alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3




                            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 Liberty Property Limited Partnership
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY, President and Chief Executive Officer of Liberty
Property Trust (the sole general partner of Liberty Property Limited
Partnership), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on 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.



/s/  WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY
----------------------------------------
William P. Hankowsky
President and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20901 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WILLIAM GLENN CHUNN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-153-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * William Glenn Chunn appeals the sentence following his guilty plea conviction to possessing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, to possessing a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense, and to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Chunn asserts that because the district court calculated the relevant drug quantity by adding a quantity of pseudoephedrine that Chunn did not admit to possessing, the sentence violated the Sixth Amendment pursuantNo. 04-20901 -2-
to United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Because Chunn raised this objection in the district court, this court will ordinarily remand for resentencing, unless the Government can show that the court’s sentencing error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Pineiro , 410 F.3d 282, 284 (5th Cir. 2005). The Government asserts that because Chunn was sentenced in the middle of the applicable guideline range, the sentence was harmless. This court has rejected such an assertion. See United
States v. Garza , 429 F.3d 165, 170-71 (5th Cir. 2005). Because the Government cannot show that the district court would have imposed the same sentence in the absence of the pseudoephedrine quantity used, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for resentencing for the drug conviction.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4699 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4699

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction for 
             qualified motor vehicle taxes for motor homes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2010

   Mr. Donnelly of Indiana 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 extend the deduction for 
             qualified motor vehicle taxes for motor homes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED MOTOR VEHICLE TAXES FOR 
              MOTOR HOMES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (G) of section 164(b)(6) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``(December 31, 
2011, in the case of a motor home)'' after ``December 31, 2009''.
    (b) Inclusion of Recreation Vehicle Trailer and Slide-In Camper.--
Section 164(b)(6)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
striking clause (ii) and inserting the following new clauses:
                            ``(ii) Motorcycle.--The term `motorcycle' 
                        has the meaning given such term under section 
                        571.3 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations 
                        (as in effect on the date of the enactment of 
                        this paragraph).
                            ``(iii) Motor home.--The term `motor home' 
                        has the meaning given such term under section 
                        571.3 of such title, and includes a recreation 
                        vehicle trailer (as defined in section 571.3 of 
                        such title) and a slide-in camper (as defined 
                        in section 575.103 of such title).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to purchases after December 31, 2009, in tax years ending after 
such date.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 24.1


                                  FANTASMA, LLC


              POWER OF ATTORNEY TO SIGN ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K


        KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned do hereby
constitute and appoint Gerald F. Cerce and Duane M. DeSisto, and each of them,
with full power of substitution and full power to act without the other, as his
true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent to act in his name, place and stead
and to execute in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, individually and in
each capacity stated below, a Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
January 2, 1999 of Fantasma, LLC (the "Company"), and any and all amendments
(including post-effective amendments) thereto, and to file the same, with
exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming all that
said attorneys-in-fact, or their substitute or substitutes, may do or cause to
be done by virtue hereof.

        This Power of Attorney has been signed by the following persons in the
capacities and on the date or dates indicated.


       Signature                           Title                       Date
       ---------                           -----                       ----


/s/ Roger D. Dreyer                        President             March 30, 1999
-------------------------------   (Principal Executive Officer)
Roger D. Dreyer                   


Houdini Capital Ltd.                        Member               March 30, 1999

By: /s/ Roger D. Dreyer
    ---------------------------
    Roger D. Dreyer, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           9,611
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,612
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     68,275
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,776
<PP&E>                                         205,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,406)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 471,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          113,487
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     121,986
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   471,725
<SALES>                                        778,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               778,524
<CGS>                                          611,591
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  611,591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               107,124
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,492
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,317
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,262
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,055
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,055
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1371 TRIUNE STAR, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY and WDIG MOBILE, LLC (doing business as Disney Mobile),

Defendants, and PANTECH & CURITEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., PANTECH CO. LTD., PANTECH WIRELESS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM USA, INC., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois

in case no. 07-CV-1256, Judge Michael M. Mihm.

ON MOTION 

### ORDER The appellees submit an objection to the official caption and abbreviated caption. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 12(a), it is the court's usual practice to include all parties in the official caption, even if the parties are not participating on appeal. Pursuant to that rule, the court also usually lists the parties in the order listed on the district court's docket sheet. Thus, The Walt Disney Company should have been included first in the official caption and in the abbreviated caption.The abbreviated caption is a permissible substitute for using the entire official

caption on certain documents, but it has no other significance Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The revised official caption is reflected above. The abbreviated caption shall read "TRIUNE STAR v. WALT DISNEY CO., 2009-1371". FOR THE COURT 

# JUN 2 6 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Keith V. Rockey, Esq. Patrick J. Kelleher, Esq. s8 US. He 

### Harm' TOR THE F CIRCUIT JUN 2 6 2009 JAN HORBALY CLERK

2009-1371 - 2 -
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ex parte Matthew Leachman

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00232

- CR

, 01

- 22

- 0023 3

- CR

, 01

- 22

- 0023 4

- CR

Trial court case number: 1756174 , 1756176, 1756173

Trial court: 2 48th District Cour t of Harris County

On March 25, 2022, Appellant Matthew L eachman filed notice s of appeal of the trial
court’s denial of h is application s for writ of habeas corpus in the above

- referenced cause numbers

. On August 11, 2022, Appellant file d a “ Suggestion for C o nditional Dismissal, ” explaining that he expect ed to be released on bail by the end of Au gust and that his “ researc h suggests that [his] actual release on b ail will moot an appeal based entire ly on [his] confinement
in lieu of bail. ” Appellant request ed that the Court “ conditionally dismiss the appeal o n [his] suggestion of impending mootness, and remove the case from the active docket, subject to
reinstatement on motion o f any party within 45 days. ” On August 23, 2022, this Court ab ated the appeals for forty

- five days to allow Appellant to determine whether his app eals are moot, given his impending release on bail.

On October 3, 2022, Appellant filed a “ Motion to Extend Time for Filing Appellant
Brief

, ” explaining that although his bail ha s been paid and he ha s been released, he believes there
could still be a n issue to appeal in these cases . Appellant seeks a thirty

- day ext ension of time in
which to file his brief in these appeals

.
We lift the abatement and retur n the case s to th is Court ’ s active docket. Appellant ’ s motion is granted. Appellant ’ s brief is due thirty days from the date of this order.

It is so ORD ERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas

- M olloy

Acting individually

Date: October 11, 2022
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1384
STEWART B. ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-302-A) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stewart B. Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988), his civil action seeking to enjoin the Internal Revenue Service from collecting unpaid taxes,penalties and interest. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, weaffirm on the reasoning of the district court. Allen v. Commissioner , No. CA-96-302-A (E.D. Va. Mar. 8, 1996). 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
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 AKI,  Inc. and AKI Holding Corp.
(collectively,  the  "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2002
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, William J. Fox, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
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  results  of
               operation of the Company.

  /s/ William J. Fox
  -------------------------
  William J. Fox
  Chief Executive Officer
  September 24, 2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1560

BRITTANY FLUTE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KRISTI JOHNSON-FORD, HR Manager; ADRIENE SCHIFRIEN, MLS Manager; 

KAREN BRESSLER, Client Service Supervisor; MELVIN CAUTHEN, Manager 

III, STD, HIV Services; KIMBERLY TOWNSEND, Head of Dennis AVE,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (8:22-cv-03344-DLB)

Submitted: October 31, 2023 Decided: November 2, 2023

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brittany Flute, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1560 Doc: 5 Filed: 11/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Brittany Flute seeks to appeal the district court’s February 24, 2023, order 

dismissing without prejudice her employment discrimination complaint for failure to 

comply with the court’s prior order directing her to amend the complaint. However, after 

Flute noted her appeal, the district court reopened her case and expressly rescinded its 

February 24 order. The court subsequently entered a final order, but Flute did not file a 

new notice of appeal. As such, there is no district court order presently before this court

for review. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See United 

States v. Doe, 962 F.3d 139, 143 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting that “we have jurisdiction only 

over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders”). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1560 Doc: 5 Filed: 11/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act provides that if part of a registration
statement at the time it becomes effective contains an untrue statement of a
material fact, or omits a material fact required to be stated therein or
necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring a
security pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is proved that at
the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may
assert a claim against, among others, an accountant who has consented to be
named as having certified any part of the registration statement or as having
prepared any report for use in connection with the registration statement.

On December 28, 2001, ABC Family Worldwide, Inc. (formerly known as Fox Family
Worldwide, Inc., "FFW") dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP as its independent
accountant and designated PriceWaterhouse Coopers as its new independent
accountant. Prior to the date of this Form 10-K (which is incorporated by
reference into Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.'s (the "Company") filing on Form
S-3 (SEC file no. 333-85978) (the "Registration Statement"), the Arthur Andersen
partner responsible for the audit of the most recent audited financial
statements of FFW as of June 30, 2001 and for the year then ended resigned from
Arthur Andersen. As a result, after reasonable efforts, the Company has been
unable to obtain Arthur Andersen's written consent to the incorporation by
reference into the Registration Statement of its audit reports with respect to
FFW's financial statements as of June 30, 2001 and for the year then ended.
Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act permits the
Company to file this Form 10-K without a written consent from Arthur Andersen.
However, as a result, Arthur Andersen will not have any liability under Section
11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact
contained in the financial statements audited by Andersen LLP or any omissions
of a material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, you would be
unable to assert a claim against Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a) of the
Securities Act because it has not consented to the incorporation by reference of
its previously issued report into the Registration Statement.
#### R. *L.*JORDAN SERVICE STATIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. v. JAMES B. PRESSLEY and wife, ALMA M. PRESSLEY

No. 7428SC975

(Filed 5 February 1975)

Appeal and Error § 39 — failure to docket record within extended time

Appeal is dismissed for failure of appellant to docket the record on appeal within the extended time allowed by the trial court.

Appeal by defendant from *McLean, Judge,*6 June 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Buncombe County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 24 January 1975.

Plaintiff instituted this action against the defendants to require specific performance to convey realty as set forth in a lease agreement between the parties. Issues were submitted to and answered by the jury in favor of the plaintiff. From the entry of judgment on the verdict requiring defendants to convey the real estate described in the complaint to the plaintiff in accordance with the option set out in the lease agreement between the parties, defendants appealed.

*Adams, Hendon & Carson, P.A. by George Ward Hendon for plaintiff appellee.*

*Cecil C. Jackson, Jr., for defendant appellants.*

HEDRICK, Judge.

Although the trial court extended the time for the defendants to docket their appeal in this court the full 150 days permitted by Rule 5 of the Rules of Practice in this court, the appeal was not docketed within the 150 days from the date of the entry of the judgment from which the appeal was taken.

*587For defendants’ failure to comply with the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Morris and Parker concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6502

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND GARFIELD BUTLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:08-cr-00442-JFM-4; 1:13-cv-03804-JFM)

Submitted: September 12, 2014 Decided: September 22, 2014

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Garfield Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John 

Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Garfield Butler seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion and his motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are 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 Butler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Butler’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
STATE of North Carolina v. Dakota Karl Lee SPICER

No. COA18-80

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 2, 2018

AFFIRMED.