlos Delfeld appeals the 240-month sentence imposed for his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He argues that the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) when it denied an adjustment uhder U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 without entering specific factual findings ' resolving his argument that this is an “extraordinary case” in which he should receive the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility despite his conduct supporting an enhancement for obstruction of justice. Because Delfeld did not object in the district court to the alleged failure to comply with Rule 32(i)(3)(B), review is for plain error. *See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009).

The district court made implicit findings by adopting the presentence report, which satisfied Rule 32 because the findings are so clear that this court is not left to “ ‘second-guess’ ” the basis for the denial of the § 3E1.1 adjustment. *United States v. Ramirez-Gonzalez,*840 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2016). Delfeld has not demonstrated error, plain or otherwise, under Rule 32(i)(3)(B). *See Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d at 361.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### 2645 Nostrand Realty Corp., Appellant-Respondent, v K’hal Ahavas Yisroel et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[770 NYS2d 639]

In an action, inter alia, to recover possession of real property, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated June 11, 2002, as denied its motion for summary judgment on the fourth cause of action, and the defendants cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there are issues of fact requiring the denial of the plaintiff’s motion and the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment *(see*CPLR 3212). Florio, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6116 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6116

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 14280 South Military Trail in Delray Beach, Florida, as the 
           ``Benjamin Berell Ferencz Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 30, 2023

  Ms. Lois Frankel of Florida (for herself, Mr. Bean of Florida, Mr. 
    Bilirakis, Mrs. Cammack, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mrs. Cherfilus-
McCormick, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Donalds, Mr. Dunn of Florida, Mr. Scott 
  Franklin of Florida, Mr. Frost, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Gimenez, Ms. Lee of 
Florida, Mrs. Luna, Mr. Mast, Mr. Mills, Mr. Moskowitz, Mr. Posey, Mr. 
 Rutherford, Ms. Salazar, Mr. Soto, Mr. Steube, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 
   Mr. Webster of Florida, and Ms. Wilson of Florida) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                             Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 14280 South Military Trail in Delray Beach, Florida, as the 
           ``Benjamin Berell Ferencz Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. BENJAMIN BERELL FERENCZ POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 14280 South Military Trail in Delray Beach, Florida, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Benjamin Berell Ferencz Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Benjamin 
Berell Ferencz Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
James BUSBY v. STATE

CR-15-0807

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
RED SUNSET HOMES LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2156

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          124,340
<SECURITIES>                                        268
<RECEIVABLES>                                    91,399
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                323,473
<PP&E>                                          303,354
<DEPRECIATION>                                   70,225
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  846,688
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           554,470
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           1
<COMMON>                                          2,004
<OTHER-SE>                                      126,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    846,688
<SALES>                                       1,685,228
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1,685,228
<CGS>                                         1,040,762
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 2,190,874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 13,726
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,567
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (499,347)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (499,347)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (499,347)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.61)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO INCLUDED IN THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,206,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                458,998,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             527,958,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    156,291,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       214,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 210,899,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               527,958,000
<SALES>                                    494,283,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           494,283,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              436,315,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,711,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,881,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,830,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,830,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  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), each of the undersigned officers of Abviva, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  The Amended Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Form 10-KSB/A") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  November 21, 2008  /s/ Barrett Evans ---------------------- Barrett Evans Interim Chief Executive Officer And Principal Accounting Officer
#### Anjay Ravindrabhai PATEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, SATELLITE PRISON CAMP, EDGEFIELD, SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6361

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Anjay Ravindrabhai Patel, Appellant Pro Se.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anjay Ravindrabhai Patel, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge as modified and denying relief on Patel’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Patel v. Warden,*No. 1:16-cv-01819-JMC, 2017 WL 781069 (D.S.C. Mar. 1, 2017). 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*
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 21, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 21, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0017. KINDRED NURSING CENTERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al. v.

MICHAEL JOSEPH CHRZANOWSKI et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

14A2392
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15


                   AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT

     This Amendment No. 1 to Asset Purchase Agreement (this "AMENDMENT") is made
and entered into as of the 13th day of March, 1998 by and between Golf One
Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "COMPANY"), and Gary Player Group,
Inc., a Florida corporation ("SELLER"), with reference to the following facts:

     A. The Company and Seller are parties to that certain Asset Purchase
Agreement dated November 1, 1997 (the "PURCHASE AGREEMENT").

     B. Section 9(c) of the Purchase Agreement provides that either Seller or
the Company may terminate the Purchase Agreement if the Closing (as defined
therein) shall not have occurred on or prior to March 31, 1998.

     C. The Seller and the Company desire to amend Section 9(c) to change the
date to July 31, 1998.

     NOW THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing facts, the Company and the
Seller agree as follows:

         1. Amendment to Section 9(c).

         Section 9(c) is hereby amended by changing the date set forth therein
from "March 31, 1998" to "July 31, 1998."

         2. No Other Amendments.

         Except as set forth in this Amendment, all the terms and provisions of
the Purchase Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is made and entered as of the date
and the year first above written.


GOLF ONE INDUSTRIES, INC.,                           GARY PLAYER GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation                               a Florida corporation



By: ___________________________                      By: _______________________
         Alfonso J. Cervantes,
         Chief Executive Officer
Consent of Christopher Moreton
 
 I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Cerro San Pedro Mine, San Luis Potosí, Mexico” dated February 16, 2010 and amended March 22, 2010, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2013, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.
 
 
 Dated this 28th day of March, 2014
 
 
 “Christopher Moreton”Name:
Christopher Moreton, Ph.D., P. GeoTitle:
Former Senior Consulting Geologist
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2014

- 0925 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NM

- 229

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### In corporate AFM TR in AFM Emergency Procedure 1 .0 $ 85.00 $ 

### 0 $ 85.00 

### 91 $ 7,735.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: 

### 0 Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 7,735 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this f ield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

**Executive Order 12866:**
Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action” ?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
#### Hirschfeld Properties, Inc., Appellant, v John Juliano et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 714]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about October 11, 2002, which, in an action to enforce a real estate brokerage agreement, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The writing between the parties on which plaintiff relies does not contemplate payment of plaintiffs commission by defendants, and thus is not a valid real estate brokerage agreement between the parties *(see Buck v Cimino,*243 AD2d 681, 684 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 807 [1998]). Absent such, plaintiff must demonstrate that it was the procuring cause of the lease. *400Plaintiff admits that it was not. Indeed, plaintiff did nothing more than submit two pieces of paper to defendants with respect to space that defendants were already discussing with the landlord *(cf. id.*at 684-685). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.