alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. DORAL BUILDING SERVICES, INC., Respondent.

No. 81-7206.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 30, 1982.

Sarah Green, Deputy Associate Counsel, Washington, D. C., argued, for petitioner; Elliott Moore, Washington, D. C., on brief.

Andrew B. Kaplan, Pettit & Martin, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.

Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and MARQUEZ,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Alfredo C. Marquez, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

ORDER

Upon due consideration of Doral’s application for fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act and the National Labor Relations Board’s opposition thereto, the court concludes that since Doral has not prevailed on the merits of the underlying action, 9th Cir., 666 F.2d 432, an award of fees at this time would be inappropriate. *See Hanrahan v. Hampton,*446 U.S. 754, 100 S.Ct. 1987, 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1979). Although *Hanrahan*involved the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, we cannot distinguish it from the Equal Access to Justice Act for purposes of defining “prevailing party.” *See*H.R.Rep. No.96-1418, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 11, reprinted in [1980] U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 4984, 4990 (noting that the term “prevailing party” as used in the EAJA [28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) ] should be interpreted consistent with the law developed under existing statutes).

The application for fees is therefore DENIED.
1 The Honorable Mary Ann L. Medler, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3527

___________ Vincent M. Ventimiglia, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the St. Louis County; Bob McCullouch; * Eastern District of Missouri. Buzz Westfall; Judge Celeste Endicott; * Allison Wolfe; David Arthur; Renee * [UNPUBLISHED] Hines Tyce; Police Officer Angela * Candler; Judge Robert G. Dowd, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 3, 2004 Filed: June 17, 2004

___________ Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Vincent M. Ventimiglia appeals from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm.-2- We agree with the district court that all of Ventimiglia’s claims -- other than his claim against Officer Angela Candler -- are barred by collateral estoppel because he unsuccessfully raised the issues underlying these claims during his state criminal appeal. See Allen v. McCurry , 449 U.S. 90, 103-05 (1980) (collateral estoppel may apply when § 1983 plaintiff attempts to relitigate in federal court issues decided against him in state criminal proceedings; federal court gives state court judgment same preclusive effect it would be given under law of state where it was rendered); Shahan v. Shahan , 988 S.W.2d 529, 532-33 (Mo. 1999) (summarizing doctrine of collateral estoppel). As to Ventimiglia’s remaining claim that Officer Candler falsified information to establish probable cause for his arrest, we conclude that his conviction precludes such a claim. SeeMiller v. Benson , 51 F.3d 166, 170 (8th Cir. 1995) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by record); Malady v. Crunk , 902 F.2d 10, 11-12 (8th Cir. 1990) (conviction for offense for which officer arrested plaintiff bars § 1983 action alleging absence of probable cause). Ventimiglia’s remaining arguments are meritless. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Ventimiglia’s pending motions.

______________________________
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2542 

To suspend temporarily the duty on low expansion laboratory glass. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2005 

Mr. KUHL of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on low expansion laboratory 

glass. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LOW EXPANSION LABORATORY GLASS. 

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: 
2 

•HR 2542 IH 

‘‘ 9902.70.17 Laboratory, hygienic, or 

pharmaceutical glassware, 

whether or not graduated or 

calibrated, of low expansion 

borosilicate glass or aluminoborosilicate glass, having a 

linear coefficient of expansion not exceeding 3.3 x 10– 

7 per Kelvin within a temperature range of 0 to 300° 

C (provided for in subheadings 7017.20.00 and 

7020.00.60) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding date shown below: 

*License Number:*                     017473F.                 

*Name:*                     Eagle Pacific, Corp.                 

*Address:*                     182-16 149th Road, Rm. 288, Jamaica, NY 11413.                 

*Date Revoked:*                     November 12, 2004.                 

*Reason:*                     Failed to maintain a valid bond.                 

*License Number:*                     003621F.                 

*Name:*                     I.C.C. Products, Inc. dba I.C.C. Cargo Services.                 

*Address:*                     9939 NW. 89th Avenue, Bay 2, Medley, FL 33178.                 

*Date Revoked:*                     November 15, 2004.                 

*Reason:*                     Failed to maintain a valid bond.                 

*License Number:*                     017600N.                 

*Name:*                     KTL International, Inc.                 

*Address:*                     1280 Louis Avenue, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007.                 

*Date Revoked:*                     November 12, 2004.                           ( print page 75073)    

*Reason:*                     Surrendered license voluntarily.                 

*License Number:*                     015646N.                 

*Name:*                     Universe Freight Brokers, Inc. dba Seacarriers.                 

*Address:*                     3625 NW. 82nd Avenue, Suite 401, Miami, FL 33126.                 

*Date Revoked:*                     October 30, 2004.                 

*Reason:*                     Failed to maintain a valid bond.                 

Sandra L. Kusumoto,

Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing. 

[FR Doc. 04-27441 Filed 12-14-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Basil Trotman, Appellant.

[832 NYS2d 818]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Alessandro, J.), rendered August 10, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent that the defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence, this challenge is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPU 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19-20 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the factfinder, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be afforded great deference on appeal *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; *People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*
      *882
      *supra*at 643-644). Crane, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### National Iron and Steel Company, appellee, v. Robert W. Hunt, et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 28,161.

Action on contract to purchase relaying rails Judgment for plaintiff-vendee Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. James S. Baldwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 28, 1923.

Goodrich, Vincent & Bradley, for appellants; Warren Nichols and Prank L. Wolf, of counsel. Adams, Follansbee, Hawley & Shorey, for appellee; Clyde E. Shorey, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
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 (File No. 333-227671) of Tivic Health Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) of our report dated
March 31, 2022, relating to the Company’s financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2021.



| | /s/ Rosenberg Rich Baker Berman, P.A.
| | -------------------------------------
| | Rosenberg Rich Baker Berman, P.A.    



Somerset, New Jersey

March 31, 2022
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, 2021 and ending on February 28, 2022 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 27th day of May, 2022.





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Andrew J. McMonigle


Vice President and Treasurer
### §5714–25. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5714–25 was editorially reclassified as section 11245 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 19.7-4 Form of agreement. ( a ) A spousal agreement is any legal agreement between the parties accepted by PER/ER/RET as meeting the requirements of this section. If in accordance with the regulations, PER/ER/RET will accept as a valid spousal agreement a property settlement agreed to by the parties and approved by a court regardless of the date of the agreement.
( b ) A spousal agreement must either be authenticated by a court or notarized.
### §4336. Procedure for determination of level of review

#### (a) Threshold determinations

An agency is not required to prepare an environmental document with respect to a proposed agency action if—

(1) the proposed agency action is not a final agency action within the meaning of such term in chapter 5 of title 5;

(2) the proposed agency action is excluded pursuant to one of the agency's categorical exclusions, another agency's categorical exclusions consistent with section 4336c of this title, or another provision of law;

(3) the preparation of such document would clearly and fundamentally conflict with the requirements of another provision of law; or

(4) the proposed agency action is a nondiscretionary action with respect to which such agency does not have authority to take environmental factors into consideration in determining whether to take the proposed action.

#### (b) Levels of review

#### (1) Environmental impact statement

An agency shall issue an environmental impact statement with respect to a proposed agency action requiring an environmental document that has a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

#### (2) Environmental assessment

An agency shall prepare an environmental assessment with respect to a proposed agency action that does not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment, or if the significance of such effect is unknown, unless the agency finds that the proposed agency action is excluded pursuant to one of the agency's categorical exclusions, another agency's categorical exclusions consistent with section 4336c of this title, or another provision of law. Such environmental assessment shall be a concise public document prepared by a Federal agency to set forth the basis of such agency's finding of no significant impact or determination that an environmental impact statement is necessary.

#### (3) Sources of information

In making a determination under this subsection, an agency—

(A) may make use of any reliable data source; and

(B) is not required to undertake new scientific or technical research unless the new scientific or technical research is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, and the overall costs and time frame of obtaining it are not unreasonable.

(Pub. L. 91–190, title I, §106, as added Pub. L. 118–5, div. C, title III, §321(b), June 3, 2023, 137 Stat. 39.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TRANSCEND THERAPEUTICS, INC. FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       9,613,954
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,812,687
<PP&E>                                          58,257
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,442
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,151,195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,017,798
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,631
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,075,766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,151,195
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,134,862
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,645,153)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,645,153)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.98)
        

</TABLE>
RVAAC Sub-committee on Rooms and Spaces - Meeting #1

Conference Call – May 29, 2014 (1 to 3 pm ET)

Agenda

1. Introductions – Jim Pecht

2. Election of a Sub-committee Chair – Billy Altom

3. Review sub-committee Scope and Objectives (See Below)*

4. Categorize elements in the various rooms and spaces requiring 

access – New Sub-committee Chair

4.1 Passenger Coaches

4.2 Dining and Food Service Cars

4.3 Lounges

4.4 Sleeper Car Compartments

4.5 Toilet and Bathing Rooms

5. Discuss possible scoping requirements for identified elements– New

Sub-committee Chair

6. Sub-committee Homework – New Sub-committee Chair

7. Determine date of next conference call – Jim Pecht

8. Closing remarks

* Item 3 (above)

For your convenience, the sub-committee’s scope and objectives are 

included below.
Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee

Sub-committee on Rooms and Spaces

Scope and Objectives

February 27, 2014

Scope: The scope of this subcommittee is to review the current 

requirements for certain accessible rooms and spaces (e.g., rest rooms, 

dining, and sleeping compartments) in the Access Board’s Rail Vehicles 

Accessibility Guidelines, which were originally issued in September, 1991 

and have not been updated since that time. 

Objective: Recommend proposed revisions to update, improve or expand 

the scoping and technical criteria in order to ensure an acceptable level of 

access for individuals with disabilities on rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, 

intercity rail and other fixed guideway vehicles and systems covered under 

the Board’s current guidelines. These recommendations will be based on 

current regulations and consideration of changes that have taken place in 

vehicle structure, technology and the needs and desires of people with 

disabilities.

Tasks: The subcommittee will address:

Rest Rooms

 Consider alternate designs in existing accessibility standards and in 

use in other countries 

 Accommodate dependent and independent transfers 

 Examine PRIIA, CAL train, and Acela restroom designs vs. existing 

standards

Sleeping Compartments

 Communications needs

 Ensure that controls and amenities are accessible e.g. locations, 

clearances, turning spaces, reach range

 Bed heights that permit transfer from a wheelchair

 Minimum space requirements with and without bed deployed

 Egress and emergency operation of doors

 Evaluate bathroom design, including showers, when located within 

the compartment 

 Space for service animals
 Access to other sleeping car amenities outside of the sleeping 

compartment

Dining and Lounge 

 Accessible tables 

 Accessible service counters

 Accessible self-service, e.g., vending machines, condiments, coffee, 

etc.

Timetable: Complete the review and recommendations by October 2014, 

for consideration by the full committee.
Case 3:08-cv-04118-BZ Document 103 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-04118-BZ Document 103 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CONCRETE FORM WALLS, INC., Respondent.

Nos. 06-13845, 06-14997

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 22, 2007.

Aileen A. Armstrong, Kathleen Lyon, Fred B. Jacob, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Braxton Schell, Jr., Birmingham, AL, for Respondent.

*838Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, HULL, Circuit Judge, and FORRESTER,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable J. Owen Forrester, United States District Judge for ■ the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

After review and oral argument, we find no reversible error and thus enforce the National Labor Relations Board’s orders dated April 13, 2006, and August 31, 2006.

ENFORCED.
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TSEGAI HAILE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et

al.,

Defendants

 /

No. 08-4149 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO DISQUALIFY

By order filed April 7, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff’s application filed March 24,

2010 (“Application”), by which Application plaintiff sought an order of disqualification. On

April 15, 2010, plaintiff filed a “Motion and Peremptory Challenge to Disqualify Judge

Chesney” (“Motion”). Having read and considered the Motion, the Court hereby rules as

follows.

The Court finds plaintiff’s Motion is both substantively meritless and procedurally

deficient. First, because plaintiff solely relies on court rulings, plaintiff has, again, failed to

identify any cognizable basis for disqualification. See United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864,

869 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding bias must stem from “extrajudicial source”). Second, the

Motion is deficient because it seeks, in essence, reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling

denying disqualification. (See Order Denying Application, filed Apr. 7, 2010)

Case 3:08-cv-04149-MMC Document 196 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Reconsideration is only available upon leave of court, see Civil L.R. 7-9(a), and only if

based on a showing of at least one of the following grounds:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material

difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to

the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which

reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the

exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for

reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the

interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of

law occurring after the time of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material

facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the

Court before such interlocutory order. 

See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). Plaintiff has made no such showing.

Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth above, the Motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04149-MMC Document 196 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 2