alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT CATHCART,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-03784 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION

TO WITHDRAW AS

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL

Plaintiff Scott Cathcart brought this action on August 7, 2008, to obtain a refund of what

he claims were erroneously imposed tax penalties he paid the IRS. An automatic stay of this

matter has been in effect since November 10, 2008, due to plaintiff’s bankruptcy. Attorneys

Daniel B. Rosenbaum and Matthew C. Hicks of Caplin & Drysdale and David B. Porter of

Wood & Porter now move to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff pursuant to Local Rule 11-5. 

Good cause has not been shown to grant the motion to withdraw. Plaintiff’s attorneys must

submit the reasons they seek to withdraw before their motion may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-03784-WHA Document 17 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 1
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2548

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Brown 25. 

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 suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Brown 25.

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

3 SECTION 1. PIGMENT BROWN 25. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.09.82 Pigment Brown 25 (CAS 

No. 6992–11–6) (provided 

for in subheading 

3204.17.04) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2

•HR 2548 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
(April 11, 1978)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sandra Manno, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on September 15, 1976, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833). No opinion. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Evans and Markewich, JJ.
#### The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Katherine Griffith, appellee, v. Edward Kelly, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,346.

Bastardy proceedings. Judgment finding that defendant is the father of the child and for payment by him of maintenance money. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry M. Pisher, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1921.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 29, 1922.

Rehearing denied December 13, 1922.

Pollard, Jackson & Johnson, for appellant. Robert E. Crowe, for appellee; Edward E. Wilson, Clyde C. Fisher and Alva Bates, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.
Rear LED Flight Indicators Normal Notes 

00 0 `' (Red, Green, Yellow flashing in 

turn) 

Power On Self•Test 

•`` 0` 0

(Green, Yellow flashing in turn) Warming Up Aircraft cannot take off. 

(Slow Green flashing) Ready to Fly More than 6 GPS satellites found. 

(Slow Yellow flashing) Ready to FIy (non-GPS) Less than 6 GPS satellites found. 

Rear LED Flight Indicators Abnormal Notes 

Remote Controller Signal 

(Quick Yellow flashing) Failsafe FuncTion will acTivafe. 

Lost 

Low Battery Level DJI VISION App will also show 

••••• (Slow Red flashing) 

Warning warning message. 

Critical Low Battery Level DJI VISION App will show warning 

•••••• (Quick Red flashing) 

Warning message. 

Not Stationary or Sensor Keep aircraft stationary or perform 

(Three Red flashing off and on) 

Bias is too big IMU calibration. 

Self-Test 

Warm-up 

RTF 

Non-GPS 

Lost Signal 

Low 

Battery 

Critical 

Battery 

Sensor Bias 

:k 6 

~5 

U 

: 30% 

: 15% 

PHANTOM 2 VISION+ 

Checklist 

Pre-Flight 

1. Charge flight battery 

2. Charge range extender 

3. Charge smartphone/tablet 

4. Check/replace remote controller 

batteries (4 AA) 

5. Check/adjust props & anti-drop kit 

6. Remove lens cap and gimbal clamp 

7. Insert/reformat Micro-SD card 

8. Set S1 and S2 switches to UP position 

9. Move antenna to vertical position 

10. Power ON remote controller 

11. Power ON flight battery. 

12. Power ON range extender 

13. Power ON smartphone or tablet and 

link to aircraft (DJI VISION App) 

14. Check gimbal and camera angle 

15. Calibrate compass (toggle S1 switch 

6 times and rotate quadcopter 3600 

horizontally and vertically) 

16. Check rear LED flight indicators 

17. Check 6+ satellites (DJI VISION App) 

18. Scan flight environment 

Post-F light 

1. Turn OFF video recording 

2. Power OFF flight battery 

3. Power OFF remote controller 

4. Power OFF range extender 

5. Power OFF smartphone or tablet 

6. Replace gimbal clamp and lens cap 

--~~: .:a.•--- 

• -'~ 

~'- - _-- - J~ 

-~- 

u~~ o 

Rea r 

- (Solid red) Error' Cannot fly. 

Compass Needs Compass o • ~ (Red, Yellow flashing in turn) Calibrafe compass 

Calibration
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

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



I, Woodson Hobbs, President and Chief Executive Officer of Intellisync Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended January 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Dated: March 15, 2004                
|                                     
|/s/ WOODSON HOBBS                    
|Woodson Hobbs                        
|President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7227

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WENDELL ELLIOT RICCO, a/k/a Money Mike, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-93-19, CA-97-488-R) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wendell Elliot Ricco, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Ricco , Nos. CR-93-19; CA-97-488-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 12, 1997). We denyAppellant’s motion to authorize preparation of a transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Map 3-2

Class I Areas

Source: USDI National Park Service 1998-2006 

Note: Coverage for BLM-administered lands is not available for Texas,

 Nebraska, or Oklahoma

0 100 200 300 400

Miles

0 200 400 600 800

Miles

3-75

Class I Areas

BLM-administered Lands
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ralph Darling, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of County Court, Broome County which denied a writ of error *coram nobis.*On this appeal from the denial of a writ of error *coram nobis*by the Broome County Court without a hearing, defendant raises essentially two questions, aside from his complaints in respect of the preliminary proceedings before indictment. One is that his court-assigned counsel did not follow his requests and directions in preparation and trial, which led to his conviction; the other that the District Attorney “ held certain evidence” which “would have been contradictory” to testimony offered by the prosecution; and that “fraud and perjury was used to secure” his conviction. These generalities do not warrant a trial on this writ and are factually insufficient to require re-examination of the ease which has heretofore been fully considered by this court. We see no need demonstrated on these papers for further inquiry into the proceedings at and incidental to the trial. (See *People*v. *Darling,*8 A D 2d 641.) Order unanimously affirmed.
### §5065. Protection against improper use

Whoever falsely—

(1) advertises or represents; or

(2) publishes or displays any sign, symbol, or advertisement, reasonably calculated to convey the impression,

that an entity is affiliated with, funded by, or operating under the authority of the Corporation, VISTA, or any of the programs of the National Senior Service Corps may be enjoined under an action filed by the Attorney General, on a complaint by the Director.

(Pub. L. 93–113, title IV, §425, as added and amended Pub. L. 103–82, title III, §370, title IV, §405(a)(11), Sept. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 909, 921; Pub. L. 111–13, title II, §2155, Apr. 21, 2009, 123 Stat. 1592.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2009—Pub. L. 111–13 substituted "Service Corps" for "Volunteer Corps" in concluding provisions.

1993—Pub. L. 103–82, §405(a)(11), substituted "the Corporation" for "ACTION" in concluding provisions.

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

#### Effective Date of 2009 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–13 effective Oct. 1, 2009, see section 6101(a) of Pub. L. 111–13, set out as a note under section 4950 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1993 Amendment

Amendment by section 405(a)(11) of Pub. L. 103–82 effective Apr. 4, 1994, see section 406(b) of Pub. L. 103–82, set out as a note under section 8332 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1993, see section 392 of Pub. L. 103–82, set out as an Effective Date of 1993 Amendment note under section 4951 of this title.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2529

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to exclude 

cooperative employing units from multiple employer welfare arrangements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2005

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

of 1974 to exclude cooperative employing units from 

multiple employer welfare arrangements.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF COOPERATIVE EMPLOYING 

4 UNITS FROM MULTIPLE EMPLOYER WELFARE 

5 ARRANGEMENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

7 3(40) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

8 of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(40)) is amended—

9 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (ii); 
2

•HR 2529 IH 

1 (2) by striking the period at the end of clause 

2 (iii) and inserting ‘‘, or’’; and 

3 (3) by inserting after clause (iii) the following 

4 new clause: 

5 ‘‘(iv) by a cooperative employing unit.’’. 

6 (b) COOPERATIVE EMPLOYING UNIT DEFINED.—

7 Subparagraph (B) of section 3(40) of such Act is amend8 ed—

9 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (iv); 

10 (2) by striking the period at the end of clause 

11 (v) and inserting ‘‘, and’’; and 

12 (3) by inserting after clause (v) the following 

13 new clause: 

14 ‘‘(vi) the term ‘cooperative employing unit’ 

15 means—

16 ‘‘(I) a corporation with at least 21 share17 holders operating on a cooperative basis subject 

18 to the provisions of subchapter T of chapter 1 

19 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, all the 

20 shareholders of which engage in business oper21 ations using the same four digit North Amer22 ican Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

23 code root, and 

24 ‘‘(II) where the corporation assumes re25 sponsibility pursuant to a written agreement 
3

•HR 2529 IH 

1 with each shareholder, with respect to all work2 site employees providing services to such share3 holder, for the payment of wages and the with4 holding, payment and reporting of taxes related 

5 thereto, for the provision of employee benefits, 

6 and for the hiring and termination of workers, 

7 without regard to the receipt or adequacy of 

8 payment from the shareholder for services.’’.

Æ
#### Southern Railway Company *v.*Pruett.

September 24, 1912.

Action for damages. Before Judge Brand. Gwinnett superior court. June 31, 1911.

*John J. & Roy M. Strickland, E. 0. Dolls,*and *F. M. Byrd,*for plaintiff in error. *G. L. Harris*and *O. A. Nix,*contra.

Beck, J.

No question other than that of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is raised in the record; and it appearing upon consideration of the evidence that it was sufficient to authorize the finding of the jury, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of Broadmark Realty Capital, Inc. (File No. 333-236197) of our reports dated March 16,
2020 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Broadmark Realty Capital, Inc. (the “Company” or “Successor”)
as of December 31, 2019 and for the period from November 15, 2019 to December 31, 2019 and the financial statements of the former
Broadmark Entities (collectively, the “Predecessor”) as of December 31, 2018 and for the period from January 1, 2019
to November 14, 2019, and for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2018, appearing this Annual Report on Form
10-K of Broadmark Realty Capital, Inc. for year ended December 31, 2019.



|/s/ Moss Adams LLP  | 
|------------------- | 
|                    | 
|Everett, Washington | 
|March 16, 2020      |
#### Arthur L. Brigham v. The City of New York.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. . Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
Page 1 of 1

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Directorate for Engineering Sciences (ES)

Telephone Log

SUBJECT: Evaluating Bassinet/Play Yard Mattress Flatness

DATE OF MEETING: 10 May 2010

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: Han Lim, ES

LOCATION: Via Teleconference

CPSC ATTENDEE(S): Han Lim, ES

NON-CPSC ATTENDEE(S): Tony Fernandes (Dorel / Leader for the Bassinet 

Rock/Swing/Flatness Angle Task Group); Russ Butson (Kolcraft); Sam Shamie (Delta)

SUMMARY OF MEETING:

The teleconference started at approximately 10:40 AM Eastern Time. 

The group raised concerns of the possible inconsistencies of using a CAMI dummy for 

evaluating bassinet/play yard mattress flatness. Mr. Lim discussed the possible use of a 

triangle probe and a rigid cylinder in lieu of actually measuring an angle. Kids II representatives

of the task group suggested the use of the triangle probe (see Telephone Log, 7 April 2010, 

Evaluating Bassinet/Play yard Mattress Flatness), and CPSC Laboratory Sciences engineering

staff suggested the use of a cylinder in place of the CAMI dummy. The rigid cylinder might 

produce more consistent test results, since the cylinder would be capable of creating the same 

footprint on a mattress and therefore reduce test variability. The cylinder could be the same as 

the one proposed for the infant walker regulation and has the same weight and torso 

dimensions as a 17 lb Mark II CAMI dummy. Mr. Lim explained that the triangle probe concept 

as a pass/fail test, requiring visual inspection instead of quantifying an angle measurement as 

described in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The probe would mimic the anthropometric 

mouth breadth and nose depth of the infant that could potentially become entrapped in two 

mattress panels of a bassinet/play yard combination product. The same suffocation hazard 

would be addressed, but this test method may be simpler and could potentially be more 

repeatable. 

The possibility of replacing the CAMI dummy with a cylinder in the rock/swing angle test was 

also discussed. If a cylinder is used, the wood block may have limitations for mounting the 

inclinometer as described in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Mr. Shamie expressed 

concern about the cylinder rolling during the rest angle measurement. 

The dimensions of the triangle probe were discussed. Mr. Lim said he would study this concept 

with CPSC Health Sciences and Human Factors staff. The group agreed to meet again at a 

later date.

The teleconference ended at approximately 11:00 AM Eastern Time.
Editorial Note on Part 41
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 41.83 Certain witnesses and informants. ( a ) *General.* An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(S) if: ( 1 ) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
( 2 ) ( i ) The consular officer has received verification from the Department of State, Visa Office, that: ( A ) in the case of INA 101(a)(15)(S)(i) the DHS has certified that the alien is accorded such classification, or
( B ) in the case of INA 101(a)(15)(S)(ii) the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs on behalf of the Secretary of State and the DHS have certified that the alien is accorded such classification;
( ii ) and the alien is granted an INA 212(d)(1) waiver of any INA 212(a) ground of ineligibility known at the time of verification.
( b ) *Certification of S visa status.* The certification of status under INA 101(a)(15)(S)(i) by the Secretary of Homeland Security or of status under INA 101(a)(15)(S)(ii) by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security acting jointly does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
( c ) *Validity of visa.* The period of validity of a visa authorized on the basis of paragraph (a) of this section shall not exceed the period indicated in the certification required in paragraph (b) and shall not in any case exceed the period of three years.
[61 FR 1838, Jan. 24, 1996, as amended at 71 FR 34521, June 15, 2006]
§ 37.500 Core Principle 5—Ability to obtain information. The swap execution facility shall: ( a ) Establish and enforce rules that will allow the facility to obtain any necessary information to perform any of the functions described in section 5h of the Act;
( b ) Provide the information to the Commission on request; and
( c ) Have the capacity to carry out such international information-sharing agreements as the Commission may require.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 10, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-0133

Lower Tribunal No. 19-11967

________________

Hilda Rivera, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alexander 

Bokor, Judge.

Font & Nelson, PLLC, and Frantz C. Nelson (Fort Lauderdale), for 

appellants.

Link & Rockenbach, P.A., and Kara Rockenbach Link, and Daniel M. 

Schwarz (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. 

PER CURIAM 

Affirmed.
### §5116g. National network for community-based family resource programs

The Secretary may allocate such sums as may be necessary from the amount provided under the State allotment to support the activities of the lead entity in the State—

(1) to create, operate, and maintain a peer review process;

(2) to create, operate, and maintain an information clearinghouse;

(3) to fund a yearly symposium on State system change efforts that result from the operation of the community-based and prevention-focused programs and activities designed to strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and neglect;

(4) to create, operate, and maintain a computerized communication system between lead entities; and

(5) to fund State-to-State technical assistance through bi-annual conferences.

(Pub. L. 93–247, title II, §207, formerly §208, as added Pub. L. 104–235, title I, §121, Oct. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 3086; amended Pub. L. 108–36, title I, §128, June 25, 2003, 117 Stat. 817; renumbered §207 and amended Pub. L. 111–320, title I, §§138, 141, Dec. 20, 2010, 124 Stat. 3481, 3482.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5116g, Pub. L. 93–247, title II, §208, formerly Pub. L. 98–473, title IV, §409, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2199; renumbered §208 of Pub. L. 93–247, and amended Pub. L. 101–126, §§2(a), 3(a)(3), (c)(3), 4(h), Oct. 25, 1989, 103 Stat. 764, 766, 768, related to reports to Congress, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 103–252, §401(a).

A prior section 207 of Pub. L. 93–247 was renumbered section 206 and is classified to section 5116f of this title.

Another prior section 207 of Pub. L. 93–247 was classified to section 5116f of this title prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 103–252, §401(a).

#### Amendments

2010—Pars. (1), (2), (4). Pub. L. 111–320, §138, inserted a comma after "operate".

2003—Par. (3). Pub. L. 108–36 substituted "community-based and prevention-focused programs and activities designed to strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and neglect" for "Statewide networks of community-based, prevention-focused, family resource and support programs".
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-3971

Lower Tribunal No. 2022-CC-018145

_____________________________

PAMELA KING,

Appellant,

v.

PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Evellen Jewett, Judge.

September 13, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Pamela King appeals the trial court’s October 30, 2023, order dismissing her 

complaint for failing to comply with section 627.70152(3), Florida Statutes. Based 

on our recent decision in Hughes v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 

374 So. 3d 900 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), which is indistinguishable in all material 

respects from the instant case, we reverse the dismissal and remand this case for 

further proceedings. For the same reasons set forth in Hughes, we certify this 
2

decision to be in direct conflict with Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty

Insurance Co., 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).

REVERSED and REMANDED. CONFLICT CERTIFIED.

NARDELLA and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.

LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concurs in result only.

Jeremy D. Bailie, of Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

Mark D. Tinker and Brandon J. Tyler, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Tampa, for 

Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED