alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report of Internet Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony P. Dolanski, 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 position and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                          
|/s/    Anthony P. Dolanski                                
|                                                          
|Anthony P. Dolanski Chief Financial
Officer March 15, 2004
Rick Scott 

Gove rn or 

jennifer ellToll 

Lt . Governor 

Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection 

Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Hersc hel T. Vi nydrd Ir 

Secret;n)' 

May 20, 2011 r- !oJ ,......., 


(= = ;~ 

0:: ~: 

- ;n ( _::::J 1:::;­ :;0 -'" -~ :1"1 

Ms, Gwendolyn Keyes c:: -c ~J f'l Fleming e- N l ) 

Regional Administrator -- -J -j :~

~ 

! (. 

-.' ! f1 -~ U.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 0, I' \J c~

.... C r :.1:: - --; .-,.~. 61 Forsyth Street, SW -11 r 

ilCn W -"7~~ r . ! 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104 ;::; ~~ .-J 

N .-; 17!(':: '" 00 '\:; 

Dear Ms. Fleming: 

Governor Rick Scott asked me to respond to an April 25, 2011 letter from Franklin Hill, 


Director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Region 4 Superfund 


Division, soliciting the state of Florida's support for EPA to add the Continental 


Cleaners site, 798 NW 62nd Street, Miami, Florida, to the National Priorities List (NPL). 


Based on the site's high levels of chlorinated volatile organic compounds in 


groundwater, the site's proximity to public water supply wells, and the responsible 


party's unwillingness and inability to conduct cleanup, the state of Florida supports 


EP A's proposal to list the Continental Cleaners site on the NPL. 


We appreciate EPA's assistance in assessing and cleaning up contaminated sites in 


Florida. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to 


contact Mr. Jorge Caspary, Director of the Florida Department of Environmental 


Protection's (DEP) Division of Waste Management, at (850) 245-8697. 


r1SinCerelY" / / \ • 

V7 ' I -I -'7 . 1 . rschel T. VinY'Y"d Jr. 


Secretary 


cc: large Caspary, Director, Division of Waste Management, DEP 


Kevin Claridge, Acting Director, Southeast District, DEP 


Wilbur Mayorga, Section Chief, Pollution Control Division, 


Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resource 

Management 

WW\ \/. dcp.sICllc. 11 .LIS
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kevin McCarthy, the President and Chief Executive Officer of PFF Bancorp, Inc. (the Company), in connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q/A for the period ending December 31, 2007 (the Report), do hereby 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:



| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o (d)) and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                    
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: April 10, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Kevin McCarthy                                                 
|                     |  |  |  | Kevin McCarthy                                                     
|                     |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6073 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6073

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2024

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 9925 Bustleton Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the 
    ``Sergeant Christopher David Fitzgerald Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT CHRISTOPHER DAVID FITZGERALD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 9925 Bustleton Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Sergeant Christopher David Fitzgerald 
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 ``Sergeant 
Christopher David Fitzgerald Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                  5

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                               11,652,505
<SECURITIES>                            540,234
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,198,199
<ALLOWANCES>                             43,906
<INVENTORY>                              18,239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     13,497,043
<PP&E>                                  992,272
<DEPRECIATION>                         (197,053)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       19,966,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 4,230,620
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                 22,205
<OTHER-SE>                           15,736,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         19,966,847
<SALES>                              27,220,240
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     27,220,240
<CGS>                                17,274,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         5,639,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     (5,442,330)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       22,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       9,748,349
<INCOME-TAX>                          3,784,110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   5,964,239
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                          5,964,239
<EPS-BASIC>                                0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.23



</TABLE>
GARY M. RIDLEY

Secretary ofTrnnspot1ation MARY FALLIN Governor STATE OF OKLAHOMA

July 22, 2013
Brooke chapman, Associate Director Small Community Air Service Development Program U. S. Department ofTransportation 1200New Jersey Ave. SE W86-310 Washington, DC 20590 Dear Ms. Chapman, 

### ~, c'

1] ry w .cr

Air Service is vitally important to the economic wellbeing ofbusiness in the Southwest Region ofthe state ofOklahoma. Regional business growth and sustainment depends, in part, onthe ability to meet the air tTavelneeds ofexisting locll!businesses and institutions as well as companies considering Lawton as alocation for their operations. As aMetropolitan Statistical. Area (MSA) with apopulation of 124,089 as identified inthe 2010 census, Lawton has the population needed to support good commercial air servicc. Retaining this commercial air serVice is critical to not only their local economy, buttothe state as well. The proposed plan will do this by supporting scheduled service and finding new ways to market and advertise .the service to the local community. The cost ofdriving to alternate airports results inlostproductivity and increases the cost of travel. Inthe world ofbusiness, time ismoney. Lost time in driving another hour or two to the nearest airport can't be recovered. Thc proposed air service marketing initiative is an important step inthe right direction to kccp commercial air service inLawton. We are pleased to have the opportunity to support the grant application, and assure you that we will work diligently with airport administration to insure the long-term success ofair service in the Lawton community. Sincerely,

3500MARrl1'l LUTHER KINO AVENUE. P.O. BOX 11357. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73136-0357.405-425-3601
### {In Archive} Information Request Shaheerah Fateen to: j ennife r .wilder 06/01/2004 11:24 AM Bcc: Shaheerah Fateen From: Shaheerah Fateen/R9/USEPA/US To: j ennife r .wilder@exxonmobil.com, Bcc: Shaheerah Fateen/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive. Jennifer, below is the information I requested regarding the other emissions units in the field at the McElmo Creek site. I'm drafting the Title V permit and need to complete the administrative record regarding the single source issue. 1. The emissions units (other than the units at the Gas plant) located within the McElmo Creek site 2. The dates of installation for each emissions unit 3. The actual emissions for NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, and HAPs from 1998 to 2003 4. The potential emissions for NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, and HAPs 5. The calculation method and any gas analysis done 6. The location of each emission unit, if known, in terms of range, township, and section Can you let me know if it is possible to send the above info this week or early next week. Please let me know if gathering the info will take longer. Also, please let me know if you would like us to request this info in an official letter. Thanks. Shaheerah Fateen U S EPA Region 9, Air Division (AIR-3) San Francisco, CA 94105 email: fateen.shaheerah@epa.gov Phone: 415-947-4156 Fax: 415-947-3579
#### Lisa Ann COLMERY-PINKERTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joshua CARRASCO, Deputy, individual and official capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56099

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017

Lisa Ann Colmery-Pinkerton, Hemet, CA, pro se.

Arthur K. Cunningham, Esquire, Stephanie J. Tañada, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard *&*Smith LLP, Christopher D. Lockwood, Arias *&*Lockwood, San Bernardino, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lisa Ann Colmery-Pinkerton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury trial in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unlawful detention, unlawful search of her person and vehicle, and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We are unable to consider Colmery-Pinkerton’s challenge to the jury verdict based upon alleged false testimony because Colmery-Pinkerton failed to provide any portion of the trial transcript. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); *Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade,*924 F.2d 167, 168 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal filed by pro se appellant for failure to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2)).

We do not consider matters not properly raised before the district court, or 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).

We do not consider documents not presented to the' district court because they are not part of the record on appeal. *United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Arizona HALL Petitioner-Appellant v. Josh HAWLEY, Missouri Attorney General Respondent-Appellee

No. 17-1090

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 13, 2017

Filed: June 19, 2017

Arizona Hall, Pro Se

Stephen David Hawke, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent-Appel-lee

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On March 2, 2016, Arizona Hall filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. He cited, among other statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and he claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and suffered due process violations in proceedings underlying two separate criminal convictions that he incurred in 2013. Mr. Hall sought habeas corpus relief, discharge of his convictions and sentences, and restitution. The district *286court instructed Mr. Hall to file an amended complaint raising only his civil rights claims, and directed the court clerk to send him a section 2254 form to use if he wished to file a separate habeas petition. See Hall v. State, No. 4:16-cv-00291-CDP, 2016 WL 4720457 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 9, 2016) (Hall 1).

Two weeks later Mr. Hall filed a section 2254 petition challenging both 2013 convictions; the court directed him to file an amended petition addressing only one conviction, and Mr. Hall complied. Thereafter, the court ordered Mr. Hall to show cause as to why the amended petition should not be dismissed as untimely. Attaching a copy of his Hall 1 filing, Mr, Hall argued that his claims were timely because he had first raised them before the limitations period expired. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely.

Upon careful review, we note that the district court did not discuss whether the claims in the amended petition relate back to those raised in Hall 1, which appears to have been filed within the limitations period. See Dodd v. United States, 614 F.3d 512, 515 (8th Cir. 2010) (claims in amended habeas petition relate back to original petition when they arise out of “same conduct, transaction, or occurrence” set forth in original petition and are tied to “common core of operative facts”). We vacate the order of dismissal and remand for the district court to consider the relation-back issue and — if the petition is deemed timely — the merits of Mr. Hall’s claims, including any procedural default. We express no opinion on these questions.
#### Sergio Oseguera CEJA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70758

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

Raul Ray, Esquire, Attorney, The Law Offices of Raul Ray, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner

Anthony John Messuri, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sergio Oseguera Ceja, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and we review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. *Bonilla v. Lynch,*840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and remand.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Oseguera’s motion to reopen for failure to establish changed country conditions in Mexico so as to excuse his untimely motion to reopen to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. *See Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions for failure to produce evidence of a change in conditions).

However, as the government concedes, the BIA erred in determining that Osegu-era was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal based on failure to comply with his grant of voluntary departure. *See Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder,*702 F.3d 504, 523-25 (9th Cir. 2012) (recognizing that 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(f) automatically terminates a grant of voluntary departure when an alien files a petition for review); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) (stating “the penalties for failure to depart voluntarily shall not apply to an alien who files a petition for review.”). Because it is unclear whether the BIA’s error affected its decision not to reopen sua sponte, we remand this case for the BIA to consider Oseguera’s request to *296reopen sua sponte against the correct legal background. *See Bonilla,*840 F.3d at 588 (“If, upon exercise of its jurisdiction, this court concludes that the Board relied on an incorrect legal premise, it should remand to the BIA so it may exercise its authority against the correct legal background.” (citation and internal quotation omitted)).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Thomas Jerome BULLOCK, III, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23131.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 1966.

*484H. T. Carter, Columbus, Miss. (Court-appointed), for appellant.

H. M. Ray, U. S. Atty., E. Grady Jolly, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for appellee.

Before RIVES, GEWIN and GOD-BOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a conviction in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi on two counts of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C., See. 2312. The appellant claims that his arrest was unlawful thus rendering inadmissible certain evidence used against him.

On June 2, 1965, appellant and one Norman, went to Justice of the Peace Patrick in Columbus, Mississippi, to obtain a bill of sale for a 1962 Chevrolet which appellant was driving. In filling out the bill of sale the appellant omitted the tag number and serial number of the car. When this omission was called to his attention, Norman asserted the car bore no tag but they would get the serial number. Judge Patrick had a constable follow them to see where they went, the kind of vehicle they were driving and whether it had a tag number of any description. After a few minutes the constable reported back to Judge Patrick. The appellant and Norman then returned with the serial number, but still did not furnish a tag number. Actually the car did have a tag issued in Louisiana. After appellant and Norman left his office, Judge Patrick telephoned the city police. The police then put out over the police radio an alert, describing the car in question and requesting all police to be “on the lookout” for it. Officer Oglesby spotted the car and followed it to a service station where appellant had stopped. He asked the appellant for his driver’s license and when appellant stated he did not have one, he was arrested. On June 9, 1965, a week later, the owner of Cox’s Standard Service Station informed the police that two cars had been abandoned on his parking lot. The police found in one of these cars a bed sheet and towel. Upon investigation, one of these abandoned ears and the car for which appellant had tried to get a bill of sale were found to be stolen. Appellant was subsequently indicted and convicted.

The bed sheet and towel, the admission of which appellant complains, were seized from one of the abandoned cars which apparently belonged to Norman. Since the record does not show that appellant ever had or claimed any interest in this vehicle, we find that he has no standing to *complain.*Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960); United States v. Konigsberg, 336 F.2d 844, 847 (3 Cir. 1964); United States v. Grosso, 358 F.2d 154 (3 Cir. 1966); Rule 41, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.

The judgment is affirmed.
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 Annual Report of Blockbuster Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Larry J. Zine, 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:



| | 3. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 1, 2007



/s/ Larry J. ZineLarry J. Zine Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer