alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 62303.

#### Colin Douglas et al. *v.*United States,

protests 16689-K, etc. (New York).

*357Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *E. C. Carter & Son, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 368, C. D. 1889), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### In the Matter of Eileen Kaplan-White, Appellant, v Anthony White, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 581]

—In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (McLeod, J.), dated October 26, 1993, which directed the infant child of the parties’ marriage to be remanded to Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of transferring her to the State of Nevada.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the New York Family Court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over the issue of custody of the child in this case *(see,*Domestic Relations Law §§ 75-b, 75-d [1] [d] [i]; § 75-g). The record indicates that the father commenced an action for dissolution of the parties’ marriage and for custody of the child in the courts of England, the family’s permanent home. Moreover, the record indicates that, while on a visit to relatives in New York, the mother abducted the child and moved to Nevada to live with her sister. The father followed, there was a reconciliation, and the family lived in Nevada for approximately five months. When the mother left Nevada with the child and without the father’s consent, the father moved in the Nevada courts for the return of the child to Nevada and, subsequently, to England pursuant to the Hague Convention *(see,*Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects International Child Abduction, ch 1, arts 1, 3; ch 11, art 12 [reprinted in USCS International Agreements Indices]). Pursuant to article 12 of the Hague Convention, Nevada is required to return the child to England for a determination of the custody issue if the child resided in the United States for less that a year when the English petition was filed.

The record clearly indicates that, when the New York Family Court discussed the issue of jurisdiction with the Nevada District Court, the Nevada District Court had already exercised jurisdiction over the matter by issuing ex parte orders and it did not intend to relinquish jurisdiction *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 75-d [1] [d]). Contrary to the mother’s contention, she has not been denied her right to a hearing on the issue of custody. Rather, she must avail herself of the proper forum for a determination of that issue. O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1

                               302 CERTIFICATION

I, Helen Siwak, Chief Executive Officer and acting Principal Financial Officer,
certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sync2 Networks Corp;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 annual
     report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this 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 annual report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures, as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a - 14 and 15d - 14, for the
     registrant and have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report
          is being prepared;
     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this annual
          report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c)   presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors or
     persons performing the equivalent functions (being myself at this time):

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a role in the registrant's internal controls.

6.   I have indicated in this annual report whether there were changes in
     internal controls or in other factors that could affect internal controls
     subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
     corrective actions with regard to deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: September 28, 2009                   /s/ Helen Siwak
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Helen Siwak, CEO and acting Principal
                                           Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

TIMOTHY A. WHITMORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PIERCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5265RBL

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

NOTED FOR:

June 17th, 2005

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Before the court is a motion for injunctive relief filed by plaintiff. 

(Dkt. # 6). Plaintiff is currently serving a sentence in the Pierce County Jail. He asks for immediate

release from custody. Plaintiff alleges a “delusional love letter” he authored was not properly

admitted into evidence. (Dkt. # 6).

Plaintiff’s motion needs to be placed into perspective and the court made aware of the

procedural posture of this case. Plaintiff filed a 71 page complaint that is rambling and unfocused. 

In less then one months time he has filed 12 letters and 7 motions. The court has ordered plaintiff to

file an amended complaint that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and struck the remaining motions.

Case 3:05-cv-05265-RBL Document 22 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

DISCUSSION

The current motion must also be denied. Plaintiff may not challenge the fact or duration of

confinement in a civil rights action. His sole remedy to challenge his conviction and sentence is

through habeas corpus with it’s attendant exhaustion requirement. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

(1994). Given the relief requested the normal standard for injunctive relief is inapplicable. No

shortening of plaintiff’s sentence or release from custody can be considered in a civil rights action

and the remedy sought lies exclusively in habeas corpus.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff may not seek relief that calls into question the fact or duration of confinement in a

civil rights action. Accordingly, this motion for immediate release must be DENIED. A proposed

order accompanies this report and recommendation. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the

parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of

appeal. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b),

the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on June 17th, 2005, as noted in the caption. 

DATED this 12th day of May, 2005.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05265-RBL Document 22 Filed 05/12/05 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ___________ 

No. 24-10248 

 ___________ 

Chamber of Commerce for the United States of 

America, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce; Longview 

Chamber of Commerce; American Bankers Association; 

Consumer Bankers Association; Texas Association of 

Business,

Plaintiffs—Appellants, 

versus

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Rohit Chopra, 

in his official capacity as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,

Defendants—Appellees. 

 ______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:24-CV-213 

 ______________________________ 

ORDER: 

IT IS ORDERED that the administrative stay of the District Court’s 

transfer order is extended until 5:00PM on Friday, April 5, 2024. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

April 2, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 
No. 24-10248 

2 

 LYLE W. CAYCE, CLERK

 United States Court of Appeals 

 for the Fifth Circuit 

 /s/ Lyle W. Cayce 

 ENTERED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 10.27





               Description of Compensation Arrangements

                            Jack A. Hockema


         Effective as of January 24, 2000, Jack A. Hockema was elected Executive
Vice President, and President of Kaiser Fabricated Products, of Kaiser Aluminum
& Chemical Corporation ("KACC"). In connection with such election, new
compensation arrangements for 2000 and 2001 were approved for Mr. Hockema. The
compensation arrangements have three components: base pay, short-term incentive
("STI"), and long-term incentive ("LTI").

         Mr. Hockema's base pay for 2000 was set at $315,000. Mr. Hockema's STI
for 2000 has two components. The first component has a target amount of
$135,000, and any award under this first component will be made based on that
target amount and on the performance of the engineered products business unit
under the provisions of the Engineered Products Business Unit Short-Term
Incentive Plan. The second component has a target amount of $30,000, and any
award will be made based on that target amount and on the performance of the
flat-rolled products business unit as determined by the Chief Executive Officer
of KACC.

         Mr. Hockema's LTI for 2000 has two components. The first component has
a target amount of $200,000, and any award under this first component will be
made based on that target amount and on the performance of the engineered
products business unit under the provisions of the Engineered Products Business
Unit Long-Term Incentive Plan. The second component has a value of $135,000,
which award has been made in the form of a grant of a stock option to purchase
shares of the Common Stock of Kaiser Aluminum Corporation.

         Mr. Hockema will qualify for a cash bonus of $500,000 in the event of
the sale of a specified portion of the business units under his management on or
before July 1, 2002. Payment of such a bonus would be made in three equal annual
installments, with the first payment occurring within 30 days of the closing of
such sale.

         Mr. Hockema's base pay for 2001 was set at $375,000. The target amounts
of Mr. Hockema's STI and LTI for 2001 were established at $200,000 and $475,000,
respectively; however, the other terms and conditions of such STI and LTI awards
have not been determined.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER ON MOTION 

TO RECONSIDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD FABEL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. CR06-041L

ORDER ON MOTION

TO RECONSIDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Richard Allen Fabel’s “Motion to

Reconsider Order Affirming Magistrate Judge’s Detention Order” (Dkt. # 122). Defendant

argues for reconsideration based on a factual error in the Court’s previous order. See Order

Affirming Magistrate Judge’s Detention Order (Dkt. # 120). That error has since been

corrected. See Order Granting Motion to Clarify (Dkt. # 125). Defendant’s motion is therefore

DENIED.

DATED this 31st day of July, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 159 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 1
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 ROSS SISNEROS , 2 Worker-Appellant, 3
v. NO. 33,452 4 AZTEC WELL SERVICING COMPANY, and 5 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES, 6 Employer/Insurer-Appellee. 7 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 8 Terry Kramer, Workers’ Compensation Judge 9 Titus & Murphy 10 Victor A. Titus 11 Farmington, NM 12 for Appellant 13 Justin Gonzalez 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellees 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 ZAMORA, Judge. 182 {1} Summary reversal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed 1 summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary reversal has been filed 2 and the time for doing so has expired. 3 {2} REVERSED. 4 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

_______________________________ 6 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 7
WE CONCUR: 8

_________________________________ 9 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 10

_________________________________ 11 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 12
* 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. 01-41422

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS CARBAJAL-SANTANA,

Defendant-Appellant.

**********

Consolidated with

No. 01-41480

**********

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS CENTENO-CARBAJAL, also known as Carlos 

Carbajal-Santana,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-01-CR-684-ALL

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

October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
No. 01-41422 

c/w No. 01-41480

-2-

Carlos Carbajal-Santana, also known as Carlos CentenoCarbajal, (“Carbajal-Santana”) appeals his guilty-plea conviction

and sentence in Case No. 01-41422 for illegal reentry after

deportation following a felony conviction in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(1), as well as the resulting revocation

of his supervised-release term in Case No. 01-41480. CarbajalSantana asserts that his indictment in Case No. 01-41422 was

defective because it did not expressly allege general intent and

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) is unconstitutional because it treats

a prior felony conviction as a mere sentencing factor and not an

element of the offense. 

As Carbajal-Santana concedes, his arguments are foreclosed

by binding precedent. See United States v. Berrios-Centeno,

250 F.3d 294, 299-300 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 288

(2001); Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
SCWC-15-0000001 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. TEDDY MUNET, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-15-0000001; CR. NO. 12-1-1114) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Teddy Munet’s application for writ of certiorari filed on September 26, 2016, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, November 10, 2016. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000001 10-NOV-2016 08:00 AM
No. 65242.

#### Eric J. Aschkenasy *v.*United States,

protests 60/1338 and 60/237 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
1 

### L a w

, N i c o le

F r om: Al a m j i t Mangat <A m angat @ f r aq m d.o r g>

S e nt: T hu rs da y

, J une 02, 2016 11:02 AM

T o: La w , N i c o le

S ub jec t: E ng i ne s i n F R A Q MD

A tt ac hm e nt s: r e m o v ed.t xt

H e ll o N i c o l e

,

A s w e d isc u ss e d o v e r t h e p h o n e

, we c

u r r e n t l y h av e 42 3 r e g is t e r e d a g

- e ng i n e s i n F R

A Q M D

. U nd e r R u l e 3

. 2

2 E x e m p t i o n –

B

. 1

. e : a n y c

o m p r e ss i o n i gn i te d e ng i n e t h a t is e x e m p t u nd e r

t h is e x e m p t i o n a nd is g r

e a te r t h a n 5

0 hp falls u n d e r R u l e

4

. 1 6

– R e g is t r a t i o n R e qu ir e m e n t s f o r C o m p r e ssi o n Ign i t i o n E ng i n e s u s e d i n Ag ric

u l t u ral O p e ra t i o n s

. U nd e r R u l e 4

. 1 6 we

h a v e 4 2 3 r e g i s te r e d e ng i n e s

.

T o t h e b e s

t o f m y k n o

w l e d g e w e d i d n o t h av

e a n y e n g i n e s

t h a t fal l und e r

t h e “ T h is e x e m p t i o n d o e s n o t a pp l y t o a n y

e ng i n e u s e d a t a n a g ric

u l t u ral s o u r c e o f air p o ll u t i o n t h a t e m i t s i n a n y 12

- m o n t h p e ri o d air

e m issi o n s g r

e a te r t h a n o r

e qu al t o 5 0% o f t h e m a

j o r s o u rc e t h r e s h o l d s f o r r e gu l a te d air p o ll u t

a n t s a nd /o r HA P

s ” o f B

. 1

. e

.

T h a n k y o u

,



### A l a m ji t M a ng at

A i r Qu a li t y E n g in e e r

F e a t h er R i v

er A i r Qu a li t

y M a n a g e m e n t D i st r ic t

5 4 1 W a s hin gto n A ve n u e

Y ub a C i t y, CA 9 5 99 1

( 5 3 0 ) 6 3 4

- 7 6 5 9 x 21 2

a m a n g a t @ f r a qmd. o rg

T h e li n k e d ima g e c a nno t b e d i s p la y e d . T h e file ma y h a v e b ee n m o v e d

, r e n ame d

, o r d elete d

. V e r if y t h at t h e li n k po i n ts t

o t h e c o rr e c t file a nd l o c ati on.
# AmericanAirlines '

Jul y 27 , 201 0

Denni s DeVan y Chief , Essentia l Ai r

Servic e Program U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Re : Docket

DOT-OST-1996-n67 , EA S a t Ft . Leonard Wood , M O Dea r Mr . DeVany , America n Airlines , Inc . enthusiasticall y support s th e proposa l o f llyanni s Air

Service , Inc . db a Cap e Ai r to provid e Essential Ai r

Servic e fo

r Ft . Leonard Wood , MO . If Cap e Ai r i s selecte d t

o serv e Ft , LeonardWood , American Airline s expect s to expan d our existin g codeshar e agreeitient wit h Cap e Ai r

into th e Ft . LeonardWoo d market , providin g t o th e Ft . Leonar d Woo d communit y seamles s bookin g an dtrave l on American Airlines ' worldwid e network . American Airlines , America n Eagl e an d AraericanConnection ® serv e 25 0 citie s i n 4 0 countrie s with , on average , more.than 3,40 0 dail y flights . Th e combine d networ k flee t number s more tha

n 90 0 aircraft . American' s award-winnin g Web site , AA.com® , provide s user s wit h eas y acces s t

o chec k an dboo k fares , plu s personalize d news , informatio n an d trave l offers . American Airline s i s afoundin g membe r

o f th e oneworld ® Alliance , whic h bring s togethe r som e o f th e bes t an d bigges t name s in th e airlin e business , enablin g the mto offe r thei r customer s more service s an d benefit s tha

n an y airlin e can provid e on it s own . Together , it s member s serv e nearl y 70 0 destination s in more tha

n 13 0 countrie s an d territories . Than k yo u fo r you r kin dconsideration . Sincerely ,

ry Vic e President , Plannin g & Marketin g A A Regiona l Networ

k

P O . BO X 619616 , W D 5675 . DALLAS/FOR T WORT H AIRPORT , TEXA S 75261-961 6
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

BULLETIN 1000 PLATE 2
R.
McNall
quarry
Cc 60 ! EXPLANATION
S,
5 :
< ys ea Muck areas drained
c} Fe
580 ?
WAM ST SN 90 % Ss
AAA ee "0, i
EX KI J TD OP, “on Me esis ais
I QQ AQ Qwy “ig “te
YY WY SSRAAAWY ; FONE, ,\
Zi Uj SN ys U0" :
Areas of muck containing
more than 4000 ppm of zinc
< BER
RSS GSS j D
SSS SSIs 420 7 ian *
RSQ ; 2 Piast nora
SSS“ <
RXQYY gv J LD. ried
AS IIONRLE Wilda penn
QIAN 120 2 70
WA YF 30 GY
: WZ GY Bc
7 yy SSSSSSSs“s3ss ly 70 ppm of zinc in soil or muck
s SSRAVAAYVVY Up at depth of 1 foot
BOSSA Uy 0 ppm of lead in soil or muck
Y, at depth of 1 foot
170 Yj
ber
*% one WYY/A
180 i Probable bedrock outcrop
‘e under till of mineralized
220 130 x/0 LOCATION OF SECTION ones in dolomite

——

—¢c

10 a ss. SHOWN ON FIG 23 i, 7

Lower part Lockport dolomite x3 30 x = zn . ons Ye cle oe cess lla
Z 7 y Zi 7» 5 “i sections of Lockport dolomite
. Gs "Mp 520 yj ( yo Zn
Y a 2x “pr is x b> Sphalerite seen in outcrops
i WLLL Gp Wx YA P>
Y TO ons ld?" Vij] 22007 180 y i Pb
a por te DHS AY af Galena seen in outcrops
S roe 70 Yi DH.9
wt er ee Drill hole
e
s
CLARENDON (i <i
(|
290 Ny
150
x20 ae
se
270 430 230
x30 x30 x40
’ |
WU
y Yi, A
T. : Lg 5
n oz
yy NY VED DERE :

5
Via
me Uy?

J,

vy
270% yy
ZL
y

CLARENDON FauLT

TRUE NORTH

Soil analyses by F. S. Grimaldi, H. W. Larkin,
‘Hy Almond, and Harold Bloom

£é Upper part Lockport dolomite EXPLANATION
Lower part Lockport dolomite eet =
Glacial till Shale

120

D.H.7
Drill holes projected into section
along strike

E:
Mineralized zones in dolomite
60
JO
60 ppm of zinc in soil
10 ppm of lead in soil

Shaly dolomite

Shaly limestone

Dense limestone

MAP AND SECTION SHOWING RELATION OF GEOCHEMICAL SOIL DATA TO LOCKPORT DOLOMITE BEDS,
MANNING AREA, ORLEANS COUNTY, NEW YORK

1 0 1 Miles
L L 1 L 1 !

344641 © - 55 (1 pocket)