alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not *

precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERRANCE JAMES BURKE,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL MARTEL,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-16187

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00459-FCD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Terrance James Burke appeals from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we affirm.

FILED

OCT 05 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-16187

Burke contends that he was entitled to equitable tolling due to his reliance on

Dictado v. Ducharme, 244 F.3d 724, 726, 727-28 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated by 

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 414 (2005). In the alternative, Burke seeks an

evidentiary hearing on his claim to equitable tolling.

Reliance on circuit precedent subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court

can constitute an extraordinary circumstance that may warrant equitable tolling. 

See Harris v. Carter, 515 F.3d 1051, 1054, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008); see also

Townsend v. Knowles, 562 F.3d 1200, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2009). In order to

establish entitlement to such tolling, however, Burke must show that he was

diligent in pursuing post-conviction relief. See Holland v. Florida, — U.S. —, 130

S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010).

Burke contends that he was diligent in pursuing his state post-conviction

remedies, given personal and health problems, as well as constraints on his law

library access. Accepting as true that Burke in fact relied on Dictado, and crediting

the veracity of his explanations for delays in filing each of his three state habeas

petitions, Burke nonetheless fails to demonstrate the requisite diligence. In

particular, Burke fails to account for periods of time during which he was

unimpeded by the burdens that he cites as justifying the lengthy delays between

filings. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary
3 08-16187

hearing on the tolling question, as the facts, even if established as true, do not

demonstrate the necessary diligence. Cf. Harris, 515 F.3d at 1052-54; Townsend,

562 F.3d at 1203. 

Absent equitable tolling, Burke’s federal habeas petition was filed two years

and nine months beyond the AEDPA deadline. Accordingly, the district court’s

judgment dismissing his petition as untimely was correct.

We construe Burke’s additional contentions with respect to Thorson v.

Palmer, 479 F.3d 643 (9th Cir. 2007), and In re Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770 (Cal.

1998), as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the

motion. See Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131741 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131741 

 COA: 269974 

Saginaw CC: 05-025823-FH 

JEFFREY ALAN DUPUIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 7, 2006 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
47.303-14 C.i.f. destination. ( a ) *Explanation of delivery term. C.i.f. (Cost, insurance, freight) destination* means free of expense to the Government delivered on board the ocean vessel to the specified point of destination, with the cost of transportation and marine insurance paid by the contractor.
( b ) *Contractor responsibilities.* The contractor's responsibilities are the same as those listed in 47.303-13(b), except that, in addition, the contractor shall obtain and dispatch to the Government an insurance policy or certificate providing the amount and extent of marine insurance coverage specified in the contract or agreed upon by the Government contracting officer.
( c ) *Contract clause.* The contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts the clause at 52.247-42, C.i.f. (Cost, insurance, freight) Destination, when the delivery term is c.i.f. destination.
[48 FR 42424, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 71 FR 206, Jan. 3, 2006]
Exhibit 10-31













AMENDMENT NO. 2





to





NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS CORPORATION



SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN





EFFECTIVE



AS OF AUGUST 1, 2001







The New York State Electric & Gas Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, (the "Plan") amended and restated effective August 1, 2001, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended as follows:

1.        Effective August 1, 2001, the Plan is hereby amended to delete Exhibit "A" thereto and replace it with Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS AMENDMENT No. 2, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation has set its hand and seal to this Amendment No. 2 on January 18, 2002.

NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS 
CORPORATION



By: /s/Sherwood J. Rafferty
            Sherwood J. Rafferty
            Senior Vice President and 
            Chief Financial Officer

Attest: /s/Elaine DuBrava
                  Elaine DuBrava
                  Secretary

STATE OF NEW YORK         )
                                                  )  SS.:
COUNTY OF 	TOMPKINS     )

On this 18 day of January, in the year of 2002, before me, the undersigned, personally appeared SHERWOOD J. RAFFERTY, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument.

/s/Darlene E. Beach                    
          Notary Public



EXHIBIT "A"
Participating Employees

|Robert D. Badertscher   | Robert E. Martin        
|----------------------- | ------------------------
|Richard H. Cerchiara    | William G. McCann       
|William J. Cooney, Jr.  | Sherwood J. Rafferty    
|Francis DiTommaso       | James W. Rettberg       
|Thomas F. Dorazio       | R. David Saunders       
|Michael D. Eastman      | Susan T. Schattschneider
|Brian J. Eldridge       | Jeffrey K. Smith        
|Joseph C. Fleury        | Teresa M. Turner        
|Raymond E. Jensen       | Dennis R. Urgento       
|Arthur E. Kruppenbacher | Michael C.Y. Van        
|Robert L. Malecki       | William K. Von Iderstein
#### 52.246-9 Inspection of Research and Development (Short Form).

As prescribed in 46.309, insert the following clause:

# Inspection of Research and Development (Short Form) (APR 1984)

The Government has the right to inspect and evaluate the work performed or being performed under the contract, and the premises where the work is being performed, at all reasonable times and in a manner that will not unduly delay the work. If the Government performs inspection or evaluation on the premises of the Contractor or a subcontractor, the Contractor shall furnish and shall require subcontractors to furnish all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safe and convenient performance of these duties.

(End of clause)

[48 FR 42478, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 27120, July 29, 1986]
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, Carl F. Fahrenkrug, Chief Executive Officer of Microwave Filter Company,
Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2009 (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.


Dated: December 16, 2009                        /s/ Carl F. Fahrenkrug
                                                Carl F. Fahrenkrug
                                                Chief Executive Officer

<page>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard L. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of Microwave Filter Company, Inc.
(the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2009 (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.


Dated: December 16, 2009                        /s/ Richard L. Jones
                                                Richard L. Jones
                                                Chief Financial Officer
#### 52.222-47 [Reserved]
416.506 Solicitation provision and contract clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 452.216-72, Evaluation Quantities-Indefinite-Delivery Contract, in solicitations which contemplate the award of indefinite-quantity or requirements contracts to establish the basis on which offers will be evaluated.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 452.216-73, Minimum and Maximum Contract Amounts, in indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts when the clause at FAR 52.216-18 is used.
#### Eazor Express, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Nathan Perlmutter, Doing Business as Perlmutter Building Supply, Respondent, et al., Defendant. Pittsburgh & New England Trucking Co., Appellant, *v.*Nathan Perlmutter, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Third Department,

October 28, 1964.

*Samuel Friedman*for appellants.

*Morris Turetzky*for respondent.

Herlihy, J.

The facts are uncontroverted. The defendant-respondent on two occasions ordered steel from Jones & Laughlin Steel Company in the State of Pennsylvania and directed that it be shipped to designated job locations. He further directed that the steel be shipped “ collect for freight ” and the bill of lading, in each instance, was so marked. For some unexplained reason—not an issue on this appeal — the carrier failed to carry out the instructions.

The plaintiffs instituted these actions to collect the freight charges, alleging that the defendant-respondent Perlmutter was the owner of the steel and, therefore, liable when the freight charges were not collected.

The defendant-respondent contends that while he was the original owner of the steel, upon payment to Jones *&*Laughlin, he thereafter exercised no act of ownership that would hold him liable for the freight charges.

It is well settled that a carrier is not bound at its peril to enforce payment of freight charges before delivery. *(New York Cent. R. R. Co.*v. *Warren Ross Lbr. Co.,*234 N. Y. 261, 264; *Erie R. R. Co.*v. *H. Rosenstein, Inc.,*249 N. Y. 241.)

*50In our opinion, the contention of the defendant-respondent Perlmutter is contrary to established policy. At the time the plaintiffs accepted the goods for delivery, the Steel Company had been paid and was acting as shipper at the direction of Perlmutter. The transactions it had with the plaintiffs for the delivery of the steel to the job locations were for the benefit of the defendant-respondent Perlmutter. The pragmatic facts are such that to permit the respondent’s theory of liability to prevail would defeat the ends of justice.

The contention of the defendant-respondent that Jones & Laughlin Steel Company is responsible is a tenuous argument and without merit.

The orders should be reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motions of the plaintiffs for summary judgment granted against Nathan Perlmutter.

Gibs *on,*P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Orders reversed, on the law and the facts, and plaintiffs-appellants ’ motions for summary judgment granted, with costs in each action.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

THEODORE WORNER AND ADELINA 

WORNER,

Respondent

v.

LAUREN N. STONE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 68 EAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# C_2019130EN.01000101.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

5 April 2019

(2019/C 130/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1233 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 125,44 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4646 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85938 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4260 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1235 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 133,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6610 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,613 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 320,75 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2897 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7513 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,2855 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5787 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5030 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8173 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6662 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5215 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 277,64 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,8078 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,5457 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4235 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 900,87 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5985 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,537 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 73,3270 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,833 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3266 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,4975 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,7870 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1233

JPY

Japanese yen

125,44

DKK

Danish krone

7,4646

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85938

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4260

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1235

ISK

Iceland króna

133,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6610

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,613

HUF

Hungarian forint

320,75

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2897

RON

Romanian leu

4,7513

TRY

Turkish lira

6,2855

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5787

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5030

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8173

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6662

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5215

KRW

South Korean won

1 277,64

ZAR

South African rand

15,8078

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,5457

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4235

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 900,87

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5985

PHP

Philippine peso

58,537

RUB

Russian rouble

73,3270

THB

Thai baht

35,833

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3266

MXN

Mexican peso

21,4975

INR

Indian rupee

77,7870

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Second Chance Month: April 2023      

# Second Chance Month: April 2023

April is Second Chance Month. Second Chance Month seeks to help individuals, communities, and agencies recognize the importance of reentry programs and their role in building second chances. Second Chance Month will feature live learning events, videos, and publications to support the justice field and Second Chance Act grantees with their reentry programs. Resources released over the month will focus on reentry basics, education, employment, housing, family supports, youth and young adults, community engagement, and evaluation and sustainability. **Learn more.**
#### Ignatius Leitner, Administrator of Estate of Raphael Leitner, Deceased, Appellee, v. Decatur Cartage Co. and Cecil Roberts, Appellants.

Gen. No. 9,610.

opinion filed February 7, 1941.

Clarence W. Heyl, for appellants; W. J. Reardon and Knoblock & Sloan, for appellee; John F. Sloan, Jr., of counsel.

Opinion by

Presiding Justice Wolfe.

“Not to be published in full.”
# C_2021229EN.01001901.xml

| 15.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/19

---

Calls for proposals and related activities under the 2021-2022 work programme under Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027)

(2021/C 229/06)

Notice is hereby given of the launch of further actions under the 2021-2022 work programme under Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027).

The Commission has adopted an amendment to the above mentioned work programme by Decision C(2021) 4200 of 15 June 2021.

The actions are subject to the availability of the appropriations provided for in the general budget of the Union for 2021 and 2022, following the adoption of the 2022 budget by the budgetary authority or as provided for in the system of provisional twelfths. The Commission reserves its right to cancel or make corrigendum to the actions.

Confirmation that these conditions have been met will be announced on the European Commission Funding & Tenders Portal website (https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/programmes/horizon).

This work programme, including deadlines and budgets for the actions, are available through the above-mentioned Funding & Tenders Portal along with information on the modalities of the actions, and guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals. All this information will be updated as necessary on the same Funding & Tenders Portal.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ralph Freccia, Jr., Appellant.

Judgment of resentence unanimously vacated and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: In 1940 defendant was sentenced to a term of 30 years to life on his plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with the crime of murder in the second degree. Pursuant to an order in habeas corpus proceedings he was, on October 24, 1961, taken before the Supreme Court in Cayuga County for further proceedings, in respect to his sentence. He was represented by counsel of his own choice. The court vacated the sentence. The Clerk asked the question mandated by section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and appellant said that his attorney would state the cause if any. Upon further questioning he answered the section 480 question in the negative, adding: “ The reservations are for Mr. Freeman (Defendant’s attorney) to say something later”. After the court had imposed the same sentence that had been imposed on his plea in 1940, defendant informed the court that his attorney had failed to inform the court that the attorney who entered a plea of guilty on his behalf in 1940 was not authorized by the defendant to do so. He further stated to the court: “ I had no right to make a motion in this court”. The court did not inform defendant that he had a right to make a motion to be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea and the court did not permit defendant to make any further statement to the court although his attorney requested the court to do so. When the 1940 sentence was vacated defendant was returned to the status he possessed prior to the original sentence. He had the right if he desired to do so to move for an order that he be permitted to withdraw such plea. The record indicates that he might have wished to do so and was deprived by the court of the opportunity to make a motion to be permitted to withdraw- his plea of guilty and to substitute a plea of not guilty. He should be given an opportunity to make such a motion. *(People*v. *Schoonover,*15 A D 2d 862.) (Appeal by defendant from judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court resentencing defendant for murder, second degree, to *88630 years to life.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY




KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors and
officers of AMCORE Financial, Inc., a Nevada corporation, which is about to file
an annual report for the year ended December 31, 1998 pursuant to Section 13 of
15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934 on Form 10-K with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., 20549 hereby constitutes and appoints
ROBERT J. MEULEMAN and JOHN R. HECHT, and each of them, his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agents with power of substitution and resubstitution, from
them and in their name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the
Company's Form 10-K and other documents in connection therewith with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto the attorneys-in-fact and
agents, and each of them full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as they might or could do in
person, thereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and
agents or any of them, or their substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, know that the undersigned as a director or officer has
hereunto set their hand as of this ___________________ day of March, 1999.





                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Signature