alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC

United Airlines, Complainant,


### v. PortAuthority ofNew York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) Respondent. 

### ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

### ) )
ORDER FAA Docket No. 16-14-13

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based onthe above referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules ofPractice for Federally-Assisted Airport EnforcementProceedings, 14 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 16. As the parties are aware, the Director concludedthere appears to be a reasonable basis for further investigation and engaged two outside contractors to provide support services for the investigation. The investigation is progressing, but additional time is needed. Accordingly, an extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete consideration ofthis case. Pmsuantto 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued inthis matter is hereby extendedto August 26, 2016.

Robin K. Hunt Director, Office ofAirport (Acting) Compliance and Management Analysis

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


### I HEREBY CERTIFY that onMay 27, 2016, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid) and to be emailed at the addresses below or personally delivered a true copy ofthe foregoing Order addressed to:
For Complainant Robert S. Span Steinbrecher & 

### SpanLLP 1155 F. Street, NW, Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 rspan0Jsteinbrecherspan.com Marc L. 

### Warren Crowell & 

### Moring LLP 1001 PennsylvaniaAvenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 mwarren@crowell.com For Respondent Carlene V. Mcintyre The Port Authority ofNewYork and New Jersey 225 parkAvenue South NewYork,NewYork, 10003 c1Uci11tvT(i1!panyTni.gov 

### Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100



# -==----~:=~ Miguel Vasconcelos Office ofAirport Compliance and ManagementAnalysis
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Larry M. Rinehart is the President, ChiefExecutive Officer and Director of PFF Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with thefiling by the Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

         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

         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.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit tothe Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as theReport is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

November 12, 2002 
/s/ Larry M. Rinehart
Dated 
Larry M. Rinehart
#### Ellen Sullivan, Resp’t, v. The Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., App’lt.

Daly, J.

The first defence set up in this action, as appears from the record from the court below, is breach of warranty, and the general term reversed the *1024judgment in plaintiff’s favor because that defence had been sustained by competent testimony. There was, therefore, no misapprehension on the part of the general term.

Motion for re-argument denied, with ten dollars costs.

Bischoff, J.

The case of *Edingion*v. *Mutual Life Ins. Co.,*87 N. Y., 185, cited by counsel for respondent on this motion, has no application to the facts of this case.

Motion for re-argument denied, with costs.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6760 

To prohibit United States contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change, and the Green Climate Fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER (for himself, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mrs. WAGNER, Mr. 

ALFORD, Mr. BURLISON, and Mr. SMITH of Missouri) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit United States contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the 

Green Climate Fund. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Tax Dollars for 

5 the United Nations Climate Agenda Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6760 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS 

2 TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON 

3 CLIMATE CHANGE, THE UNITED NATIONS 

4 FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE 

5 CHANGE, AND THE GREEN CLIMATE FUND. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 

7 made available to any Federal department or agency may 

8 be used to make assessed or voluntary contributions on 

9 behalf of the United States to or for the Intergovern10 mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Na11 tions Framework Convention on Climate Change 

12 (UNFCCC), or the Green Climate Fund. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6242

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

XAVIER HOLDEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cr-00484-JKB-5; 1:18-cv-02095-JKB)

Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Xavier Holden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Xavier Holden seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (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 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Holden has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

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
Exhibit
32.3








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





I,
Anthony J. Branca, Chief Financial Officer of ICON Capital Corp., the Manager of
the Registrant, in connection with the Annual Report of ICON Leasing Fund
Twelve, LLC (the “LLC”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Annual Report”) certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





1.
            The
      Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the LLC.







Date: March
30, 2010





/s/Anthony J.
Branca__


Anthony
J. Branca


Chief
Financial Officer


ICON
Capital Corp.


Manager
of ICON Leasing Fund Twelve, LLC
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6646 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6646

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the order in which 
      the business credits are taken into account by corporations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2023

  Mr. Steube (for himself and Mr. Buchanan) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the order in which 
      the business credits are taken into account by corporations.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF ORDER IN WHICH CORPORATIONS TAKE BUSINESS 
              CREDITS INTO ACCOUNT.

    (a) In General.--Section 38(c)(6)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (i), by 
striking clauses (ii) and (iii), and by adding at the end the following 
new clause:
                            ``(ii) paragraphs (2) and (4) shall not 
                        apply.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this 
Act with respect to credits arising in taxable years ending before, on, 
or after such date.
                                 <all>
```
#### John Alfred PANZER I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16993

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

John Alfred Panzer, I, Pro Se

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

John Alfred Panzer I appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, *McHenry v. Renne,*84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Panzer’s action for failure to comply with Rule 8, because the complaint does not contain “a short and plain statement of the claims showing that [Panzer] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2), (d)(1); *McHenry,*84 F.3d at 1174 (affirming dismissal under Rule 8, and recognizing that “[p]rolix, confusing complaints ... impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Panzer’s complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### William M. Jones, Respondent, *v.*John Schreyer, impleaded, etc., Appellant.

(Argued May 24, 1872;

decided May 28, 1872.)

Action against defendant as indorser of a promissory note. The note was for $1,500; was indorsed for a special purpose ; but was diverted by the payee, but pledged as collateral security for the payment of an antecedent debt. *JSefd,*that plaintiff was not a *Iona fide*holder, and if he were could only collect the amount due him.

*675
      *Rufus B. Oowvng*for appellant.

*William Henry Arnoux*for respondent.

Peckham, J.,

reads for reversal and new trial.

'All concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.
#### Louis G. Pacent, Appellant, *v.*Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Argued October 4, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

*Jules G. Randal*and *R. W. Perkins*for motion.

*Morris Gottlieb*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, without costs.
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 99.1
                                  ------------


      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


I,  Victor  Salerno,  certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report  on Form 10-QSB of American Wagering, Inc. for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  American  Wagering, Inc


                                By:      /s/ Victor  Salerno
                                         -----------------------------
                                Name:    Victor  Salerno
                                Title:   Chief  Executive  Officer

                                Date:    June  9,  2003


I, Timothy F. Lockinger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report  on Form 10-QSB of American Wagering, Inc. for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  American  Wagering, Inc.

                                By:      /s/ Timothy  F.  Lockinger
                                         -----------------------------
                                Name:
    Timothy  F.  Lockinger
                                Title:   Chief  Financial  Officer

                                Date:    June  9,  2003
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                                PROMISSORY NOTE
                                        
$30,000.00                                                   Bothell, Washington
                                                                October 29, 1998

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Orca Technologies, Inc. (the undersigned) agrees to pay to
the order of Norman Plummer, the sum of Thirty Thousand and 00/100ths Dollars
($30,000.00) in lawful money of the United States of America.

(a) This Note bears interest at the rate of 8% (eight percent) per annum.

(b) This Note is payable January 27, 1999.

After default, at the option of the holder, the entire indebtedness evidenced
hereby shall become immediately due and payable.  Failure to exercise the rights
and remedies available to the holder of this Note shall not waive the right to
exercise them in the event of any subsequent default.  In the event of default,
the undersigned promises to pay collection expenses, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, incurred by the holder of this note, with or without suit on
appeal and in bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings.

The Note is delivered to the payee in the state of Washington and is made with
reference to, and shall be construed in accordance with, the laws of the state
of Washington without  reference to their conflict of law principles.


                                            /s/ Roger P. Vallo
                                           -----------------------
                                           Roger P. Vallo
                                           Orca Technologies, Inc.
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           Date:  October 29, 1998
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In  connection  with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report of  Concierge
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December
31,  2005 (the  "Report"),  I, Allen E.  Kahn,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  February 14, 2006
                                                      /s/ Allen E. Kahn
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Allen E. Kahn
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


         The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350)  and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SCB COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
OCTOBER 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                             114
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,769
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,307
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,987
<PP&E>                                          33,072
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,561
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           250
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,834
<SALES>                                         63,448
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,448
<CGS>                                           44,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,435
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,716
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (28,657)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (4,700)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (23,957)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (9,234)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (33,191)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.96)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Hazel Sheppard, Made on Behalf of Reginald Fludd, Respondent, against Albert J. Demps, et al., Appellants.

Argued November 16, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*774
      *Floyd Coursen*and *Harry Wareham*for appellants.

*Abraham, Markoff*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, on the ground that the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippby, Lewis, Conway Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mike Sheriff SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-4609

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 10, 2017

Decided: August 25, 2017

*627L. Richard Walker, Katheryn Marcum, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mike Sheriff Scott pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). The district court sentenced Scott to 77 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On appeal, Scott argues that the district court plainly erred in calculating the base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines because, following the Supreme Court’s decision in *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), his prior conviction for first-degree assault under Maryland law is no longer a crime of violence. *See*U.S. Sentencing_Guidelines_Manual §§ 2K2.1(a)(2) & cmt. n.l, 4B1.2(a) (2014). Scott’s argument, however, is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). In *Johnson,*the Supreme. Court determined that the residual clause of the definition of a violent felony in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012) (ACCA), reaching offenses that “involve[] conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” is unconstitutionally vague. 135 S.Ct. at 2556-63. In *Beekles,*however, the Court held that the Guidelines, unlike the ACCA-, are not subject to a vagueness challenge because they do not set the permissible range of sentences for an offense but. “merely guide the exercise of a court’s discretion in choosing an appropriate sentence within the statutory range.” 137 S.Ct. at 892. “The residual clause in [USSG] § 4B1.2(a)(2) therefore is not void for vagueness.” *Id.*

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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*