alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

Plaintiff’s objections were filed in two blue folders, and it 1

was not immediately apparent that the filing contained objections to

the findings and recommendations. Accordingly, the request for an

extension of time to respond was docketed before plaintiff’s

objections. The objections consist of fifteen pages of written

objections and twenty-one attached exhibits, which were lodged with

the court. 

1

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

JOHN F. GISLA, SB #42829

Assistant U.S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2740

Attorneys for the United States

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY ALONZO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTHONY PRINCIPI, Secretary of

Department of Veterans Affairs

Defendant.

No. 2:04-CV-01622-GEB-CMK-PS

APPLICATION BY DEFENDANT FOR

TIME TO FILE REPLY TO

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER

Plaintiff failed to file a Opposition to Defendant's Motion For

Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, however, filed an extensive Objections

to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations granting

Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment. Since Plaintiff's 1

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01622-GEB-CMK Document 42 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations

are so extensive, Defendant requests additional time in which to

file a Reply to Plaintiff's Objections.

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that he have until February 27,

2006 to file a Reply to Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.

DATED: February 14, 2006 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

 By: /s/ John F. Gisla 

JOHN F. GISLA

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for the United States

ORDER

Pursuant to the foregoing Application, and for good cause,

Defendant has until February 27, 2006 to file a Reply to Plaintiff's

Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.

Dated February 22, 2006

/s/ Craig M. Kellison 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01622-GEB-CMK Document 42 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case 2:04-cv-01622-GEB-CMK Document 42 Filed 02/23/06 Page 3 of 3
April 24, 1961

No. 65547.

Suit 5026.

#### United States *v.*Quality Marble & Granite Co. and Arthur J. Fritz & Co. et al.

C.D. 2127 reversed December 22, 1960. C.A.D. 763.
January 17, 1962

Reap. Dec. 10143.

#### Standard Oil Co. of California *v.*United States,

reappraisement R58/26635.

Reappraisement abandoned December 12, 1961. Entered at Los Angeles, Calif. (Notpublisbed.) Motion by plaintiff.
FILED 

APR 2 6 2016 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

FARMERS AGAINST CURTAILMENT I No. 69869 

ORDER, LLC, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

JASON KING, P.E., NEVADA STATE 

ENGINEER; AND THE STATE OF 

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF 

CONSERVATION AND NATURAL 

RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATER 

RESOURCES, 

Respondents. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

Cause appearing, appellant's motion for a voluntary dismissal 

of this appeal is granted. This appeal is dismissed. NRAP 42(b). 

It is so ORDERED. 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

TRACE K. LINDEMAN 

BY: actii 

cc: Hon. Leon Aberasturi, District Judge 

Taggart & Taggart, Ltd. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Third District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

(Jo - [363g-
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 Quarterly Report of American Surgical Holdings, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Zak W. Elgamal, President and Chief Executive 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 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o (d));
      and2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of American
      Surgical Holdings, Inc.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




AMERICAN
SURGICAL HOLDINGS, INC.




By:
            /s/
      Zak W. ElgamalZAK
      ELGAMALPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)




Date:
November 19, 2008
Befóse the Second Division,

June 21, 1962

No. 66868.

#### The Huffman Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States,

protest 321206-KS (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Lawbence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8564)

#### Atlantic United Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 759522.

(Decided March 30, 1956)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Warren E.*Burger, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The record indicates that at the call of the calendar counsel for defendant made a motion to dismiss this appeal *550for a reappraisement for failure to prosecute. The motion was taken under advisement and the case ordered submitted by the court.

In conformity with the requirements of the statute (28 U. S. C. § 2631), I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jack Enoch, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 65]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered June 25, 1993, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly found that the People had made reasonable efforts to locate defendant, and that defendant’s absence from the trial proceedings following the court’s delivery of preliminary instructions to the jury and a short lunch and recess, indicated that defendant had voluntarily absconded *(see, People v Jones,*163 AD2d 203, *lv denied IQ*NY2d 987). Although defendant was arrested subsequent to his failure to appear in court, because he had already been absent from the court for a substantial period when he was arrested and did not notify the authorities that he was then on trial, the arrest did not nullify the trial court’s finding that defendant had forfeited his right to be present by absconding during the proceedings *(supra).*

Defendant did not preserve by appropriate and timely objection his current claim of a *Brady*violation in connection with the disclosure of the complainant’s psychiatric condition and treatment *(People v Anderson,*205 AD2d 399, *lv denied*84 NY2d 932). In any event, defendant was advised of the complainant’s psychiatric condition and medication prior to the commencement of the People’s case, and fully cross-examined the witness regarding any possible effects thereof on his testimony. Thus, as defendant was given a meaningful opportunity to use the purportedly exculpatory material, there was no violation of his constitutional right to a fair trial *(People v Cortijo,*70 NY2d 868). Further, the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in refusing to direct the prosecution to *254provide unspecified information so that defense counsel might subpoena unspecified medical records of the complainant. There was no showing that any of the complainant’s medical records would have been likely to contain any additional information relevant to the issues before the jury *(see, People v Gissendanner,*48 NY2d 543, 548-550).

Defendant did not preserve by appropriate and timely objection his current claims of error regarding alleged evidence of prior uncharged crimes or bad acts (CPL 470.05). In any event, the testimony complained of was properly admitted as relevant background to explain the actions of the police leading to defendant’s arrest *(see, People v Rivera,*186 AD2d 504, 505). Additionally, mere speculation that a jury may discern something sinister about a defendant’s behavior does not render such behavior an uncharged crime *(People v Flores,*210 AD2d 1, 2, *lv denied*84 NY2d 1031).

Defendant’s additional claims of error are for the most part unpreserved and in any event are without merit. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.
# P

C054,,,A Parraguirre

W.7.=aketrAWM probation, see NRS 176A.100(1)(c); NRS 193.140; NRS 199.480(3)(a); Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987), and we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.'

cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge Humboldt County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Humboldt County District Attorney Humboldt County Clerk

1 Pineda's fast track statement does not comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) because it does not have margins of at least one inch on all four sides. We caution appellant's counsel, Matt Stermitz, that future failure to comply with the applicable rules when filing briefs in this court may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

2
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of CanoPetroleum, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, that: the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three monthsended December 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 
| Dated: February 9,  2009 | /s/ Benjamin Daitch                                |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Benjamin Daitch                                    |
|                          | Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |
|                          | (Principal Financial  Officer)                     |

 

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuantto Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as partof the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardlessof any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joan P. Grogan, Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 429]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 15, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause..

Claimant was employed by a temporary employment agency and was assigned to work for the Department of Social Services. After being confronted by a supervisor at the Department and informed that she had one more chance to improve her performance, she decided to leave her assignment. In view of these facts, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Crew III, J. P., White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 51 (Friday, March 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4892]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-8786, 34-55456; File No. 4-515]


Roundtable on Interactive Data: Creating Interactive Data To 
Serve Investors

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of roundtable meeting.

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

SUMMARY: On Monday, March 19, 2007, the Securities and Exchange 
Commission will hold a roundtable discussion on creating interactive 
data to serve investors. The event begins with remarks from SEC 
Chairman Cox and an address by Vanguard Group Chairman and CEO John J. 
Brennan on the use of interactive data by public companies and mutual 
funds to improve disclosure for individual investors. Following Mr. 
Brennan's remarks, John W. White, Director of the Commission's Division 
of Corporation Finance, will discuss the use of interactive data to 
create better disclosure documents. The roundtable will also feature a 
panel discussion on the benefits, including potential cost savings, of 
preparing financial reports using interactive data written in a 
computer language called XBRL. Panelists will include executives at 
public companies currently providing investors with interactive data on 
a test basis as part of the SEC's voluntary filing program. The panel 
will be moderated by Chicago Sun-Times personal finance columnist Terry 
Savage. Richard Bennett, Chief Executive Officer of The Corporate 
Library, will provide closing remarks and discuss the significance of 
interactive data for corporate governance.
    The roundtable will take place at the Commission's headquarters at 
100 F Street, NE., Auditorium, Room L-002, Washington, DC at 10 a.m. 
The public is invited to observe the roundtable discussions. Seating is 
available on a first-come, first-serve basis.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brigitte Lippmann at (202) 551-3713.

    Dated: March 13, 2007.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4892 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
No. 56481.

protests 179195-K, etc. (New York).

#### Fleming-Joffe, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
CERTIFICATION
                           OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Bernie McGinn, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of LABONTE, INC.;

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

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
     quarterly 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 a registrant is made known to me
          by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this quarterly report is being prepared;

     (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure control and
          procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     (c)  presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about effectiveness
          of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my 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 registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (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 weakness in
          internal controls; and

     (b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

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

Dated: May 17, 2004

/s/ Bernie McGinn
---------------------
    Bernie McGinn
    Chief Executive Officer,
    Chief Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 8704)

Entry Nos. 14478; 830352.

#### Wasserstein Bros. *v.*United States

(Decided December 4, 1956)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Fobd, Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have agreed that the involved merchandise consists of 3-, 10-, and 16-ligne black velvet *583ribbon and that, at the date of exportation of such ribbon from Italy, the price at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Italy in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States, including the costs, charges, and expenses specified in section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 was, for specified items, $64, $95, and $35 per 1,000 yards, less 2 per centum, respectively, and that there was no higher value for such or similar merchandise for home consumption.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find the proper dutiable export value for said merchandise to be as follows:

> The merchandise marked “A,” $64 per 1,000 yards, less 2 per centum.

> The merchandise marked “B,” $95 per 1,000 yards, less 2 per centum.

> The merchandise marked “C,” $35 per 1,000 yards, less 2 per centum.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### In the Matter of Deborah Farrelly-Brew, Respondent, v Lawrence Moore, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 284]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Seneca County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of Family Court that granted the petition to modify a prior order of custody and to change custody of the parties’ son from respondent to petitioner. On the day of the hearing, respondent’s attorney appeared and requested an adjournment on respondent’s behalf because respondent was unable to secure transportation to the courthouse. Moreover, respondent had written to the court, informing the court that his car had broken down and requesting an adjournment. The court denied the motion for an adjournment. Petitioner’s attorney asked to be allowed to place petitioner’s proof on the record because petitioner’s witnesses were all present and prepared to testify. The court denied that request and entered an order changing custody from respondent to petitioner based solely upon respondent’s failure to appear at the hearing. We reverse.

An award of custody, whether temporary or permanent, must be based on the best interests of the child *(Matter of Amy W.,*122 AD2d 592; *see also, Anstett v Wolcott,*94 AD2d 692). The court should not have granted the petition to change custody from respondent to petitioner without holding a hearing to determine whether petitioner is a suitable parent and whether such a change was in the best interests of the child *(see, Daniels v Daniels,*93 AD2d 877, 878). (Appeal from Order of Seneca County Family Court, Falvey, J.—Custody.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Commissioner of Social Services, on Behalf of Michael W. and Others, Children Alleged to be Abused, Respondent, v Susan W., Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 498]

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Susan W. appeals from a dispositional order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated August 13, 1991, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated June 19, 1991, made after a hearing, finding, *inter alia,*that she had neglected her children, directed, among other things, that the children not be left alone in her sole care for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated June 19, 1991.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the dispositional order as directed that the appellant not be left alone with her children for 12 months is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

*628Ordered that the dispositional order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant is not aggrieved by the portion of the dispositional order dated August 13, 1991, which directed that she not be left alone with the children for a 12-month period because she consented to that disposition. Furthermore, that portion of the appeal is academic since the 12-month period has expired. Therefore, the appeal from that portion of the order is dismissed *(see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N. Y. [Tabitha*McC.], 202 AD2d 502; *Matter of Cherilyn R,*192 AD2d 1084).

Furthermore, the finding of neglect in the June 19, 1991, fact-finding order was supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence which unequivocally demonstrated that the appellant’s diagnosed mental illness and her failure to continue with her prescribed course of medical treatment placed her children at risk and in imminent danger within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012 (f) *(see, Matter of Baby Boy E.,*187 AD2d 512). O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
No. 52339.

protests 554049-G, etc. (New York).

#### D'Andrea Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 51464.

#### Protests 620907-G, etc., of Manne & Weill (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser*& *Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.