alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mildred Stevens, Respondent, v. Loblaws Market, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs, and complaint dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: The plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained when she slipped on a small piece of scallion leaf in an aisle at- defendant’s supermarket. The record fails to disclose any proof upon which a jury could infer that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the leaf. There is no proof of how the leaf got on the floor, when it got there, how long it had been there or that any of defendant’s employees knew it was there before plaintiff slipped on it. There was evidence, however, that the aisles were swept and mopped every night and four or five times a day as needed. Plaintiff herself admitted that at the time she slipped the floor was clean except for the small scallion leaf. Likewise, there was no proof upon which a jury could find that any of defendant’s employees created the condition. The New York law is well established that the defendant must have had actual or constructive notice or must have created the dangerous condition to be held liable. *(Sikora*v. *Apex Beverage Corp.,*306 N. Y. 917; *Bowling*v. *Woolworth Co.,*16 A D 2d 672.) (Appeal from judgment of Erie Trial Term in a negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 22, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20011 Summary Calendar

MARIA CHRISTINA SALGADO Petitioner - Appellant

v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS Respondent - Appellee

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CV-2639

-------------------- Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Maria Christina Salgado, formerly federal prisoner # 13556- 179, appeals the dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition wherein she argued that cancellation of the Intensive Corrections Center (ICC)/Boot Camp program violated the “notice-and-comment” requirement of the Administrative Procedures Act, her due process rights, and the Ex Post Facto Clause. Salgado sought a reduction in “actual prison time” amounting to her immediate release from prison. The district court denied her petition on the merits.No. 06-20011 -2- Salgado was released from prison while the instant appeal was pending. An appeal is not moot simply because a § 2241 petitioner is no longer in custody. Brown v. Resor , 407 F.2d 281, 283 (5th Cir. 1969). However, an action is moot when the court cannot grant the relief requested by the moving party. See Bailey v. Southerland , 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that an appeal from the denial of a § 2241 application was moot because “[t]he main thrust” of Bailey’s application was to be released from confinement, and “[b]ecause Bailey was released . . . this court [could] no longer provide him with that relief”);

see also Willy v. Administrative Review Board , 423 F.3d 483, 494 n.50 (5th Cir. 2006) (“If an event occurs that prevents us from granting ‘any effectual relief whatever’ to a prevailing party, the controversy is moot, and the appeal must be dismissed.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Salgado admits that there were no errors at her sentencing. Rather, the main thrust of Salgado’s petition is to be released from her confinement based on purported errors that occurred after she was sentenced. See Bailey , 821 F.2d at 278. Salgado’s appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
EXHIBIT 31.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer



I, Michael L. Hurt, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Altra Industrial Motion, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants second fiscal quarter of 2007 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





|August 30, 2007 | By:   | /s/ Michael L. Hurt                 
|--------------- | ----- | ------------------------------------
|                | Name: | Michael L. Hurt                     
|                | Title | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40022 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PRISCILIANO JIMENEZ-CID, also known as 

Romeo Garza,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-03-CR-625-1

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Prisciliano Jimenez-Cid (Jimenez) appeals his conviction and

sentence following his guilty plea to importing over 50 but less

than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Jimenez argues that the

district court clearly erred when it denied him a four-level

adjustment as a minimal participant, or alternatively, a twolevel adjustment as a minor participant under U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.2(b). Jimenez argues that he was entitled to an adjustment

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 04-40022

-2-

because he was a mere courier and because he was substantially

less culpable than “Juan,” the other participant in the offense. 

The district court did not clearly err when it denied

Jimenez an adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) inasmuch as his

role as a courier does not automatically entitle him to the

adjustment. See Burton v. United States, 237 F.3d 490, 500 (5th

Cir. 2000); United States v. Rojas, 868 F.2d 1409, 1410 (5th Cir.

1989). Jimenez’s culpability is established by the large amount

of marijuana he imported. See United States v. Leal-Mendoza, 281

F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2002); Rojas, 868 F.3d at 1409; and

United States v. Gallegos, 868 F.2d 711, 713 (5th Cir. 1989). 

Moreover, Jimenez was more than peripherally involved in the

offense inasmuch as he left the country to drive the loaded

vehicle across the Mexican border. See United States v. Miranda,

248 F.3d 434, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2001). Jimenez fails to show that

his status as a courier makes him less culpable than “Juan.” See

United States v. Brown, 54 F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 1995).

Jimenez’s argument that the Government breached the plea

agreement when it failed to recommend at Jimenez’s sentencing

proceeding that Jimenez be sentenced at the low end of the

applicable guidelines range is foreclosed by this court’s

decision in United States v. Reeves, 255 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir.

2001). 

Likewise, Jimenez’s argument that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960(a)

and (b) are facially unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey,
No. 04-40022

-3-

530 U.S. 466 (2000), is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter,

238 F.3d 580 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - [RTID 0648-XA915]

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of web conference.

# SUMMARY:

The Center of Independent Experts (CIE) meeting will be held April 5, 2021 through April 9, 2021.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Monday, April 5, 2021 through Friday, April 9, 2021, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Pacific Time.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The meeting will be a web conference. Join online through the link at                         *https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/​afsc/​refm/​stocks/​plan_​team/​2021_​flatfish_​cie/​.*

*Council address:*                         Alaska Fishery Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA 98115; telephone: (206) 526-4000.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Meaghan Bryan, Alaska Fishery Science Center staff; phone: (206) 526-4694; email:                         *meaghan.bryan@noaa.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Agenda

### Monday, April 5, 2021 Through Friday, April 9, 2021

The CIE is to review the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Greenland turbot assessment model and the Gulf of Alaska northern rock sole and southern rock sole stock assessment models.

                    The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at                     *https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/​afsc/​refm/​stocks/​plan_​team/​2021_​flatfish_​cie/​*                     prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.                

Authority:16 U.S.C. 1801*et seq.*

Dated: March 3, 2021.

Tracey L. Thompson,

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 2021-04755 Filed 3-5-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
#### *Talbot*vs. Miller, &c.

Ejectment.

Cqse *45.*

Appeal from the Oldham Circuit; Henry. Davidge, Judge.

*Ejectment. Evidence. Bill of exceptions. Presumption. Practice. Mezo trial.*

April 13.

Statement of the case,

The court oanno.tre" ment unless error appear *he record,

Where no evsumption^n" favor of the ?0,,r.ts ,hay-t"o¿U-S-I<!'_

Judge Underwood

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellees instituted an action of ■ ejectment in the Oldham circuit court, against theappdlant, and recovered. The appellant moved for a. new trial in January, the court took time to consider, and in April following, overruled the motion. The appellant filed a bill of exceptions to the opinion of the court overruling the motion, in which it is stated, that the evidence given on the trial, is not certified, because the court did not remember it. The bill of exceptions also complains of the proceedings of the court, at the previous term, and the refusal of the court to certify, the evidence,.because of forgetfulness on the part of - the judge. '

It is impossible for us to say, that the court erred in overruling a motion for a new trial, when the record presents for examination, nothing but the declaration, verdict and judgment. Whether the evidence did *or*did not authorize the verdict; we cannot tell, as it not before us.

The presumption is in favor of the legality of the proceedings of the court, and the party complaining of those proceedings, must shew to this court, the facts necessary to enable this court to detect the error, if any exists. The judge who presided on the trial of ihe cause,is not now in office, and if he were, it would require superhuman power, to bring to his receUec*196fiou, the evidence which he has forgotten, so that he, may yet certify it to this court. We can prescribe no remedy for such a case. To direct a new trial for the purpose of enabling the party, to spread the evidence on record, hereafter, when in, such trial, the evidence might be essentially different, would not be a revision of the proceedings already had, but would be ordering new proceedings, with a view to revise them if erroneous. Such a course would be alike novel and illegal,

Rulo of practice proposed and advised.

*Denny,*for appellant.

We wo,uld suggest, as a matter of practice, that it is most proper, always to take down the evidence during the term, at which a cause is tried, where the court ta]ces time, until the next term, to consider a motion for a new trial. If this is not done, and the court will not certify what the evidence was, and the party aggrieved, has not procured the bystanders to certify it as required by law, this court caunqt reverse the case, because of the possibility of error, which does not appear.

Judgment- affirmed. The appellees must recover their costs.
EX-4.83



 Exhibit 4.83 
 Domain Name License Termination Agreement 
 This Domain Name License Termination Agreement
(the “Agreement”) is entered into by and among the following parties on December 31, 2012 in Beijing: 
 Party A: Baidu Online Network
Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (the “Licensor”) 
 Address: 
 Party B: Beijing BaiduPay Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Licensee”) 
 Address:

 WHEREAS 
 1. Party A and
Party B entered into a Domain Name License Agreement (the “License Agreement”) as of February 28, 2008; 
 2. The Licensor is a wholly
foreign-owned limited liability company registered in Beijing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”); 
 3.
The Licensee, a limited liability company incorporated in Beijing under the laws of the PRC, is licensed by Beijing Municipal Telecommunication Management Bureau to carry on the business of the Internet Information Service; 

4. The Licensor transferred the Domain Name (baifubao.com) and all rights under the License Agreement to the Licensee on April 22, 2010 and completed the
transfer procedures in December 2012. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 

The License Agreement shall be terminated pursuant to PRC Contract Law and Section 11 of the License Agreement. 

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by a duly authorized representative on their behalf as of
the date first set forth above. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date first set forth above. 
 [Signature Page
Follows] 

  
 1 








 Party A: Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 

Legal representative: 
 Seal: /s/ Baidu Online
Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 
 Party B: Beijing BaiduPay Science and Technology Co., Ltd. 

Legal representative: 
 Seal: /s/ Beijing
BaiduPay Science and Technology Co., Ltd. 

  
 2
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 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

            -           Report: Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage among Female Adolescents in Managed Care Plans      

# Report: Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage among Female Adolescents in Managed Care Plans

CDC and the National Committee for Quality Assurance analyzed data from the 2013 Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set to determine whether the recommended HPV vaccination series is being administered to adolescents with health insurance. In 2013, the median HPV vaccination coverage level for female adolescents among commercial and Medicaid plans was 12% and 19% respectively, indicating that there are significant opportunities for improvement in HPV vaccination coverage among female adolescents.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6442a1.htm?s_cid=mm6442a1_e&utm_source=youth.gov&utm_medium=federal-links&utm_campaign=reports-and-resources
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1415.1 Purpose. ( a ) The purpose of the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) is to assist landowners and operators in protecting grazing uses and related conservation values by conserving and restoring grassland resources on eligible private lands through rental contracts, easements, and restoration agreements.
( b ) GRP emphasizes: ( 1 ) Supporting grazing operations;
( 2 ) Maintaining and improving plant and animal biodiversity; and
( 3 ) Protecting grasslands and shrublands from the threat of conversion to uses other than grazing.
#### § 15.116 Depositions.

Upon such terms as may be just, the hearing officer, in his discretion, may authorize the testimony of any witness to be taken by deposition.
§ 1400.205 Trusts. A trust will be considered to be actively engaged in farming with respect to a farming operation if: ( a ) The trust independently and separately makes a significant contribution to the farming operation of capital, equipment, or land, or a combination of capital, equipment, or land;
( b ) The income beneficiaries collectively make a significant contribution of active personal labor or active personal management, or a combination of active personal labor and active personal management to the farming operation. The combined interest of all the income beneficiaries providing active personal labor or active personal management, or a combination of active personal labor and active personal management, must be at least 50 percent;
( c ) The trust has a share of the profits or losses from the farming operation commensurate with the legal entity's contributions to the operation;
( d ) The trust makes contributions to the farming operation that are at risk for a loss, with the level of risk being commensurate with the legal entity's claimed share of the farming operation;
( e ) For a farming operation conducted by a trust in which the capital, land, or equipment is contributed by the trust, the capital, land, or equipment: ( 1 ) To meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, must be contributed directly by the trust and must not be acquired as a loan made to, guaranteed, co-signed, or secured by any person, legal entity, or joint operation that has an interest in the farming operation, as defined in this part; and
( 2 ) To meet the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section and if land, capital or equipment is acquired as a result of a loan made to, guaranteed, co-signed, or secured by the persons, legal entities, or joint operations as defined, the loan must: ( i ) Bear the prevailing interest rate; and
( ii ) Have a repayment schedule considered reasonable and customary for the area.
( f ) The trust has provided a tax identification number of the trust unless the trust is a revocable trust and the grantor is the sole income beneficiary; and
( g ) The trust has provided a copy of the trust agreement to the county committee unless the trust is a revocable trust.
[73 FR 79273, Dec. 29, 2008, as amended at 75 FR 900, Jan. 7, 2010; 85 FR 52039, Aug. 24, 2020]