alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED 

JUN 1 7 2016 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

KEVIN L. CAMP, No. 70207 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE 

MICHELLE LEAVITT, DISTRICT 

JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Real Party in Interest. 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This original petition for a writ of mandamus' asks this court 

to order the district court to set bail in an amount not to exceed $300,000. 

"A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and 

therefore, the decision to entertain the petition lies within our discretion. 

Such a writ is available only to compel the performance of an act which 

the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or 

station." Winkle v. Foster, 127 Nev. 488, 490-91, 269 P.3d 898, 899 (2011) 

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). "[It] will not lie to control 

discretionary action, unless discretion is manifestly abused or is exercised 

arbitrarily or capriciously." Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. 

Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (internal citation 

'Petitioner also seeks a writ of prohibition. Because petitioner does 

not contend that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction, a writ of 

prohibition is not appropriate. See NRS 34.320. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A )4IE11. -Re 
omitted); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 

Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse and 

arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion in context of mandamus). 

The petitioner carries the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary 

relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 

88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition and its 

accompanying documents, we are not satisfied that our intervention by 

way of extraordinary writ is warranted. See Nev. Const. art. 1, § 7 

(stating that bail may be restricted for defendants charged with murder) 

see also NRS 178.498 (listing factors for consideration when setting bail); 

NRS 178.4853 (listing factors for consideration when setting bail). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge 

Hofland & Tomsheck 

Kuzemka Law Group 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e'
#### T’Chaka M. Almoravids, Appellant, v Chase Manhattan Bank, Respondent, Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion by employer-respondent to dismiss appeal as untimely taken. By decision filed June 10, 1977, the board affirmed a referee’s determination which found no violation of section 241 of the Workers’ Compensation Law and disallowed the claim. Appellant took no appeal from this decision but apparently directed several letters to the board seeking reconsideration. By letter dated December 13, 1977, the board advised appellant that no further action was warranted in his case. Subsequently, on January 12, 1978, appellant sent a mailgram to the board requesting an appeal of its determinations dated June 10, 1977 and December 13, 1977. Appellant’s attempt to appeal from the board decision dated June 10, 1977 was untimely (Workers’ Compensation Law, § 23) and employer-respondent’s motion is granted to the extent that the purported appeal from this decision is dismissed. Motion by appellant for extension of time to prosecute appeal from said decision denied, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Staley, Jr., Kane and Main, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Robert G. Gargus, Chief Financial Officer of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | This Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act).
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



/s/    ROBERT G.
GARGUSRobert G. GargusSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: May 9, 2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7536

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HECTOR JOSE CARRANZA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:20-cr-00203-CCE-5)

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hector Jose Carranza, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hector Jose Carranza appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and denying his motion for the 

appointment of counsel. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in denying Carranza’s motions. See United States v. Kibble, 992 

F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021) (stating standard of review). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TYRA LASHAY HOLMES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3837

[July 18, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Lisa M. Porter, Judge; L.T. Case No. 13009054CF10A.

Edward Hoeg, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Maryellen M. Farrell, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., and CROOM, JANET C., Associate Judge,

concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT A 

Case: 1:12-cv-04924 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:5
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: September 8, 2014 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket I d: OAR

– 2013
- 0602 FROM: EPA Region 1 SUBJECT: September 8, 2014 , Meeting with Maine State Staff Regarding Proposed Carbon

Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on September 8, 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
. Discussion covered applicability and crediting of renewable energy
. **ATTENDEES (all by phone)**  Eric Kenned y Erle Townsend Jaime Farrin Marc Cone EPA: Shutsu Wong Cy nthia Greene Dave Conro y Jenny Noonan Gabrielle Stevens Matt Clouse Brian Fisher Christian Fellner Questions from the state are attached.
Functional Statements > Office of Finance and Operations

The mission of the OSDBU as defined in Public Law 95-507 is to implement the functions and duties in Sections 8, 15, 31, 36, and 44 of the Small Business Act as amended. OSDBU works to create an environment for maximum practicable participation by small, small disadvantaged, women, historically underutilized business (HubZone), and Service Disabled Veterans in the Department of Education's (ED) procurements and subcontracting opportunities available through ED prime contractors, and is responsible and accountable for the leadership, direction, and supervision of ED's small business initiatives and for the enforcement of the provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) under Part 19.

Functional Activities:

- Acquisition Planning – Considering contracting or subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small business concerns, historically underutilized business zones, and Service Disabled Veterans.
- Market Research - Identifying, qualified small businesses that can execute on the acquisition business needs of the ED.
- Small Business Outreach – Hosting outreach efforts to educate small businesses about the ED's contract needs, which includes planning and coordinating internal and external small business outreach events.
- Business Systems – Managing the collection and exchange of small business data using technology to create transparency and accountability, leading to a supportable data base system to improve in the exchange of information between OSDBU, program offices, and the acquisition staff (Contracting Officers and Contract Specialist).

Top
232.704-70 Incrementally funded fixed-price contracts. ( a ) Upon receipt of the contractor's notice under paragraph (c) of the clause at 252.232-7007, Limitation of Government's Obligation, the contracting officer shall promptly provide written notice to the contractor that the Government is— ( 1 ) Allotting additional funds for continued performance and increasing the Government's limitation of obligation in a specified amount;
( 2 ) Terminating the contract; or
( 3 ) Considering whether to allot additional funds; and ( i ) The contractor is entitled by the contract terms to stop work when the Government's limitation of obligation is reached; and
( ii ) Any costs expended beyond the Government's limitation of obligation are at the contractor's risk.
( b ) Upon learning that the contract will receive no further funds, the contracting officer shall promptly give the contractor written notice of the Government's decision and terminate for the convenience of the Government.
( c ) The contracting officer shall ensure that, in accordance with paragraph (b) of the clause at 252.232-7007, Limitation of Government's Obligation, sufficient funds are allotted to the contract to cover the total amount payable to the contractor in the event of termination for the convenience of the Government.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 34121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13975]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7917]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Lucian Freud: Portraits''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``Lucian Freud: Portraits,'' imported from 
abroad by The Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, is of cultural significance. The object is 
imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit object at The Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth in Fort Worth, 
Texas from on or about July 1, 2012, until on or about October 28, 
2012; and possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined; is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
listing of the exhibit object, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6473). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: June 5, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-13975 Filed 6-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
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 Annual Report of DNB Financial Corporation (the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William S. Latoff, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ WILLIAM S. LATOFF William S. Latoff Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 26, 2010


---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 10(cc)

SEALRIGHT CO., INC.
9201 Packaging Drive
DeSoto, Kansas 66018



Larry Walton

Dear Larry:

          The Board of Directors of Sealright has approved
supplementary benefits for key executives.  The Benefits include
a Retention Payment and Severance Enhancements, but do not
otherwise modify your existing agreements or benefits.

Retention Payment

          If you remain in the continuous employment of Sealright
and perform your present duties through May 29, 1998, you will
receive a one time payment of $60,000.  However, if you are asked
to leave before this date without cause, you will receive this
payment.

Severance Enhancements

          If your employment with Sealright or its successor is
terminated without cause you will receive the benefits under the
Severance Pay Plan or your individual agreement plus the
following:

          1.   Payment of COBRA costs for as long as you desire  
               such insurance coverage up to 12 months.
          2.   Payment for outplacement services for as long as 
               the services are needed up to 12 months.
          3.   Payment of your base salary for 12 months 
               following the effective date of the termination in
               place of your existing arrangement.

In the event no transaction involving Sealright has been
consummated by December 31, 1998, the Board will review the
Severance Enhancements as well as all other benefits in the
normal course.

          If you have any questions about the foregoing, please
contact Carl Walker or me.


                                   Sincerely,


                                   /s/ Charles F. Marcy
');
	document.write('

OCR is now posting its revised  Case Processing Manual (CPM), which replaces the Case Resolution and  Investigation Manual (CRIM).  The CPM was  revised with the goal of ensuring due process and of providing greater flexibility  in resolution.  In particular, you will  note the following revisions in the new CPM:

- OCR       will open the complaint for investigation if the complainant has alleged       facts that, if true, would constitute a violation of one of the laws OCR       enforces.
- Opening       a complaint for investigation in no way implies that OCR has made a       determination with regard to its merits.        During the investigation, OCR is a neutral fact-finder, collecting       and analyzing relevant evidence from the complainant, the recipient, and       other sources, as appropriate.
- OCR       will continue to ensure that its investigation is legally sufficient and       is dispositive of the allegations.

The new CPM also provides more opportunity for resolution of  complaints prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation by placing new  emphasis on the Early Complaint Resolution (ECR) process.  If both parties are willing to use this  approach, and if OCR determines that ECR is appropriate, OCR will facilitate  settlement discussions between the parties and assist them in understanding the  legal standards and possible remedies.

In addition to ECR, the new CPM provides that a complaint  may be resolved before the conclusion of an investigation if the recipient asks  to do so.  The CPM has eliminated the  requirement that the recipient must admit liability in order to resolve the  complaint.
THIS
AGREEMENT made on 1, July, 2009 between Dematco Group Corporation (“Dematco”)
and First Corporation (“FSTC”) (together “the Parties”).

    


    WHEREAS

    1.
Dematco currently holds ordinary shares in Acquma Holdings Limited (“Acquma”)
and wishes to dispose of 440,000 ordinary shares in Acquma (“the Acquma
Shares”); and

    2. FSTC
wishes to acquire the Acquma Shares.

    


    NOW IT IS
HEREBY AGREED that:

    
      	
               
      

            	
              1.

            	
              FSTC
      shall acquire from Dematco the Acquma Shares at a price of Euros 2.00 per
      share, to be paid for by the issue of  1,232,000 new shares of
      common stock in FSTC, issued credited fully paid and assessable (“the
      Consideration Shares”).

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              2.

            	
              Dematco
      will dispose of the Acquma Shares to FSTC in exchange for the
      Consideration Shares.

            


    

    


    Dematco
warrants that:

    
      	
               
      

            	
              1.

            	
              the
      Acquma Shares in  properly authorised and
  issued;

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              2.

            	
              the
      Acquma Shares are free trading and upon completion of the purchase of the
      Acquma Shares will be registered in the name of FSTC or as FSTC shall
      direct; and

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              3.

            	
              the
      shares in Acquma are tradable and
transferable.

            


    

    


    
      FSTC
warrants that:

    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              1.

            	
              the
      Consideration Shares when issued will be properly authorised and
      issued;

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              2.

            	
              the
      Consideration shares will be registered upon issue in the name of
      Dematco  or as Dematco
directs.

            


    

    


    
      	
              Signed

            	
              Signed

            


    

    


    
      
        
          
            
              	
                      T P
      RAMSDEN

                    	 	 
	
                      On
      behalf of

                    	
                      On
      behalf of

                    
	
                      Dematco
      Group Corporation

                    	
                      First
      Corporation
#### 2419.805 Competitive 8(a).
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 35 

Providing for the appointment of Michael Govan as a citizen regent of the 

Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2017 

Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself, Mr. PERDUE, and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the appointment of Michael Govan as a citizen 

regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy of the Board of Regents 

5 of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than 

6 Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the expira7 tion of the term of Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson of New York 

8 on May 5, 2017, is filled by the appointment of Michael 

9 Govan of California. The appointment is for a term of 6 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 35 IS 

1 years, beginning on May 6, 2017, or the date of the enact2 ment of this joint resolution, whichever occurs later. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2017045EN.01000102.xml

| 11.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8252 — TPG Capital/Intel Security)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 45/02)

On 26 January 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8252. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8252. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---