alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Thomas Marc Litton (CA Bar # 119985) 

SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP

555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 421-4774 

Facsimile: (415) 421-4784 

Steven L. Wittels 

SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP

1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor 

New York, New York 10019 

Telephone: (646) 723-2947 

Facsimile: (646) 723-2948 

swittels@nydclaw.com 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Eric Baker 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ERIC JAMES BAKER, 

 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

COUNTY OF SONOMA; SONOMA COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; BILL COGBILL; 

CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL 

GROUP, INC.; JAMES LUDERS, M.D.; 

LEWIS LINCOLN; DANIEL CORTEZ; 

EDUARDO ESPINO; and DOES 1 through 10, 

inclusive, 

Defendants.

Case No. 3:08-cv-03433-EDL 

ECF Case

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER RE PRETRIAL EXPERT CASE

MANAGEMENT DEADLINES

Judge: Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte 

 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the parties hereto, 

through their attorneys of record, that subject to the Court’s approval, the Case 

Management And Pretrial Order For Jury Trial dated February 5, 2009 (Dkt No. 58), is 

hereby amended as follows: 

Case 3:08-cv-03433-EDL Document 148 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:08-cv-03433-EDL Document147 Filed02/11/10 Page1 of 2
2

2. DISCOVERY

b. Initial expert disclosures shall be made no later than February 19, 2010. 

Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made no later than March 5, 2010. 

c. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than April 2, 2010. 

All other deadlines set forth in the order shall remain in effect. 

DATED: February 10, 2010 SANFORD, WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

VALERIE GEORGE, TAJMAH BEAUCHAMP, 

and DONALD GEORGE 

By: /s/ 

 Steven L. Wittels, Esq. 

DATED: February 11, 2010 TRIMBLE SHERINIAN & VARANINI

 By:________/s/______________________

 Jerome M. Varanini 

 2500 Ventura Oaks Way, Suite 350 (95833) 

 P.O. Box 590 

 Sacramento, CA 95812-0590 

 Telephone: (916)444-8271 

Attorneys for Defendants California Forensic 

Medical Group and James Luders, M.D.

DATED: February 11, 2010 SENNEFF FREEMAN & BLUESTONE, LLP

By:_______/s/_______________________

 Bonnie A. Freeman 

50 Old Courthouse Square, Ste 401 

P.O. Box 3729 

Santa Rosa, CA 95402 

Telephone: (707) 526-4250 

Facsimile: (707) 526-0347 

Attorneys for Defendants County of Sonoma, 

Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department, Bill Cogbill, 

Lewis Lincoln, Daniel Cortez, and Eduardo Espino

SO ORDERED:______________________________

 U.S.D.M.J. 

Case3:08-cv-03433-EDL Document147 Filed02/11/10 Page2 of 2

Date: February 12, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-03433-EDL Document 148 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Shlomo Weinglas, Appellant, v Mark S. Kaplan, Respondent.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 7, 1977, withdrawn, pursuant to stipulation filed in connection with *Weinglas v Kaplan*(58 AD2d 743). Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Capozzoli, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of DXP Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/David R. Little


David R. Little


President and Chief Executive Officer





May 10, 2010





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Theodore F. Von Dorn and Others v. Roscoe Crary, Impleaded, etc.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
§ 1508.925 Conviction. *Conviction* means— ( a ) A judgment or any other determination of guilt of a criminal offense by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether entered upon a verdict or plea, including a plea of nolo contendere; or
( b ) Any other resolution that is the functional equivalent of a judgment, including probation before judgment and deferred prosecution. A disposition without the participation of the court is the functional equivalent of a judgment only if it includes an admission of guilt.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

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 on
Form 10-Q of Boca Resorts, Inc. (the Company)
for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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.

/s/ H. Wayne Huizenga




H. Wayne Huizenga


Chairman (Principal Executive Officer)


May 13, 2003


/s/ Wayne Moor




Wayne Moor


Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief
Financial


Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


May 13, 2003
### §2652. Regulations

#### (a) Determination and establishment of reasonable value of care and treatment

The President may prescribe regulations to carry out this chapter, including regulations with respect to the determination and establishment of the reasonable value of the hospital, medical, surgical, or dental care and treatment (including prostheses and medical appliances) furnished or to be furnished.

#### (b) Settlement, release and waiver of claims

To the extent prescribed by regulations under subsection (a), the head of the department or agency of the United States concerned may (1) compromise, or settle and execute a release of, any claim which the United States has by virtue of the right established by section 2651 of this title; or (2) waive any such claim, in whole or in part, for the convenience of the Government, or if he determines that collection would result in undue hardship upon the person who suffered the injury or disease resulting in care or treatment described in section 2651 of this title.

#### (c) Damages recoverable for personal injury unaffected

No action taken by the United States in connection with the rights afforded under this legislation shall operate to deny to the injured person the recovery for that portion of his damage not covered hereunder.

(Pub. L. 87–693, §2, Sept. 25, 1962, 76 Stat. 593.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Ex. Ord. No. 11060. Delegation of Authority To Prescribe Regulations

Ex. Ord. No. 11060, Nov. 7, 1962, 27 F.R. 10925, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 12608, Sept. 9, 1987, 52 F.R. 34617, provided:

Under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by Title 3 of the United States Code and by Section 2(a) of the Act of September 25, 1962 (Public Law 87–693) [subsec. (a) of this section], it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall, for the purposes of the Act of September 25, 1962, [this chapter], from time to time, determine and establish rates that represent the reasonable value of hospital, medical, surgical, or dental care and treatment (including prostheses and medical appliances) furnished or to be furnished.

Sec. 2. Except as provided in Section 1 of this order, the Attorney General shall prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of the Act of September 25, 1962 [this chapter].
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





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of DXP Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/David R. Little


David R. Little


President and Chief Executive Officer





February 2, 2010





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
HE 2.0% - 6.9%
[1D 7.0% - 9.9%
10.0% - 15.9%
[] 16.0% - 26.0%

Statewide = 11.1%

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

Rawlins Field
Office Area

176

0 20 40 80 120 160 200
od

Kilometers
0 10 20 40 60 80 100
SSS

Miles

Map 3-8

Percent of Minority Population
by County
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsExit Boundary Layer Data for a Round Convergent Nozzle in Support of Numerical Simulation EffortsAn experiment is conducted with hot-wire anemometry to document the exit boundary layer characteristics of two nozzle configurations at jet Mach numbers up to 0.82. Far-field noise and jet plume experimental data from these two configurations have been used in Large Eddy Simulations (LES) of jets by colleagues at other Institutions. The current experiment provides the boundary layer data which have been identified as being critical for validation of the simulations since the initial conditions can significantly affect subsequent jet evolution and its radiated noise. The data exhibit fully turbulent boundary layers for the case with a pipe attached upstream of the nozzle. The case without the pipe involves ‘Blasius-like’ mean velocity profiles but a ‘highly disturbed laminar state’ with large turbulence intensities in a range of subsonic Mach numbers.Document ID20190027560Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsK.B.M.Q. Zaman*(Glenn Research Center Cleveland, Ohio, United States)*Date AcquiredJuly 21, 2019Publication DateJuly 1, 2019Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN70914E-19719NASA/TM-2019-220242Funding Number(s)WBS: 109492.02.03.01.05Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Technical ReviewNASA Peer CommitteeKeywordsTransitionAvailable DownloadsNameType20190027560.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsIDRelationTitle20190029250See AlsoExit Boundary Layer Data for a Round Convergent Nozzle in Support of Numerical Simulation Effortsvisibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
[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:****Utilization of short-stayhospitals. United States ... annual summary.**
 
1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | 1985 | 1986
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.6209:13/
Item Number:0500-E (online)
CGP systemNumber:001105250
 
September 3, 2019
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

I, G. Robert Tatum, the Chief Executive Officer of BEVsystems International,
Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period
ended December 27, 2003 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m
or 78o(d)); and

(2) the  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

February 10, 2004


                                            /s/   G. Robert Tatum
                                            ---------------------
                                            Name: G. Robert Tatum
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer
Case 3:08-cv-01019-CRB Document 6 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-01019-CRB Document 6 Filed 04/08/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
financial statements for the six month period ended June 30, 1999, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          12,169
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,169
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,306
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,586
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,974
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,901)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,901)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,924)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,825)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Elizabeth A. Watson, Respondent, v. George G. Watson, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Order, entered on October 30, 1961, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1227 

CAF 11-00116 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF CRYSTAL LYNN MOORE, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. KAZACOS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

JAMES E. CORL, JR., ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, CICERO, FOR KAIDEN M.M. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Gina

M. Glover, R.), entered December 13, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order granted petitioner sole custody

of the parties’ child. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this child custody proceeding, respondent father

appeals from an order granting the petition of the mother seeking sole

custody of the parties’ infant son. We reject the father’s contention

that the Referee erred in failing to consider the factors set forth in

Matter of Tropea v Tropea (87 NY2d 727, 740-741) before awarding

custody to the mother, who moved from Syracuse to North Carolina

shortly after she commenced this proceeding. Inasmuch “[a]s this is

an initial custody determination, it is not necessary to adhere to a

strict application of the relevant factors to be considered in a

potential relocation as enunciated in Matter of Tropea v Tropea”

(Matter of Lynch v Gillogly, 82 AD3d 1529, 1530; see Matter of Baker v

Spurgeon, 85 AD3d 1494, 1496, lv dismissed ___ NY3d ___ [Oct. 25,

2011]; Matter of Schneider v Lascher, 72 AD3d 1417, lv denied 15 NY3d

708). 

In addition, although the Referee should have made an explicit

finding that awarding custody to the mother was in the child’s best

interests, the record is “sufficiently complete” for this Court to

make its own findings (Matter of Ammann v Ammann, 209 AD2d 1032, 1032-

1033), and we conclude that the Referee’s custody award is in the

child’s best interests. We note that there is no dispute that, as of

the hearing date, the father had never seen the child, and the father

did not avail himself of opportunities to visit the child during the

pendency of the proceeding. Indeed, the father failed to appear at
-2- 1227 

CAF 11-00116 

his own house for a scheduled home visit with the Attorney for the

Child, who sought to arrange visits for him with the child. Finally,

we reject the father’s contention that the case should be remitted for

the Referee to fashion a more specific visitation schedule. If the

father is unable to obtain “open and reasonable parenting time . . .

as the parties may agree” pursuant to the order, he may file a

petition seeking to enforce or modify the order. 

Entered: November 18, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27854]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION


Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission 
will hold its 74th Meeting in Arlington, VA on January 18-19, 2005. The 
Business Session open to the public will convene at 9 a.m. Tuesday, 
January 18, the Agenda items include:
    (1) Call to order and approval of the Agenda.
    (2) Approval of the Minutes of the 73rd Meeting.
    (3) Reports from Congressional Liaisons.
    (4) Agency Reports.
    The focus of the Meeting will be reports and updates on programs 
and research projects affecting the Arctic. Presentations include a 
review of the research needs for civil infrastructure in Alaska.
    The Business Session will reconvene at 9 a.m. Wednesday, January 
19, 2005. An Executive Session will follow adjournment of the Business 
Session.
    Any person planning to attend this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.
    Contact Person for More Information: Dr. Garrett W. Brass, 
Executive Director, Arctic Research Commission, (703) 525-0111 or TDD 
(703) 306-0090.

Garrett W. Brass,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 04-27854 Filed 12-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### Ethel A. Cox, as Administratrix, etc., of Agnes L. Frederick, Deceased, Respondent, v. Elizabeth L. Cody and John Helms, Appellants.

and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2546 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2546

     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment Red 185.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2005

 Mr. Langevin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment Red 185.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PIGMENT RED 185.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.32.26 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Pigment Red 185) is amended 
by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul Schaurer, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 827]

Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Ronald A. Cicoria, J.), rendered May 3, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law § 220.43 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution with respect to the weight of the cocaine he sold *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; *People v Perry,*21 AD3d 1352 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 884 [2005] ). Likewise, defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of Penal Law § 220.43 has not been preserved for our review *(see People v Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc.,*6 NY3d 404, 408 [2006], *rearg denied*7 NY3d 742 [2006]; *People v Davidson,*98 NY2d 738, 739-740 [2002]), nor was the requisite notice given to the Attorney General *(see*Executive Law § 71 [3]; *People v McKeehan,*2 AD3d 1421, 1422, *lv denied*3 NY3d 644 [2004]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Green, JJ.