alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
—.GeneralGuidanceinAssessingtheRelativeCredibilityofInformation‘ItsmorecredibleifithasoneormorepiecesofcolToboratingevidence.Reineinber.Coi-roboratingevidenceFACTSsupportingFACTS.•Iftheinformationaboutanincident,existingconditionsorpracticesisinconsistentwiththephysicalevidence,theinformationislesscredible.Internalandexternalconsistency•Ifapersoncouldhearorseethethingheorsheisdescribingfromtheirpositionorlocationatthattime,theinformatiOnismorecredible.Inapositiontoknow?Payingattention?•Apersonwhopaystheclosestattentiontothewholeincidentismorecredible.•Duringtheinvestigation,relevantinformationthatisprovidedcloserintimetothetimeofanincident’soccurrenceistrongerthaninformationprovidedlater.E.g.,Excitedutterances•Aninvestigator’seyewitnessobservationofanegativeoccurrenceismorecrediblethandocumentationorreportstothecontrary.•Aninformantwhogivesessentiallythesamefactsacrossmanyinteractionsismorecrediblethananinformantwhotellstwoormoreversionsofthesamefacts.Isthereacredible,innocentexplanationfortheomissionorchange?•Thedegreetowhichsomeonehasapersonalinterestintheoutcomeoftheinvestigationisaconsideration;thosewiththeleastamountofinterestaremorecredible.Motiveorbias?•Admissionsagainstpersonalinterestaremorecredible.*MothfidfroinG&ieralInvesligationSkills,WisconsinDJ-JFS2002.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 26, 2010 

s0719 

Order 

 

July 26, 2010 

140893 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140893 

 COA: 294969 

Wayne CC: 93-009599 

DAVID D. HOLLMON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 12, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Thomas D. Vitro, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of STR Holdings, Inc.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                               

| | 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 report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Date: April 28, 2017 | /s/ Thomas D.
        Vitro
|-------------------- | ---------------------------
|                     | Name:                      
|                     | Title:
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the accompanying Report on Form 10-Qof Computer Horizons Corp. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31,2005 (the “Periodic Report”), I, William J. Murphy, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, hereby certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that:

 

1. the Periodic Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2. the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  | May 10, 2005       | /s/  William J. Murphy |
|--------|-------------------------|-----------------------------|
|   | WILLIAM J. MURPHY       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Kpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(the “Exchange Act”).  Such certificationwill not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extentthat the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

1

----
#### STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, an agency of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. T. F. COWART et al., Appellee.

No. M-54.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 16, 1970.

Howard Hadley and Geoffrey B. Dobson, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Berwick Anderson, Green Cove Springs, and Richard J. Wilson, Gainesville, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been considered on the record, briefs, and oral argument of counsel for the respective parties and it appearing that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1912 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1912

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to clarify the treatment of 
              certain institutional financial assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2021

 Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to clarify the treatment of 
              certain institutional financial assistance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Keep College Students Learning 
Act''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN INSTITUTIONAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

    Part C of title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1015 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 138. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN INSTITUTIONAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

    ``(a) In General.--A covered institution of higher education shall 
ensure that a student who has received institutional financial 
assistance from such institution may use such assistance for enrollment 
at such institution without regard to whether, during the COVID-19 
pandemic, the student delays such enrollment or takes a leave of 
absence from such institution for up to one academic year.
    ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
            ``(1) Covered institution of higher education.--The term 
        `covered institution of higher education' means an institution 
        of higher education (as defined in section 102) that--
                    ``(A) receives funds under this Act; and
                    ``(B) offers in-person instruction at levels less 
                than the first semester (or the equivalent) of academic 
                year 2019-2020.
            ``(2) Student.--The term `student' includes a prospective 
        student.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                           |  |                       |  |                                                                               
|------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                         |  | State ofIncorporation |  | Doing Business As Name                                                        
|Addus FEA, Inc.                            |  | Illinois              |  |                                                                              
|Addus HealthCare (Delaware), Inc.          |  | Delaware              |  |                                                                              
|Addus HealthCare (Idaho), Inc.             |  | Delaware              |  | A Full Life HomeCare                                                          
|Addus HealthCare (Indiana), Inc.           |  | Delaware              |  | Addus HealthCare                                                              
|Addus HealthCare (Nevada), Inc.            |  | Delaware              |  | A Full Life Agency Desert PCA Su Casa Personal Care
Silver State Personal Care
|Addus HealthCare (New Jersey), Inc.        |  | Delaware              |  |                                                                              
|Addus HealthCare (North Carolina), Inc.    |  | Delaware              |  | Down East HealthCare                                                          
|Addus HealthCare (South Carolina), Inc.    |  | Delaware              |  |                                                                              
|Addus HealthCare, Inc.                     |  | Illinois              |  | Addus HealthCare Addus Personal Care Services                                 
|Benefits Assurance Co., Inc.               |  | Delaware              |  |                                                                               
|Ft. Smith Home Health Agency, Inc.         |  | Arkansas              |  | CareNetwork of Ft. Smith                                                      
|Little Rock Home Health Agency, Inc.       |  | Arkansas              |  | CareNetwork of Little Rock                                                    
|Lowell Home Health Agency, Inc.            |  | Arkansas              |  | CareNetwork of Lowell                                                         
|PHC Acquisition Corporation                |  | California            |  | Addus HealthCare                                                              
|Professional Reliable Nursing Service Inc. |  | California            |  | Addus HealthCare
#### Robert C. BROWARD, Appellant, v. Tommy D. BeSHEAR and Johnnie Sue BeShear, his wife, Appellees.

No. BB-313.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 23, 1977.

John F. Fannin, Milam & Wilbur, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Richard G. Weinberg, Weinstein, Weinberg & Conn, St. Augustine, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See *Ortega Company v. Justiss,*175 So.2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965) and *Miller v. MacGill,*297 So.2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).

MILLS, Acting C. J., ERVIN, J., and JOPLING, WALLACE, Associate Judge, concur.
#### LITTLE RIVER INVESTMENTS, INC., etc., *Petitioner,*v. Albert C. FOWLER et al., Respondents.

No. 42905.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 21, 1972.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Carroll L. EAKIN v. NATIONAL PICTURE & FRAME CO. et al.

No. 45634.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 16, 1970.

Fountain D. Dawson, Greenville, for appellant.

Lake, Tindall & Hunger, Greenville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1898 

To amend the FAST Act to authorize appropriations for the United States 

Forest Service, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2021 

Mr. CARBAJAL (for himself and Mr. LAMALFA) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the FAST Act to authorize appropriations for 

the United States Forest Service, 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 ‘‘Funding Our Roads 

5 and Ecosystems Sustainably Together Act’’ or the ‘‘FOR6 EST Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. FEDERAL LANDS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM. 

8 Section 1101(a)(3)(B)(ii)(III) of the FAST Act 

9 (Public Law 114–94) is amended— 

10 (1) in item (dd) by striking ‘‘and’’; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1898 IH

1 (2) in item (ee) by striking the period and in2 serting a semicolon; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(ff) $250,000,000 for fiscal 

5 year 2023; 

6 ‘‘(gg) $255,000,000 for fis7 cal year 2024; 

8 ‘‘(hh) $260,000,000 for fis9 cal year 2025; 

10 ‘‘(ii) $265,000,000 for fiscal 

11 year 2026; and 

12 ‘‘(jj) $270,000,000 for fiscal 

13 year 2027.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
# ORIGINAL 3Jn tbe Wniteb**~tates ~ourt**  

# ofjf 

# eberal**~laims** No. 17-17 3C (Filed October 18, 2017) NOT FOR PUBLICATION


### ************************ 

### * * RONALD FRANCIS CROTEAU, 

### * 

### * Plaintiff, 

### * V

. 

### * * THE UNITED STATES, 

### * 

### * Defendant. 

### * 

### * ************************ ORDER 

# FILED OCT 1 8 2017 U

.S

. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

On October 2, 2017, the Clerk's office received a document submitted by Mr. Croteau, styl ed "MOTION TO REDUCE TO JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS." This document was filed, notwithstanding that Mr. Croteau's case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in an opinion issued September 22, 2017, and that this case was accordingly closed on September 25, 2017. On the off -chance that Mr. Croteau's document could be considered a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60 of the Rules of the United States Com·t of Federal Claims (RCFC), the government has responded to the paper , arguing that the Court properly dismissed the case for lack of s ubj ect-matter jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(l). But Mr. Croteau's paper does not mention t h e opinion dismissing his case, and instead merely repeats the arguments made in his previous filings. It is likely that this document was created and mailed before Mr. Croteau was aware of the September 22 opinion, as he signed and mailed the document on the same date (September 25, 2017) that the opinion was delivered to his prison. The document, thus, appears to be a motion for summary judgment under RCFC 56, which is DENIED as moot. In the alternative, were the paper to be construed as a motion for reconsideration under RCFC 59, or for relief from judgment under RCFC 60, it is nevertheless DENIED for l ack of a proper ground for such relief. 

### See RCFC 59(a)(l), 60(b). Merely reiterating previously rejected legal arguments is nots u fficient under t h ese rules

. 

### See Res Rei Dev., Inc. v. United States, No. 15

- 1256C, 2017 WL 280890, at * 1 (F ed. Cl. January 23, 20 1 7); 

### Delpin Aponte v. United States, No. 05 -1 043C, 20 1 4 WL 3725933, at * 1 (Fed. Cl. July 23, 20 1 4)

. 

### IT 

### I S S O ORDERED.

- 2 -
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELDER ALEXANDER MARTINEZRIVAS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74863

Agency No. A077-957-424

MEMORANDUM*

ELDER ALEXANDER MARTINEZRIVAS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72448

Agency No. A077-957-424

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted May 4, 2011

Seattle, Washington

FILED

MAY 26 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Before: SCHROEDER, McKEOWN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions, Elder Alexander Martinez-Rivas (“MartinezRivas”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration

Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and the

BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

We deny the petitions for review.

Martinez-Rivas argues that the IJ erred in concluding he did not establish

past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his

race. This court reviews the BIA’s decision that a petitioner has not established

eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal for substantial evidence. Karouni

v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1163, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005). “This standard limits reversals

of BIA decisions to situations where the Petitioner has presented evidence so

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find that Petitioner has not

established eligibility for asylum.” Ali v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 780, 784 (9th Cir.

2005) (internal quotation and alteration marks omitted).

Although Martinez-Rivas has clearly suffered harassment and discrimination

on account of his race, the evidence presented, even taken cumulatively, does not
3

compel a finding of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016

(9th Cir. 2003). 

Because Martinez-Rivas did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows

that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Contrary to Martinez-Rivas’s contention, the BIA acted within its discretion

in determining that he failed to file a timely motion to reopen. Martinez-Rivas did

not file his motion until two weeks after the deadline, the 2005 country report he

submitted with his motion to reopen could have been presented to the IJ, and the

2006 country report does not show materially different conditions in Guatemala. 

See, e.g., Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A motion to

reopen must be based on evidence that is ‘material and [that] was not available and

could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.’”) (quoting 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1)) (alteration in Garcia). 

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### John HILL v. STATE.

No. 39280.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 228 So.2d 296.
#### Fred W. KEMP v. Alma J. KEMP.

Civ. 1191.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 12, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1977.

Roger M. Monroe, of Jones & Monroe, Birmingham, for appellant.

Samual Maples, Birmingham, for appel-lee.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and Sarah M. Greenhaw, Asst. Atty. Gen., in support of Constitutionality of Title 34, Section 31, Code of Alabama 1940, Recompiled 1958, amicus curiae.

HOLMES, Judge.

This is a divorce case. The trial court awarded alimony to the wife and the husband appeals.

The sole issue before this court is whether Tit. 34, § 31, Code of Alabama (Alabama’s alimony statute), is unconstitutional.

The husband raised the issue of the constitutionality of the statute for the first time in his motion for a new trial. Error on appeal may not be so predicated. See *Dale v. Dale,*54 Ala.App. 505, 310 So.2d 225.

In any event, we would note that this court, in two previous decisions, has upheld the constitutionality of Tit. 34, § 31 Code of Alabama. See *Orr v. Orr,*Ala.Civ.App., 351 So.2d 904, decided March 10, 1977; and *Blackwell v. Blackwell,*Ala.Civ.App., 348 So.2d 500.

The case is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

WRIGHT, P. J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.
----

**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                May 9, 2006 | By:    | /s/                Charles N. Eldred      |
|----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|                             |   | Charles                N. Eldred          |
|                             |   | Senior                Vice President, and |
|                             |   | Chief                Financial Officer    |
#### OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY, a *foreign*corporation, Petitioner, v. Brian D. STRALEAU et al., Respondents.

No. 71-692.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 15, 1972.

John R. Beranek, of Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

H. L. Cooper, Jr., of O’Connell & Cooper, West Palm Beach, and Ernest G. Simon, Delray Beach, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By a petition for certiorari, this court is asked to overturn an order of the trial court interpreting a stipulation of the parties which provided for a discovery procedure in an exploding bottle case. We *44have carefully reviewed the briefs of the parties, the record provided to us, and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof we are unable to discern error as a matter of law or abuse of discretion. Accordingly, certiorari is denied.

Certiorari denied.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.
#### Lassie REMBERT and Arthur Rembert, her husband, Appellants, v. Fred DIXON, Appellee.

No. 69-340.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 8, 1969.

*756Fuller & Brumer, Bolles, Goodwin, Rys-kamp & Ware, Miami, for appellants.

Levenson & Ruhman and Hansford D. Tyler, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals from an order setting aside a default upon the ground of excusable neglect by the defendant. Upon the facts revealed by this record we cannot say that as a matter of law excusable neglect does not exist. We therefore must affirm the exercise of discretion by the trial judge under the holding in North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, Fla. 1962, 143 So.2d 849. We must so hold even though the trial judge may have given an insufficient reason for the exercise of his discretion. See Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., Fla. 1962, 137 So.2d 222.

Affirmed.
#### George SUMMERVILLE v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 45724.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 23, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1970.

J. W. Kellum, Sumner, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Velia Ann Mayer, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 37

 38

 39

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/30

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
#### Michael Wendell ASBURY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-1219.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 9, 1978.

Michael W. Asbury, in pro per.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD and BERANEK, JJ., concur.