alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLANT A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE

Jeffrey A. Baldwin Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Tyler D. Helmond Attorney General of Indiana

Voyles, Zahn, & Paul

Indianapolis, IN Jesse R. Drum

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________



# In the

Indiana Supreme Court

_________________________________

No. 32S01

- 1704

- PC

- 226

C OREY M IDDLETON

, Appellant ( Petitioner b elow)

,

v.

S TATE OF I NDIANA

, Appellee ( Respondent b elow )

.

_________________________________

Appeal from the Hendricks Superior Court , No. 32D02

- 1502

- PC

- 3

The Honorable Rhett Stuard , Judge

_________________________________

On Petition t o Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 32A01

- 1603

- PC

- 592

_________________________________

April 21, 2017

Per Curiam.

Corey Middleton filed a petition for post

- conviction relief, alleging several claims of

ineffective assistance of trial counsel

. The post

- conviction court denied Middleton’s petition, and

the Court of Appeals affirmed. Middleton v. State , 64 N.E.3d 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), reh’g

denied

. In so doing, the court de termined Middleton’s counsel performed deficiently as to one of

Middleton’s claims. Id. at 903

. But t he court ultimately rejected that claim, finding Middleton

had “not established that but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding would have bee ndifferent.” Id. at 902

. Middleton seeks transfer, contending, among other things, that the Court of

Appeals applied the incorrect standard in making this assessment.

We agree with our colleagues’ ultimate resolution of Middleton’s claims. We note,

ho wever, that to demonstrate prejudice from counsel’s deficient performance, a petitioner need

only show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the

proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washingt on , 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)

(emphasis added) . “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence

in the outcome.” Id. See, e.g.

, Campbell v. State , 19 N.E.3d 271, 274 (Ind. 2014); Wilkes v. State

,

984 N.E.2d 1236, 1241 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Strickland ).

Accordingly, w e grant transfer and summarily affirm the Court of Appeals opinion

pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A) , with the exception of its misstatement of Strickland ’s

prejudice standard

.

All Justices concur.
#### Robert DRAWDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. L-209, L-210.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

July 22, 1969.

Virlyn B. Willis, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Horace A. Knowlton, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgments appealed are hereby affirmed. See Vitiello v. State, 167 So.2d 629 (Fla.App.3d, 1964); Lambert v. State, 169 So.2d 374 (Fla.App. 1st, 1964).

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5515-5516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2855]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[STB Finance Docket No. 33348]


Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company--Trackage Rights Exemption--
Wisconsin Central Ltd.

    Wisconsin Central Ltd. (WCL) has agreed to grant non-exclusive 
overhead trackage rights to Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company (SSMB) over 
WCL's line of railroad between milepost 310.7 at Hermansville, MI, and 
milepost 342.7 at Gladstone, MI, a distance of approximately 32.0.
    The transaction is scheduled to be consummated on January 29, 1997, 
or upon SSMB's consummation of the transaction in STB Finance Docket 
No. 33290, Sault St. Marie Bridge Company--Acquisition and Operation 
Exemption--Lines of Union Pacific Railroad Company, whichever is 
later.<SUP>1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 33290 became 
effective on January 20, 1997. SSMB agreed to refrain from 
consummating the acquisition until January 24, 1997. A petition to 
stay the effective date, that had been filed on January 6, 1997, was 
denied by a decision served on January 24, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WCL has concurrently filed a Notice of Exemption in STB Finance 
Docket No. 33349, Wisconsin Central Ltd.--Trackage Rights Exemption--
Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company. In conjunction with that filing, the 
proposed trackage rights will allow SSMB and WCL to jointly utilize 
their parallel lines between Hermansville, MI, and Larch/Gladstone, MI, 
for the purpose of improving the flexibility and efficiency of 
operations in that corridor.
    As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the 
trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk 
and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as 
modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 
653 (1980).
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If it contains 
false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. 
Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed 
at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically 
stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33348, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1201 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20423. In addition, a copy of each 
pleading must be served on Thomas J. Litwiler, Esq., Oppenheimer Wolff 
& Donnelly, Two Prudential

[[Page 5516]]

Plaza, 45th Floor, 180 North Stetson Avenue, Chicago, IL 60601.

    Decided: January 29, 1997.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-2855 Filed 2-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KRISTEL S. DEFREES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17122

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00339-DGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 20, 2017** 

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and SILVERMAN. Circuit Judges.

Kristel S. Defrees appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Defrees’s applications for disability

insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the

FILED

MAR 27 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Social Security Act. Defrees contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)

erred in giving little weight to the medical opinion of examining physician

Jonathan Murphy, M.D. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

the district court’s order de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.

2012), and we affirm.

As an initial matter, contrary to Defrees’s contention that Dr. Murphy’s

opinion was uncontradicted, Dr. Robert Quinones appears to have contradicted Dr.

Murphy when he disagreed with Dr. Murphy’s assessment and concluded that

Defrees was not disabled. Moreover, even if Dr. Murphy’s opinion is deemed

uncontradicted, the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting his opinion also meet the higher

“clear and convincing” standard. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.

1996).

First, the ALJ reasonably discounted Dr. Murphy’s opinion because his

finding of extreme fatigue and disability was inconsistent with his own clinical

findings. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.

2004) (ALJ may reject a doctor’s opinion if it is inconsistent with that doctor’s

clinical findings). Second, the ALJ reasonably found that Dr. Murphy’s exam

findings were inconsistent with other medical evidence, namely Nurse Dana

Rosdahl’s observations of Defrees. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041

2 15-17122
(9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may reject a physician’s opinion that is inconsistent with

medical records). Although the ALJ improperly relied on Nurse Rosdahl’s

statement that Defrees had “found a doctor [Dr. Murphy] to sign off on her

disability paperwork . . . and he will sign off on everything,” see Lester, 81 F.3d at

832 (ALJ “may not assume that doctors routinely lie in order to help their patients

collect disability benefits”), this is harmless error because the ALJ proffered other

legitimate reasons for discounting Dr. Murphy’s opinion, see Carmickle v.

Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

3 15-17122
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

No. Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Accessed Applicant County

PA-02 Cliff Park Road Rehabilitation

National Park Service - 

Delaware Water Gap 

National Recreation Area

Dingman 

Township Pike

PA-04 Philadelphia Naval Shipyard 

Access

Langley Avenue 

Reconstruction

Department of Defense - 

Philadelphia Navy Yard

Philadelphia 

Authority for 

Industrial 

Development

Philadelphia

PA-05 Blacktop Township Road- T431 Resurfacing U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers - Raystown Lake Juniata Township Huntingdon

PA-06 Heritage Rail Trail Trail 

Construction

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers - Susquehanna 

River Project

York County 

Dept. of Parks 

and Recreation

York

The Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for the Pennsylvania Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) has selected its initial, 

multiyear Program of Projects. The projects identified for programming for the Pennsylvania FLAP are listed below in no particular order and 

Pennsylvania Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2013-2014

The next step in the process will be to develop project agreements between Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division and the State/Local 

Agency partners. The amount of funds allocated will depend on finalizing these project agreements. Funding for these projects is not 

guaranteed. Funding beyond 2014 is dependent on reauthorization of the Access Program by Congress. The Pennsylvania PDC does not have a 

firm date for the next call for projects under the Access Program, but another call is anticipated within the next year. If you have any questions 

please contact David Payne, Access Program Manager, at 571-434-1543 or email at David.Payne@dot.gov.
14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

on (Mm-1)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

YELL2

Yellowstone NP

Grand Teton NP

Teton Wilderness

NOAB1

North Absaroka Wilderness

Washakie Wilderness

BRID1

Bridger Wilderness

Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Extinction (Mm-1)

Amm. Sulfate Amm. Nitrate OMC EC Soil CM Sea Salt

Light Extinction by Pollutant Species for Wyoming Class I Areas 20% Worst Days (2000-2004)

Amm. Sulfate Amm. Nitrate OMC EC Soil CM Sea Salt

YELL2

 Yellowstone NP

 Grand Teton NP

 Teton Wilderness 4.26 1.77 13.48 2.48 0.95 2.58 0.02

NOAB1

 North Absaroka Wilderness

 Washakie Wilderness 4.87 1.6 11.64 1.86 0.84 2.91 0.006

BRID1

Bridger Wilderness

Fitzpatrick Wilderness 4.99 1.43 10.55 1.99 1.1 2.51 0.04

Site Method Year N

SO4 

Extinction

NO3 

Extinction

OMC 

Extinction

EC 

Extinction

Soil 

Extinction

CM 

Extinction

SeaSalt 

Extinction

YELL2 NIA 2000 20 4.16 1.97 18.45 3.65 0.8 2.84 0

YELL2 NIA 2001 22 4.71 2.36 16.11 2.61 1.39 2.69 0

YELL2 NIA 2002 22 3.8 1.63 11.16 1.87 1.21 3.12 0.03

YELL2 NIA 2003 21 4.07 1.43 12.8 2.33 0.44 1.3 0

YELL2 NIA 2004 23 4.57 1.46 8.89 1.94 0.92 2.94 0.07

4.262 1.77 13.482 2.48 0.952 2.578 0.02

Site Method Year N

SO4 

Extinction

NO3 

Extinction

OMC 

Extinction

EC 

Extinction

Soil 

Extinction

CM 

Extinction

SeaSalt 

Extinction

NOAB1 NIA 2002 22 5.35 2.26 6.46 1.25 1.02 3.37 0.01

NOAB1 NIA 2003 21 4.67 1.05 20.06 2.94 0.81 2.9 0

NOAB1 NIA 2004 23 4.59 1.5 8.41 1.38 0.7 2.45 0.01

4.87 1.603333 11.64333 1.856667 0.843333 2.906667 0.006667

Site Method Year N

SO4 

Extinction

NO3 

Extinction

OMC 

Extinction

EC 

Extinction

Soil 

Extinction

CM 

Extinction

SeaSalt 

Extinction

BRID1 NIA 2000 22 4.49 1.26 10.29 2.58 0.93 2.52 0

BRID1 NIA 2001 23 5.9 1.5 7.57 1.52 1.54 2.99 0

BRID1 NIA 2002 22 4.32 1.72 13.81 2.4 1.06 2.22 0.04

BRID1 NIA 2003 24 4.93 1.06 14.14 2.07 0.71 2.08 0.05

BRID1 NIA 2004 25 5.32 1.59 6.93 1.36 1.28 2.73 0.09

4.992 1.426 10.548 1.986 1.104 2.508 0.036

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

YELL2

Yellowstone NP

Grand Teton NP

Teton Wilderness

NOAB1

North Absaroka Wilderness

Washakie Wilderness

BRID1

Bridger Wilderness

Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Extinction (Mm-1)

Amm. Sulfate Amm. Nitrate OMC EC Soil CM Sea Salt
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          39,699
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  228,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,076
<INVENTORY>                                    169,215
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               486,479
<PP&E>                                       2,695,327
<DEPRECIATION>                                 600,577
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,760,758
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          393,769
<BONDS>                                        993,227
<COMMON>                                        43,717
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,650
<PREFERRED>                                      3,450
<OTHER-SE>                                     990,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,760,758
<SALES>                                      2,270,027
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,270,027
<CGS>                                        2,128,626
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,128,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              73,921
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 74,311
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             46,911
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,911
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                          300,000
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                991,017
<PP&E>                          155,000
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,152,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           5,649,225
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     18
<COMMON>                        9,398
<OTHER-SE>                      (35,098,187)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,152,491
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                764,088
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (14,590,049)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (14,590,049)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (14,590,049)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.22)



</TABLE>
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 09-427.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CIVIL AVIATION 

Safety 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and JAPAN 

Signed at Tokyo April 27, 2009 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 JAPAN 

Civil Aviation: Safety 

 Agreement signed at Tokyo 

 April 27, 2009; 

 Entered into force April 27, 2009.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Colony Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Darren J. Tangen, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                               
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2015 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Darren J. Tangen                                          
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Darren J. Tangen                                              
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C §1350 and shall not be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

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.
No. 9726.

#### Coe *v.*Coe.

(Decided October 30, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Morrow County.

*Mr. J. W. Barry*and *Mr. L. K. Powell,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Thomas B. Duncan,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 12-208 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MOROCCO 

Signed at Rabat November 14, 2006 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
MOROCCO 

Scientific Cooperation 

 Agreement signed at Rabat November 14, 2006; 

 Entered into force February 8, 2012. 

 With annexes.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1653 

To amend the America COMPETES Act to strengthen reporting requirements 

relating to deficiencies in Federal research infrastructure, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2021 

Mr. NEGUSE (for himself and Mr. PERLMUTTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To amend the America COMPETES Act to strengthen reporting requirements relating to deficiencies in Federal 

research infrastructure, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Labs Mod5 ernization Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO FED7 ERAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1007(c)(1) of the America 

9 COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 6619(c)(1)) is amended by 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1653 IH

1 inserting ‘‘and funding for research infrastructure’’ after 

2 ‘‘research infrastructure’’. 

3 (b) GAO REPORT.—Not later than 180 days and 

4 every 2 years thereafter, the Comptroller General shall 

5 submit to Congress a report that includes— 

6 (1) an assessment of the current state of Fed7 eral science facilities and related infrastructure, in8 cluding with respect to climate control systems, the 

9 functionality of equipment and the usage of such 

10 equipment, the quality of buildings in which such fa11 cilities are housed (including the resiliency of such 

12 buildings to changes in climate, weather, and nat13 ural surroundings), and the safety of the materials 

14 used in construction of facilities; 

15 (2) an identification of the facilities in most 

16 critical need of repair or renovation; 

17 (3) the estimated costs of completing such re18 pairs or renovations; and 

19 (4) an evaluation of whether facility occupancy 

20 is sufficient to meet agency demands. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS