alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-Q of NCI Building Systems, Inc.;2.
    
    This quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and3
    
    The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NCI Building Systems, Inc.
  /s/ Mark E. JohnsonMark E. JohnsonExecutive Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Susan STURZA, Appellant, v. MAINLINE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee.

No. 1D17-3973

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6261 

AN ACT 

To direct the Comptroller General to conduct a review on 

the impact of crime on public building usage, and for 

other purposes. 

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

•HR 6261 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Impact of Crime on 

3 Public Building Usage Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPORT ON IMPACT OF CRIME ON PUBLIC BUILD5 ING USAGE. 

6 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

7 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

8 shall conduct a review and submit to Congress a report 

9 outlining— 

10 (1) the effects of increased crime rates and 

11 safety concerns, including use of fentanyl and other 

12 drugs and homelessness, in urban areas on building 

13 usage for in-person work at Federal buildings; 

14 (2) how usage of different commuting modes of 

15 transportation to Federal buildings are affected by 

16 increased crime rates; 

17 (3) the effects of low office utilization rates on 

18 safety around Federal buildings; 

19 (4) any agency exceptions given to the policy 

20 set forth in the memorandum of the Office of Man21 agement and Budget titled ‘‘Measuring, Monitoring, 

22 and Improving Organizational Health and Organiza23 tional Performance in the Context of Evolving Agen24 cy Work Environments’’ and issued on April 13, 

25 2023, due to unsafe commuting conditions; and 
3 

•HR 6261 EH

1 (5) any costs associated with safety issues im2 pacting Federal building. 

3 SEC. 3. REPORT ON COSTS OF CRIME AROUND PUBLIC 

4 BUILDINGS. 

5 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

6 of this Act, the inspector general of the General Services 

7 Administration shall submit to Congress a report on the 

8 impacts on and costs associated with building operations 

9 related to crime and public safety in and around Federal 

10 buildings. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6261 

AN ACT 

To direct the Comptroller General to conduct a reusage, and for other purposes. view on the impact of crime on public building
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

SEPTEMBER 24, 2015

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b).

1. Case No. SD33564

Re: CEBRON CORDELL FINLEY,

Movant-Appellant,

v. STATE OF MISSOURI,

Respondent-Respondent.
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries



|                                                |  |                                           
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Name                                            |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Formation
|                                                | 
|Midland Credit Management, Inc.                 |  | Kansas                                    
|MRC Receivables Corporation                     |  | Delaware                                  
|Midland Funding NCC-2 Corporation               |  | Delaware                                  
|Midland Portfolio Services, Inc.                |  | Delaware                                  
|Midland Funding LLC                             |  | Delaware                                  
|Ascension Capital Group, Inc.                   |  | Delaware                                  
|Midland India LLC                               |  | Minnesota                                 
|Midland Credit Management India Private Limited |  | Delhi, India                              
|Midland International LLC                       |  | Delaware                                  
|Midland Credit Management (Mauritius) Ltd       |  | Mauritius
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7109

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

RICHARD A. ORR, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief 

District Judge. (2:00-cr-10067-jpj-1) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 28, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Richard A. Orr, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Richard A. Orr appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to correct errors in the Presentence 

Investigation Report. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See United States v. Orr, No. 2:00-cr10067-jpj-1 (W.D. Va. June 19, 2008). 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. 

AFFIRMED
Darryl Emery GORDON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-3671

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 2018

Darryl Gordon, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition is denied on the merits.

Lewis, Roberts, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Russell A. FINCH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3050

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Chad Allen GRUBB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5165

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
#### Walter Timothy GAUSE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6249

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 5, 2017

Decided: September 20, 2017

Walter Timothy Gause, Appellant Pro Se. Jess D. Mekeel, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Walter Timothy Gause seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We grant Gause’s motion to amend his informal brief and construe Gause’s motions for review, for static of court, to excuse procedural default, and for a certificate of appealability as supplemental motions to amend the informal brief, and we grant leave to amend. We have independently reviewed the record in light of the claims Gause raises on appeal and conclude that he has not made the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Gause’s motions to appoint counsel, to dismiss the indictment, for postjudgment discovery, for static urgency, for summary disposition, and for relief, and we dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
#### Willie T. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Renee BAKER, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15193

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 24, 2017

Willie T. Smith, Pro Se

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Willie T. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the seizure of his mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. *5672000). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s procedural due process claim regarding the confiscation of his mail because Smith’s allegations demonstrate that defendants provided him with notice and an opportunity to appeal to an independent official. *See Procunier v. Martinez,*416 U.S. 396, 418-19, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974) (“[T]he decision to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter must be accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards.”); *Krug v. Lutz,*329 F.3d 692, 696 (9th Cir. 2003) (prisoners have a right to two-level review of mail restrictions).

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s equal protection claim because Smith failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was discriminated against because of his membership in a protected class or that he was treated differently than similarly situated individuals without a rational basis. *See N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica,*526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008) (elements of “class' of one” equal protection claim); *Serrano v. Frauds,*345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (requirements for equal protection claim based on membership in protected class).

However, dismissal of Smith’s First Amendment claim against Doe 1 and Doe 2 regarding the confiscation of his incoming mail was premature because Smith’s allegations that defendants seized and withheld his mail without a legitimate pe-nological interest, liberally construed, are sufficient to state a claim. *See Thornburgh v. Abbott,*490 U.S. 401, 413-19, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989) (setting forth factors for evaluating a First Amendment claim relating to the regulation of incoming mail). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment regarding the First Amendment claim against Doe 1 and Doe 2 and remand for further proceedings.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Smith’s request for remand to a different district court judge or remand with instructions for the district court to appoint pro bono counsel, set forth in his opening brief, are denied.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10054

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DONALD TERRELL BANKS, also known as T-Blue,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CV-1800

USDC No. 3:03-CR-78-4

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donald Terrell Banks, federal prisoner # 30671-177, was convicted by a

jury of conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Prior to trial, Banks pled guilty to

distribution of cocaine base, in violation of Sections 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The

district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 360 months

for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and 240 months for distribution of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 29, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10054

2

cocaine base. We previously affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct

appeal, rejecting, among other points, the argument that due to United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court committed plain error when it

found certain facts relative to sentencing. United States v. Fields, 138 F. App’x

622, 625, 628 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Banks filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which the district court denied.

The district court granted a certificate of appealability on Banks’s claim that

counsel’s failure to raise an objection to the district court’s findings of drug type

and quantity pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),

constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Whether counsel’s failure to

preserve the Booker issue by making an Apprendi objection constituted

ineffective assistance was recently addressed in United States v. Fields, 565 F.3d

290, 293-97 (5th Cir. 2009). At the time of Banks’s sentencing, the law of this

circuit was settled that Apprendi did not apply to the Sentencing Guidelines.

See id. at 295; United States v. Randle, 304 F.3d 373, 378 (5th Cir. 2002). The

failure of counsel to anticipate that Booker would apply the rule of Apprendi to

the Sentencing Guidelines or to predict “the absolute sea-change in federal

sentencing wrought by Booker” does not constitute constitutionally ineffective

assistance. Fields, 565 F.3d at 295-97. 

Contrary to Bank’s argument, the district court did not err by denying his

motion without a hearing. The facts relevant to this case are essentially

undisputed and are conclusive in showing that Banks is not entitled to relief.

See United States v. Bartholomew, 974 F.2d 39, 41 (5th Cir. 1992). 

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 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 accompanying Annual report on Form 10-KSB of Skinvisible, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, I, Terry Howlett, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:
  (1)   the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Skinvisible, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents in
 all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Skinvisible, Inc.
 
 
 By:          /s/ Terry Howlett
 
 Name: Terry Howlett
  Title: Chief Executive Officer
 Chief Financial Officer
  Date: April 14, 2004
 
 
 1
Exhibit 23





Consent of Sheila Ellen Daniel





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 “NI 43-101 Technical Report Feasibility Study of the Rainy River Project, Ontario, Canada”, dated
February 14, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2014, 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 27th day of March, 2015





|/s/ Sheila Ellen Daniel |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|----------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name:                   | Sheila Ellen Daniel                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|Title:                  | Senior Associate Geoscientist; Head, Environmental Management
                                                                                Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure,
                                                                                a Division of Amec Foster Wheeler Americas Limited
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Form 10-KSB of Moving Bytes Inc., a company duly formed under the Canada Business Corporation Act (the Company), for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), J. Erik Mustad Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark M. Smith Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his/her knowledge, 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/    J. ERIK MUSTAD                                  
|-------------------------------------------------------
|                                                       
|J. Erik Mustad

Chief Executive Officer

April 14, 2005
|                                                       
|                                                       
|                                                       
|                                                       
|                                                       
|                                                       
|                                                       
|/s/    MARK M. SMITH                                   
|                                                       
|Mark M. Smith

Chief Financial Officer

April 14, 2005 
|                                                       







This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



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





---
#### Brian FARABEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; Eric Madsen, Psychologist II; A. David Robinson, Chief of Corrections Operations (“CCO”); M. Carry, M.D., Psychiatrist; The Virginia Department of Corrections, (VA DOC), Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7723

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 18, 2017

Decided: April 24, 2017

Brian Damon Farabee, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and Shedd and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*155PER CURIAM:

Brian Farabee seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for injunctive relief by declaratory judgment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order that Fara-bee seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

*DISMISSED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Washington CRANE, V, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6612

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 22, 2017

George Washington Crane, V, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

PER CURIAM:

George Washington Crane, V, appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. *See United States v. May,*855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, we deny Crane’s motion to expedite and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Crane,*No. 1:13-cr-00297-LO-1 (E.D. Va. May 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*
Atef S. ZAKHARY, M.D., et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. RAYMOND TOMPSON PSM, INC., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2073

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.