alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6282

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RAYMOND BULLETTE, III, a/k/a Scrap , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Deborah K. Chasanow , Senior District Judge. ( 8:13

- cr - 00525

- DKC

- 3; 8:17

- cv - 03284

- RWT )

Submitted : September 16, 2022 Decided: October 3, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Raymond Bullette, III, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth G. Wright, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unp ublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6282 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/03/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Raymond Bullette, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s renewed order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to vacate the court’s prior order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 225 5 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 ) ; see United States v.
McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015) . 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate b oth that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have ind ependently reviewed the record and conclude that Bullette has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Bullette’s motion for leave to file supplemental informal briefs, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

∗ We previously vacated the district court’s order denying this Rule 60(b) motion and remanded so that Bullette could “elect between deleting his successive § 2255 claims or having his entire motion treated as a successive § 2255 motion.” United States v. Bullette , 816 F. App’x 880, 880 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 19

- 6086). Bullette elected to delete his successive § 2255 claims. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6282 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/03/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-6282 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/03/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY FLORIDA HOLDING CO. I

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City Florida Holding Co. I (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 1, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, John R. Sprouls certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 10, 2007



By:

/s/ JOHN R. SPROULSJohn R. SproulsPrincipal Executive Officer
H. Res. 381 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 30, 2009. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be and are 

hereby elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

(1) COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE.—Mr. Murphy of 

New York (to rank immediately after Mr. Boccieri). 

(2) COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES.—Mr. Murphy of New York, Mr. Boren. 

(3) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.—Mr. Quigley 

(to rank immediately after Mr. Pierluisi). 

(4) COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT

REFORM.—Mr. Quigley (to rank immediately after Mr. 

Connolly of Virginia), Ms. Kaptur (to rank immediately 

after Mr. Quigley). 

Attest: 

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

with Respect to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2006

of WorldSpace, Inc.

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United
States Code), the undersigned officer of WorldSpace, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge, that:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                                                                 
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    SRIDHAR GANESAN                                          
|                        |  |  |  | Sridhar Ganesan Executive Vice PresidentChief Financial Officer

The certification set forth above is being furnished as an Exhibit solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officers.
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of the registrant



|                                                      |  |                              |  |          
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | ---------
|Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries                      |  | Jurisdiction of Organization |  | Ownership
|Sohu ITC Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.   |  | Peoples Republic of China   |  | 100%     
|Sohu.com (Hong Kong) Ltd.                             |  | Hong Kong                    |  | 100%     
|ChinaRen Inc.                                         |  | United States of America     |  | 100%     
|Sohu.com Limited                                      |  | Cayman Islands               |  | 100%     
|Beijing Sohu New Era Information Technology Co., Ltd. |  | Peoples Republic of China   |  | 100%     
|Beijing Sohu Interactive Software Co., Ltd.           |  | Peoples Republic of China   |  | 100%     
|Kylie Enterprises Limited                             |  | British Virgin Islands       |  | 100%     
|All Honest International Limited                      |  | British Virgin Islands       |  | 100%
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4070

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. RONALD LEE HAMBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00241-WDQ-1) Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sherri Keene, Staff Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Gregory Welsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronald Lee Hamby pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Hamby was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm. On appeal, Hamby contends that his classification as an armed career criminal violated the Sixth Amendment because it was based on prior convictions that were not charged in the indictment and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, nor admitted. After United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentencing courts are still required to calculate the applicable advisory guideline range based on appropriate findings of fact. United States v. Moreland , 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006). We have previously noted that sentencing factors should continue to be evaluated based on the preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Morris , 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). Moreover, in United States v. Cheek , 415 F.3d 349, 352-54 (4th Cir. 2005), we specifically determined that prior convictions used as a basis for enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act need not be charged in the indictment nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Hamby, appropriately treating the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the relevant 18 U.S.C.3 § 3553(a) (2000) factors. See United States v. Davenport , 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, Hamby’s 180-month sentence, which is the lowest end of the applicable Guidelines range and the statutory minimum, may be presumed reasonable. SeeUnited States v. Pauley , 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. See Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). 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 the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1

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, Brent M. Cook, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge, the Annual Report of Raser Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Raser Technologies, Inc.



|                     |  |                                                                    
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 11, 2008 |  | /s/    BRENT M. COOK                                               
|                     |  | Brent M. Cook Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)



---

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, Martin F. Petersen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of Raser Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Raser Technologies, Inc.



|                     |  |                                                                                        
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 11, 2008 |  | /s/    MARTIN F. PETERSEN                                                              
|                     |  | Martin F. Petersen Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of each of the written statements above required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Raser Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Raser Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 HXT Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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/Yuanqing Li


Yuanqing Li


Chief Executive Officer


February 11, 2010





/s/Ding Hong Shen


Ding Hong Shen


Chief Financial Officer


February 11, 2010





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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 380 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 380

 Expressing support for designation of April as ``National Donate Life 
Month'' and expressing gratitude to all Americans who have communicated 
              their intent to be organ and tissue donors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2009

Mr. Costa (for himself, Mr. Wu, Ms. Speier, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Bilbray, Ms. 
 DeGette, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Camp) submitted the following resolution; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for designation of April as ``National Donate Life 
Month'' and expressing gratitude to all Americans who have communicated 
              their intent to be organ and tissue donors.

Whereas the national waiting list for those awaiting organ transplants has 
        increased in the past 10 years from 60,000 to more than 100,000 people;
Whereas there exists a persistent and severe shortage of organs donated for 
        transplantation because donation has not increased at a pace to provide 
        transplantation for these people;
Whereas a single individual's donation of heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, 
        pancreas, and small intestine can save up to eight lives, and the 
        donation of tissue can save and enhance the lives of up to 50 others;
Whereas transplantation is the therapy of choice, and frequently the only 
        option, to ease patient suffering, restore patient health, and allow 
        patients to lead more productive lives;
Whereas modern medicine has progressed to allow exponentially more successful 
        transplant surgeries to be performed, but thousands of people still die 
        while on the waiting list each year for lack of organ donations;
Whereas in addition to public health concerns, there are also enormous savings 
        to the United States health care system that can be realized by 
        increasing organ donation and transplantation nationally; and
Whereas the month of April would be an appropriate month to designate as 
        ``National Donate Life Month'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of a ``National Donate Life 
        Month'';
            (2) expresses its support and gratitude to all Americans 
        who have communicated their intent to be organ and tissue 
        donors upon their deaths;
            (3) encourages those Americans who are not already donors 
        to consider their organ, blood and tissue donation options; and
            (4) supports the many public events that will be conducted 
        in April in every State to thank donors and donor families and 
        to publicize the organ shortage.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1862 

ABDUL S. AHMADY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BRINCEFIELD, HARTNETT, TOMPKINS, AND CLARK,

P.C.,

Defendant - Appellee, 

versus

AMINA AHMADY,

Plaintiff. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00119-CMH)

Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: November 28, 2006

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Abdul S. Ahmady, Appellant Pro Se. Michael William Tompkins,

Brincefield, Hartnett & Associates, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Abdul S. Ahmady appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing Ahmady’s complaint and denying Ahmady’s “Retrying Motion

Court Order Misunderstanding,” which the district court construed

as as Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. The district court found it

lacked subject matter jurisdiction in this civil action. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ahmady v.

Brincefield, No. 1:06-cv-00119-CMH (E.D. Va. May 19, 2006 and

June 19, 2006). 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 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 DataMill Media Corp. (f/k/a/Smitten
Press: Local Lore and Legends, Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vincent Beatty, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

Date: December 6, 2010


/s/ Vincent Beatty
------------------------------------------
Vincent Beatty
Director acting as Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, 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.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 50014 **consolidated with** No. 22

- 50015 Summary Calendar
**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**
versus **Edmundo Portillo**

**- Rodriguez,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.** Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 701

- 1 USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 893

- 1

Before **King, Costa,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Edmundo Portillo

- Rodriguez appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) , and also appeals the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir**  **cuit R**  **ule** 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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 6, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50014 Document: 00516346107 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2022No. 22

- 5001 4 c/w No. 22

- 50015

2 judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing an additional term of imprisonment

. He has not briefed, and has thus abandoned, any challenge to the revocation of supervised release or to his revocation sentence. See United States v. Reagan , 596 F.3d 251, 254

- 55 (5th Ci r. 2010)

. Portillo

- Rodriguez contends for the first time on appeal that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows for the imposition of a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictm ent nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition and a letter brief in which he acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998)

. Portillo

- Rodriguez explains that he
r aises this issue only to preserve it for further review

. As Portillo

- Rodriguez correctly concedes, the sole claim that he raises on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553

- 54 (5th Cir. 2019 ). Because summary disposition is proper , see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Portillo

Rodriguez’s motion is **GRANTED** , and the judgments of the district court
are **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 22-50014 Document: 00516346107 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2022