alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commissioners Bentzel and Sola visit PNW to explore port congestion & cruise industry issues","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"HP69lxjE3a\"><a href=\"\/commissioners-bentzel-and-sola-visit-pnw-to-explore-port-congestion-cruise-industry-issues\/\">Commissioners Bentzel and Sola visit PNW to explore port congestion & cruise industry issues<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioners-bentzel-and-sola-visit-pnw-to-explore-port-congestion-cruise-industry-issues\/embed\/#?secret=HP69lxjE3a\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioners Bentzel and Sola visit PNW to explore port congestion & cruise industry issues” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"HP69lxjE3a\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### Tao YANG, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-60373

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 21, 2008.

Yan Wang, Law Offices of Matthew Jeon P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, John Clifford Cunningham, Holly Michele Smith, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tao Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his third motion to reopen his 1999 removal proceedings. Yang sought to have the BIA reopen the proceedings pursuant to its sua sponte authority in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). The BIA determined that Yang’s motion was time and number barred, that ineffective assistance could not excuse his failure *443to file a timely motion to reopen, and that equitable tolling was not warranted because Yang had not exercised due diligence. Yang argues that the BIA erred in denying the motion because he established exceptional circumstances based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He also asserts that the time and number limitations should be equitably tolled due to the ineffective assistance of counsel.

Because the BIA has complete discretion in deciding whether to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte, see § 1003.2(a), there is no meaningful standard against which to review this decision, and this court lacks jurisdiction over it. *See Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 246, 249-50 (5th Cir.2004). Even if equitable tolling applies to motions to reopen and Yang’s equitable tolling arguments could be considered, he has not established that the BIA abused its discretion in holding that he was not entitled to equitable tolling because he had not shown due diligence. *See Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales,*413 F.3d 462, 469 (5th Cir.2005).

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"November 2021 Revocations and Surrenders","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"o6wErm6W05\"><a href=\"\/oti\/november-2021-revocations-and-surrenders\/\">November 2021 Revocations and Surrenders<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/november-2021-revocations-and-surrenders\/embed\/#?secret=o6wErm6W05\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“November 2021 Revocations and Surrenders” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"o6wErm6W05\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
EXHIBIT 31.1I, Jason Liddell, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filedin respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Merrill Lynch Depositor, Inc., onbehalf of PPLUS Trust Series GSC-4 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);     2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Actperiodic reports;     4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this reportunder Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, theservicer(s) has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all materialrespects; and     5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit tothis report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York and its officers and agents.        Date: March 26, 2007 /s/ Jason Liddell  Vice President
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"William P. Doyle\u2019s Statement on the Commission\u2019s Vote to Approve TSA\u2019s Expansion","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"119Fm58eKg\"><a href=\"\/william-p-doyles-statement-on-the-commissions-vote-to-approve-tsas-expansion\/\">William P. Doyle\u2019s Statement on the Commission\u2019s Vote to Approve TSA\u2019s Expansion<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/william-p-doyles-statement-on-the-commissions-vote-to-approve-tsas-expansion\/embed\/#?secret=119Fm58eKg\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“William P. Doyle\u2019s Statement on the Commission\u2019s Vote to Approve TSA\u2019s Expansion” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"119Fm58eKg\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSEPH HOWARD LUDENA M ENDOZA, a . k.a . Jospe h H. Lude n a , Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70071 Age n c y No. A087-193-376 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2014 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, SILVER M AN, a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Jose ph Howa

rd Lude na

M e ndoz a , a

native and c itiz e n of Pe ru, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l of an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a djustm e nt of sta tus. W e have jurisdic t i on unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w de novo que stions 

# FIL ED JAN 23 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).of la

w, a nd for substa

ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l de te rm inations. He rnande z v . Ashc roft, 345 F.3d 824, 832 (9th C i r. 2003). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm inations tha t Lude na M e n doz a fa ile d to e sta blish heha d be e n inspe c te d a nd a dm i tte d into theUnite d Stat e s, a nd tha t Lude na M e ndoz a the re fore is not e ligiblefor a djustm e nt of sta tus. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1255(a) (se tting forth re q uire m e nts for a djustm e nt of sta tus); 8 C .F.R . § 1240.8(d) (sta

ting tha t a pplic ant be ars the burde n of e sta blishing e ligibility for re l ie f from re m ova l). Lude na M e ndoz a ’ s c l a im

tha t the a ge nc y

e m ploy e d a n unc le ar sta

nda rd and fa ile d to de ve lop the re c ord is unsupporte d by the re c ord. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 0 0 7 1 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6451

LARRY L. WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-11) Submitted: August 26, 2005 Decided: September 15, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry L. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Larry L. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. To appeal an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas action, Williams must establish entitlement to a certificate of appealability. SeeReid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 368 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Because Williams’s Rule 60(b) motion did not assert a defect in the original collateral review process itself, but rather reargued the merits of his § 2255 motion based on new case law, reasonable jurists would not find debatable or wrong the district court’s characterization of the Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion under our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340- 3 - F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent that Williams’s notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See Winestock , 340 F.3d at 208. 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.

DISMISSED
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50666

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARMANDO RODOLFO DAVILA-VELASCO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-244-ALL-DB

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

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Armando Rodolfo Davila-Velasco appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Davila-Velasco complains that his sentence was improperly

enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior

conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is

unconstitutional. Davila-Velasco thus contends that his sentence
No. 03-50666

-2-

should not exceed the maximum terms of imprisonment prescribed in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Davila-Velasco acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
{"id":1451,"date":"2012-05-10T13:36:09","date_gmt":"2012-05-10T17:36:09","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=1451"},"modified":"2018-08-17T13:37:21","modified_gmt":"2018-08-17T17:37:21","slug":"statement-of-richard-a-lidinsky-jr-chairman-federal-maritime-commission-before-the-committee-on-commerce-science-and-transportation-united-states-senate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/statement-of-richard-a-lidinsky-jr-chairman-federal-maritime-commission-before-the-committee-on-commerce-science-and-transportation-united-states-senate\/","title":{"rendered":"Statement of Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr, Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>May 10, 2012<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/assets\/1\/News\/Statement_of_Chairman_Lidinsky_05_10_12.pdf\">Click here to download document<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>May 10, 2012 Click here to download document<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[7,29],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1451"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1451"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1451\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1452,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1451\/revisions\/1452"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BANANA RIVER FINANCE, INC.
, Appellant,

v.

JOHN M. GREENE II, a/k/a JOHN GREEN
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 696

[ February 27, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Janet C. Croom , Judge; L.T. Case No. 31

- 2017

- CA

000461

.

Mark S. Peters of Eisenmenger, Robinson, Blaue & Peters, P.A., Viera, for appellant.

Eric A. Lanigan of Laniga n & Lanigan, PL, Winter Park, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C ONNER and F ORST

, JJ., and G ILLESPIE

, K ENNETH

, Associate Judge

, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kana Software, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michelle Philpot, as acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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) 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: May 13, 2004	                                                                                                                                                                                                By:/s/ Michelle Philpot        Michelle Philpot
        Acting Chief Financial Officer



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