alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: Brian William SCHUMAKER, Petitioner.

No. 17-1461

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 18, 2017

Decided: July 27, 2017

Brian William Schumaker, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian William Schumaker, a native and citizen of Canada and a federal prisoner, *filed*a petition for an original writ of habe-as corpus. Schumaker seeks the immediate execution of his final order of removal so that he may be turned over to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security and removed to Canada now rather than at the conclusion of his federal sentence. This court ordinarily declines to entertain original habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), and this case provides no reason to depart from the general rule. Moreover, we find that the interest of justice would not be served by transferring the case to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2012). Accordingly, we deny Schu-maker leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in *127the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DISMISSED*
#### EQUITY INCOME PARTNERS, LP, an Arizona Limited Partnership; Galileo Capital Partners Limited, a Cayman Islands Exempted Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-15388

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed March 3, 2017

Submitted March 3, 2017 San Francisco, California

Argued March 18, 2016

Dennis I. Wilenchik, Esquire, Tyler Quinn Swensen, Attorney, Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Patrick J. Dayis, Esquire, Attorney, Nathaniel B. Rose, Fidelity National Law Group, Phoenix, AZ, Daniel E. Freden-berg, Attorney, Fredenberg Beams, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: KLEINFELD, RAWLINSON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

On July 12, 2016, we certified the following questions of law to the Arizona Su*586preme Court pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat, § 12-1862:

> 1. When a lender purchases property by full-credit bid at a trustee’s sale, does Section 9 [of the standard form lender’s title insurance policies] apply, or does Section 2 apply?

> 2. Is a full-credit bid at a trustee’s sale a “payment” or “payment[] made” under Sections 2 or 9 of the policies?

> 3. To what extent does a full-credit bid at a trustee’s sale either (a) terminate coverage under Section 2(a)(i) of the policies, or (b) reduce coverage under Section 2 and any possible liability under Section 7?

*Equity Income Partners, LP v. Chi Title Ins. Co.,*828 F.3d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 2016).

On February 7, 2017, the Arizona Supreme Court answered the certified questions as follows:

> 1. Section 2 applies when a lender purchases property by full-credit bid at a trustee’s sale.

> 2. A full-credit bid at a trustee’s sale is not a “payment” under Sections 2 or 9 of the policy.

> 3. The full-credit bid neither terminates nor reduces coverage under Section 2 or Section 7.1

*Equity Income Partners, LP v. Chi. Title Ins. Co.,*241 Ariz. 334, 387 P.3d 1263, 1264-65 (2017).

In light of the Arizona Supreme Court’s answers to the certified questions, we vacate the district court’s summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with those answers. Costs are awarded to appellants. Fed. R. App. P. 39(a).

VACATED and REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. The footnote in the Arizona Supreme Court opinion stated:

> As explained below, the trustee sale may reduce or even eliminate a title insurer's ultimate liability under its policy. However, this reduction or elimination is not a function of the credit bid amount. Rather, the amount of the reduction, if any, is the fair market value of the property the lender receives as a result of its credit bid or, if the property is acquired by a third party, the amount that party pays for the property.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements:



of
our reports dated September 14, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. and Subsidiaries and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. and Subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended July 1, 2012.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

Jericho,
New York
September 14, 2012

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7343
JOHN EDWARD SCRUGGS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE DEEDS, War den; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-26-R) Submitted: February 27, 1998 Decided: March 20, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Edward Scruggs, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. To the extent that Scruggs alleges cause for the procedural default of his malicious prosecution claim, we find that his attorney was not ineffective, and thus that federal review of this claim is barred. See Harris v. Reed , 489 U.S. 255, 262 (1989). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Scruggs v. Deeds , No. CA-97-26-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 15, 1997).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Core Solutions,
Inc.

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



Date:  April 15, 2004


By:      /S/ EDWARD MIERS
         -----------------------------------------
Name:    Edward Miers
Title:   President and Principal Executive Officer









                                       34
<PAGE>
Vincent BODDISON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0317

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Benson CALLIER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Tiffany HUBERT, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0288

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 12-10003 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00241-WSD-ECS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SCOTT AHN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Northern District of Georgia

 ________________________

(August 7, 2012)

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-10003 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 1 of 2 
Jay L. Strongwater, appointed counsel for Scott Ahn in this direct criminal

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Ahn’s conviction and sentence

are AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 12-10003 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 2 of 2
certificate of analysis

Property of Ciba Specialty Chemicals. Not to be disclosed to third parties without previous consent of Ciba Specialty Chemicals.

PRODUCT: CGI 725

ITEM No.: 0568238 Lot.-Nr. 30073FC6 (Vers. 1-9) 

DATE: 20.07.2006

Test Item Spec Vers. 1-9 Analytical Method Remarks

Appearance powder powder Visual assessment

Water 

content % 0.22 % K. F. titration

Chloride max. mg/kg <2 mg/kg argentometric titration

Weight loss max. % 0.26 % gravimetry 60°C, 2 hrs, vacuum

Acid content max. mmole/kg <0.1 mmole/kg acid/base titration refers to fresh sample only

Purity min. area-% 99,52 area-%* HPLC

Na max. ppb ppb elemental analysis

K max. ppb ppb ditto

Ca max. ppb ppb ditto

Fe max. ppb ppb ditto

Zn max. ppb ppb ditto

Al max. ppb ppb ditto

Mg max. ppb ppb ditto

Mn max. ppb ppb ditto

Ni max. ppb ppb ditto

Cr max. ppb ppb ditto

Cu max. ppb ppb ditto

*Ratio of Isomers: 99,52 : 0,44 %F/F
#### Nathanael Lenard REYNOLDS, Appellant v. Julia SWILLY, Asst. Solicitor, et al., Appellees

No. 16-7021

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: March 16, 2017

Rehearing En Banc Denied June 6, 2017

Nathanael Lenard Reynolds, Pro Se

BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Millett, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed January 20, 2016, dismissing the complaint with prejudice on the ground of prosecutorial immunity, be affirmed. It is well established that, “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, the prosecutor *5is immune from a civil suit for damages under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Appellant has not demonstrated that any of the appellees’ alleged actions or omissions fall outside the protection of prosecutorial immunity.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation (the “Company”) for thequarter ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Otley L. Smith III, the President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

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

 
| Date: February 14, 2005 | /s/ Otley L. Smith III                 |   |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Otley L. Smith III                     |
|                    | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
     The undersigned, Brion Umidi, the Chief Financial Officer of ReGenBiologics, Inc., the Company, has executed this certification in connectionwith the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September 30,2004 the, Report. The undersigned hereby certifies that:
     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.        Date: November 12, 2004 /s/ Brion Umidi   Name:  Brion Umidi   Title:  *Chief Financial Officer*
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 Quarterly Report of Catalina Marketing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Dick Buell, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|/s/ L. Dick Buell                                                                           
|L. Dick Buell Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer) May 9,
2007
Unique List of E

-Mail Addresses Steam Electric Questionnaire

alan.day@fpl.com ; alanarnold@alliantenergy.com ; andrew.walz@aes.com ; aretherford@vectren.com ; arwood@aep.com ; barb.irwin@dynegy.com ; bbromley@empiredistrict.com ; boyds@dteenergy.com ; browns@firstenergycorp.com ; bruceparker@electricenergyinc.com ; CCNPP

- PGM@constallation.com ; cdiekvoss@rpu.org ; cheryl.hess@conectiv.com ; chhuling@southernco.com ; christian.kiernan@fpl.com ; nicholas.bach@fpl.com ; crberry@southernco.com ; dan.casiraro@srpnet.com ; david. abrams@aes.com ; david.lee@we

- energies.com ; david.robinson@fpl.com ; dawebb@midamerican.com ; dawilli2@wcnoc.com ; dfulkers@ovec.com ; donn.fukuda@heco.com ; dsimmers@acpowercolver.com ; dzerr@empiredistrict.com ; Earl.Enzor@pgnmail.com ; edward.f.tracey@constellation.com ; foxr@southwestgen.com ; fred.carl@blackhillscorp.com ; gdaeger@aes.com ; genlmgr4@netscape.net ; jacrawford@cmsenergy.com ; Jamie.Pierce@fpl.com ; jared.morrison@westarenergy.com ; jdwiegand@midamerican.com ; jeff.harter@aes.com ; Jeff.Tucker@pacificorp.com ; jgschultzen@midamerican.com ; jhantz@entergy.com ; jlapcev@alleghenyenergy.com ; joey.henderson@pse.com ; jovick@southernco.com ; jvisscher@hollandbpw.com ; kalle.kuether@mdu.com ; kayoung@tecoenergy.com ; Kent.Stoffle@cengllc.com ; Kimberly.Mireles@luminant.com ; krubin@ladwp.com ; lpjohnson@tva.gov ; may.johnson@conectiv.com ; mbpodany@midamerican.com ; mdimauro@mmwec.org ; meharrel@santeecooper.com ; michael.winkler@eon

-us.com ; mwbowden@southernco.com ; naevans@pplweb.com ; neal.mckenney@fpl.com ; palmeag@nu.com ; rcarter@sscogen.com ; rgould@smud.org ; Robert.Wylie@duke

energy.com ; russell.furnari@pseg.com ; schuttjm@oge.com ; scomensk@southernco.com ; Scott.Davis@aps.com ; Scott.Heidtbrink@kcpl.com ; scwhitworth@ameren.com ; sfrank@rrienergy.com ; t_hogan@wvpa.com ; tcmoorer@southernco.com ; ted.long@nrgenergy.com ; tgraumann@otpco.com ; Thomas.HardingJr@cengllc.com ; vldanner@midamerican.com ; whowell@empiredistrict.com ; William.Rossiter@constellation.com ;
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 599 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 454
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 599

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2024

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                             August 1, 2024

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3500 West 6th Street, Suite 103 in Los Angeles, California, as the 
                  ``Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DOSAN AHN CHANG HO POST OFFICE REDESIGNATION.

    (a) Redesignation.--Section 1 of Public Law 108-239 is amended by 
striking ``3751 West 6th Street in Los Angeles, California'' and 
inserting ``3500 West 6th Street, Suite 103 in Los Angeles, 
California''.
    (b) 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 of Public Law 108-239 as amended by subsection (a) shall 
be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 454

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 599

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3500 West 6th Street, Suite 103 in Los Angeles, California, as the 
                  ``Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 1, 2024

                       Reported without amendment
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.

         In connection with the amendment to the Annual Report of SED
International Holdings, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Philip Flynt, 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, to my knowledge:
         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company, and for, the periods presented in this Report.


         Dated: October 28, 2003
                                             /s/ Philip Flynt
                                             Chief Financial Officer

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Act and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate document.
Exhibit 32.1 Section 906 CEO Certification

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

In connection with the filing of this report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
July 5, 2005 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the undersigned
hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.


     August 15, 2005            /s/ Stephen E. Pomeroy
                                -------------------------------
                                Stephen E. Pomeroy
                                Chief Executive Officer and President


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT
Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Dorette B. SHIRLEY, Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as Indenture Trustee FOR NEWCASTLE MORTGAGE SECURITIES TRUST 2006-1, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2802

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 14, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1999
<CASH>                                           1,103
<SECURITIES>                                    23,424
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,184
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,115
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,811
<PP&E>                                          92,609
<DEPRECIATION>                                (35,459)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,354
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,268
<SALES>                                         26,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,855
<CGS>                                           27,479
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,479
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,741
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,365)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,059)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,306)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,306)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.50)


</TABLE>