alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Winfried P. RUGGIA; Eun Hui Ruggia, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL, a division of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC; Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Incorporated; Equity Trustees, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, and Accredited Home Lenders, Incorporated; Joe Doe; John & Jane Doe, Certificate Holders I-M; Jack & Jill Doe, Certificate Holders I-M; Qui & Chi Doe.

No. 10-1661.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 3, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 11, 2011.

Christopher Edwin Brown, Brown, Brown & Brown, PC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants. John C. Lynch, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Jonathan S. Hubbard, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Winfried and Eun Hui Ruggia appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss their state law claims for declaratory judgment, quiet title, and fraud, as well as their claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1692-1692p (West 2009 & Supp.2011). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *See Ruggia v. Washington Mutual,*719 F.Supp.2d 642 (E.D.Va.2010); *see also Horvath v. Bank of N.Y., N.A.,*641 F.3d 617 (4th Cir.2011). 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.*
#### Brandi Denardo, Appellant, v Michael Ziatyk et al., Respondents.

[943 NYS2d 591]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (O. Bellantoni, J.), entered March 29, 2011, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The plaintiff, a United States Postal Service mail carrier, al*930legedly slipped and fell on snow and ice on the defendants’ driveway as she attempted to exit the property. An icy snowstorm had occurred three days prior to the date of the incident. There was a walkway and steps leading to the defendants’ front entrance where mail was to be dropped off. The defendant Lynn Ziatyk testified at her deposition that she had cleared all snow and ice from the walkway and steps, and partially shoveled the driveway on the date of the incident with the help of her neighbor. The plaintiff testified that there was snow and ice all over the defendants’ property, and that, at the time of the accident, it did not appear as if anyone had engaged in snow removal work. The plaintiff traversed the walkway and steps leading to the front entrance to deliver the mail, but she walked across the lawn and down the driveway to leave the property. She was about six feet away from the end of the driveway when she allegedly fell on snow and ice.

A property owner may be held liable for a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice thereof *(see Medina v La Fiura Dev. Corp.,*69 AD3d 686 [2010]; *Olivieri v GM Realty Co., LLC,*37 AD3d 569 [2007]). Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition that caused the plaintiff to fall *(see Medina v La Fiura Dev. Corp.,*69 AD3d 686 [2010]; *Bergen v Carlin,*297 AD2d 692 [2002]). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the evidence did not demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s conduct of traversing the driveway instead of the walkway and steps to leave the property was the sole proximate cause of the accident *(see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308 [1980]; *Ettari v 30 Rampasture Owners, Inc.,*15 AD3d 611 [2005]). Since the defendants failed to meet their initial burden, the Supreme Court should have denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, irrespective of the plaintiffs opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of HireRight, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey A. Wahba, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|Date: March 10, 2008 |  | By: | /s/JEFFREY A. WAHBAJeffrey A. Wahba, Chief Financial
Officer
|-------------------- |  | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 86 

To close the loophole that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to obtain credit cards 

from United States banks that financed their terrorist activities, to 

ensure that illegal immigrants cannot obtain credit cards to evade United 

States immigration laws, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To close the loophole that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to 

obtain credit cards from United States banks that financed their terrorist activities, to ensure that illegal 

immigrants cannot obtain credit cards to evade United 

States immigration laws, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. VERIFICATION OF IDENTITY FOR NON-UNITED 

4 STATES PERSONS OPENING BANK ACCOUNTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5318(l) of title 31, United 

6 States Code, is amended— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 86 IS

1 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through 

2 (6) as paragraphs (4) through (7), respectively; and 

3 (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(3) RESTRICTIONS ON VERIFYING IDENTITY.— 

6 ‘‘(A) CUSTOMER INFORMATION.—For the 

7 purpose of verifying the identity of an indi8 vidual who is a non-United States person seek9 ing to open an account in accordance with the 

10 regulations issued under this section, a financial 

11 institution may only accept— 

12 ‘‘(i) a social security number; 

13 ‘‘(ii) a passport number and the coun14 try of issuance; 

15 ‘‘(iii) an alien identification card num16 ber; or 

17 ‘‘(iv) any combination of items de18 scribed in clauses (i) through (iii). 

19 ‘‘(B) CUSTOMER VERIFICATION THROUGH

20 DOCUMENTS.—For the purpose of verifying the 

21 identity of an individual who is a non-United 

22 States person seeking to open an account in ac23 cordance with regulations issued under this sec24 tion, a financial institution may not accept 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 86 IS

1 identification documents issued by a foreign 

2 government, other than an unexpired passport. 

3 ‘‘(C) DEFINITION.—As used in this para4 graph, the term ‘non-United States person’ 

5 means any individual that is not a citizen or na6 tional of the United States, as defined in sec7 tion 101 of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1101).’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 5318(l)(6) 

10 of title 31, United States Code, as redesignated by this 

11 section, is amended by striking ‘‘(4)’’ and inserting ‘‘(5)’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Atkinson, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered September 26, 1983, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The trial court properly refused defendant’s request to *585charge the jury on the earnest resistance definition of forcible compulsion (Penal Law § 130.00 [8]). The act of sodomy for which defendant was convicted did not occur prior to the July 1982 amendment of the statute defining forcible compulsion *(see, People v Argibay,*45 NY2d 45, *cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York,*439 US 930). The totality of the circumstances of this case reveals that defendant did receive meaningful representation and was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Hooper, JJ., concur.
---

|Exhibit 32.1                                 
|---------------------------------------------
|                                             
|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                    
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                      
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Jersey Mining
  Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006,
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
  "Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer and Director of New
  Jersey Mining Company, 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) 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.

Date: August 14, 2006

By /s/ FRED W. BRACKEBUSCHFred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer & Director

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIRNA MARICELA VASQUEZMEDRANO; et al., 

 Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

 Respondent.

No. 20-72381 

 

Agency Nos. A208-541-632 

 A208-541-633 

MEMORANDUM* 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 14, 2023**

 

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Mirna Maricela Vasquez-Medrano and her minor child, natives and citizens

of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 

(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision 

denying their application for asylum, and Vasquez-Medrano’s applications for 

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 17 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-72381 

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 

evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse 

credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 

1034, 1039‐40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on inconsistencies between Vasquez-Medrano’s testimony and documentary 

evidence, and omissions in her declaration. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility 

finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also

Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2020) (inconsistencies and 

omissions supported adverse credibility determination). Vasquez-Medrano’s

explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 

1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s 

determination that Vasquez-Medrano did not present documentary evidence that 

would otherwise establish her eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 

785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (applicant’s documentary evidence was insufficient to 

rehabilitate his testimony or independently support his claim). Thus, in the 

absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum claim, and Vasquez-Medrano’s 

withholding of removal claim, fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 

(9th Cir. 2003). 
3 20-72381 

Because Vasquez-Medrano does not contest the BIA’s determination that 

she did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, we do not address it. See

Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Vasquez-Medrano’s opposed motion to remand this case to the BIA (Docket 

Entry No. 23) is denied. 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 99.1   CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Hong Liang Lu, 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 of UTStarcom, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of UTStarcom, Inc.   By:
  /s/ HONG LIANG LUName:
  Hong Liang LuTitle:
  Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32 (i)**

 

CERTIFICATION SECTION 1350

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Penns Woods Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Ronald A. Walko, Chief Executive Officer, 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 therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  Ronald A. Walko     |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
| Ronald  A. Walko         |   |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   |   |

 

November 9, 2009

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 39081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15042]

[[Page 39081]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permit applications received.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a 
notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated 
under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published 
regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act in the Code of Federal 
Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications 
received.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, 
or views with respect to this permit application by August 23, 2021. 
This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit 
Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Office of 
Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, at 
the above address, 703-292-7420, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Science Foundation, as directed 
by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541, 45 CFR 670) 
as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 
1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit 
system for various activities in Antarctica and the designation of 
certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special 
protection.

Application Details

Permit Application: 2022-001

1. Applicant: Luis Huckstadt, Institute of Marine Sciences, University 
of California Santa Cruz.

    Activity for Which Permit is Requested: Take, Harmful interference, 
Import into U.S.A. The applicant proposes to study the foraging 
behavior, physiology, and habitat utilization of crabeater seals in the 
West Antarctic Peninsula. In each of three field seasons, the applicant 
would capture and tag no more than 40 adult individuals. Individual 
seals will be sedated and anesthetized during tagging and biological 
sampling procedures. Proposed procedures include the following: 
Weighing and measuring of individuals, flipper tagging and marking, 
attaching of instrumentation, tissue sampling, collecting blood samples 
and measuring blood volume, swabbing of mucous membranes, and 
determining body composition by metamorphic measurements.
    Location: West Antarctic Peninsula.
    Dates of Permitted Activities: January 1, 2022-December 31, 2024.

Erika N. Davis,
Program Specialist, Office of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-15042 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



         Pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, the undersigned officer of Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies that, to the undersigned's knowledge:

         (1)      the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
                  ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.


Dated: May 5, 2004
       -----------


                                    /s/ John R. Hickey
                                    ------------------
                                    Name: John R. Hickey
                                    Title: President and Chief Executive Officer


THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED BY THE COMPANY
FOR PURPOSES OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Mitchell, Appellant.

— By order of this court dated May 21, 1979 *(see, People v Mitchell,*70 AD2d 789), this court affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tsoucalas, J.), rendered March 31, 1977, convicting defendant of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a *745weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. By order of this court dated June 22, 1981 defendant’s motion for reargument was granted.

Upon reargument, this court adheres to its original determination.

Defendant’s conviction and sentence for the murder of Charles Freeman, Jr., on August 30, 1975, has been previously upheld by this court *(see, People v Mitchell,*70 AD2d 789, *supra).*We granted reargument of this appeal to consider contentions made by defendant in *pro se*briefs and a supplemental brief by counsel which were not raised on the appeal. These issues primarily concern a hearing court’s denial of defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress identification evidence.

The victim was shot and killed at a party attended by approximately 30 young people. Three eyewitnesses to the shooting and another witness, whose boyfriend was threatened with a gun by the perpetrator as he fled the scene, selected defendant’s photograph from an array of 10 photographs of similar-looking black males shown to them by police detectives shortly after the incident. Another eyewitness made a "shaky” photographic identification of defendant saying that he looked like the man but she was not absolutely sure. At the pretrial hearing, all but one of the witnesses identified defendant as the person who shot the victim.

There is no evidence in the record of any suggestive conduct on the part of the police detectives who conducted the photographic identification procedures and, therefore, no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification as a result of those procedures. Suppression of the witnesses’ in-court identifications of defendant at trial was properly denied *(see, People v Rahming,*26 NY2d 411, 416). In any event, the testimony shows that the witnesses’ in-court identifications of defendant had an independent source in that each witness had an adequate opportunity to observe defendant’s face during or before the party or at the time of the incident *(see, People v Ballott,*20 NY2d 600, 606-607).

We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32



                            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 Nucotec, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Earl
Abbott, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

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



/s/ Earl Abbott
--------------------------
Earl Abbott
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
May 24, 2004