alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY W. KIRK, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. M. C. SALINAS, Respondent - Appellee. No. 12-16077 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00668-TJB
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Timothy J. Bommer, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 8, 2014 San Francisco, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. It was neither an unreasonable appli cation of Supreme Court precedent, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts, for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that the trial court was not required to hold a sua sponte competency hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

# FILED
DEC 15 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.The record is unclear whether Dr. Hoffm an’s report was ever filed with the trial court. The trial court ordered th e report, but that order was withdrawn. However, even if the report were filed with the court, and the trial court had considered it, the report alone would not have necessarily raised a bona fide doubt as to Kirk’s present competency to stand trial. See Pate v. Robinson , 383 U.S. 375, 385 (1966) (holding that “[w]here the evidence raises a bona fide doubt as to a defendant’s competence to stand trial, th e judge on his own motion must impanel a jury and conduct a sanity hearing” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Defense counsel repeatedly expressed to the cour t that he did not doubt Kirk’s competency to stand trial. See Medina v. California , 505 U.S. 437, 450 (1992) (“[D]efense counsel will often have the best-infor med view of the defendant’s ability to participate in his defense.”). Additionally , the trial court was able to observe and to interact directly with Kirk. Noth ing in Kirk’s demeanor or communications with the trial court gave it a reason to doubt his competency. Finally, Dr. Hoffman’s report was nearly four months old when the court learned of its existence. A four-month-old report is notnecessarily substantial evidence that a defendant lacks sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer and have a rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings against him. See Chavez v. United States , 656 F.2d 512, 518 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[A]n old psychiatric
2report indicating incompetence in the past may lose its probative value by the passage of time and subsequent facts and circumstances that all point to present competence.”). AFFIRMED.

3
# C_2004094EN.01006702.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/67

---

Removal from the register of Case T-301/99 (1)

1

(2004/C 94/169)

(Language of the Case: Dutch)

(Language of the Case: Dutch)

By order of 22 January 2004 the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-301/99: Dirk Adrianus Gaikhorst v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.

1

---
# Sheet1

# Sheet1

# Sheet2

# Sheet2

# Sheet3

# Sheet3

# Sheet4

# Sheet4

# Sheet5

# Sheet5

# Sheet6

# Sheet6

# Sheet7

# Sheet7
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 71 (Thursday, April 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 21978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8816]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD12-3-019]


Review of Cost Submittals by Other Federal Agencies for 
Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice Requesting 
Questions and Comments on Fiscal Year 2011 Other Federal Agency Cost 
Submissions

    In its Order On Rehearing Consolidating Administrative Annual 
Charges Bill Appeals And Modifying Annual Charges Billing Procedures, 
109 FERC ] 61,040 (2004) (October 8 Order) the Commission set forth an 
annual process for Other Federal Agencies (OFAs) to submit their costs 
related to Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act. Pursuant to 
the established process, the Director of the Financial Management 
Division, Office of the Executive Director, on October 19, 2011, issued 
a letter requesting the OFAs to submit their costs by January 17, 2012 
using the OFA Cost Submission Form.
    Upon receipt of the agency submissions, the Commission posted the 
information in eLibrary, and issued, on February 29, 2012, a notice 
announcing the date for a technical conference to review the submitted 
costs. On March 22, 2012, the Commission held the technical conference. 
Technical conference transcripts, submitted cost forms, and detailed 
supporting documents are all available for review under Docket No. 
AD12-3. These documents are accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, 
using the ``eLibrary'' link and are available for review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.
    Interested parties may file specific questions and comments on the 
FY 2011 OFA cost submissions with the Commission under Docket No. AD12-
3-019, no later than May 5, 2012. Once filed, the Commission will 
forward the questions and comments to the OFAs for response.
    Anyone with questions pertaining to the technical conference or 
this notice should contact W. Doug Foster at (202) 502-6118 (via email 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#761219031158101905021304361013041558111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ff9b908a98d199908c8b9a8dbf999a8d9cd1989089">[email protected]</span></a>), or Fannie Kingsberry at (202) 502-6108 (via 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b2d2a2525222e652022252c38292e3939320b2d2e3928652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="096f686767606c276260676e7a6b6c7b7b70496f6c7b6a276e667f">[email protected]</span></a>).

    Dated: April 5, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8816 Filed 4-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of International Securities Exchange, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the Report), I, David Krell, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and I, Bruce Cooperman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | to my knowledge, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |        |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: August 11, 2006 |  | By:    |  | /s/ David Krell                      
|                       |  | Name:  |  | David Krell                          
|                       |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer and President
|                       |  |       
|                       |  | By:    |  | /s/ Bruce Cooperman                  
|                       |  | Name:  |  | Bruce Cooperman                      
|                       |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
# C_2004094EN.01002803.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello by order of that Court of 4 February 2004 in the case of Federico Cipolla against Rosaria Fazari (neé Portolese)

(Case C-94/04)

(2004/C 94/62)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Corte d'Appello (Italy) of 4 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 25 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Federico Cipolla against Rosaria Fazari (neé Portolese) on the following questions:

| — | Does the principle of competition under Community law, as set out in Articles 10, 81 and 82 EC, also apply to the provision of legal services? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the principle of competition under Community law, as set out in Articles 10, 81 and 82 EC, also apply to the provision of legal services?

| — | Does that principle permit a lawyer's remuneration to be agreed between the parties, with binding effect? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does that principle permit a lawyer's remuneration to be agreed between the parties, with binding effect?

| — | Does that principle preclude an absolute prohibition of derogation from lawyers' fees? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does that principle preclude an absolute prohibition of derogation from lawyers' fees?

---
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer ofNew Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1,2022 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC andCNH Equipment Trust 2022-A, does hereby certify that:

 

1.              NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.              The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate tothe Indenture Trustee.

 

3.              This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.             A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period from the trust’s initial cut-off date, February 28, 2022, toand including December 31, 2022 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.              To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreementin all material respects throughout the period from the trust’s initial cut-off date, February 28, 2022, to and including December 31,2022.

 

6.              IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 30th day of March, 2023.

 

 

 

 

March 30, 2023
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

September 30, 2013

h0923 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2013

147258 & (14)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147258

COA: 313808

Saginaw CC: 76

- 000293

- FY

ROGER L. LYLES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add issues is GRANTED. The application for

leave to appeal the February 28, 2013 order of th e Court of Appeals is considered, and it

is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by

MCR 6.502(G).
#### PAY CENTER, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ferdinand MILTON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 81CA0091.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

July 23, 1981.

*643Goranson & Philibosian, P.C., David L. Goranson, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.

Roath & Brega, P.C., Robert C. Kaufman, Denver, for defendant-appellee.

TURSI, Judge.

In a suit on a promissory note, the trial court held that plaintiff, Pay Center, Inc., was not a holder under § 4-3-301 C.R.S. 1973, since the note had not been properly negotiated through endorsement and delivery under § 4-3-202, C.R.S.1973, and therefore, directed a verdict for defendant Ferdinand Milton. Plaintiff appeals and we reverse.

This action was brought by plaintiff as assignee of a note allegedly signed by defendant as co-maker. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case and after the note, an affidavit of assignment executed by the payee of the note, and business records containing the payments made pursuant to the note were introduced into evidence, the trial court directed the verdict for defendant. The note had not been endorsed to plaintiff.

Plaintiff asserts that because it was bringing the action as a transferee and not as a holder, endorsement of the note is irrelevant and it was thus entitled to bring suit on the note in its own name. We agree.

In a case decided under the Negotiable Instruments Law, predecessor to the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), this court held that the transferee of a note assumes the same rights as the transferor even though no formal endorsement by the transferor had taken place. *Denver-Metro Collections, Inc. v. Kleeman,*30 Colo.App. 218, 491 P.2d 64 (1971).

The language of § 4-3-201, C.R.S. 1973, does not alter the rights of the transferee in this respect. Under the U.C.C., a transferee retains the right to sue on a note but it is not aided by any presumption that it is entitled to recover and it takes the notes subject to all defenses and equities to which the notes were subject in the hands of the transferor. *Estrada v. River Oaks Bank & Trust Co.,*550 S.W.2d 719 (Tex.Civ.App.1977). *See Blake v. Samuelson,*34 Colo.App. 183, 524 P.2d 624 (1974).

At trial, plaintiff presented evidence to prove the making of the note, its default, and subsequent assignment to plaintiff for collection as required by the statute. It was error to hold that such proof was insufficient to establish a prima facie case.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

PIERCE and STERNBERG, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 22846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8979]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INSTITUTE OF PEACE


Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: United States Institute of Peace.


Date/Time: Thursday, April 26, 2012 (9 a.m.-4 p.m.).

Location: 2301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

Status: Open Session--Portions may be closed pursuant to Subsection (c) 
of Section 552(b) of Title 5, United States Code, as provided in 
subsection 1706(h)(3) of the United States Institute of Peace Act, 
Public Law 98-525.

Agenda: April 26, 2012 Board Meeting; Approval of Minutes of the One 
Hundred Forty-Second Meeting (January 26, 2012) of the Board of 
Directors; Chairman's Report; President's Report; Update on Management, 
Budget and Congress; Audit and Finance Committee FY 2011 Audit Report; 
National Peace Essay Contest, JR Fellowship and Grants Update; Board 
Executive Session; Other General Issues.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tessie F. Higgs, Executive Office, 
Telephone: (202) 429-3836.

    Dated: April 7, 2012.
Michael B. Graham,
Senior Vice President for Management and CFO, United States Institute 
of Peace.
[FR Doc. 2012-8979 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-AR-M
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 22581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9053]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel Multi-site Trials.
    Date: May 22, 2012.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Minna Liang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Grants Review Branch, Office of Extramural Affairs, National 
Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 4226, 
MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, 301-435-1432, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fc90959d929b91bc9295989dd2929594d29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c0aca9a1aea7ad80aea9a4a1eeaea9a8eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug 
Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 10, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-9053 Filed 4-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed September 17, 2014.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-2199

Lower Tribunal Nos. 13-23988, 13-25979

________________

Manuel Herrera,

Petitioner,

vs.

State of Florida, et al.,

Respondents.

A case of original jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg, Assistant Public

Defender, for petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert Martinez Biswas, Assistant

Attorney General, for respondents.

Before WELLS, SUAREZ, and SALTER, JJ.

SUAREZ, J.

Manuel Herrera seeks a writ of habeas corpus to remedy his detention

without bond. At the defendant’s appearance at the alias capias calendar, the trial

court failed to determine whether Herrera’s failure to appear in court for pre-trial
sounding was willful, and failed to make the necessary findings that “no conditions

of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to

persons or assure the presence of the accused at trial.” Art. I, § 14, Fla. Const.; §

907.041(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2014). See Blair v. State, 59 So. 3d 387 (Fla.

2011). As such, we grant Herrera’s petition for writ of habeas corpus only insofar

as we remand to the trial court for an expedited bond hearing pursuant to section

907.041(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2014). The trial court’s determination shall

include, but is not limited to, Herrera’s willfulness in failing to appear at his

scheduled pre-trial sounding. Herrera shall remain in detention pending the

outcome of the hearing. 

Petition granted; remanded for an expedited bond hearing.

This opinion shall take effect immediately notwithstanding the filing or

disposition of any motion for rehearing. 

2
----

| 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 as of the dates and for the periods covered by the report. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  February 12, 2010 |                                             |   |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    |                                             |   |
|                    | /s/  Robert J. Halloran, Jr.           |   |
|                    | Robert J. Halloran, Jr.                          |   |
|                    | President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert E. Swanson, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Ridgewood Energy L
Fund, LLC;


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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



Dated:  March 9, 2007

   /s/  ROBERT E. SWANSON
 Name:  Robert E. Swanson

Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer)