alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Carl G. Dworkin, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 109746.)

[825 NYS2d 296]

Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Hard, J.), entered April 12, 2005, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Claimant, an attorney, represented an individual in a Court of Claims action who filed a claim seeking damages as a result of an alleged slip and fall on defendant’s property. In the course of discovery related to that matter, claimant indicated that he found defendant’s response to certain demands to be inadequate and brought a motion to, among other things, compel the production of certain materials. In his motion papers, claimant accused defendant, through its counsel, of repeated acts of misconduct, as well as, among other things, undertaking a “deliberate] attempt! ] to thwart [claimant’s client].” Defendant’s counsel, an Assistant Attorney General, cross-moved to strike the notices of deposition of claimant’s client. In the supporting affirmation, defendant’s counsel provided an explanation for the alleged delays, which also stated: “It is fair to say that statements by [claimant] are exaggerated and baseless. The general tone of his motion papers seems to suggest a level of instability and paranoia on his part.”*

Thereafter, claimant brought this claim for damages alleging that he was defamed by the above statement. Defendant then moved to dismiss the claim for failure to state a cause of action, arguing that the statement related to the litigation and, thus, was absolutely privileged. The Court of Claims granted defendant’s motion, prompting this appeal.

Under the particular circumstances herein, we cannot say that the Court of Claims erred in dismissing the claim. Significantly, “[i]n the context of a legal proceeding, statements by parties and their attorneys are absolutely privileged if, by any view or under any circumstances, they are pertinent to the litigation” *(Grasso v Mathew,*164 AD2d 476, 479 [1991], *appeal*
      *1015
      *dismissed*77 NY2d 940 [1991], *lv denied*78 NY2d 855 [1991]; see *Seltzer v Fields,*20 AD2d 60, 62-63 [1963], *affd*14 NY2d 624 [1964]). A determination as to whether a statement is pertinent is “extremely liberal” *(Grasso v Mathew, supra*at 479). Here, while the specific comments in the course of this vigorously contested matter may easily be described as “intemperate” *(Baratta v Hubbard,*136 AD2d 467, 469 [1988]), they, nonetheless, meet the “minimal possibility of pertinence or the simplest rationality” *(Mosesson v Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm,*257 AD2d 381, 382 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 808 [1999]) and, therefore, must be considered privileged *(see Baratta v Hubbard, supra*at 469).

Spain, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

The Court of Claims ultimately denied claimant’s motion for sanctions in that matter and partially granted defendant’s cross motion for certain relief.
# C_2010209EN.01001103.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht, Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2010 — KMB Europe BV v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-193/10)

()

2010/C 209/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KMB Europe BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is heading 8521 of the Combined Nomenclature in the version of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and the statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), [as amended] by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 (2), to be interpreted as meaning that apparatus such as the MP3 media player described below is not to be classified under that heading because account must be taken of its principal function as sound reproducing apparatus or because its capability of reproducing individual pictures and films is limited by a small display with small resolution and low frame frequency?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2006 L 301, p. 1).

2

---
### §§901 to 903. Repealed. Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.26(a), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 624

Section 901, acts July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §23, 39 Stat. 379; Jan. 23, 1932, ch. 9, §3(a), 47 Stat. 13; Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 785, title III, §306(a), 69 Stat. 665; Aug. 18, 1959, Pub. L. 86–168, title I, §104(c), 73 Stat. 386, provided for amount to be carried in reserve accounts, withdrawal of excess, and restoration of impairment. See section 2051 of this title.

Section 902, acts July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §23, 39 Stat. 379; Jan. 23, 1932, ch. 9, §3(a), (b), 47 Stat. 13; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933; Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 785, title III, §306(a), 69 Stat. 665, authorized declaration of dividends on balance of net earnings and investment of reserves. See section 2051 et seq. of this title.

Section 903, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §23 (par.), as added Aug. 6, 1953, ch. 335, §10, 67 Stat. 395, provided for payment of franchise tax before dividends. See section 2051 of this title.
# C_2011063EN.01002202.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/22

---

Action brought on 6 December 2010 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-570/10)

2011/C 63/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell, Agent, M. Mac Aodha, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 concerning the inland transport of dangerous goods (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 concerning the inland transport of dangerous goods (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of that Directive;

1

| — | order Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 30 June 2009.

---

(1)  OJ L 260, p. 13

1

---
§ 3.129 Feeding. ( a ) The food shall be wholesome, palatable, and free from contamination and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain all animals in good health. The diet shall be prepared with consideration for the age, species, condition, size, and type of the animal. Animals shall be fed at least once a day except as dictated by hibernation, veterinary treatment, normal fasts, or other professionally accepted practices.
( b ) Food, and food receptacles, if used, shall be sufficient in quantity and located so as to be accessible to all animals in the enclosure and shall be placed so as to minimize contamination. Food receptacles shall be kept clean and sanitary at all times. If self-feeders are used, adequate measures shall be taken to prevent molding, contamination, and deterioration or caking of food.
# C_2010209EN.01002402.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2010 — ENEL Produzione SpA v Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

(Case C-242/10)

()

2010/C 209/33

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Sezione Terza

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Enel Produzione SpA

Applicant:

Defendant: Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to ‘transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures’?

---
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.





Each of the undersigned certifies that, to his knowledge:





1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and





2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Affymetrix, Inc.





February 28, 2011
/S/ KEVIN M. KINGName:
Kevin M. KingTitle:
Director, President and Chief Executive Officer/S/ TIMOTHY C. BARABEName:
Timothy C. BarabeTitle:
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer





This certification accompanying the Report is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities such Section, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before, on or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Limited Power of Attorney - Securities Law Compliance


The undersigned, as an officer or director of Solectron Corporation,
(the "Corporation"), hereby constitutes and appoints Philip Fok,
Michael Grady, or Victoria Miranda the undersigned's true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent to complete and execute such Forms 3, 4
and 5 and other forms as such attorney-in-fact shall, in his or her
discretion, determine to be required or advisable pursuant to Section
16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended) and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, or any successor laws and
regulations, as a consequence of the undersigned's ownership,
acquisition or disposition of securities of the Corporation, and to
do all acts necessary in order to file such forms with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, any securities exchange or national
association, the Corporation and such other person or agency as the
attorney-in-fact shall deem appropriate. The undersigned hereby
ratifies and confirms all that said attorney-in-fact and agent shall
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


This Limited Power of Attorney is executed at Hopton, Norfolk, England
as of the date set forth below.



				Signature:	S/ Brian H. Antell

				Type or Print Name:	Brian H. Antell

				Dated: 	May 12, 2003






Witness:

Signature:	S/ B. Gerretsen


Type or Print Name:	B. Gerretsen


Dated: May 12, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5295]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee will meet in 
Thorne Bay, Alaska, March 28, 2011. The purpose of this meeting is to 
discuss potential projects under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2008.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 28, 2011 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Thorne Bay Ranger District 
1312 Federal Way Thorne Bay, Alaska. Send written comments to Prince of 
Wales Resource Advisory Committee, c/o District Ranger, USDA Forest 
Service, P.O. Box 500, Craig, AK 99921, or electronically to Rebecca 
Sakraida, RAC Coordinator at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbc9c8dad0c9dad2dfdafbddc895dddedf95cec8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3f4d4c5e544d5e565b5e7f594c11595a5b114a4c">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Sakraida, RAC Coordinator 
Craig Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, (907) 826-1601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee 
discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. 
However, public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will 
have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

Francisco B. Sanchez,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 2011-5295 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MILTON N. HAYES,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden and

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 12-17630

D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00161-EJD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 12, 2015** 

San Francisco California

Before: WALLACE, M. SMITH, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Hayes appeals from the district court judgment denying his

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hayes challenges

his California conviction for first-degree murder, arguing that his pre-arrest

FILED

JAN 21 2015

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).
statements to police should have been suppressed under Miranda v. Arizona, 384

U.S. 436 (1966). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and,

reviewing the district court’s decision de novo, we affirm.

We must deny Hayes’s petition unless the decision of the California Court of

Appeal “(1) . . . was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,

clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United

States; or (2) . . . was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light

of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

The decision of the California Court of Appeal was not contrary to any

principle of law clearly established by Supreme Court precedent, nor did it involve

an unreasonable application of any such principle. Because some of the facts in this

case weigh in favor of a finding that Hayes was in custody when he was

interrogated while other facts weigh against such a finding, fairminded jurists

could disagree over whether Hayes was in custody. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541

U.S. 652, 664–65 (2004). Thus, the California Court of Appeal’s decision was not

unreasonable. Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786–87 (2011). Nor was the

California Court of Appeal’s decision based on an unreasonable determination of

the facts. Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 301 (2010).

AFFIRMED.

2
#### § 351.4 Application for certification service.

Application for certification service under the regulations in this part may be made to the Administrator by the operator of any rendering plant or storage facility at which technical animal fat is prepared or stored for export. In case of a change of ownership or change of location, a new application shall be made. Applications shall be made on forms[1] available from the Administrator and provide all information called for thereon relating to the identity of the applicant and the plant, and the nature of the plant operations, and a certification of specified facts and an agreement to comply with specified requirements.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0583-0036)

[40 FR 58627, Dec. 18, 1975, as amended at 47 FR 746, Jan. 7, 1982]

###### Footnotes -
  351.4

[1] Copy filed as part of the original document.
##### 



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 Annual Report of TBA Entertainment Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas
Jackson Weaver III, 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 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. A signed original 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. /s/ Thomas Jackson Weaver III
 Thomas
Jackson Weaver IIIChief Executive OfficerApril
14, 2004
#### § 202.108 Rule 8: Docketing of proceeding.

Promptly following receipt of the answer, or the reply (if the answer asserts a counterclaim or a setoff), or following the expiration of the period of time prescribed above for the filing of the answer or of the reply, the agency head shall transmit all of the papers which have been filed in the proceeding (including the investigation report if any has been served on the parties) to the hearing clerk, who shall assign a docket number to the proceeding. Thereafter the proceeding shall be referred to by such number. The hearing clerk shall promptly transmit all such papers to the Office of the General Counsel for assignment of a presiding officer.
#### § 312.4 Official ante-mortem inspection marks and devices.

The official marks and devices used in connection with ante-mortem inspection are those prescribed in § 309.18 of this subchapter.
### §944. Confidential investigative expenses

Not more than $250,000 each fiscal year appropriated for the operations and support of the Coast Guard shall be available for investigative expenses of a confidential character, to be expended on the approval or authority of the Commandant and payment to be made on the Commandant's certificate of necessity for confidential purposes, and the Commandant's determination shall be final and conclusive upon the accounting officers of the Government.

(Added Pub. L. 93–283, §1(10), May 14, 1974, 88 Stat. 140, §658; amended Pub. L. 108–293, title II, §221, Aug. 9, 2004, 118 Stat. 1040; renumbered §944 and amended Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §107(b), title III, §308, Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4205, 4248; Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8513(a)(3), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4760.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283 substituted "the operations and support" for "necessary expenses for the operation" and "the Commandant's" for "his" in two places.

2018—Pub. L. 115–282, §308, substituted "$250,000" for "$45,000".

Pub. L. 115–282, §107(b), renumbered section 658 of this title as this section.

2004—Pub. L. 108–293 substituted "$45,000 each fiscal year" for "$15,000 per annum".
# C_2011055EN.01002001.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/20

---

Action brought on 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-597/10)

2011/C 55/35

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and I. Hadjiyannis, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 (1) on the assessment and management of flood risks, which aims to reduce damage to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity associated with floods in the Community, or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, France has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 (1) on the assessment and management of flood risks, which aims to reduce damage to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity associated with floods in the Community, or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, France has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of Directive 2007/60/EC expired on 25 November 2009. On the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet taken all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, it had not notified the Commission thereof.

---

(1)  Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (OJ 2007 L 288, p. 27).

1

---