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 Quarterly Report of CytoGenix, Inc. (the Company) on Form
1O-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pam Schertz, 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 to the best of
my knowledge:  (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/ Greg S.
Taylor Greg S.
Taylor Chief Financial
Officer  April 4, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank Bradley MOLESKY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-35993

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

George J.C. Jacobs, III, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alison K. Guernsey, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDWAID — Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant

*848Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Frank Bradley Molesky, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a section 2255 motion, *see United States v. Manzo,*675 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

Molesky contends that, when imposing the 120-month sentence, the district court assumed that Molesky would have been subject to a 180-month mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) had the parties not negotiated a charge bargain. According to Molesky, his sentence violates due process because *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), subsequently rendered the district court’s assumption erroneous. We construe the district court’s certificate of appealability broadly to encompass this claim. Mole-sky is not entitled to relief because the record does not show that the potential application of the ACCA demonstrably formed the basis for Molesky’s sentence. *See United States v. Vanderwerfhorst,*576 F.3d 929, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth due process standard).

As he acknowledges in his reply brief, Molesky’s additional arguments are foreclosed. *See Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017) (holding that “the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause and that [U.S.S.G.] § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause is not void for vagueness”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5969 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5969

  To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the 
amount that certain banks and savings associations may invest in small 
     business investment companies, subject to the approval of the 
      appropriate Federal banking agency, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 2016

    Ms. Meng (for herself, Mr. Curbelo of Florida, and Mr. Knight) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the 
amount that certain banks and savings associations may invest in small 
     business investment companies, subject to the approval of the 
      appropriate Federal banking agency, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Investing in Main Street Act of 
2016''.

SEC. 2. INVESTMENT IN SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

    Section 302(b) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 
U.S.C. 682(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period the 
        following: ``or, subject to the approval of the appropriate 
        Federal banking agency, 15 percent of such capital and 
        surplus'';
            (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting before the period the 
        following: ``or, subject to the approval of the appropriate 
        Federal banking agency, 15 percent of such capital and 
        surplus''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Appropriate federal banking agency defined.--For 
        purposes of this subsection, the term `appropriate Federal 
        banking agency' has the meaning given that term under section 3 
        of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27

Financial Data Schedule

 "This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
March 31, 1998 10QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements."
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-START>               JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                 MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                       23,877
<SECURITIES>                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                174,707                  
<ALLOWANCES>                 0
<INVENTORY>                  14,192,569
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             198,584
<PP&E>                       46,437
<DEPRECIATION>               (1,016,660)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               13,420,930
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        5,453 
<BONDS>                      16,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>        0     
<PREFERRED>                  1,212
<COMMON>                     47,110
<OTHER-SE>                   13,350,855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 13,420,930
<SALES>                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             800
<CGS>                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                2,640
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (1,840)
<INCOME-TAX>                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (1,840)
<DISCONTINUED>               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>              0
<CHANGES>                    0
<NET-INCOME>                 (1,840)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                .000
        

</TABLE>
#### Ariel BAREL, personal representative of Joseph Piovo; Donna Kara, personal representative of Joseph Piovo, Appellants, v. Robert STONE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15650

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Ariel Barel, Pro Se

Donna Kara, Pro Se

Robert Stone, Pro Se

Shauna S. Brennan, Attorney, Brennan Legal Counsel Group, PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Antonieta To-var-Guzman, Shauna S. Brennan

Robert DeLong, Esquire, Attorney, Parsons Behle & Latimer, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Merscorp, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Merscorp Holdings, Inc.

Robert DeLong, Esquire, Attorney, Parsons Behle & Latimer, Reno, NV, David Ray Hall, Parsons Behle & Latimer, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appellee U.S. Bank N.A., National Association

Ronald A. Colquitt, Pro Se

Christina Wang, Attorney, Fidelity National Law Group, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Chicago Title

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Eugene Piovo, through personal representatives Ariel Barel and Donna Kara, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing Piovo’s action alleging a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1982. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig.,*546 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Piovo’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Piovo did not present a federal question on the face of his amended complaint. *See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La.,*522 U.S. 470, 475, 118 S.Ct. 921, 139 L.Ed.2d 912 (1998) (plaintiff must present a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint); see *also Phiffer v. Proud Parrot Motor Hotel, Inc.,*648 F.2d 548, 551 (9th Cir. 1980) (setting forth *563elements of a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1982).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Piovo’s action without granting further leave to amend because amendment would be futile. *See Serra v. Lappin,*600 F.3d 1191, 1195, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and factors for a district court to consider in determining whether to grant leave to amend).

We reject as unsupported by the record Piovo’s contentions that the district court was biased, faded to comply with court rules, erred in staying discovery, held Pio-vo’s pleadings to an improper standard, or otherwise erred in its analysis of Piovo’s pleadings.

Piovo’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.

Piovo’s motion to strike (Docket' Entry No. 59) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gloria Hilda NAVARRETE, AKA Gloria Navarrete, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50187

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 10, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed September 14, 2017

Jonathan I. Shapiro, Helen H. Hong, Timothy Francis Salel, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Ajay Krishnamurthy, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

“We review the district court’s interpretation of the [U.S. Sentencing] Guidelines de novo, the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion, and the district court’s factual findings for clear error.” *United States v.*Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*5361. The district court increased Navarrete’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a stash house. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), cmt. n.17 (2015). Under the circumstances of this case, the district court did not err by imposing a sentence enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(12).

2. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) provides for an upward adjustment based on the defendant’s role in the offense. The district court found that Navarrete was *“a*lot closer to the top [of the drug-trafficking organization] than she was ... to the bottom.” The record supports the district court’s findings. The district court did not err when it increased Navarrete’s sentence by two levels for her role in the offense. *See United States v. Maldonado,*215 F.3d 1046, 1050-51 (9th Cir. 2000); *United States v. Varela,*993 F.2d 686, 691-92 (9th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.

*

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

HOGA N & HARTSO N Hoga n & Hartso n LI P Coluinbi a Squar e 55 5 Thirteent h Street . N W Washington , DC 2000 4 + 1.202.637.560 0 Te l + 1.202.637.591 0 Fa

x www.hhlaw.co m Novembe r 12 , 200 9 Willia mL . Elde r (202 ) 637-878 7 wlelder@hhlaw.cot n

C 3 B Y ELECTRONI

C MAI L Raymon d Veatch , Esq . Senio r Attorne y Offic e of th e Chief Counse l - Airport s La

w Branc h Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S

W Washington , D

C 2059 1 Electroni c mail : Raymond, veatch&faa.go v Attn : FA A Par t 1 6 Airpor t Proceeding s Docket, Docke t 16-09-0 6 RE : Reques t

fo r Extensio n o

f Tim e t o Fil e Rebutta l in Valley Aviatio n Services , LL P vs . City o

f Glendal e Par t

1 6 Proceeding , Docket

No . 16-09-0 6 Dea r Mr . Veatch : W e represen t th e Cit y of Glendal e ("Glendale" ) i n connectio n wit h aPar t 1 6 complain

t filed b y Plaintif

f Valley Aviatio n Services , LL P ("VAS") , Docke

t No . 16-09-0 6 ("th e Complaint") . Glendal e respectfull y request s a

n extensio n of

time to file it s rebutta

l i n connectio n wit

h th e Complaint . I

n suppor t of thi s request , Glendal e state s a s follows : r n C 3

•IC O r o 5£ i

1 Th e Repl

y filed b y VA

S wa s dated Octobe

r 30 , 2009 . 2 . O n Novembe

r 11 , 2009 , counse

l t o VA S sen t a n e-mai l t o ou r firmadvisin g u s tha

t h e believe s tha

t th e transcrip t

of adepositio n of

aGlendal e employee , whic h was take n i n connectio n wit

h anothe r matter , i s relevan

t t o th e pleading s submitte d by Glendal e i n connectio n wit

h thi s Par t 1 6 Complaint . 3 . Ou r firmdid no

t participat e i n tha t depositio n an

d ha s not ye t reviewed th e transcrip t of tha t deposition . 4 . W e ar e in th e proces s o f

obtainin g acopy o f

th e transcrip t

o f tha t depositio n t

o review in connectio n wit

h th e preparatio n o f

th e Glendal e rebutta

l in thi s matter .

VWD C • 030140/00000 4 - 298843 7 v l
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 Quarterly Report of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Ronald
E. Badke, 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(3)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



By:  /s/ Ronald E. Badke
     -----------------------
     Ronald E. Badke
     Chief Financial Officer
     August 14, 2003
EX-35 (l)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

March 12, 2007

GS Mortgage Securities Corporation
85 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-17

Per Section 13.04 of the Master Servicing Agreement, dated as of 10/1/2006, the
undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer), hereby
certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(i)     A review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year
        or portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement,
        or such other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional
        Servicer, has been made under such officer's supervision.

(ii)    To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such
        party has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such
        other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer, in
        all material respects throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if
        there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material
        respect, specifying each such failure known to such officer and the
        nature and status thereof.

(iii)   Notwithstanding anything herein to contrary (and noting that, to the
        extent of any inconsistency, any and all other statements,
        certifications or assertions herein are subject to the following):
        instances of noncompliance related to the subject transaction for the
        applicable reporting period are identified on Schedule A hereto.

Certified By:
/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
Kristen Ann Cronin, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary

(page)


Schedule A

Payment/Distribution Calculation Errors

During the reporting period, certain errors were made in connection with the
calculation of payments/distributions on the securities. To the best of the
signing officer's knowledge, each such error, which may or may not have been
material, has been identified and remedied and any related corrective action
has been disclosed in a report previously filed with the SEC in respect of the
reporting period.
Exhibit 32.1














CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the "Report") for the period ended June 30, 2011 of Dime Community Bancshares, Inc., (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Vincent F. Palagiano, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.










August 9, 2011


Date









By:  /s/ VINCENT F. PALAGIANO


Vincent F. Palagiano


Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Yair PARROQUIN-LUNA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41355 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 13, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Kayla R. Gassmann, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Yair Parroquin-Luna pled guilty without a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute 920.9 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced him to 80 months in prison and five years of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the factual basis for his guilty plea was inadequate because the Government did not prove that he knew the type and quantity of the drugs involved in the offense.

As Parroquin-Luna concedes, his argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Betancourt,*586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009). It held that *Flores-Figueroa v. United States,*556 U.S. 646, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009), did not overturn *United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez,*319 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 2003), and that the Government is not required to prove knowledge of the drug type and quantity as an element of a Section 841 offense. *See United States v. Gil-Cruz,*808 F.3d 274, 278 (5th Cir. 2015) (relying on *Betancourt*to reject as foreclosed a similar challenge to a drug conspiracy conviction).

Accordingly, Parroquin-Luna’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R 47.5.4.
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 Annual report of Tia IV, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ralph Porretti,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and





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




Ralph
      PorrettiTitle: 
      CEO and DirectorDate: January
      9, 2008









32.1(b)
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6918 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

from restricting funding for pregnancy centers. 

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

•HR 6918 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting Pregnant 

3 and Parenting Women and Families Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PREG5 NANCY CENTERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

7 Human Services may not finalize, implement, or enforce, 

8 with respect to expenditures for any pregnancy center, the 

9 modification to section 263.11 of title 45, Code of Federal 

10 Regulations, as described in the proposed regulation set 

11 forth beginning on page 67697 of volume 88 of the Fed12 eral Register, or any substantially similar regulatory ac13 tion. 

14 (b) DEFINITION OF PREGNANCY CENTER.—In sub15 section (a), the term ‘‘pregnancy center’’ means any orga16 nization, such as a pregnancy resource center, pregnancy 

17 help center or organization, or pregnancy medical center, 

18 that— 

19 (1) supports protecting the life of the mother 

20 and the unborn child; and 

21 (2) offers resources and services to mothers, fa22 thers, and families, including but not limited to rela23 tionship counseling, prenatal and pregnancy edu-
3 

•HR 6918 EH

1 cation, pregnancy testing, diapers, baby clothes, or 

2 material supports. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 18, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6918 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human 

centers. Services from restricting funding for pregnancy