alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****NW education [electronicresource].**
 
 
1996-97.pdf
9.2M
1998.pdf
8.4M
1999-2000.pdf
20M
2000-01.pdf
9.1M
2002-03.pdf
7.5M
2004-fall.pdf
3.6M
2004-spring.pdf
844K
2004-winter.pdf
3.5M
2005-spring.pdf
4.7M
2006-fall.pdf
2.1M
2006-spring.pdf
2.2M
2007-fall.pdf
4.4K
2007-spring-summer.pdf
2.4M
2007-winter.pdf
2.3M
2008-Fall.pdf
1.4M
2009-spring-summer.pdf
1.5M
2009-winter.pdf
3.3M[if !supportMisalignedColumns]> [endif]>
 
 
SuDoc Number:ED 1.353:
Item Number:0461-D-41 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000666200
 
February 6, 2020
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank Vagliano, Appellant.

Present — Foster, P. J.," Heffeman, Brewster, Santry and Bergan, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 739.]
### SUBCHAPTER IX—COMMUNITY SERVICE SENIOR OPPORTUNITIES

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, comprising this subchapter, was originally enacted as title IX of Pub. L. 89–73 by Pub. L. 94–135, title I, §113(a), Nov. 28, 1975, 89 Stat. 720, and was renumbered title V and amended by Pub. L. 95–478, title I, §105, title V, §503(d), Oct. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 1547, 1559; Pub. L. 97–115, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1595; Pub. L. 98–459, Oct. 9, 1984, 98 Stat. 1767; Pub. L. 100–175, Nov. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 926; Pub. L. 100–628, Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3224; Pub. L. 102–375, Sept. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 1195; Pub. L. 103–171, Dec. 2, 1993, 107 Stat. 1988; Pub. L. 105–220, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 936; Pub. L. 105–277, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 105–332, Oct. 31, 1998, 112 Stat. 3076; Pub. L. 106–501, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2226; Pub. L. 109–270, Aug. 12, 2006, 120 Stat. 683. Title V is shown herein, however, as having been added by Pub. L. 109–365, title V, §501, Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2563, without reference to intervening amendments because of the extensive revision of the title's provisions by Pub. L. 109–365.
### §5002. Transportation of mail of adjoining countries through the United States

The Postal Service, with the consent of the President, may make arrangements to allow the mail of countries adjoining the United States to be transported over the territory of the United States from one point in that country to any other point therein, at the expense of the country to which the mail belongs, upon obtaining a like privilege for the transportation of United States mail through the country to which the privilege is granted.

(Pub. L. 91–375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 766.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective July 1, 1971, pursuant to Resolution No. 71–9 of the Board of Governors. See section 15(a) of Pub. L. 91–375, set out as a note preceding section 101 of this title.
### subpart 4—pilot program for testing of equipment and technology
#### In the Matter of Sally A. Hestad, an Attorney, Resignor.

[820 NYS2d 908]

Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys *(see Matter of Manown,*240 AD2d 83 [1998]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Martoche and Smith, JJ. (Filed Aug. 16, 2006.)
#### Fred F. La Plante, as Committee of the Person and Estate of Mary C. La Plante, an Incompetent Person, Respondent, v. Jane S. Garrett, Individually and Doing Business as John B. Garrett, Appellant. Fred F. La Plante, Respondent, v. Jane S. Garrett, Individually and Doing Business as *1097John B. Garrett, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Special Term of the Supreme Court, Albany County. The wife’s action seeks recovery for personal injuries due to negligence and the husband’s action seeks recovery for medical and other expenses and loss of services. Among other things it is alleged that the wife “ lost her sanity ” as the result of her injuries. The court at Special Term has granted defendant’s motion to allow a mental and physical examination of the plaintiff wife, but it has denied defendant’s motion to allow an examination of the hospital’s records where the injured plaintiff was treated for mental illness. These records are privileged (Civ. Prac. Act, § 352; *Jaffe*V. *City of New York,*196 Mise. 710). The privilege has not been waived actually by the committee or waived constructively by the mere fact of instituting the action for the injuries. It is a privilege that may be waived at the trial or on an examination. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 354.) The court upon the trial will be free to decide whether the proof offered by plaintiff constitutes a waiver and will allow appropriate time and opportunity to defendant in the event a waiver results to subpoena, examine and test the correctness of such hospital records as may then become material to the issue tendered. In *Matter of Warrington (State of New York)*(303 N. T. 129) the application under the Mental Hygiene Law was made by the committee. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie,-JJ.
### Part C—Job Training for Homeless
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MANDI JOY MCDANIEL,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00138

- CR

Appeal from

109th District Court

of Andrews County, Texas

(TC # 6271)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mandi Joy McDaniel app eals h er conviction of murder. Finding that Appellant does not

have a right to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

A ppellant was indicted for one count of capital murder (Count I) and one count of felony

murder (Count II). She waived her right to a jury trial and entered a negotiated plea of guilty to

the lesser included offense of murder in exchange for the State’s ag reement to dismiss Count II.

The trial court found Appellant guilty and assessed her punishment at imprisonment for a term of

forty years in accordance with the plea bargain. The trial court also signed an order granting the

State’s motion to dismiss Cou nt II. The record reflects that Appellant waived her right to appeal.

Despite having waived the right to appeal, Appellant filed a written notice of her intent to appeal.

Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires the trial court to certify

the criminal defendant's right of appeal under Rule 25.2(a)(2). T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2) and (d).- 2

-

The trial court entered a written certification as required by Rules 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2(d) . The

certification reflects that the appeal “is a plea

- ba rgain case, and the Defendant has NO right of

appeal.” Further, the court certified that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” In a

plea

- bargain case, a defendant may appeal only those matters raised by written motion and ruled

on before trial, or after getting the court ’ s permission to appeal. T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2). The

record reflects that Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea and the trial court followed the

plea bargain. Further, Appellant waived the right of appeal. The Clerk ’ s Office notified

Appellant ’ s counsel that the certification reflects that Appellant has no right of appeal in this

case and requested a response addressing whether appellant has a right of appeal. Appellant’s

counsel has filed a response confirming that Ap pellant does not have a right to appeal. Based on

the trial court ’ s certification and the record before us, we dismiss the appeal.

August 13, 2014

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J ., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
Second Department,

August, 2006

(August 1, 2006)

#### Joseph Bonavoglia, Respondent, v Mangal Singh, Defendant, and Dee’s Associated et al., Appellants.

[820 NYS2d 517]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Dee’s Associated and William Despagna appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated August 15, 2005, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondent.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them since they failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]; *Browdame v Candura,*25 AD3d 747 [2006]; *Paulino v Dedios,*24 AD3d 741 [2005]; *Kaminsky v Waldner,*19 AD3d 370 [2005]; *Berkowitz v Decker Transp. Co.,*5 AD3d 712 [2004]; *Aronov v Leybovich,*3 AD3d 511 [2004]). Since the appellants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the sufficiency of the papers submitted in opposition to the motion need not be considered *(see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.
### §21505. Implementation

In carrying out this chapter, and the amendments made by this chapter, the Attorney General may use the resources and capacities of any appropriate agencies of the Department of Justice, including the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, the United States Marshals Service, INTERPOL Washington-U.S. National Central Bureau, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the United States Attorneys' Offices.

(Pub. L. 114–119, §6(c), Feb. 8, 2016, 130 Stat. 23.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 114–119, Feb. 8, 2016, 130 Stat. 15, known as the International Megan's Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2016 Act note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 16935d of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

The amendments made by this chapter, referred to in text, mean the amendments made by Pub. L. 114–119. See Short Title of 2016 Act note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.
129 PinEt il!root P. Ct**~lox** 64 Shuqualak, MS 1936! i'tronEt:**l'i&~·**79:H67S**l'i6~19:H791**

All!4!rwoll\!ln <Evelyn Murmy Mayor Pro Tll!npo«!**Atderwo~** D<l!Prs Home Ui!filY Co.nmlli!liC>I'Ier llderml!n I>Qrrell Hunt

il!rool Cllmr111S!llonEtr
llld!ltwoman Mamie Rou TurU!Uity Ccrnm!ssiooer
Ald4!rwoman l<mity 8m::kh111Wr Slte<!t**OlmmJ~()O!lt**

8()ard Att!lmey

ll$no" Jones Deputy Clerk**Son!~** Slllugllter Ch!et of Polk:!>**li6N!l3~S21** MunldPI!Iludge tlqrothy Stewart**~~utlng Atto~**  Roder!d! Walk(!F April :z6, 20:12



### Mr. Dennis DeVany Chief, EAS & Domestic Analysis Division Office 

### of Aviation Department 

### ofTransportation 1200 

### New Jersey 

### Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 

### RE: Tupelo 

### Regional Airport< ffUP) DOCKET: DOT-OST-2009-0305 

### Dear Mr. 

### DeVany1 

## '( -· Ll

lamwriting in sopport 

### ofSilver Airways' 

### proposal to provide 

### commercial air service to the 

### Tupelo Regional Airport. Citizens from Shuqualak depend on 

### the Tupelo Regional 

### Airport for air 

### service. It

### is very 

### Important to our 

### local economy for 

### air 

### se1vlce to continue 

### in and out 

### ofTupelo. We believe Stiver Airways' interline 

### ticketing and 

### baggage agreement 

### with Delta Airlines makes 

### this 

### option very attractive 

### to our citizens. In addition, the 30·50 

### seat aircraft are much more 

### d.esirablethan the 

### 8 seat aircraft offered by 

### Air Choice One. We are excited about

### this chance to retum to profitability. 

### Thank you for <::onsidering our citizens in your deliberations. Sincerely,

Or. Velma H. Jenkin$ 

### Mayor
### §140509. Liability for acts of officers and agents

The corporation is liable for the acts of its officers and agents acting within the scope of their authority.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1383.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 140509 | 36:831. | Aug. 26, 1958, Pub. L. 85–761, §11, 72 Stat. 858. |

Section
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 51036

JAMES ERIC LOFTEN ,
P etitioner

- Appellant

v.
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

– AUSTIN; LIBERTY COUNTY JUDICIARY; STATE OF TEXAS , Responde nt s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:15

- CV

- 776

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM : * Joseph Eri c Loften, Texas prisoner # 616132, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition based on it being a successive application b arred by earlier sanction orders in other proceedings. Loften asserts that he is challenging for the first time his November 2013 conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and his 99

- year term of imprisonment.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 15, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-51036 Document: 00513877260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2017No. 15

- 51036

2 Reasonable jurists would debate whether the district court erred in dismissing Loften’s habeas petition as successive and subject to the prior sanctions imposed against Loften in earlier proceedings challenging a different conviction or a finding of guilt in a disci plinary proceeding. A dditionally, “the district court pleadings, the record, and the COA application demonstrate that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petitioner has made a valid claim of a constitutional deprivation.” Houser v. Dretke , 395 F. 3d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 2004).
A ccordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Loften’s motion for a COA is GRANTED; his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; the district court’s judgment dismissing his § 2254 habeas petition as successive and barred b y sanctions is VACATED; and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings

. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384,
3 87

- 88 (5th Cir. 1998). Loften’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED

. See Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212

- 13 (5th Cir. 198 2). His motion for an evidentiary hearing and for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and subpoena s for out

- of

- state witnesses is DENIED without prejudice to his filing
t he motion in the district court. Case: 15-51036 Document: 00513877260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2017
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES RAY HUNTER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

M. PULICICCHIO, named as Captain M.

Pulicicchio ; ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DANIELLA STIMPLE, Deputy Warden; THOMAS, named as C.O. IV Thomas; UNKNOWN PARTIES, named

as Jane/John Doe A.D.O.C. Constituent Service Manager,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 16513

D.C. No. 4:18

- cv

- 00351

- RCC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2023 * *

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner James Ray Hunter appeals pro se from the district

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 24 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 16513

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation . We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung

,

391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Ci r. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hunter’s claim

relating to St i mple’s investigation of the visitation grievance because Hunter failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his constitutional rights

were violated. See Rhodes v. Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567

- 68 ( 9th Cir. 2005)

(setting forth the requirements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hunter’s claim

re lating to St i mple’s subsequent alleged retaliatory conduct because Hunter failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies and he failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable.

See Albin o v. Baca , 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (once the defendant has

carried the burden to prove there was an available administrative remedy, the

burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence showing that administrative

remedies were effectively unavailable to him). Although Hunter has submitted

do cuments on appeal demonstrating his efforts to exha ust, w e do not consider

documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias

,

921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1 990).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Marco Community Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas M. Whelan, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                                                    
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 3, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Thomas M. Whelan                                               
|                     |  |     |  | Thomas M. Whelan, Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
### §1001. Basic entitlement to benefits

Every individual who is a qualified individual under section 1002 of this title shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this subchapter, be entitled to a monthly benefit paid by the Commissioner of Social Security for each month after September 2000 (or such earlier month, if the Commissioner determines is administratively feasible) the individual resides outside the United States.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title VIII, §801, as added Pub. L. 106–169, title II, §251(a), Dec. 14, 1999, 113 Stat. 1844.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Prior sections 1001 to 1011, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title VIII, §§801–811, 49 Stat. 636–639, related to taxes with respect to employment. Section 4 of act Feb. 10, 1939, ch. 2, 53 Stat. 1, which act enacted Title 26, Internal Revenue Code of 1939, provided that all laws and parts of laws codified into the I.R.C. 1939, to the extent that they related exclusively to internal revenue laws, were repealed. Provisions of I.R.C. 1939 were generally repealed by section 7851 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 3). See, also, section 7807 of said Title 26, I.R.C. 1954, respecting rules in effect upon enactment of I.R.C. 1954. The I.R.C. 1954 was redesignated I.R.C. 1986 by Pub. L. 99–514, §2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095. The omitted sections were formerly and are now covered by certain sections in Title 26, I.R.C. 1939 and I.R.C. 1986, respectively, as follows:

| Omitted sections | I.R.C. 1939 | I.R.C. 1986 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1001 | 1400 | 3101. |
| 1002 | 1402 | 3102. |
| 1003 | 1401 | 3502. |
| 1004 | 1410 | 3111. |
| 1005 | 1411 | 6205(a), 6413(a). |
| 1006 | 1421 | 6205(b), 6413(b). |
| 1007 | 1420, 1430 | 3501. |
| 1008 | 1429 | 7805(a), (c). |
| 1009 | 1423, 1424 | 6801 et seq. |
| 1010 | 1425 | 7208(1), 7209. |
| 1011 (as amended Aug. 10, 1939, ch. 666, title IX, §905(a), 53 Stat. 1400) | 1426 | 3121, 7701(a)(1). |

sections

Section 1001 related to income tax on employees.

Section 1002 related to deduction of tax from wages.

Section 1003 related to deductibility from income taxes.

Section 1004 related to excise tax on employers.

Section 1005 related to adjustment of employers' tax.

Section 1006 related to refunds and deficiencies.

Section 1007 related to collection and payment of taxes.

Section 1008 related to rules and regulations.

Section 1009 related to sale by postmasters of stamps or other devices for collection or payment of tax.

Section 1010 related to penalties.

Section 1011 related to definitions.