alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued and submitted August 1,

affirmed December 13, 1995

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*MICHAEL JOHN HENRY, *Appellant.*

(C9311-37959; CA A83991)

907 P2d 1133

William T. Lyons argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Janie M. Burcart, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

ARMSTRONG, J.

*288ARMSTRONG, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree. He argues that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that first-degree manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of murder. We review for errors of law and affirm.

We have previously held that first-degree manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of murder. *State v. Thayer,*32 Or App 193, 195-96, 573 P2d 758, *rev den*283 Or 1 (1978). The Oregon Supreme Court also has apparently assumed that first-degree manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of murder. *See, e.g., State v. Cunningham,*320 Or 47, 53, 880 P2d431 (1994). Defendant argues, nevertheless, that first-degree manslaughter contains an essential element that is not contained in the crime of murder, and, therefore, that the former cannot be a lesser-included offense of the latter. *See*ORS 136.465.

ORS 163.115(l)(a) provides that criminal homicide is murder when it is committed intentionally. ORS 163.118 provides that criminal homicide is first-degree manslaughter when “it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” Defendant does not dispute that a reckless mental state is subsumed within an intentional mental state. He argues, instead, that the requirement that the state prove that he acted “under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life” constitutes a separate element of proof of conduct that is not included in the crime of murder. We disagree.

A person who commits the crime of murder by intentionally killing another person is a person who necessarily acts in a manner that manifests extreme indifference to the value of human life. Consequently, the crime of first-degree manslaughter does not require proof of an element that is not included in the crime of murder.

Affirmed.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending April 7, 2007

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|FIFTH THIRD BANK  | * Branch       | Fifth Third Bank, Grand Rapids, MI to establish a branch at 3251 North Green River Road, Evansville, IN. | Newspaper:04/10/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 04/10/2007    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable
|FIFTH THIRD BANK  | * Branch       | Fifth Third Bank, Grand Rapids, MI to establish a branch at 5501 North Ashland Avenue, Chicago, IL.      | Newspaper:04/12/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 04/12/2007    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable
|FIFTH THIRD BANK  | * Branch       | Fifth Third Bank, Grand Rapids, MI to establish a branch at 1950 West 33rd Street, Chicago, IL.          | Newspaper:04/12/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 04/12/2007    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1410

To amend the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 to prohibit

the contracting out of certain duties.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 5, 1995

Ms. NORTON (for herself and Mrs. MORELLA) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To amend the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994

to prohibit the contracting out of certain duties.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON PROCUREMENT OF SERVICE

4 CONTRACTS.

5 Section 5(g) of the Federal Workforce Restructuring

6 Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–226; 108 Stat. 117) is

7 amended—

8 (1) by striking out ‘‘The President’’ and insert9 ing in lieu thereof ‘‘(1) Except as provided in para10 graph (2), the President’’; and
2

•HR 1410 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following:

2 ‘‘(2) The duties and responsibilities of an individual

3 who separates from Government service in order to receive

4 a voluntary separation incentive payment under section 3

5 may not be performed, in whole or in part, by any person

6 under contract with the United States.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 99.16
                             Selected Information
                      Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 1999-D
                           through December 31, 1999
                    ----------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

           Class A-1        Class A-2        Class A-3        Class A-4        Class A-5        Class B          Class C
           5.411%           5.816%           6.20%            6.40%            6.52%            6.87%            7.21%
           Asset            Asset            Asset            Asset            Asset            Asset            Certificates
           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed
           Notes            Notes            Notes            Notes            Notes            Notes
           ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------     -------------    -------------



<S>        <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>

Principal
Paid       $153,000,000.00  $255,521,191.47  $          0.00  $          0.00  $          0.00  $          0.00  $          0.00

Interest
Paid       $    734,929.43  $  7,367,183.22  $ 26,425,777.77  $  7,964,444.43  $ 11,931,087.09  $  2,343,372.27  $  1,405,309.10

---------------
Total Servicing Fees Paid:  $ 10,499,198.41



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27830-27831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2423]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review, Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the 
Neurotoxicology and Alcohol Study Section, June 14, 2007, 8 a.m. to 
June 15, 2007, 5 p.m., Churchill Hotel, 1914 Connecticut Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20009 which was published in the Federal Register on 
April 24, 2007, 72 FR 20352-20354.
    The meeting will be held one day only on June 14, 2007. The meeting 
time and location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the 
public.


[[Page 27831]]


    Dated: May 8, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2423 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. GEORGE BECHTEL, Supervisor, etc., Appellants, *v.*JORGEN H. WELBROOK, Commissioner of Highways, etc., Respondent.

*Qomrmisdonen's of highways**— must *account to loan'd of town auditors*— 1863,-chap. 172 — 1875, *ciiap.*180.

Under chapter 172 of 1863 and chapter 180 of 1875, commissioners of highways are required to account annually before the board of town auditors, and not before the board of town officers.

Appeal from an order made at a Special Term, denying a motion for a writ of peremptory *mandamus,*requiring the respondent to “account with the board of town officers (viz., the supervisor, justices of the peace and town clerk) of such town for all moneys received and disbursed by him ” as commissioner of highways of the town of Middletown, Richmond county.

The town of. Middletown, by the relator and appellant, brought these proceedings and appealed from the order made herein.

*W. S. Hornfager,*for the relator.

*Thomas Frean,*for the respondent.

Cullen, J.:

By section 1 of chapter 172, Laws of 1863, the town auditors are directed to examine the accounts of highway commissioners on Tuesday preceding the annual town meeting. By section 2, such commissioners, and all town-officers receiving or disbursing town moneys, .must account for such moneys with “ the board of town officers.” By section 3, the said board of town auditors must make and file a statement and certificate of such accounts. We think there is no significance to be attached to the change of language found in the second section, the term there used being *“*the board of town officers” instead of “town auditors,” employed in the first and third sections. The board of town officers means the town auditors. The examination and allowance of accounts is the proper function of an auditing board. Chapter 180, Laws of 1875, provided for the election of town auditors as independent officers, and *599by section 2 of that act, all powers conferred by law upon boards of town auditors, and duties required by law to be performed by such boards, were devolved on the boards created by that act.

Hence the duty of examining the respondent’s accounts rested in the new board of town auditors, and with it necessarily the duty devolved on the respondent to account to that board, which was to pass his accounts, and not to the board of town officers.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dykman and Cullen, JJ„

Order affirmed, with costs.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending August 30, 2008

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                               | End of Comment Period                                 
|----------------- | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|BANK OF THE WEST  | * Branch       | Bank of the West, El Paso, Texas, to establish a branch to be located at 425 Redd Road, El Paso, Texas 79912.                                                                 | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | Not available 
|Federal Register: | Not applicable
|FVNB CORP.        | CIC            | Notice by Mr. Michael Scott Anderson, Dallas, Texas, to own an interest in FVNB Corp., Victoria, Texas, and indirectly acquire First Victoria National Bank, Victoria, Texas. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:09/02/2008    
|Newspaper:        | Not available 
|Federal Register: | 09/02/2008    
|SOUTHWEST BANK    | * Branch       | Southwest Bank, Fort Worth, Texas, to establish a branch at 3707 Camp Bowie, Fort Worth, Texas 76107.                                                                         | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | Not available 
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### § 531.99 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Commission has received OMB approval for this collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. In accordance with that Act, agencies are required to display a currently valid control number. The valid control number for this collection of information is 3072-0070.

[83 FR 34792, July 23, 2018]
<PAGE>

                                                        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 Technology Funding Venture Partners IV, An
Aggressive Growth Fund, L.P. (the Partnership) Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I Charles, R. Kokesh,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Chairman of Technology Funding Inc. and Managing General Partner of
Technology Funding Limited, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as added Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Partnership as of
and for the period covered by the Report.


Date:  March 27, 2006  By:     /s/   Charles R. Kokesh
                               --------------------------------
                                     Charles R. Kokesh
                                     President, Chief Executive
                                     Officer, Chief Financial
                                     Officer and Chairman of
                                     Technology Funding Inc. and
                                     Managing General Partner of
                                     Technology Funding Limited

Technology Funding Partners IV, L.P.
(a Delaware limited partnership)

Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,036,336
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,258,801
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (110,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,897,497
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,412,137
<PP&E>                                       1,981,448
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,166,047
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,622,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,863,497
<BONDS>                                      3,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       100,380
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,622,215
<SALES>                                     11,004,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,163,329
<CGS>                                        4,736,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,939,069
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               110,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (595,034)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (595,034)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (595,034)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL DORMAN, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 Case No. 15-cv-12552 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION (1) TO RECONSIDER RULING THAT 

PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AGAINST DEFENDANT 

TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON UNDER THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND 

INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT AND (2) TO CERTIFY ISSUE 

FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 

 On July 11, 2022, the Court entered an order in which it ruled that Plaintiffs 

may not pursue punitive damages against the Chartered Township of Clinton under 

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). (See Order, 

ECF No. 175.) Plaintiffs have now filed a “Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) 

to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal the Court’s July 11, 2022 ‘Order Granting 

Defendant’s Request to Exclude Punitive Damages’. Alternatively Motion to 

Reconsider July 11, 2022 Order.” (See Mot., ECF No. 177.) In that motion, Plaintiffs 

ask the Court to reconsider its ruling on punitive damages or to certify for an 

interlocutory appeal (under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)) the question of whether punitive 

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 189, PageID.6745 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 3
2 

damages are available against the Township under RLUIPA. On January 31, 2023, 

the Court held an in-person hearing to consider Plaintiffs’ motion. 

During the hearing, the Court offered a detailed explanation for its conclusion 

that punitive damages are not available against Defendant Township of Clinton 

under RLUIPA. For those reasons, the Court declines to reconsider its ruling 

precluding the Township from seeking such damages. 

In addition, for the reasons explained the record, the Court also declines to 

certify for an interlocutory appeal the question of whether Plaintiff may seek 

punitive damages against the Township under RLUIPA. 

Plaintiffs’ “Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to Certify for 

Interlocutory Appeal the Court’s July 11, 2022 ‘Order Granting Defendant’s 

Request to Exclude Punitive Damages’. Alternatively Motion to Reconsider July 11, 

2022 Order” (ECF No. 177) is therefore DENIED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: January 31, 2023 

 

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 189, PageID.6746 Filed 01/31/23 Page 2 of 3
3 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on January 31, 2023, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 189, PageID.6747 Filed 01/31/23 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 101 (Friday, May 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 29311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2592]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

[No. USAF-2006-0018]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 25, 
2007.
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Air Force Officer Training School 
Accession Forms; AFRS IMT 1413 and AF Form 215; OMB Control Number 
0701-0080.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 500.
    Responses per Respondent: 2
    Annual Responses: 1,000.
    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 500.
    Needs and Uses: These forms are used by field recruiters and 
education counselors in the processing of Officer Training School 
applications. These forms provide pertinent information to facilitate 
selection of candidates for commission.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Hillary Jaffe.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Jaffe at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submission received must include the agency name, 
docket number and title for this Federal Register docket. The general 
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is 
to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet 
at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change; 
including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: May 18, 2007.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 07-2592 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M