alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000875278
<NAME>                        WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND III, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                             335,959
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   335,959
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,650,240
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,523,987
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,650,240
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     7,814
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      106,035
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   279,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (379,697)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (379,697)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (379,697)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
Case 2:05-cv-02111-TSZ Document 1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:05-cv-02111-TSZ Document 1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:05-cv-02111-TSZ Document 1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:05-cv-02111-TSZ Document 1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:05-cv-02111-TSZ Document 1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:05-cv-02111-TSZ Document 1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:05-cv-02111-TSZ Document 1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:05-cv-02111-TSZ Document 1 Filed 12/21/05 Page 8 of 8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WINDY PAYNE, individually and as 

guardian on behalf of D.P., a minor child,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

PENINSULA SCHOOL DISTRICT,

 Defendant,

And

JODI COY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-35921

D.C. No. 3:05-cv-05780-RBL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 10, 2015

Seattle, Washington

Before: NGUYEN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and ZOUHARY,** District 

Judge.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

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

** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, District Judge for the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

FILED

AUG 3 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 Case: 13-35921, 08/03/2015, ID: 9631729, DktEntry: 46-1, Page 1 of 2
2

Jodi Coy appeals the district court’s denial of summary judgment and 

qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de 

novo, Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. Of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 

2007), we reverse. The case is remanded for further proceedings on Plaintiff’s

remaining Monell and state law claims. 

Coy is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s Fourth 

Amendment claim because, at the time she acted, it would not have been clear to a 

reasonable official that placing D.P. in the safe room, as part of his aversive and 

behavioral intervention plan, was an unconstitutional seizure. See Ashcroft v. alKidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2083–85 (2011); Couture v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub.

Sch., 535 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2008); Wash. Admin. Code § 392-172-394 (2005).

Likewise, Coy is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s

Fourteenth Amendment claim because, at the time Coy acted, it would not have been 

clear to a reasonable official that having D.P. assist in cleaning up after he defecated

in the safe room violated D.P.’s substantive due process rights. See Harris v. 

Robinson, 273 F.3d 927, 931–32 (10th Cir. 2001).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

 Case: 13-35921, 08/03/2015, ID: 9631729, DktEntry: 46-1, Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JAMES STANLEY HATLEY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-30164

D.C. No. 6:13-cr-00007-SEH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 24, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

James Stanley Hatley appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 3582(c)(2)

FILED

FEB 29 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Hatley’s request for oral

argument is denied.
motion for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155

(9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.

Hatley contends that the district court abused its discretion by declining to

reduce his sentence based on the substantial assistance he previously provided and

his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts. We disagree. The court understood that

the Guidelines range had been lowered, but concluded that the original 60-month

sentence, which was below even the recalculated range, was warranted in light of

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See id. at 1158-60. Contrary to Hatley’s

suggestion, the Guidelines did not require the court to grant a reduction

comparable to the reduction that it originally granted. See U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) & cmt. n.3.

AFFIRMED. 

2 15-30164
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

PATRICK DRUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5360 RBL/KLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 62) is GRANTED; and 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendant

and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 1st day of May, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05360-RBL Document 117 Filed 05/01/07 Page 1 of 1
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CARL MEALING,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF RIDGEFIELD, WASHINGTON;

RIDGEFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT;

RIDGEFIELD POLICE CHIEF BRUCE

HALL; BRUCE HALL in his individual

capacity; RIDGEFIELD CITY MANAGER

GEORGE FOX, and GEORGE FOX in his

individual capacity,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5778FDB

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL

TO ADVISE COURT OF

INTENTIONS RE

REPRESENTATION

Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion to withdraw was denied until either new counsel appeared of

Plaintiff advised that he would be proceeding pro se, and such notice was to have been given to the

Court Monday, February 5, 2007. No response has been filed. ACCORDINGLY, 

IT IS ORDERED: By no later than, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2007 Plaintiff’s Counsel

Jay William Trumble shall assist Plaintiff in submitting to the Court in writing Plaintiff Mealing’s

intentions with respect to new counsel or proceeding pro se. Failure to abide by the Court’s Order

may result in sanctions, including dismissal.

DATED this 12th day of February, 2007.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 77 Filed 02/12/07 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clifford Graham, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 498]

—Appeal by the *769defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), rendered September 15, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Eng, J.), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement authorities and identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s argument that his statements to the police should have been suppressed turns on issues of credibility. It is well settled that issues of credibility are primarily to be determined by the hearing court, whose determination is entitled to great weight on appeal *(see, People v Hamilton,*138 AD2d 625; *People v Gagne,*129 AD2d 808). The hearing court, in denying suppression of the defendant’s inculpatory statements, resolved the issues of credibility in favor of the People and the finding that the defendant made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his rights is supported by the evidence *(see, Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436; *Bram v United States,*168 US 532; CPL 60.45). As the record supports the determinations by the hearing court, there is no basis to disturb them on appeal *(see, People v Gagne, supra).*

Similarly, the defendant’s contention that the lineup procedure was defective because he was the only one with his distinctive type of haircut does not require reversal. The law does not require that lineup fillers have the identical physical characteristics as the defendant, and the potentially suggestive nature of the lineup was appropriately removed by requiring all of the lineup participants to wear hats *(see, People v Meatley,*162 AD2d 721; *cf., People v Berry,*201 AD2d 489).

Finally, the trial court did not err when it refused to instruct the jury on renunciation. To warrant a charge of renunciation, it must be established by the defendant that he withdrew from participation in the offense prior to the commission thereof and made a substantial effort to prevent its commission *(see,*Penal Law § 40.10; *People v Ozarowski,*38 NY2d 481). There is no evidence in the record which would support a theory of renunciation. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Before the First Division,

October 15, 1959

No. 63432.

protests 253482-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Dryden Poultry Breeding Farm and Harper, Robinson & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chicktesters the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 125, C.A.D. 685), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69672-69673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22258]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--PXI Systems Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 5, 2023, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. 
(``PXI Systems'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were

[[Page 69673]]

filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Guangzhou VPS Technology Co. Ltd., 
Guangzhou, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, has been added as a party to 
this venture.
    Also, Millimeter Wave Systems, LLC, Amherst, MA, has withdrawn as a 
party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and PXI Systems intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 6, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on March 17, 2023 (88 FR 16460).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-22258 Filed 10-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.70

                              GUARANTY SUPPLEMENT



        Pursuant to a Waiver and Consent Agreement dated June 17, 1993 among
Daniel E. Aykroyd, Judith Belushi Pisano, Issac B. Tigrett, and HOB
Entertainment, Inc. ("Consent Agreement"), the undersigned has guaranteed
payment of all royalties due to Aykroyd and Pisano ("Obligations") under the
Licensing Agreement (the "Guaranty"). For valuable consideration, the
undersigned agrees as follows:

        1.      All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Consent Agreement.

        2.      The undersigned agrees to pay any and all expenses (including,
without limitation, all reasonable fees and disbursements of counsel) which may
be paid or incurred by Aykroyd and Pisano in successfully enforcing any rights
under the guaranty. Notwithstanding any payment made by the undersigned on the
guaranty, the undersigned shall not be entitled to be subrogated to any of the
rights of Aykroyd and Pisano. The Obligations, the liability of any other party
for the Obligations, or any collateral security or guarantee therefor may
be accelerated, compromised, waived, surrendered or released by Aykroyd and
Pisano without notice to or assent of, the undersigned, and the undersigned will
remain obligated hereunder, and the Licensing Agreement, and any other documents
executed and delivered in connection therewith may be amended, modified,
supplemented, or terminated in whole or in part, without notice to, or assent
of, the undersigned, and the undersigned will remain obligated hereunder.
Aykroyd and Pisano shall not by any act, delay, indulgence, omission or
otherwise be deemed to have waived any right or remedy hereunder. The
undersigned hereby irrevocably and unconditionally:

                (A)     SUBMITS FOR ITSELF AND ITS PROPERTY IN ANY LEGAL ACTION
OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THE GUARANTY TO THE NON-EXCLUSIVE GENERAL JURISDICTION
OF THE MULTNOMAH COUNTY COURT OF OREGON AND APPELLATE COURTS FROM ANY THEREOF,

                (B)     CONSENTS THAT ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE
BROUGHT IN SUCH COURTS AND, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, WAIVES ANY OBJECTION
THAT IT MAY NOW OR HEREAFTER HAVE TO THE VENUE OF ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING
IN ANY SUCH COURT OR THAT SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT IN AN
INCONVENIENT COURT AND AGREES NOT TO PLEAD OR CLAIM THE SAME; AND



                                       1
<PAGE>

                (C)     AGREES THAT THE GUARANTY SHALL BE GOVERENED BY THE LAWS
OF OREGON.

Dated this 14th day of May, 1998.

                                        HOB ENTERTAINMENT, INC.



                                        By: /s/ [SIGNATURE ILLEGIBLE]
                                           -----------------------------

                                        Title: E.V.P./ Secretary
                                              --------------------------
|What's New ·

What's Next ·

Site Map ·
A-Z Index ·
Careers ·

RSS ·
All Videos ·

Current FAQs |  | Search Advanced Search | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 Current Release
Release Dates
Enhanced Financial Accounts
Financial Accounts Guide
Technical Q&As
Announcements
  F.229 Proprietors Equity in Noncorporate Business  
 Billions of dollars; quarterly figures are seasonally adjusted annual rates Description
Series code
2014
2015
2015   Q1
2015   Q2
2015   Q3
2015   Q4
2016   Q1
2016   Q2
2016   Q3
LineHouseholds and nonprofit organizations; proprietors' equity in noncorporate business
	FA152090205
	139.4
	19.6
	22.9
	8.9
	50.1
	-3.4
	40.2
	16.2
	33.0
	1Nonfinancial noncorporate business; proprietors' equity in noncorporate business (net worth)
	FA112090205
	137.4
	17.3
	24.1
	10.8
	25.9
	8.3
	52.4
	23.8
	19.9
	2Security brokers and dealers; proprietors' equity in noncorporate business
	FA662090205
	2.0
	2.3
	-1.2
	-2.0
	24.2
	-11.7
	-12.2
	-7.6
	13.1
	3 Back to top
   Home Economic Research & Data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer Website Policies FOIA
 PDF Reader
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

RAYMOND ALLEN MATTESON,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 596 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
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 Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

                    Under the authority granted to me as Acting Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service by the General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury by General Counsel Directive 15, pursuant                           ( print page 70001)                        to the Civil Service Reform Act, I have appointed the following persons to the Legal Division Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue Service Panel:                

1. William M. Paul, Acting Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief Counsel (Technical)

2. Elizabeth C. Hadden, Deputy Division Counsel/Deputy Associate Chief Counsel (Criminal Investigation)

3. Mark S. Kaizen, Associate Chief Counsel (General Legal Services)

4. Rachel D. Levy, Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits, Exempt Organizations, and Employment Taxes)

5. Joseph W. Spires, Associate Chief Counsel (Small Business and Self-Employed)

Alternate: Kathryn A. Zuba, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedures and Administration)

This publication is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

William M. Paul,

Chief Counsel (Acting), Internal Revenue Service.

[FR Doc. 2023-22417 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
|   | (a) | The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                                                                                                                       |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                       |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Svein Moxnes Harfjeld                                                                                                             |   |
|   |   | Name: Svein Moxnes Harfjeld                                                                                                                |   |
|   |   | Title:   Chief Executive Officer            (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                       |   |

|   |   |                                                                                                                                                |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Eirik Ubøe                                                                                                                            |   |
|   |   | Name: Eirik Ubøe                                                                                                                               |   |
|   |   | Title:   Chief Financial Officer           (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                |   |