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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(B)

              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

     In connection with the Annual Report of New Valley Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bennett
S. LeBow, Chief Executive 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, 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.

<Table>
<S>                                             <C>
March 31, 2003                                  /s/ Bennett S. LeBow
                                                -----------------------------------------------------
                                                Bennett S. LeBow
                                                Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
</Table>
Exhibit No. 23
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in
the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-50703, 2-
71723, 2-94699, 33-26823, 33-57879, 33-57881, 33387275 and
333-50711) and in the Prospectus constituting part of the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Nos. 33351423, 333-
79267 and 333-91635) of Westvaco Corporation of our report
dated November 17, 1999 relating to the financial
statements, which appears in the Annual Report to
Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K.






PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
December 16, 1999
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Northern Leasing Systems, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,</font></b></div><br><br><party role="defendant&lt;Body&gt;&lt;P&gt;Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2016, which denied its motion for summary judgment on its complaint and dismissal of defendant's counterclaims, and to strike the jury demand.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;Body&gt;&lt;P&gt;Per Curiam. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Order (Erika M. Edwards, J.), dated August 8, 2016, affirmed, with $10 costs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The record so far developed on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment raises numerous triable issues, including, inter alia, whether defendant received only the first page of the form lease or both pages, whether she was fraudulently induced to sign the lease, whether the sales representative who allegedly misrepresented the nature and terms of the agreement was an agent of plaintiff, and whether plaintiff permissibly obtained defendant's credit reports (&lt;a href=" .. target="_blank"><i>see Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc.</i>, 87 AD3d 881, 882 [2011]; <a href="../2012/2012_50276.htm" target="_blank"><i>Northern Leasing Sys., Inc. v Kollars, </i>34 Misc 3d 151</a>[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50276[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2012]).<p>We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them unpersuasive.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<p>Decision Date: June 29, 2017</p><br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></party></partyblock>
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 868

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 19, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

AN ACT

To amend section 527 of the Foreign Relations Authorization 

Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 to require that certain 

claims for expropriation by the Government of Nicaragua 

meet certain requirements for purposes of the prohibition 

on foreign assistance to that government.
2

HR 868 RFS 

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 ‘‘Nicaragua Property 

5 Dispute Settlement Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR EXPROPRIATION BY THE 

7 GOVERNMENT OF NICARAGUA. 

8 Section 527 of the Foreign Relations Authorization 

9 Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 2370a) is 

10 amended by adding at the end the following new sub11 section: 

12 ‘‘(i) CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR EXPROPRIATION BY GOV13 ERNMENT OF NICARAGUA.—(1) Any action of the types 

14 set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of subsection 

15 (a)(1) that was taken by the Government of Nicaragua 

16 during the period beginning on January 1, 1956, and end17 ing on January 9, 2002, shall not be considered in imple18 menting the prohibition under subsection (a) unless the 

19 action has been presented in accordance with the proce20 dure set forth in paragraph (2). 

21 ‘‘(2) An action shall be deemed presented for pur22 poses of paragraph (1) if it is—

23 ‘‘(A) in writing; and 
3

HR 868 RFS 

1 ‘‘(B) received by the Department of State on or 

2 before 120 days after the date specified in para3 graph (3) at—

4 ‘‘(i) the headquarters of the Department of 

5 State in Washington, D.C.; or 

6 ‘‘(ii) the Embassy of the United States of 

7 America to Nicaragua. 

8 ‘‘(3) The date to which paragraph (2) refers is a date 

9 after the enactment of this subsection that is specified by 

10 the Secretary of State, in the Secretary’s discretion, in a 

11 notice published in the Federal Register.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives March 18, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2002, dated
the date of this Certification (the "Report"), I, J. William Plummer, the
President and the Chief Executive 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 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:  February 13, 2003               By: /s/ J. William Plummer
                                           ---------------------------------
                                           J. William Plummer
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
# 16QRTL4_00

# image1.png
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 978 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.978

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

                                 An Act

 
  To amend chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
certain Federal annuity computations are adjusted by 1 percentage point 
  relating to periods of receiving disability payments, and for other 
                                purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ANNUITY COMPUTATION ADJUSTMENT FOR PERIODS OF DISABILITY.

    (a) In General.--Section 8415 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended--
        (1) by redesignating the second subsection (i) as subsection 
    (k); and
        (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(l) In the case of any annuity computation under this section 
that includes, in the aggregate, at least 2 months of credit under 
section 8411(d) for any period while receiving benefits under 
subchapter I of chapter 81, the percentage otherwise applicable under 
this section for that period so credited shall be increased by 1 
percentage point.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 8422(d)(2) of title 5, United 
States Code (as added by section 122(b)(2) of Public Law 107-135) is 
amended by striking ``8415(i)'' and inserting ``8415(k)''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to any 
annuity entitlement to which is based on a separation from service 
occurring on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Belinda COLOMO, as Guardian of V. C., an Incapacitated Individual, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAN ANGELO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; Carol Bonds, Superintendent of the San Angelo Independent School District; Jennifer Rackley; Bill Waters, Principal of Central High School in his Individual and Official Capacity; Shelly Huddleston, Vice Principal of Central High School in her Individual and Official Capacity; Jana Anderson, Special Education Director for San Angelo Independent School District in her Individual and Official Capacity; Cindy Lubke, Special Education Supervisor at Central High School in her Individual and Official Capacity; Kendra Kasner, Special Education Teacher at Central High School in her Individual and Official Capacity; Claire Baxter, *315Inclusion Teacher at Central High School in her Individual and Official Capacity; Brandee Baird, Special Education Staff at Central High School in her Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-11178.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Robert C. Hilliard, Esq., Marion M. Reilly, Hilliard Munoz Guerra, L.L.P., Corpus Christi, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Bridget Ranee Robinson, Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Gallegos & Green, P.C., Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

After her daughter, an 18-year old special education student, was the sexual victim of another student on school grounds, Appellant Belinda Colomo brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the San Angelo Independent School District and individual school officials alleging a violation of her daughter’s constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that Colomo failed to plead facts demonstrating a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violation, and therefore dismissed the claims against the school district and granted summary judgment against Colomo on the claim against the individual officials. Only on appeal has Colomo argued the case is a “special relationship” or “state-created” danger case arising under the rubric of *DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,*489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989). It is clear that, in light of this court’s intervening decision in *Doe v. Covington County School District,*675 F.3d 849 (5th Cir.2012) (en banc), we are bound to find no error in the district court’s orders. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and DENY Appellant’s motion to strike and motion for sanctions.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 16, 2018

NO. 03

- 16

- 00782

- CR

Stephen Artkeith Walker, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JU STICE ROSE, JUSTICES FIELD AND GOODWIN
AFFIRMED

— OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having r eviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

district court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s

judgment of conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication

of costs is made.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7146

FERNANDEZ HARVEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versusCAROLYN CROSS, Warden, Lawrenceville Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-99-976-AM) Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 29, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fernandez Harvey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s judgment or order is marked as “filed” on July 19, 1999, the district court’s record shows that it was entered on the docket sheet on July 20, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Fernandez Harvey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Harvey v. Cross , No. CA-99-976-AM (E.D. Va. July 20, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice BURRELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-4059.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 6, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 20, 2012.

Geoffrey W. Hosford, Hosford & Hos-ford, P.C., Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, *247Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Burrell appeals the sixty-four-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). On appeal, Burrell argues that the district court erred in applying a four-level enhancement pursuant to *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*(“USSG”) § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2011), when Bur-rell could not have received a sentence in excess of one year for his underlying conduct. Finding no error, we affirm.

Section 2K2.1(b)(6) provides for a four-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant ... used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense.” USSG § 2K2.1 (b)(6)(B). “ ‘Another felony offense’, for purposes of subsection (b)(6)(B), means any federal, state, or local offense ... punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, regardless of whether a criminal charge was brought, or a conviction obtained.” USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n. 14(C). “In considering the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions *de novo.” United States v. Mehta,*594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir.2010).

Here, the district court determined that Burrell possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute, conduct amounting to a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), which is punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment. *See*21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(D) (West Supp.2012). We conclude that the district court did not err in its determination because the possession of a significant amount of drug-packaging paraphernalia and an electronic scale supports the finding that Burrell intended to distribute the marijuana. *See United States v. Harris,*81 F.3d 153, 156-57 (4th Cir.1994); *United States v. Fisher,*912 F.2d 728, 730 (4th Cir.1990).

Even assuming, as Burrell contends, that he possessed the marijuana for personal use, his conduct violated 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2006), and the maximum sentence he would have faced, taking into account his prior convictions, is three years’ imprisonment. Thus, on the record before us, we conclude that the district court did not err in applying the sentencing enhancement.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 987

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to ensure congressional involvement 

in the process by which a river that is designated as a wild, scenic, 

or recreational river by an act of the legislature of the State or States 

through which the river flows may be included in the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2003

Mr. HERGER (for himself and Mr. DOOLITTLE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to ensure congressional involvement in the process by which a river that 

is designated as a wild, scenic, or recreational river by 

an act of the legislature of the State or States through 

which the river flows may be included in the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 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 ‘‘Wild and Scenic Rivers 

5 Congressional Involvement Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 987 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PROCESS FOR INCLUSION OF STATE DESIGNATED 

2 WILD, SCENIC, AND RECREATIONAL RIVERS 

3 IN NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYS4 TEM. 

5 (a) CONGRESSIONAL ROLE.—Section 2(a) of the 

6 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1273(a)) is amend7 ed—

8 (1) in clause (ii) of the first sentence, by strik9 ing ‘‘that are found by the Secretary of the Interior’’ 

10 and all that follows through ‘‘Virginia State line.’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘and that are authorized for inclusion 

12 in the national wild and scenic rivers system by an 

13 Act of Congress following the submission of an ap14 plication to the Secretary of the Interior by the Gov15 ernor of the State or the Governors of the States 

16 concerned, or a person or persons duly appointed by 

17 such Governor or Governors.’’; 

18 (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ‘‘and 

19 submit to Congress a report regarding whether each 

20 State designated river specified in the application 

21 meets the criteria for inclusion in the national wild 

22 and scenic rivers system’’ after ‘‘Register’’; and 

23 (3) in the third sentence, by striking ‘‘des24 ignated under clause (ii)’’ and inserting ‘‘authorized 

25 for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers 

26 system by an Act of Congress under clause (ii)’’. 
3

•HR 987 IH 

1 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Such section is 

2 amended in the fourth sentence by striking ‘‘Act of 1965’’ 

3 and inserting ‘‘Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–4 et 

4 seq.)’’.

Æ
[No. 55474-3-I.

Division One.

December 27, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jesus J. Ramirez, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 03-1-00442-6, Stephen J. Dwyer, J., entered December 2, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MICHAEL ANTHONY LORUSSO

, Appellant,

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP

, Appellee.

No. 4D 22

- 2274

[ April 20, 2023 ]

Appeal from the C ircuit Court for the Fif teenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County; James Nutt

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502022CA004117

.

Michael Anthony Lorusso

, Polk City, pro se

.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, G ERBER and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 1276.

#### James *v.*Ragen, Warden.

June 10, 1946.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois, denied.
|   |   | /s/  Charles E. Childs, III |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Charles E. Childs, III                |   |
|   |   | Secretary                             |   |
|   |   |                                  |   |