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

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

BANKATLANTIC BANCORP, INC.

                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 BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James A. White, 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, 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.

BY /s/JAMES A. WHITE
   -----------------
NAME: JAMES A. WHITE
TITLE: CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2003

The foregoing certificate is provided solely for purposes of complying with
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and for no other purpose
whatsoever. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in any
of the Company's previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate the
Company's future filings, including this Report on Form 10-Q, in whole or in
part, this Certificate shall not be incorporated by reference into any such
filings. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
584 A.2d 223

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANGEL RODRIGUEZ.

May 21, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
A93A0880.

#### BATTLE v. SEAGO.

(431 SE2d 148)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

This is a sexual harassment action filed pro se by a male inmate against a woman employee of the Department of Corrections. An order denying filing pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-2 (d) was entered and plaintiff Battle appeals. *Held:*

Under the statutory provision, the order denying filing is treated the same as a dismissal. “ ‘ “A *pro se*complaint is not held to stringent standards of formal pleadings, *Haines v. Kerner,*404 U. S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) *(Vinnedge v. Gibbs,*550 F.2d 926 (1) (4th Cir. 1977)), and the ‘complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ *Conley v. Gibson,*355 U. S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). See also J. Moore, 2A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 12.08 at 2265-86 (1972).” *Hughes v. Roth,*371 FSupp. 740, 741 *517(D.C.Pa. 1974).’ *Johnson v. Jones,*178 Ga. App. 346, 349 (343 SE2d 403).” *Baxley v. Sutter,*203 Ga. App. 579 (417 SE2d 205). See also *Johnson v. Jones,*supra.

Decided April 20, 1993.

Terry L. Battle, *pro se.*

*Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Daryl A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Terry L. Long, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

The complaint in the case sub judice clearly states a claim actionable under 42 USCA § 1983. Plaintiff has not relied on general allegations, but has stated specific allegations of misconduct on the part of defendant Seago within the period of the statute of limitation. Prisoners are entitled to the protection of the Eighth Amendment from sexual harassment at the hands of prison staff. While plaintiff’s allegations are somewhat bizarre, we cannot assume that they did not occur. See *McKenzie v. State of Wisconsin, Dept. of Corrections,*138 FRD 554, 555, and *Vang v. Toyed,*944 F2d 476 (9th Cir.). The superior court erred in denying the filing of plaintiff’s complaint.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Johnson and Blackburn, JJ., concur.*
Abatement Order filed September 10 , 2020

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00352

- CR

____________ ELIC MILTON LYMAN , S R ., Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court Brazoria County, Te x as Tria l Court Cause No. 83696

- CR



### ABATEMENT ORDER
Appellant was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual of a child and
sentenced to prison for thirty

- five years. Counsel has filed an Anders b rief on

app eal. 1 Appellant has been unable to file a p ro se response due to the closure of the law library because of COVID

- 19 and seeks additional time to resp ond

. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) ( Recogn izing a

1 See Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

.defendant is to be afforded the opportunity to fil e a pro se res ponse )

. Accordingly,

we enter the foll owing order. The appeal is abated, treated as a c losed case, and removed from this court ’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when

app ellant ’ s pro se response is filed. The c ourt also will consider an ap propriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the c ourt may reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel c o nsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Bourliot.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 957 

To require that State and local law enforcement agencies conform to Federal 

guidelines in using cell simulator devices, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Mr. JEFFRIES (for himself, Mr. POE of Texas, and Mr. FARENTHOLD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require that State and local law enforcement agencies 

conform to Federal guidelines in using cell simulator 

devices, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fourth Amendment 

5 Integrity Restoration in Surveillance Act of 2017’’ or as 

6 the ‘‘F.A.I.R. Surveillance Act of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 957 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF CELL SIMULATOR DEVICES BY STATE AND 

2 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. 

3 In the case of any coordination or agreement between 

4 a Federal agency and a State or local law enforcement 

5 agency pertaining to the acquisition or use by that State 

6 or local law enforcement Agency of any cell simulator de7 vice, such coordination or agreement shall require that 

8 such use, at minimum, conform to the guidance and poli9 cies that apply to the Federal agency on the use of such 

10 a device. 

11 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY. 

12 Any agreement as referenced in section 2 that is in 

13 effect at the date of enactment of this Act shall be renewed 

14 within a year of the date of enactment. 

15 SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

16 In this Act, the term ‘‘cell simulator device’’ means 

17 any device that simulates cellular facilities for the provi18 sion of electronic communication service (as such term is 

19 defined in section 2510 of title 18, United States Code) 

20 or any device that locates cellular devices or their unique 

21 identifiers by functioning as a cell tower. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25418]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Shoshone Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Shoshone Resource Advisory Committee (Committee) will meet 
in Thermopolis, Wyoming. The Committee is meeting as authorized under 
the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 
110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 
purpose of the meeting is to finalize the Committee's operating 
guidelines and develop criteria for prioritizing Title II projects.

DATES: The meeting will be held October 27, 2010, 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Big Horn Federal Savings, 643 
Broadway, Thermopolis, Wyoming.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga Troxel, Resource Advisory 
Committee Coordinator, Shoshone National Forest Supervisor's Office, 
(307) 578-5164.
    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through 
Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The 
following business will be conducted: (1) Finalize the Committee's 
Operating Guidelines, (2) Develop criteria for selecting Title II 
projects, (3) Discuss procedures for requesting project submittals. 
Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the 
Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before 
or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided.

    Dated: October 4, 2010.
David M. Pieper,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-25418 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10326

 Conference Calendar 

__________________

EZREE CROWLEY,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

D BROWN, #7803; E SMITH, #2451; M J FALLS, #3820; CITY OF

DALLAS, TEXAS

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:94-CV-1170-P 

- - - - - - - - - -

August 22, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ezree Crowley has appealed the dismissal, with prejudice, of

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. His complaint requests

damages for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious

prosecution relative to a burglary conviction for which he is

serving a lengthy sentence. We AFFIRM the district court's

judgment.

Crowley contends that the district court should have either

placed his action in abeyance or dismissed it without prejudice. 
No. 95-10326

-2-

He argues that the dismissal with prejudice was contrary to Heck

v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). Crowley also asserts that

the district court should have allowed him "to present his

claim." 

"Under Heck, when a state prisoner brings a § 1983 action

seeking damages, the trial court must first ascertain whether a

judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the § 1983 action would

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence." 

Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 283 (5th Cir. 1984). In the event

that "it would, the prisoner must show that his conviction has

been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by the grant of

a writ of habeas corpus, in order to state a claim." Id.

(citation and quotation marks omitted). If the prisoner cannot

make such a showing, his § 1983 action should be dismissed with

prejudice. Id. at 283-84. The court need no longer hold

proceedings in abeyance or dismiss without prejudice, because the

statute of limitations does not begin to run until the conviction

is invalidated. Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 27-28 (5th Cir.

1994).

Crowley concedes, as he must, that his burglary conviction

remains in effect. For the district court to have awarded him

damages on grounds that he was maliciously prosecuted for the

burglary "would necessarily imply the invalidity of [that]

conviction." Boyd, 31 F.3d at 283; see Pete v. Metcalfe, 8 F.3d

214, 219 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court was

correct in dismissing Crowley's § 1983 action with prejudice. 

Boyd, 31 F.3d at 283-84.
No. 95-10326

-3-

AFFIRMED.
# German-American Day, 2010 

The American story has been written by those who have come to our shores in search of freedom, opportunity, and the chance at a better life.  The German men and women who braved numerous perils to cross the Atlantic long ago left a legacy of millions of Americans of German ancestry who have been an integral part of our national life. On German-American Day, we pay tribute to the role this community has played in shaping America and contributing to our progress and prosperity. 

On October 6, 1683, 13 courageous German families arrived in Pennsylvania to start a new life.  They began a chapter in the American narrative that has influenced our country in all walks of life, and their resolve lives on in the men, women, and families of German descent who enhance civic engagement, steer our industries, and fortify our Nation’s character.  With their dedication and determination, the United States has been a leader in ingenuity and entrepreneurship, and has delivered a message of hope and opportunity that resonates around the world.  Today, German Americans innovate and excel as leaders in all sectors of our society. 

On this occasion, we honor not only the countless achievements and rich heritage of German Americans, but also the strong ties between Germany and the United States.  Our two nations share unbreakable bonds as allies with solemn obligations to one another’s security; values that inspired those brave settlers four centuries ago; and a vision for a safer, freer, more peaceful, more prosperous world. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 6, 2010, as German-American Day. I encourage all Americans to learn more about the history of German Americans and reflect on the many contributions they have made to our Nation. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth. 

[FR Doc. 2010-25721

Billing code 3195-W1-P
Exhibit 4.2


 


 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated December 8, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2099 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-259544) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


December 8, 2021
#### Richard C. MIZE, Husband, Appellant, v. Heidi W. MIZE, Wife, Appellee.

No. 1D10-0786.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 25, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 1, 2010.

Gary S. Edinger, Gainesville, for Appellant.

Terence M. Brown, of Brown & Sexton, Starke, for Appellee.

HAWKES, C.J.

The Husband contests a Final Order of Dissolution, arguing, among other things, that the trial court made insufficient fact findings to support its apportionment of liabilities, its denial of his motion to vacate a temporary alimony award, and its decision to grant the Wife’s motion for attorney’s fees. We agree these determinations were not supported by adequate fact findings. However, because the Husband failed to challenge the insufficiency of the fact findings through a motion for rehearing or by any other post-judgment pleading, he has failed to preserve these issues for appellate review.1 For this reason, and because we find the Husband’s remaining arguments meritless, the Final Judgment of Dissolution is AFFIRMED.

KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

1

. *See Simmons v. Simmons,*979 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (stating “[a] party is not entitled to complain that a judgment in a marital and family law case fails to contain sufficient findings unless that party raised the omission before the trial court in a motion for rehearing"); *see also Welch v. Welch,*22 So.3d 153, 155-56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); *Owens v. Owens,*973 So.2d 1169, 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL L. FISCHER,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00595-ELH-1)

Submitted: June 29, 2021 Decided: July 2, 2021

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Fischer, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary Augustus Myers, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael L. Fischer filed a motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which the district court denied on May 27, 2020. He did not appeal. 

In October 2020, Fischer filed a motion for reconsideration citing the COVID-19 pandemic 

risks in his prison facility. The district court denied this motion as well on January 8, 2021. 

On January 14, Fischer noted his appeal from both orders. The Government has moved to 

dismiss Fischer’s appeal as untimely.

A criminal defendant must file his notice of appeal within 14 days after the entry of 

judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of 

excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to 30 days 

to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Although the appeal period in a criminal 

case is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional provision, see United States v. Urutyan, 

564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009), “[w]hen the Government promptly invokes the rule in 

response to a late-filed criminal appeal, we must dismiss,” United States v. Oliver, 878 

F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 2017). Because Fischer failed to appeal the May 27 order within 

14 days and did not move for an extension, his appeal as to that order is untimely. 

Therefore, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part. However, because 

Fischer’s appeal is timely as to the January 8 order, we deny the Government’s motion as 

to this order. 

With respect to the January 8, 2021, order, we have reviewed the record included 

on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this order. United States v. 

Fischer, No. 1:14-cr-00595-ELH (D. Md. Jan. 8, 2021). We dispense with oral argument 
3

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART,

AFFIRMED IN PART
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LEE ANDREW MOORE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 373 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of May, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SERGIO MENDEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10443

D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00356-KJM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 24, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Sergio Mendez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the

262-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to

distribute and distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

FILED

FEB 29 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

Mendez argues that the district court procedurally erred by misunderstanding

its sentencing discretion and presuming a Guideline sentence was reasonable. We

review for plain error, see United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.

2008), and find none. Even if the district court’s ambiguous statement at the

sentencing hearing regarding the other branches of government constitutes error,

Mendez has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. See id. In light

of the district court’s discussion of the aggravating and mitigating factors in

Mendez’s case, he has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have

received a different sentence absent the alleged error. See id. at 762.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-10443
EXHIBIT 99.1

GRAPHIC

PDS Gaming Corporation Announces
Dismissal of Shareholder Complaint

LAS VEGAS, NVAugust 25, 2003PDS Gaming Corporation (NasdaqSC: PDSG) today announced the dismissal of a purported class action
lawsuit filed by a shareholder in District Court, Clark County, Nevada. The complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff in response to the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company had
announced the filing of the complaint in a press release dated July 8, 2003. The complaint alleged that the members of the Company's Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties in
approving a letter of intent with respect to a proposal submitted by a management group to acquire shares of common stock of the Company as announced in the Company's press releases dated
February 24, 2003 and February 26, 2003.

A
special committee of the Company's Board of Directors, consisting of its independent directors, and the management group continue to negotiate towards a definitive agreement. The proposal is subject
to, among other things, the execution of a definitive agreement, approval by a committee of the Company's independent directors and by a majority of the Company's shares not owned by the management
group, the procuring of all necessary consents of the Company's commercial lenders and the trustees under the indentures covering the Company's outstanding debt securities, the securing of required
approvals from all gaming regulatory agencies, the obtaining of the necessary financing, and the receipt by the Company of a favorable fairness opinion from an investment bank.

For
additional information, please contact:

Peter
D. Cleary
Interim Chief Financial Officer
PDS Gaming Corporation
6171 McLeod Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89120
(702) 736-0700

---

QuickLinks