alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Interest of Virgil FULLER, a child.

No. 70-309.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 2, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SILVER JOSE GALINDO,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

J. SALAZAR,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 18

- 16183

D.C. No. 2:17

- cv

- 00302

- EFB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding * *

Submitted June 11, 201 9 * * *

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Silver Jose Galindo appe als pro se from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. R eviewing de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas , 533 F.3d

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

* * The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 16183

800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.

Galindo argues that he is ent itled to credit toward his federal sentence for the

time spent in federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum

between April 5, 2004, and January 28, 2005. We disagree. The state retained

primary jurisdiction over Galindo during th is time

, s ee Thomas v. Brewer , 923

F.2d 1361, 1367 (9th Cir. 1991) (an accused transferred pursuant to a writ of

habeas corpus ad prosequendum is “on loan” to federal authorities and remains a

state prisoner) , and t

he record reflects that the state of Hawa ii credited this time

toward Galindo’s state parole revocation sentence. Therefore, the credits earned

during th is period cannot be credited towards hi s federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §

3585(b); United States v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992) ( under s ection 3585(b)

,

a defendant cannot “receive a double credit for his detention time”)

.

AFFIRMED.
257 La. 993

#### Succession of Horace PLUMMER.

No. 51229.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 10, 1971.

In re: Joe Plummer applying for certi-orari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Felici-ana. 243 So.2d 81.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2015 (the “Report”) of New Mountain Finance Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Melody L. Siu, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 Registrant.




/s/ MELODY L. SIUName:Melody L. SiuDate:November 4, 2015
250 La. 103

#### Glynn J. HERNANDEZ v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 48549.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 3, 1967.

In re: Glynn J. Hernandez applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 192 So.2d 679.

Application not considered. Not filed within 30 days after rehearing was refused by the Court of Appeal. See Sec. 11 of Art. 7 of the Constitution; also Art. 2167 C.C.P.
# C_2015249EN.01000601.xml

| 30.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/6

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 249/09)

| Member State | Finland |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Helsinki – Pori |
| Period of validity of the contract | 1 November 2015 - 31 December 2016 |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 61 days after the day of publication of the present invitation |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge | City of Pori |
| Hankintapalvelut |
| PL 95 |
| FI-28101 PORI |
| SUOMI/FINLAND |
| Tel. +358 447019228 |
| Fax +358 26349417 |
| E-mail: tarjous@pori.fi |
| Internet: www.pori.fi/hankintapalvelut |

Member State

Finland

Route concerned

Helsinki – Pori

Period of validity of the contract

1 November 2015 - 31 December 2016

Deadline for submission of tenders

61 days after the day of publication of the present invitation

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge

City of Pori

Hankintapalvelut

PL 95

FI-28101 PORI

SUOMI/FINLAND

Tel. +358 447019228

Fax +358 26349417

E-mail: tarjous@pori.fi

Internet: www.pori.fi/hankintapalvelut

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Douglas William BAKER.

No. 54175.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1973.

In re: Douglas William Baker applying for Writs of Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the trial court, the contention relied upon is without merit.
#### Wayne BULLOCK v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 47188.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 29, 1973.

James W. Backstrom, Lucedale, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by T. E. Childs, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, George County; Merle F. Palmer, Judge.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and SMITH, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

Affirmed.
# C_2014389EN.01001801.xml

| 4.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/18

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2014/C 389/05

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 3.10.2014 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 3.10.2014-31.12.2014 |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Stock or Group of stocks | SRX/07D. |
| Species | Skates and rays (Rajiformes) |
| Zone | Union waters of VIId |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 63/TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

3.10.2014

Duration

3.10.2014-31.12.2014

Member State

United Kingdom

Stock or Group of stocks

SRX/07D.

Species

Skates and rays (Rajiformes)

Rajiformes

Zone

Union waters of VIId

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

63/TQ43

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
#### STATE of Florida ex rel., Reuben L. TOBLER, Relator, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections for the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-269.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 12, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus dismissed.
# C_2015119EN.01000301.xml

| 14.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/3

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Changes to public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 119/03)

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | La Rochelle (Ile de Ré) – Poitiers (Biard) – Lyon (Saint Exupéry) |
| Original date of entry into force of the public service obligation | 1 November 2005 |
| Date of entry into force of the changes | 1 November 2015 |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained | Arrêté du 16 mars 2015 modifiant les obligations de service public imposées sur les services aériens entre La Rochelle et Lyon et entre Poitiers et Lyon
  (Order of 16 March 2015 amending the public service obligation imposed on scheduled air services between La Rochelle and Lyon and between Poitiers and Lyon)
  NOR: DEVA1506811A
  http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
  For further information please contact:





  Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile |
| DTA/SDT/T2 |
| 50 rue Henry Farman |
| 75720 Paris Cedex 15 |
| FRANCE |
| Tel. +33 158094321 |
| E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr |

Member State

France

Route concerned

La Rochelle (Ile de Ré) – Poitiers (Biard) – Lyon (Saint Exupéry)

Original date of entry into force of the public service obligation

1 November 2005

Date of entry into force of the changes

1 November 2015

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained

Arrêté du 16 mars 2015 modifiant les obligations de service public imposées sur les services aériens entre La Rochelle et Lyon et entre Poitiers et Lyon

(Order of 16 March 2015 amending the public service obligation imposed on scheduled air services between La Rochelle and Lyon and between Poitiers and Lyon)

NOR: DEVA1506811A

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do

For further information please contact:

Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile

DTA/SDT/T2

50 rue Henry Farman

75720 Paris Cedex 15

FRANCE

Tel. +33 158094321

E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr

---
**EXHIBIT 23.1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration    Statements listed below of our report dated March 29, 2007,    with respect to the consolidated financial statements and    schedule of ION Media Networks, Inc. (formerly Paxson    Communications Corporation) , included in this Annual Report    (Form 10-K)    for the year ended December 31, 2006.      •     Registration Statement    (Form S-8No. 333-136717)    pertaining to ION Media Networks, Inc.’s 2006 Stock    Incentive Plan      •     Registration Statement    (Form S-8No. 333-72623)    pertaining to Paxson Communication Corporation’s 1998 Stock    Incentive Plan      •     Registration Statement    (Form S-8No. 333-60452)    pertaining to Paxson Communication Corporation’s 1998 Stock    Incentive Plan      •     Registration Statement    (Form S-8No. 333-105797)    pertaining to Paxson Communication Corporation’s 1998 Stock    Incentive Plan      •     Registration Statement    (Form S-8No. 333-20163)    pertaining to Paxson Communication Corporation’s 1996 Stock    Incentive Plan      •     Registration Statement    (Form S-3No. 333-75572)    pertaining to the resale of 200,000 shares of Class A    Common Stock and related Prospectus **RACHLIN    COHEN & HOLTZ LLP**     West Palm Beach, Florida    March 29, 2007
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3634

To amend the Military Selective Service Act to terminate the registration

requirement and to terminate the activities of civilian local boards, civilian appeal boards and similar local agencies of the Selective Service

System.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 22, 1993

Mr. DEFAZIO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend the Military Selective Service Act to terminate

the registration requirement and to terminate the activities of civilian local boards, civilian appeal boards and

similar local agencies of the Selective Service System.

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 ‘‘Selective Service

5 Standby Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REGISTRATION.

7 (a) TERMINATION OF REGISTRATION REQUIRE8 MENT.—Section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act (50
2

HR 3634 IH

1 U.S.C. App. 453) is amended by adding at the end the

2 following new subsection:

3 ‘‘(c) On or after the effective date of the Selective

4 Service Standby Act of 1993, no person shall be required

5 to present himself for and submit to registration under

6 this section.’’.

7 (b) SUSPENSION OF SANCTIONS.—Subsection (g) of

8 section 12 of such Act (50 U.S.C. App. 462) is amended

9 to read as follows:

10 ‘‘(g) A person may not be denied a right, privilege,

11 benefit, or employment position under Federal law by rea12 son of the failure of such person to present himself for

13 and submit to registration under section 3 if the require14 ment for the person to so register has terminated or be15 come inapplicable to the person.’’.

16 (c) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by this

17 section shall apply with respect to—

18 (1) persons who, except for the amendment

19 made by subsection (a), would otherwise be required

20 to present themselves for and submit to registration

21 under section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act

22 on or after the effective date of this Act; and

23 (2) persons who, before such effective date,

24 were required to present themselves and submit to

25 registration under such section and did not do so.
3

HR 3634 IH

1 SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF ACTIVITIES OF SELECTIVE SERV2 ICE SYSTEM BOARDS.

3 Section 17 of the Military Selective Service Act (50

4 U.S.C. App. 467) is amended by adding at the end the

5 following new subsection:

6 ‘‘(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,

7 on and after the effective date of the Selective Service

8 Standby Act of 1993—

9 ‘‘(1) the President may not appoint a person as

10 a member of a civilian local board, civilian appeal

11 board, or similar local agency of the Selective Serv12 ice System; and

13 ‘‘(2) any such board established as of such ef14 fective date may not meet.’’.

15 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

16 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall

17 take effect thirty days after the date of the enactment of

18 the Act.

Æ
#### In the Matter of C.N.A., Respondent, v Jae Jim Shim, Respondent, American Home Assurance Co., Appellant, et *439al., Respondent.

[736 NYS2d 244]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the additional respondent American Home Assurance Co. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated February 22, 2001, as, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination of the same court, dated September 20, 2000, denying its motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered August 11, 2000, granting the petition and permanently staying arbitration upon its default in appearing and the presentation of a prima facie case at a hearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly treated the appellant’s supplemental petition as a motion for leave to reargue, and, upon re-argument, properly adhered to its original determination after reviewing the merits (see, *Caccioppoli v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr.,*271 AD2d 565).

To vacate a default, a defendant must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, *Westchester County Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co.,*283 AD2d 488; *Greene v New York City Hous. Auth.,*283 AD2d 458; *Matter of AIU Ins. Co. v Fernandez,*281 AD2d 542; *Poincy v White Bus Co.,*278 AD2d 467).

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion since the appellant failed to proffer a meritorious defense (see, *Greene v New York City Hous. Auth., supra).*Contrary to its contention, it failed to overcome the prima facie case that the petitioner presented at a hearing (see, *Matter of Globe Indem. Co. v Lawrence,*210 AD2d 334; *Matter of Wausau Ins. Co. v Predestin,*114 AD2d 900). Ritter, Acting P.J., Smith, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3443

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that none of the funds

in the Employees’ Compensation Fund shall be used to pay compensation,

benefits, or expenses for individuals convicted of fraud or other violations

in connection with benefits from such fund.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 3, 1993

Ms. SHEPHERD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that none

of the funds in the Employees’ Compensation Fund shall

be used to pay compensation, benefits, or expenses for

individuals convicted of fraud or other violations in connection with benefits from such fund.

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF BENEFITS.

4 (a) TERMINATION.— Section 8102 of title 5, United

5 States Code (‘‘the Act’’) is amended by redesignating sub6 section (b) as subsection (c) and by adding after sub7 section (a) the following new subsection:
2

•HR 3443 IH

1 ‘‘(b) An individual convicted of—

2 ‘‘(1) a violation of section 1920 of title 18 with

3 respect to benefits under subchapter I of chapter 81

4 of this title, or

5 ‘‘(2) any felony fraud related to the application

6 for or receipt of benefits under subchapter I or III

7 of chapter 81 of this title,

8 shall (in addition to any other penalties provided by this

9 subchapter) as of the date of the conviction, forfeit all en10 titlement to such benefits.’’.

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

12 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to a conviction for

13 a violation or felony described in such amendment which

14 occurs after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### HOTEL ROOSEVELT CO., Inc., a corporation, and Wm. H. Johnston, Anne B. Johnston, Wm. H. Johnston, Jr., Jane Grubb Johnston, Donald W. Howell, Jule Ann Howell, Donald R. Burnett, Mary R. Burnett, James J. Patton, Mary Patton, John Patton, Jr., and Lucille Patton, Petitioners, v. Marie L. HILL and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Respondents.

No. I-456.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

March 14, 1967.

Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones *&*Gay, and John A. Rush and Arthur T. Boone, Jacksonville, for petitioners.

Mark Hulsey, Jr., Charles Cook Howell,. Jr., Nathan Bedell, Jack F. Wayman, Jacksonville, and W. S. Frates, Miami, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Hotel Roosevelt, asks this court to review by way of common law certiorari the trial court’s order denying a motion to dismiss the respondents’ complaint. We granted oral argument only upon the question of jurisdiction. Petitioner seeks to distinguish the unbroken line of appellate decisions denying certio-rari from such an order upon the theory that petitioners should not be burdened with the tremendous expense of defending the voluminous complaints filed by respondents and others.

By their brief and argument, petitioners reason that this court’s opinion in Romedy v. Johnston, 193 So.2d 487 (Fla.App. 1st, 1967), is applicable to the instant complaint. In Romedy the trial court and this court were factually concerned with a plaintiff who occupied the status of a licensee, whereas in the instant cause the complaint reflects that plaintiffs hold the status of business invitees. It was not the intention of this court in its decision in Romedy to prejudge the issues involved in the instant and related causes arising out of the same catastrophe.

The appellate courts of this state have in many decisions refused to allow the extraordinary remedy of common law certiorari to be utilized by litigants as a vehicle for interlocutory review in common law actions. We hold that the remedy of common law certiorari is not available to petitioners in this case. In order that'there be no misunderstanding of this decision, it is emphasized that we have only concerned ourselves with the question of jurisdiction. In reaching this conclusion we have not con*234sidered the question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of plaintiffs’ complaint.

By applicable provisions of the Constitution of the State of Florida, the Supreme Court possesses the rule-making' power and for a considerable time has had the authority to provide for appeals from interlocutory orders rendered in common law actions where there are factual circumstances such as those alleged to exist in this cause. As of this date it has not found it proper to provide for such interlocutory appeals. This court will not attempt to amend the established rules of procedure and the settled rules of law of this state by granting the extra-ordinary writ of common law certiorari to review interlocutory orders entered in a common law action, save for the exceptions detailed in prior opinions upon the subject.

Certiorari denied.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert E. Danzler, Appellant.

[722 NYS2d 181]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.), rendered November 20, 1995, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence established that he shot the victim. Furthermore, as to the charge of assault in the first degree, the victim suffered a serious physical injury *(see, People v Wade,*187 AD2d 687).

We discern no basis to disturb the jury’s resolution of the issue that the defendant intended to cause the death of the victim. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84). Its determina*640tion should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, *People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.