alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 

### LESLIE TOSER, 7 

### Petitioner-Appellee, 8



### v. No. 29,305 9 

### CADMON WHITTY, 10 

### Respondent-Appellant. 11


### APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 12 

### Gerard L. Lavelle, District Judge 13 

### Barbara Arbuckle 14 

### Albuquerque, NM 15 

### for Appellee 16 

### Cadmon Whitty 17 

### Albuquerque, NM 18 

### Pro Se Appellant 19 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 

### VIGIL, Judge. 21 

### Summary reversal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed 22 

### disposition. Appellant filed a memorandum in support of the proposed summary 232 

### disposition. No memorandum opposing summarydismissal has been filed, and the 1 

### time for doing so has expired. 2 

### REVERSED. 3 

### IT IS SO ORDERED. 4



### _______________________________ 5 

### MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 6


### WE CONCUR: 7



### _______________________________ 8 

### RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 9



### _______________________________ 10 

### ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 11
EXHIBIT
      32.1





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





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his
      knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) of ANTs software inc.,
      a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), for the period ended December 31, 2006:





1.  Fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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





This
      certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be
      deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any
      purpose whatsoever.





Date: March
      15,
      2007





/s/
                Joseph KozakJoseph
                Kozak, Chief Executive Officer and
                President





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company, and will be retained by the
      Company, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon
      request.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MALIA ELENA ARCIERO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20cv64-MW/HTC

UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 19, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s Rule 72 

Motion Seeking Reassignment of Her Case and Plaintiff’s Objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 20. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, over Plaintiff’s

objections, as this Court’s opinion. This Court finds there is no basis to reassign this 

case to another Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s “Rule 72 Motion” is DENIED. 

Accordingly, the Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED 

Case 4:20-cv-00064-MW-HTC Document 21 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 2
2

without prejudice as malicious for Plaintiff’s abuse of the legal process.” The Clerk 

shall also close the file. 

SO ORDERED on July 9, 2020.

s/ MARK E. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00064-MW-HTC Document 21 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CHERYL GEIGER,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:20-CV-00321-MAF

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, COMMISSIONER,

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

________________________________/

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This action was initiated under the Social Security Act to obtain judicial 

review of Defendant’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability 

benefits. ECF No. 1. Defendant filed a motion to remand pursuant to 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ECF No. 27. Defendant does not certify

under N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1 that Plaintiff has no objection to this motion but

presents the motion as “unopposed.” Id., p. 1.

Sentence four of section 405(g) states that “[t]he court shall have 

power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment 

affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” The 

Case 4:20-cv-00321-MAF Document 28 Filed 10/07/21 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 4:19-CV-00497-WS-MAF

Commissioner states that a remand is appropriate to enable an 

administrative law judge to

further evaluate the case and issue a new administrative 

decision. Upon remand, the Appeals Council will instruct 

the ALJ to offer the claimant the opportunity for a hearing; 

as needed, obtain evidence from a medical expert; further 

evaluate the medical source opinions (in particular, the 

opinion of the state agency medical consultant, Dr. Loc Kim 

Le), reassess the residual functional capacity, obtain 

vocational expert evidence as warranted, and issue a new 

decision. On remand, the Administrative Law Judge should 

apply the prior medical evidence rules.

ECF No. 27, pp. 1-2. Based upon the foregoing, this Court concludes that 

good cause has been shown for remand. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion to remand, ECF No. 27, is GRANTED and 

the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits be REVERSED.

2. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

3. Defendant shall conduct proceedings in accordance with this 

Memorandum Opinion and Order. 

4. The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. The Clerk of Court shall administratively close this file.

Case 4:20-cv-00321-MAF Document 28 Filed 10/07/21 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 4:19-CV-00497-WS-MAF

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on October 7, 2021.

s/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick

MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00321-MAF Document 28 Filed 10/07/21 Page 3 of 3
- 440 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

REVEIZ v. EL-KASABY

Cite as 305 Neb. 440

Elena Reveiz, appellant, v. 

Bassel El-Kasaby, appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 3, 2020. No. S-19-278.

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: J 

Russell Derr, Judge. Affirmed.

Denise E. Frost, of Johnson & Mock, P.C., L.L.O., for 

appellant.

Cathy S. Trent-Vilim, and, on brief, Stacy L. Morris and 

Kate Geyer Johnson, of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., for 

appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

The February 19, 2019, order of the Douglas County District 

Court is affirmed by an equally divided court.

Affirmed.

Papik, J., not participating.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

06/12/2020 08:08 AM CDT
#### § 352.9 Ports.

The arrival, unloading, landing, or possession of plants, plant products,plant pests, biological control organisms, noxious weeds, soil, or other products or articles subject to this part shall not be allowed at points within the United States other than at the ports specified in the Customs Regulations in 19 CFR 1.1 and 19 CFR 6.13, and Agana, Guam, or such other ports as may be named in permits or administrative instructions. Restrictions on the ports which may be used for particular types of handling of any products or articles subject to this part may be specified generally in administrative instructions or in permits in specific cases. When ports are specified in permits or otherwise, the arrival, unloading, landing, or possession of the products or articles involved at other ports will not be allowed except as the inspector may authorize changes in the ports specified.

[25 FR 1929, Mar. 5, 1960, as amended at 75 FR 68952, Nov. 10, 2010; 84 FR 29966, June 25, 2019]
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  26  LLC  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ended
June  30,  2008,  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report"), the  undersigned,
Robert  P.  Johnson, President of AEI Fund Management XXI,  Inc.,
the  Managing Member of the Company, and Patrick W. Keene,  Chief
Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc., each certify,
pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section  906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The  Report  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
          Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act
          of 1934; and

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


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing Member
                              August 8, 2008



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing Member
                              August 8, 2008
§ 3550.155 Escrow account. Escrow accounts will be administered in accordance with RESPA and section 501(e) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. ( a ) Upon creation of the escrow account, RHS may require borrowers to deposit funds sufficient to pay taxes and insurance premiums applicable to the mortgage for the period since the last payments were made and to fund a cushion as permitted by RESPA.
( b ) Borrowers may elect to escrow at any time during the terms of the loan if the outstanding RHS loan balance is over $2,500.
( c ) RHS may require borrowers to escrow in conjunction with any special servicing action.
exh10bi.htm


    
      
        
           

          
            	 	
                     The
      Dow Chemical Company and Subsidiaries

                  	
                     EXHIBIT
      10(b)(i)

                  
	 	
                     

                     

                  	 


          

        

      

    

     

    1979 Award and Option Plan
Amended

    


    


    RESOLVED,
that the language of Section 8(c) of The Dow Chemical Company 1979 Award and
Option Plan is hereby amended by deleting “In cases of the sale of a subsidiary,
division, business or other unit of the Company or a Subsidiary, the expiration
dates for Options held by Awardees who are transferred to the purchaser in
connection with such a sale may be extended by the Compensation Committee to a
date that is not more than three years after the date of the sale, but not
beyond the original expiration date of the Option.” and substituting therefore
the following sentence:

    


    “The
Compensation Committee may extend the term of any Option that would otherwise
terminate as the result of a change in the Awardee’s employment status related
to any merger; consolidation; acquisition, disposition, or other similar or
dissimilar transfer of property (including stock); separation; reorganization;
or liquidation; provided that no such extended Option shall, by its terms, be
exercisable more than three years from the date it would have terminated if the
term of such Option had not been extended by the Compensation Committee pursuant
to this provision, nor shall such Option, by its terms, be exercisable at a date
that is later than the original expiration date of such Option.”

     

    
      
         

      

      
        66
Case 3:20-cr-00033-MCR Document 33 Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 1
#### § 301.80-8 Inspection and disposal of regulated articles and pests.

Any properly identified inspector is authorized to stop and inspect, and to seize, destroy, or otherwise dispose of, or require disposal of regulated articles and witchweed as provided in sections 414, 421, and 434 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7714, 7731, and 7754), in accordance with instructions issued by the Deputy Administrator.

[35 FR 10553, June 30, 1970, as amended at 36 FR 24917, Dec. 24, 1971; 41 FR 27374, July 2, 1976; 66 FR 21052, Apr. 27, 2001]
Exhibit 99.6  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 Petro-Canada (the Company) on Form 40-F for the
fiscal year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, E. F. H. Roberts,
Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2.the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ E. F. H. RobertsE. F. H. RobertsExecutive Vice-President
  andChief Financial
  OfficerMarch 24,
  2005
118 STAT. 2340 PUBLIC LAW 108–418—NOV. 30, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1284:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–204 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 108–331 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 149 (2003): Sept. 16, considered and passed House.

Vol. 150 (2004): Sept. 15, considered and passed Senate, amended.

Nov. 17, House concurred in Senate amendment.

Æ

Public Law 108–418

108th Congress

An Act

To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992

to increase the Federal share of the costs of the San Gabriel Basin demonstration

project.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN FEDERAL SHARE OF SAN GABRIEL BASIN

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

Section 1631(d)(2) of the Reclamation Projects Authorization

and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 390h–13) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘In the case’’ and inserting ‘‘(A) Subject

to subparagraph (B), in the case’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(B) In the case of the San Gabriel Basin demonstration project

authorized by section 1614, the Federal share of the cost of such

project may not exceed the sum determined by adding—

‘‘(i) the amount that applies to that project under subparagraph (A); and

‘‘(ii) $6,500,000.’’.

Approved November 30, 2004.

Nov. 30, 2004

[H.R. 1284]
(December 23, 1966)

#### Louis S. De Pitt et al., Appellants, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 39958.)

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal by claimants from a judgment of the Court of Claims based on an award of $56,500 for the partial appropriation for highway purposes of resort property located in the Village of Fleistihmanns, Delaware County, New York. The claimants were the owners of approximately 180 acres of land with several buildings thereon and, since 1947, had been operating the same as a Summer resort. On March 15, 1962, the State appropriated approximately 3.76 acres of the claimants' land, on which there *599were situated a tennis court, a swimming pool, a soda or snack bar, a recreation building, patios, walks, the pool’s water supply system and springboard, and a portion of the private road leading into .the premises. This appeal is based solely upon the .contention that the award is inadequate, and the only relief sought by the appellants is that the award be increased to conform to the valid evidence. On reviewing the evidence, however, we are brought to the inescapable conclusion that there is no basis in the evidence which would warrant our increasing the award of the court below. An increase in an award must be based on adequate evidence establishing the award as being- clearly inadequate. *(Katz*v. *State of New York,*10 A D 2d 164.) Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Brink, JJ., concur with ¡Staley, Jr., J.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

v. Case No. 3:20cr35-TKW

LARRY HARRISON, II

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed.

R. Crim. P., and has entered a plea of guilty to Counts One and Two of the

Indictment. After cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath concerning

each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined the guilty plea was knowing

and voluntary and the offenses charged are supported by independent bases in fact

containing each of the essential elements thereof. I therefore recommend the plea of

guilty be accepted and the Defendant be adjudicated guilty and have sentence

imposed accordingly.

Dated: July 28, 2020.

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr. 

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00035-TKW Document 105 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed

within twenty-four (24) hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use

only and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the

magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate

judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation

in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to

challenge on appealthe district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and

legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case No. 3:20cr35-TKW

Case 3:20-cr-00035-TKW Document 105 Filed 07/28/20 Page 2 of 2
.. _, -- -

SERVED: SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MOUNTAIN AVIATION 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0875 

· NOTICE OF HEARING DATES 

;.~p;,RTMENT OF = -~Al~SPORTATION 

~,J~ET OPER.~TIONS 

mZSEP-b /Aq:Li3' 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on November 26,2012, inclusive, in the Courtroom #601 Alfred A. Arra.i United 

States Courthouse, 90119th Street, 2nd Floor, Denver CO. 80294. Hearings will 

commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at 4:30p.m. each day. The parties shall vacate the· 

courthouse on or before 5:00p.m. each day. 

Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the proper 

pleading(s). Pleadings may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or postal service . 

.. 

. oo n 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge ._, 

Attachment - Service List "' 

......... _ ......... -~- -- -- - -.-..........:.-..:...--

• '"' ~ ... - .• _.._ ~- -"L'- --.-

1 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

. Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Todd C. Emerson, Respondent's Counsel 

Director- Government and Legal Affairs 

SkyWestAirlines 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

F.AJ(: 435-634-3505 

ONE COPY· 

Kyle E. Lomazow, Complainant's Counsel . 

Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W.A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAJ(: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Ac!ministrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0875 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

.. 

· 1 Senfice ivas'by U.S. Mail. For service in petso~ or by expedited courie~, use the foilowing.address: Federat 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Wasbington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
§ 3430.305 Funding restrictions. ( a ) *Construction.* Funds made available under this subpart shall not be used for the construction of a new building or facility or the acquisition, expansion, remodeling, or alteration of an existing facility (including site grading and improvement, and architect fees).
( b ) *Indirect costs.* Subject to § 3430.54, indirect costs are allowable. However, indirect costs are not allowed on pre- and postdoctoral grants, equipment grants, or conference grants.
#### Lillian Spodek et al., Respondents, v Henry Epstein, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant Epstein appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 28, 1978, which, *inter alia,*is in favor of plaintiff Lillian Spodek in the amount of $100,000 and in favor of plaintiff Joseph Balzano in the amount of $10,000, upon a jury verdict. Judgment modified, on the law, by (1) deleting therefrom the provision in favor of plaintiff Lillian Spodek and substituting therefor a provision severing the action of said plaintiff against appellant and granting a new trial with respect thereto limited to the issue of damages only unless said plaintiff serves and files in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in her favor to $40,000, and (2) deleting therefrom the provision in favor of plaintiff Joseph Balzano and substituting therefor a provision severing the action of said plaintiff against appellant and granting a new trial with respect thereto limited to the issue of damages only unless said plaintiff serves and files in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in his favor to $7,500. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The time for plaintiffs Lillian Spodek and Joseph Balzano to serve and file their respective stipulations is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. In the event said plaintiffs, or either of them, so stipulate, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed as to said plaintiffs or plaintiff, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion, the verdicts in favor of plaintiffs Lillian Spodek and Joseph Balzano were excessive to the extent indicated herein. O’Connor, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.