alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# (Ualtfonii M ^tat e .^iniat c



# ti l I;AVI : COGKMI. L STAT E SEN'^TO R KOURrEENI H DlSTRKT I 

# DEPARTMEN TO F iRANSPORlATIO N . •)JCKE TOPERATION S /OiO OCI-^'U- A9: . 2 3 *JvT. ; E r i iMtTf : w/. v/,uir rTV . ,a..S^''.?,S, ' •'I.'- '

' . ; rZO( * Sr.t , 05,1 0

Augus t 9 , 201 0 Ra yLaHooa . Secretar yo f Transportaiio n U. S Departmen t o fTransportatio n 40 0 7'- ^ Sireei . 3V

v Washington . D C 2059 0 Subject : Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Progra m Modest o C ACity-Count yAirpor t Dea rM rSecfetary . I a m '.vritin g t o shar e m ysuppo n fo rth e Modest o City-Count yAirport' s effort s t o acquir e gran t fund s throug h th e Federa l Departmen t o f Transportation' s Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Progra m Thes e fund s ar e intende d t o improv e ai rservic e t o ou rcommunit yb yassistin g a n airlin e m addin g direc t dail ypassenge rai r sea'ic e betv;ee n Modest o (MOD ) an d Portlan d o rSeattle . Existin g passenge rservic e a t MO D consist s o fflight s t o an d fro m Sa n Francisco' s SF O airpor t Unfortunately , thes e flight s ar e frequentl ydelaye d du e t o SF O vi/ealhe rconcern s o rai rtraffi ccongestion , resultin g i n travelers ' reluctanc e t o depen d upo n the m fo rtimel yconnection s Thi s leve l o fservic e doe s no t mee t th e need s o f th e area' s ai rtraveler s Additionally , a s congestio n o n are a roadv;ay s an d gasolin e price s bot h increase , ai i traveler s lookin g lo ralternat e trave l option s ar e burdene d b ylength ydrive s t o distan t airport s Th e additio n o f a new rhu b v^il l provid e a welcom e an d mor e reliabl e solutio n fo rou rcommunity , a s wel l a s th e outlyin g area s o f th e Centra l Valle yan d th e foothill s region . Commercia l ai rservic e a t Modest o City-Count yAirpor t play s a n importan t rol e i n providin g suppo n t o business , government , education , an d leisur e trave l t o an d fro m ou rarea . Futur e growt h an d vitalit yi n th e Modest o communit ydepends , i n part o n th e airport' s abilit yt o mee t th e need s o fexistin g loca l businesses , a s viewa s companie s considerin g th e Centra l Valle ya s a locatio n fo rthei roperation s Eas e o ftrave l t o an d fro m ou rcommunit yvi a direc t dail ypassenge rservic e i s a n importan t elemen t i n layin g th e groundwor k fo r th e community' s future . Thi s projec t enjoy s stron g communit ysuppor t a s i t v/il i provid e muc h neede d commercia l ai rservic e t o tvlodest o an d Centra l Valle ytraveler s an d businesses . I urg e yo u t o conside rModest o City-Count yAirpor t a s a worth yrecipien t o f th e Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Piogra m grant . 

# feg^ DaveCoqq.;. ^ Senator . 14''' ' Distric t DI-:C:cs b

Modest o City-Count yAirpor t - Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Gran t - Augus t 201 0 

## 6 8
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4423

_____________________________ S ILAS G ILYARD , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James C. Hankinson , Judge

. May 29, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OWE , J AY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Silas Gilyard, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
**Exhibit 32****Residential Capital Corporation****Certification of Principal Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial Officer****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**In connection with the Quarterly Report of Residential CapitalCorporation (the Company) onForm 10-Q/A forthe period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (theReport), each of the undersigned officers of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuantto §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; and 2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all    material respects, the financial condition and results of    operations of the Company./s/ Bruce J. Paradis Bruce J. ParadisChief Executive OfficerMarch 28, 2006/s/ Davee L. Olson Davee L. OlsonChief Financial OfficerMarch 28, 2006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Sprow, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), rendered December 20, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, a motorist who was stopped for a traffic infraction but who was subsequently arrested for possession of marihuana and charged with possession of marihuana and cocaine, contests the determination of the hearing court that the marihuana was observed in plain view in the interior of the vehicle.

The resolution of the question of whether the marihuana was in plain view involved determinations of credibility of the witnesses. In the absence of any basis in the record for finding that the hearing court’s determinations were "clearly errone*510ous” *(see, People v Gordon,*150 AD2d 487; *see also, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88) and according great weight to the hearing court’s suppression determinations since it had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761), we decline to disturb its finding that the arresting State Troopers were credible witnesses and that the marihuana was in plain view *(see, People v Lopez,*154 AD2d 715). Hence suppression of the marijuana and the other evidence was properly denied. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jacqueline Moses, Appellant, v City of New York Department of Traffic, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 25, 1989, which ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed and that claimant was not entitled to direct payment for intermittent lost time.

On December 17, 1981, claimant sustained a compensable injury. The record establishes that claimant was paid by her employer, the City of New York Department of Traffic, for the time lost. Effective January 1, 1985, she took a one-year leave of absence to serve as president of a local union. In June of that year the City restored 23 days to claimant’s accrued leave time.

In 1986, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4), the City sought reimbursement for the wages it had paid claimant. Claimant acknowledged that 23 days had been restored to her leave time, but requested that payment be made directly to her. The rationale for this request was that because claimant is no longer an employee of the City, this time cannot be restored to her. After a hearing, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied claimant direct payment; this decision was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Claimant appeals.

Claimant contends that because she is on leave of absence, her leave has periodically been extended since January 1, 1985 and she has no plans to return to her former position, she is entitled to receive payment for her lost time directly. At the hearing, however, she admitted that she had not as yet terminated her employment with the City. As the Board observed in its decision, if claimant were to return to work after her leave of absence, she would be able to use the credited 23 days; and if and when she resigns, she will be paid for any unused annual leave time. Consequently, here, unlike the situation in *Matter of Jefferson v Bronx Psychiatric Center*(55 NY2d 69), upon which claimant relies, reimbursement of the advances will not benefit the employer at claimant’s expense *(compare, Matter of Poupard v Mohonasen Cent. School Dist.,*56 NY2d 764, 765).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1752 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to provide wartime disability compensation for certain veterans 

with Parkinson’s disease. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2009 

Mr. SANDERS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide wartime disability 

compensation for certain veterans with Parkinson’s disease. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1752 IS

1 SECTION 1. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION FOR 

2 PARKINSON’S DISEASE FOR CERTAIN VET3 ERANS WHO SERVED IN THE REPUBLIC OF 

4 VIETNAM. 

5 Section 1116(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, 

6 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub7 paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(I) Parkinson’s disease becoming manifest to a 

9 degree of disability of 10 percent or more.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AmREIT Monthly Income &
Growth Fund III, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Chad C. Braun, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in the capacity as an officer of the General
Partner of the company, that, to my knowledge:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
 or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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 15, 2009 | By: | /s/ Chad C. Braun
|                   |     | Name:             | Chad C. Braun                                                                                                                                                                                       
|                   |     | Title             | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
 Secretary of AmREIT Monthly Income & Growth III Corporation, the General
 Partner of AmREIT Monthly Income & Growth Fund III, Ltd.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20987 Conference Calendar

HOWARD RICH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TOMMY B. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CV-3178

- - - - - - - - - - June 14, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Howard Rich, Texas prisoner #847823, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se , in forma pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. A district court may dismiss a § 1983 complaint sua sponte under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) when the complaint demonstrates that the claims asserted are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See Moore v. McDonald , 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994). Because there is no federal statute of limitations for § 1983 actions, the federal courts borrow the forum state'sNo. 99-20987 -2- general personal injury limitations period. Id . Texas’ general personal injury limitations period is two years. Id

. Rich’s cause of action accrued, at the latest, in August 1996, when he knew or had reason to know of the injury which formed the basis of his complaint. See id . at 621. Rich filed his complaint in September 1998. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Rich’s civil rights complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. See Gonzalez v. Wyatt , 157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.
#### The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jose DeJESUS, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 19014.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Dec. 16, 1985.

Brooke C. Wells, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Dave B. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Roger Blay-lock, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

HALL, Chief Justice:

Defendant appeals his conviction of aggravated robbery1 of a jewelry store, contending that he was absent from the state of Utah at the time the robbery was committed. Defendant assigns two interrelated points on appeal: (1) insufficiency of the evidence and (2) failure of the trial court to give the eyewitness testimony instruction suggested in *United States v. Telfaire.**2*

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence consists solely of the fact that two weeks *after*the robbery, defendant purchased an airline ticket at a New York airport. However, this evidence does not raise a presumption that defendant was not in Salt Lake City two weeks earlier. Further, weighed against that evidence was the testimony of two jewelry store employees who positively identified defendant as one of the three robbers. In *247addition, there was unrefuted evidence that defendant’s finger and palm prints were found on the glass top of a display case in the jewelry store immediately after the robbery.

As to the claim of error in not giving the *Telfaire*instruction, the finger and palm print evidence dispels any importance that could be assigned in this case to the generalization that eyewitness testimony is suspect and that it requires a cautionary instruction on the order of that suggested in *Telfaire.*In the instant case, the evidence in addition to the eyewitness testimony was most reliable and convincing — that of defendant’s own contribution, his finger and palm prints.

*Telfaire*suggested a model eyewitness instruction, but it also said that any such instruction was to be given in the discretion of the trial court. This Court has repeatedly so held.3 Under the circumstances of this case, we do not find the refusal to give that instruction to constitute an abuse of discretion. Adequate instructions were given on the prosecution’s burden of proof and the jury’s role in assessing the credibility of the witnesses.

The remaining point on appeal, that of insufficiency of the evidence, is clearly without merit in light of the evidence of guilt in this case.

The verdict and judgment of the trial court are affirmed.

STEWART, HOWE, DURHAM and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.

1

. A first degree felony in violation of U.C.A., 1953, § 76-6-302 (1978 ed.).

2

. 469 F.2d 552 (D.C.Cir.1972).

3

. *State v. Booker,*Utah, 709 P.2d 342, — (1985) *State v. Bingham,*Utah, 684 P.2d 43, 45 (1984) *State v. Reedy,*Utah, 681 P.2d 1251, 1252 (1984) *State v. Newton,*Utah, 681 P.2d 833, 834 (1984) *State v. Malmrose,*Utah, 649 P.2d 56, 61 (1982). *See also State v. Schaffer,*Utah, 638 P.2d 1185 (1981); *State*v. *McCumber,*Utah, 622 P.2d 353 (1980).
Summary of EPA Meeting with the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA)

September 7, 2011

On September 7, 2011, representatives from EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

(ORCR) met with representatives of AF&PA regarding AF&PA’s comments on the Definition of Solid 

Waste rulemaking. AF&PA discussed the spent pulping liquor exclusion, issues with applying the 

legitimacy criteria to the exclusion, and issues related to notification and containment requirements. 

AF&PA provided a flow diagram of the Kraft recovery process. 

Attendees:

Suzanne Rudzinski, EPA/ORCR

Tracy Atagi, EPA/ORCR

Charlotte Mooney, EPA/ORCR

Richard Huggins, Jr. EPA/ORCR

Betsy Devlin, EPA/ORCR

Ross Elliott, EPA/ORCR

Marilyn Goode, EPA/ORCR

Paul Noe, AF&PA

Susan Bodine, Barnes & Thornburg

Amy Schaffer, AF&PA
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  A NIL R IJAL , Individually, No. 11-35249

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 

#  2:10-cv-00709-RAJ U NITED S TATES C ITIZENSHIP AND I MMIGRATION S ERVICES , ORDER

Respondent-Appellee. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 4, 2012* Seattle, Washington Filed June 13, 2012 Before: Barry G. Silverman and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges, and Dolly M. Gee, District Judge.**

COUNSELRobert O. Wells, Jr., Mikkelborg, Broz, Wells & Fryer, Seattle, Washington, for the petitioner-appellant.Jeffrey M. Bauer, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the defendant-appellee. *The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). **The Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. 6735ORDER SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge: Anil Rijal appeals the district court’s grant of summaryjudgment in favor of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, affirming the denial of his petition for an immigration visa preference as an alien of “extraordinary ability” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). We adopt as our own the well-reasoned published opinion of the district court, Rijal v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs. , 772 F.Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011).
AFFIRMED. 6736 R IJAL v. USCIS
# C_2007012EN.01000101.xml

| 18.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 12/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 12/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4411 — AXA IMD/Investkredit/Europolis)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 12/01)

On 14 November 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4411. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4411. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
---

Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Chris Craddock, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Keewatin Windpower
      Corp., for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2008, and to which this
      certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | (b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                      

Date: October 15, 2008

/s/ Chris
CraddockChris
CraddockChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

---
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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the Registrant) for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Stacie K. Yamane, the Chief Financial Officer and Controller of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of her knowledge and belief:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: August 14, 2008



/s/ Stacie K. YamaneStacie K. YamaneChief Financial Officer and Controller