alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dennis Riddell et al., Plaintiffs, v June A. Brown et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Dennis Riddell et al., Appellants, v William H. Morrison, Respondent. (Action No. 2.)

(Appeal No. 1.)

[820 NYS2d 915]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County (Larry M. Himelein, A.J.), entered July 5, 2005 in a personal injury action. The order granted the motion of defendant in action No. 2 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to supplement the bill of particulars.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court *(Riddell v Brown,*
      *12128 Misc 3d 1016[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51121[U]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Kehoe, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-40127

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS GUADALUPE MOLINA, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(L-CA-94-14)

________________________________________________

February 8, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Guadalupe Molina, Jr., who appeals pro se the denial of

his § 2255 motion, is before our court for the second time on this

matter. See United States v. Molina, No. 94-60182 (5th Cir. 1994)

(remanding for factual determination whether Molina requested his

counsel file notice of appeal). Molina contends that he was

denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to

file a timely notice of appeal, even though Molina had requested

that an appeal of his sentence be filed. (Molina's conviction is

pursuant to a plea of guilty.) On remand, the district court held
- 2 -

an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Molina had, in fact,

made such a request.

In reviewing the denial of a § 2255 motion, we review findings

of fact only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Gipson, 985

F.2d 212, 214 (5th Cir. 1993). Based on our review of the record,

we conclude that the district court's determination that Molina

never requested that his attorney appeal his sentence is supported

by both the testimony of Molina's attorney and by the inconsistency

of Molina's contentions. Moreover, we will not disturb the

district court's finding that the testimony of Molina's counsel was

more credible than Molina's. United States v. Bass, 10 F.3d 256,

258 (5th Cir. 1993) (court gives credence to credibility

determinations unless clearly erroneous). 

The district court's finding of fact that Molina never

requested that his lawyer appeal his sentence is not clearly

erroneous. Accordingly, the denial of the § 2255 motion is

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT10.11**

 

**Summary of Cash Bonus Arrangement**

 

The following is a summary of the terms of the cashbonus arrangement between Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) andGerald J. Hamilton, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Sales.  Mr. Hamilton is eligible to receive acash bonus based on his level of achievement of the following goals:

 

·                  fiscal year revenue target (weighted at 40%);

·                  design win execution against fiscal year plan (weighted at 40%); and

·                  operating expense target (weighted at 20%).

 

The Compensation and Management Development Committeeof the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) approves theamount of the cash bonus for Mr. Hamilton on a semi-annual basis.

 

If Mr. Hamilton achieves 100% of his overallgoals in a given fiscal year, he is eligible to receive a cash bonus in anamount equal to 55% of his base salary for such fiscal year.  The Compensation Committee may award Mr. Hamiltona cash bonus in excess of such amount in the event that he achieves greaterthan 100% of his overall goals.

 

 

----
No: III-13-038 October 25, 2013

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Schedules Regulatory Conference to Discuss

Apparent Violation at Duane Arnold Nuclear Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a regulatory conference with officials 

of NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, on Tuesday, Nov. 5, to discuss a preliminary inspection finding

for weaknesses in a maintenance procedure at the Duane Arnold Energy Center. The plant is located in 

Palo, Iowa, eight miles northwest of Cedar Rapids.

NRC and company officials will discuss the significance of the inspection finding, which 

involved deficiencies in the procedure for replacing a heat exchanger on a standby diesel generator. This 

deficiency was the main cause for the failure of one of the two standby diesel generators during testing

activities. The finding did not represent an immediate safety concern. 

The meeting is scheduled for 1 p.m. CST in the NRC’s Region III office, located at 2443 

Warrenville Road, in Lisle, Ill. The public is invited to observe and NRC officials will be available to 

answer questions. 

The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear power plants with a colorcoded system that classifies findings as green, white, yellow or red, in increasing order of safety 

significance. The NRC’s preliminary evaluation determined that the violation at Duane Arnold was 

“white,” which means it has a low to moderate safety significance. 

No decisions on the final safety significance or other NRC actions will be made at the 

conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later time. 

The NRC inspection report in which the apparent violation is documented is publicly available on 

the NRC website.

.
#### In the Matter of Efrain J. Muniz, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[820 NYS2d 368]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Gouverneur Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with disobeying a direct order, being out of place and harassing an employee after he refused orders to report to his assigned program and made an obscene comment about a counselor. A tier II disciplinary hearing was held, and petitioner was found guilty of all charges and a penalty was imposed. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

The misbehavior report, written by the correction officer who issued the direct orders and endorsed by the counselor who ascertained the facts of the incident, provides substantial evi*1074dence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of McNear v Selsky,*25 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2006]; *Matter of Russell v Selsky,*22 AD3d 998, 999 [2005]; see *also*7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [b]). Although petitioner contends that he was unable to comply with the orders because he was feeling ill, evidence at the hearing revealed that petitioner did not request an excuse from the medical department and had no medical problem that would have prevented him from attending the assigned program *(see Matter of Moreno v Goord,*30 AD3d 708, 709 [2006]; *Matter of Shun Zhong v Selsky,*307 AD2d 498, 499 [2003]). In addition, the penalty imposed after the Hearing Officer considered petitioner’s disciplinary record and the mitigating factors surrounding the incident was not excessive. Petitioner’s remaining arguments are unpreserved for our review and, in any event, lack merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
No: 14-021 March 25, 2014

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Chairman Macfarlane Presents U.S. National Report 

to IAEA’s Convention on Nuclear Safety

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Allison Macfarlane on Tuesday presented the 

United States’ Sixth National Report for the Convention on Nuclear Safety to member countries of the 

International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria.

Macfarlane spoke and took questions from other delegates in a closed-door session that 

concluded an international peer review of the U.S. report, which was published last October. The sixth 

review meeting of the Convention on Nuclear Safety is scheduled to conclude April 4.

“This peer review process is a critical part of the international community’s efforts to share 

experience, learn lessons, and strengthen global nuclear safety,” Macfarlane said in her remarks. She 

was joined by Mark Satorius, NRC’s executive director for operations, and Robert Willard, president 

and chief executive officer of the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations, who presented an industry 

perspective on U.S. nuclear safety.

Countries that are parties to the convention meet every three years to discuss their reports. The 

U.S. report demonstrates how the United States implements a high level of nuclear safety by enhancing 

national measures and international cooperation, and by meeting the obligations of all the articles 

established by the convention. These articles address the safety of existing nuclear installations, the 

legislative and regulatory framework, the regulatory body, responsibilities of licensees, human factors, 

quality assurance, radiation protection, emergency preparedness, siting, design and construction, among 

other issues. 

The report discusses the status of safety issues raised in the Fifth U.S. National Report, 

including reactor materials degradation, cyber security, digital upgrades to instrumentation and control, 

moisture effects on underground cables, using accident pressure buildup to maintain emergency core 

cooling functions, gas bubbles in light-water reactor coolant systems, enhancement to emergency 

preparedness regulations, as well as the NRC’s ongoing efforts to address lessons learned from 

Fukushima.

The report (NUREG-1650, Revision 5) is available on the NRC website.

In addition to the peer review of the U.S. report, the NRC received high marks earlier this year 

from an IAEA Integrated Regulatory Review Service team, which assessed the U.S. regulatory 

infrastructure against international safety standards and good practices. The IRRS team concluded that

the NRC “acted promptly and effectively ... in the interests of the public health and safety” in response 

to the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan.
### Part D—NSF Research Security
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Kura Sushi USA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending August 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Koji Shinohara, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary 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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Dated: November 26, 2019 |   | /s/ Koji Shinohara                               |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   | Koji Shinohara                                   |
|                          |   | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary |
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANTTO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Reef Global Energy I, L.P.(the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), we, Michael J. Mauceli, Chief Executive Officer, and Daniel C.Sibley, Chief Financial Officer of Reef Partners LLC, the managing generalpartner of Reef Global Energy I, L.P., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Partnership.

 

This certification is made solely for the purposes of U.S.C. §1350, andnot for any other purpose.

 

 
| /s/ Michael J. Mauceli  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Chief Executive Officer |
| Reef Partners LLC       |
| November 14, 2003       |
|                    |
| /s/ Daniel C. Sibley    |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| Reef Partners LLC       |
| November 14, 2003       |

 

1

----
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32



KMART HOLDING CORPORATION

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION(1)

         In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kmart Holding
Corporation for the period ended July 30, 2003, each of the undersigned officers
of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

         1.    this Form 10-Q for the period ended July 30, 2003 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 this Form 10-Q for the period ended
July 30, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Kmart Holding Corporation.


         Date:    August 29, 2003


         /s/ Julian C. Day
         -----------------
         Julian C. Day
         Chief Executive Officer


         Date:    August 29, 2003


         /s/ Richard J. Noechel
         ----------------------
         Richard J. Noechel
         Vice President and Controller


         Date:    August 29, 2003


         /s/ James F. Gooch
         ------------------
         James F. Gooch
         Vice President and Treasurer



Footnote 1:

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kmart Holding
Corporation and will be retained by Kmart Holding Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3670 

AN ACT 

To require the Transportation Security Administration to 

comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3670 EH

1 SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES 

2 EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS 

3 ACT TO THE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY AD4 MINISTRATION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 111(d) of the Aviation 

6 and Transportation Security Act (49 U.S.C. 44935 note; 

7 Public Law 107–71) is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘Notwithstanding’’ and insert9 ing the following: 

10 ‘‘(1) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—Except as pro11 vided in paragraph (2), and notwithstanding’’; and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(2) UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND

14 REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT.—In carrying out the 

15 functions authorized under paragraph (1), the 

16 Under Secretary shall be subject to the provisions 

17 set forth in chapter 43 of title 38, United States 

18 Code.’’. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 270 

21 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 30, 2012. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3670 

AN ACT 

To require the Transportation Security Administraployment and Reemployment Rights Act. tion to comply with the Uniformed Services Em-
No: IV-14-018 July 17, 2014

CONTACT: Victor Dricks 817- 200-1128

Lara Uselding 817- 200-1519 

 NRC Names New Senior Resident Inspector at River Bend Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected Jeff Sowa as the 

new Senior Resident Inspector at the River Bend Station nuclear plant. The 

plant is located in St. Francisville, La.

“Jeff Sowa’s technical and regulatory experience will assist the NRC 

in carrying out its mission to protect people and the environment by ensuring 

the safe operation of River Bend,” said NRC Region IV Administrator Marc 

Dapas.

Sowa joined the NRC as a project engineer in Region II in 2008, and has served as the Resident 

Inspector at the Farley nuclear plant since 2010. In 2013, he also served as the acting Senior Resident 

Inspector at Farley and as a team leader for an inspection at the Hatch nuclear plant. Prior to joining the 

NRC, he served as a submarine officer in the U.S. Navy. 

Sowa is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, with a bachelor’s degree in oceanography, and 

subsequently earned a masters of engineering management degree from Old Dominion University in 

Virginia and a masters in business administration degree from California State University.

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two Resident Inspectors. Sowa joins 

Andy Barrett at River Bend. They serve as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting 

inspections, monitoring significant work projects, and interacting with plant workers and the public.

The River Bend Resident Inspectors can be reached at 225-635-3193.
### §10603a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 10603a was editorially reclassified as section 20104 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
Exhibit 8.1

LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF SILICONWARE PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.



|                                        |  |                               |  |                                             |     |  
|--------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- | --- | -
|Company                                 |  | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation |  | Percentage OwnershipAs of December 31, 2013 |    
|SPIL (B.V.I.) Holding Limited           |  | British Virgin Islands        |  |                                             | 100 | %
|Siliconware U.S.A. Inc.                 |  | United States of America      |  |                                             | 100 | %
|SPIL (Cayman) Holding Limited           |  | Cayman Islands                |  |                                             | 100 | %
|Siliconware Technology (Suzhou) Limited |  | Peoples Republic of China    |  |                                             | 100 | %
### §12753. Penalties for misuse of funds

If the Secretary finds after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing that a participating jurisdiction has failed to comply substantially with any provision of this part and until the Secretary is satisfied that there is no longer any such failure to comply, the Secretary shall reduce the line of credit in the participating jurisdiction's HOME Investment Trust Fund by the amount of any expenditures that were not in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter, and the Secretary may—

(1) prevent withdrawals from the participating jurisdiction's HOME Investment Trust Fund for activities affected by such failure to comply;

(2) restrict the participating jurisdiction's activities under this subchapter to activities that conform to one or more model programs made available under section 12743 of this title; or

(3) remove the participating jurisdiction from participation in allocations or reallocations of funds made available under this part.

(Pub. L. 101–625, title II, §223, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4112.)
#### Dorothy E. Raynor, Appellant, v. Clifton E. Raynor, Respondent.

The court had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, on the motion for a reduction of alimony *(Fox*v. *Fox,*263 N. Y. 68; Civ. Prac. Act, § 1170), and the lack of an authenticating certificate was a defect or irregularity which could be corrected *nunc pro tunc.*(Cf. *Kelly*v. *Schramm,*197 App. Div. 377; *Lawton*v. *Kiel,*51 Barb. 30; Civ. Prac. Act, § 105.) Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.
### §13726. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 13726 was editorially reclassified as section 60101 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 923.55 Full participation by State and local governments, interested parties, and the general public. The management program must be developed and adopted with the opportunity of full participation by state agencies, local governments, regional commissions and organizations, port authorities, and other interested public and private parties. To meet this requirement, a State must: ( a ) Develop and make available general information regarding the program design, its content and its status throughout program development;
( b ) Provide a listing, as comprehensive as possible, of all governmental agencies, regional organizations, port authorities and public and private organizations likely to be affected by or to have a direct interest in the development and implementation of the management program;
( c ) Indicate the nature of major comments received from interested or affected parties, identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and the nature of the State's response to these comments; and
( d ) Hold public meetings, workshops, etc., during the course of program development at accessible locations and convenient times, with reasonable notice and availability of materials.
#### Dewash, Inc., Respondent, v. John F. Gallary, Appellant.

Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Kimball and Piper, JJ. [See *post,*p. 997.]