alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Joanne Walsh, Respondent, as Beneficiary under a Certain Trust Agreement made between Bertha Weill and Another as Grantors, and the President and Directors of the Manhattan Company and Another, as Trustees. Aline Warner et al., Trustees, Appellants.

Order entered on February 7, 1962 unanimously modified on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent (1) of reducing the allowances to the Referee from $7,500 to $3,500 and of the attorney for petitioner from $10,000 to $5,000, said allowances, as reduced, to be paid by the trustees of the August 4, 1960 trust in the first instance from income or accumulated income of that trust and then, to the extent that income and accumulated income is insufficient for the purpose, from the principal of said trust; and (2) of eliminating the provision of the order requiring that the interim payments to be made to petitioner be made by check payable to her attorney and directing that such payments be made directly to jjetitioner; and as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to petitioner-respondent and the special guardian payable by resjjondents-appellants personally. Under all the circumstances of this case, the allowances to the Referee and attorney for petitioner were, in our opinion, excessive, and should be reduced to the .sums indicated above. In addition, we see no good reason for requiring that payments to petitioner be routed through her attorney, and have concluded that proper and orderly procedure should permit the payments to be made directly to the petitioner. In view of the foregoing disposition, the appeal from the order entered October 17, 1961, appointing the Referee to hear and report, is dismissed, as academic. Order entered August 22, 1961, denying respondent-appellants’ motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that another proceeding was pending involving the same parties and the same subject matter, unanimously affirmed, with costs to petitioner-respondent and the special guardian, payable by respondents-appellants personally. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT THOM AS T. ALFOR

D, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. STEPHEN S. C ARLTON, Distric t Attorne y of Sha sta C ounty , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15134 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01470-TLNC KD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Troy L. Nunle y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Thom a s T. Alford, a

C a lifornia

sta t e prisone r, a

p pe a ls pro sefrom the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging de nia l of post-c onvic tion a c c e ss to biologic a l e vide nc e for DNA te sting. W e have 

# F IL ED DEC 08 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Intri-Ple x Te c hs, Inc . v . C re st Grp., Inc . , 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th C ir. 2007) (dismissa l unde r Fe d. R . C i v. P. 12(b)(6)) . W e m ay

a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d

by the re c o rd, Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C i r. 2008), a nd we a ffirm . Dismissa l of Alford’ s a c tion wa s prope r be c a use Alford fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic i e nt to sta

te a c ogniz a b le c la i m for re lie f. S

e eAshc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to a

v oid dismissa l, “ a c om

pla int m ust c onta i n suffic ie nt fa c tua l m atte r, a c c e pte d a s true , to sta te a c la im to re lie f that is pla

usibleon its fa c e ” (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)); se ealso Sk i nne r v . Sw itze r , 131 S. C t. 1289, 1293, 1298 (2011) (a prisone r c an sta

te a c ogniz a

b le § 1983 c la im

by a lle ging a ge ne ra l c o n stitutiona

l c ha lle nge to a

sta te post-c onvic tion DNA te sting sta tute , but not by c h a lle nging suc h sta tute ’ s a p plic ation in his c a s e ); Dist. Attorne y ’s Offic efor the

Third J udic i al Dist. v. Osborne , 557 U.S. 52, 69-72 (2009) (due proc e ss re quire s only tha t thesta te ’ s proc e d

ure s for post-c onvic tion re lie f do not offe nd funda m e nta l princ iple s of justic e or tra nsgre ss a ny re c o gniz e d princ iple of funda

m e nta l fa irne ss in operation). W e do not c onside r argum e nts a n d a l le gations raise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l). Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D. 1 4 - 1 5 1 3 4 2
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

34 36 38 40 42


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 05/31 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.44 N 77.04 WMeters AGL
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND AS OF MARCH 31,
1998 AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS IN THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         198,934
<SECURITIES>                                    10,343
<RECEIVABLES>                                  167,181
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,208
<INVENTORY>                                    177,826
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               624,024
<PP&E>                                         227,639
<DEPRECIATION>                                 122,763
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,096,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          192,452
<BONDS>                                         63,751
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           988
<OTHER-SE>                                     793,323
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,096,550
<SALES>                                        207,331
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               207,331
<CGS>                                           60,568
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  173,034
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,791)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,301
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,122
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,848
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,848
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
        

</TABLE>
#### § 18.18 Proposed findings and conclusions.

Except in cases where the respondent has failed to answer the complaint or where a party has failed to appear at the hearing, the hearing examiner, prior to making his/her decision, shall afford the parties a reasonable opportunity to submit proposed findings and conclusions and supporting reasons therefor.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No.FAA-2004-19332; Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-61] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Hartington, NE.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

0901 UTC, January 20, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 29, 2004 (69 FR 63057). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on January 20, 2005. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                

Issued in Kansas City, MO on December 1, 2004.

Anthony D. Roetzel, 

Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.

[FR Doc. 04-27226  Filed 12-10-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
### §300d–31. Definitions

For purposes of this part and parts A and B:

#### (1) Designated trauma center

The term "designated trauma center" means a trauma center designated in accordance with the modifications to the State plan described in section 300d–13 of this title.

#### (2) State plan regarding emergency medical services

The term "State plan", with respect to the provision of emergency medical services, means a plan for a comprehensive, organized system to provide for the access, response, triage, field stabilization, transport, hospital stabilization, definitive care, and rehabilitation of patients of all ages with respect to emergency medical services.

#### (3) State

The term "State" means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

#### (4) Trauma

The term "trauma" means an injury resulting from exposure to—

(A) a mechanical force; or

(B) another extrinsic agent, including an extrinsic agent that is thermal, electrical, chemical, or radioactive.

#### (5) Trauma care component of State plan

The term "trauma care component", with respect to components of the State plan for the provision of emergency medical services, means a plan for a comprehensive health care system, within rural and urban areas of the State, for the prompt recognition, prehospital care, emergency medical care, acute surgical and medical care, rehabilitation, and outcome evaluation of seriously injured patients.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XII, §1231, as added Pub. L. 101–590, §3, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2926; amended Pub. L. 102–321, title VI, §602(2), July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 436; Pub. L. 103–183, title VI, §601(f)(4), Dec. 14, 1993, 107 Stat. 2239; Pub. L. 113–152, §2(a), Aug. 8, 2014, 128 Stat. 1825.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Par. (4). Pub. L. 113–152 amended par. (4) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "The term 'trauma' means an injury resulting from exposure to a mechanical force."

1993—Par. (3). Pub. L. 103–183 substituted "Puerto Rico," for "Puerto Rico;".

1992—Pub. L. 102–321 substituted "this part and parts A and B" for "this subchapter" in introductory provisions.

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

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–321 effective July 10, 1992, with provision for programs providing financial assistance, see section 801(b), (d) of Pub. L. 102–321, set out as a note under section 236 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 260
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 260 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 260.4d-9 Exemption for Canadian Trust Indentures from Specified Provisions of the Act. Any trust indenture filed in connection with offerings on a registration statement on Form S-1, (§ 239.1 of this chapter) F-7, F-8, F-9, F-10 or F-80 (§§ 239.37 through 239.41 of this chapter) shall be exempt from the operation of sections 310(a)(3) and 310(a)(4), sections 310(b) through 316(a), and sections 316(c) through 318(a) of the Act; provided that the trust indenture is subject to: ( a ) The Canada Business Corporations Act, R. S. C. 1985;
( b ) The Bank Act, R. S. C. 1985;
( c ) The Business Corporations Act, 1982 (Ontario), S. O. 1982; or
( d ) The Company Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, C. 59.
[56 FR 30077, July 1, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992; 58 FR 33190, June 16, 1993; 73 FR 983, Jan. 4, 2008]
Editorial Note on Part 201
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997.

§ 201.60 Purpose and applicability of this subpart. This subpart prescribes rules relating to prices, discounts, commissions, credits, allowances, and other payments. These rules shall be observed in the procurement of commodities and commodity-related services financed under this part. The rules implement and supplement the requirements of the Act relating to prices in such procurement. The general purpose of these rules is to assure the prudent use of USAID funds. ( a ) *Statutory price limitations.* ( 1 ) Section 604(a) of the Act provides *inter alia* that funds made available under this Act may be used for procurement outside the United States only if the price of any commodity procured in bulk is lower than the market price prevailing in the United States at the time of procurement adjusted for differences in the cost of transportation to destination, quality, and terms of payment.
( 2 ) Section 604(b) of the Act provides that no funds made available under this Act shall be used for the purchase in bulk of any commodities at prices higher than the market price prevailing in the United States at the time of purchase, adjusted for differences in the cost of transportation to destination, quality, and terms of payment.
( b ) *Transactions covered.* The rules and conditions prescribed by this subpart apply to all USAID-financed transactions subject to this regulation, whether or not the commodities are purchased in bulk.
( c ) *Compliance.* Compliance with this subpart G and with any additional price requirement contained in the implementing document shall be a condition to the financing by USAID of procurement transactions under this part. Post-audit of transactions will be made by USAID to determine whether there has been such compliance.
#### § 1421.8 Administrative law judge.

*Administrative law judge* means the Chief Administrative Law Judge or any administrative law judge designated by the Chief Administrative Law Judge to conduct a hearing in cases under 22 U.S.C. 4115, and such other matters as may be assigned.
#### § 19.13-1 Lump-sum credit.

“Lump-sum credit” is the compulsory and special contributions to a participant's or former participant's credit in the Fund for his/her first 35 years of service plus interest thereon computed from the midpoint of each service period and compounded at four percent annually to the date of separation or December 31, 1976, whichever is earlier, and after such date, for a participant who separates from the Service after completing at least one year of civilian service and before completing 5 years of such service, at the rate of three percent annually to the date of separation. Interest shall not be paid for a fractional part of a month in the total service or on compulsory and special contributions from the annuitant for recall service or other service performed after the date of separation which forms the basis for annuity.
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 Quarterly Report of Pacific Biometrics, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
we, Ronald R. Helm, Chief Executive Officer, and John P. Jensen, Controller, of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


Date: February 12, 2007

                                           /s/ Ronald R. Helm
                                           --------------------------
                                           Ronald R. Helm,
                                           Chief Executive Officer



                                           /s/ John P. Jensen
                                           --------------------------
                                           John P. Jensen
                                           Controller
#### § 1508.755 When will I know whether the suspension is continued or terminated?

The suspending official must make a written decision whether to continue, modify, or terminate your suspension within 45 days of closing the official record. The official record closes upon the suspending official's receipt of final submissions, information and findings of fact, if any. The suspending official may extend that period for good cause.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**444 KA 12-01165** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DOUGLAS MCCULLARS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Jeffrey R. Merrill, A.J.), rendered November 30, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20). We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” ( People v Box , 96 AD3d 1570, 1571, lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Hamilton , 49 AD3d 1163, 1164; People v Brown , 296 AD2d 860, 860, lv denied 98 NY2d 767). Indeed, on this record there is no basis upon which to conclude that the court ensured “that the defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” ( People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256). We nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: May 2, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### In the Matter of Shane Salerno, Petitioner, v Kevin Mahon et al., Respondents.

[715 NYS2d 887]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents, dated November 6, 1998, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s request for personal care services pursuant to 18 NYCRR 505.14.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the *319proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The determination made by the respondents denying the petitioner’s request for personal care services is supported by substantial evidence *(see,*18 NYCRR 505.14 [a] [6] [ii]; *see also, Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*71 NY2d 135; *Matter of Siano v Dolce,*256 AD2d 582). Thompson, J. P., Luciano, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2019 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2019-4, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





1. CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





2. The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.





3. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2022 and ending on February 28, 2023 and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.








Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 26th day of May, 2023.





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Andrew J. McMonigle


Vice President and Treasurer