alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GREGOR

Y C ALVIN SM ITH, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. KEVIN C HAPPELL, W arde n, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15296

D.C . No. C V 04-3436 JSW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Je ffre y S. White , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 9, 2014 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B EA, IKUTA, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. Gre gory C a lvin Smith a

ppe a ls thede nia l of his motion to sta y fe de ra l ha

be a s proc e e dings in the

distric t c o urt whilehe re turns to sta te c ourt to e xha

ust 18 of the 

# FIL ED SEP 15 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T h i s d is p o s i tion is not a ppropria te for public ation a

nd is no t p r eced en t e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** T h e p a n e l u n a n i mo u s l y c o n c l u d e s t h i s cas e i s s u i t ab l e f o r d e c i s i o n without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). -1-60 c la im s ra ise d in his se c ond a m e nde d fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition. W e la c k a

ppe lla t e jurisdic tion ove r this interloc utory a ppe a l. Distric t c ourt orde rs de ny ing m otions to sta y fe d e ra l ha

be a s proc e e d ings to allow the e xha ustion of sta

te re m e die s a

re re vie wa b le on a p p e a l a fte r the distric t c ourt e nte rs a fina l judgm e nt. Se e

, e .g. , Blak e v . Bak e r , 745 F.3d 977, 979–80, 983–84 (9th C ir. 2014); W

oote n v . K irk land, 540 F.3d 1019, 1022–24 (9th Cir. 2008); Olv e ra v . Giurbino , 371 F.3d 569, 572–74 (9th C ir. 2004); c f . Thompson v
. Frank

, 599 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam ); Stanle y v . C happe ll , No. 13-15987, 2014 W L 3930452, a

t *2–4 (9th C ir. Aug. 13, 2014) (holding a n orde r gra

nting a m otion to sta

y is not a n a ppe a la ble fina l orde r). The re fore , the distric t c ourt’ s orde r he re fa ils thethird re quire m e nt of thec olla

t e ra l orde r doc trine , tha

t the orde r be “ e ffe c tive ly unre vie wa

ble on a ppe a l from

a fina l judgm e nt,” C

oope rs &Ly brand v . Liv e say , 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978). The distric t c o urt’ s de c ision to adjudic at e Sm ith’ s e xha uste d c la im s doe s not c ha nge this c onc lusion. If wede te rm ine on a ppe a l of fina l judgm e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing thesta y , we c an re m and with instruc tions to sta

y Sm ith’ s une xha

uste d c la i m s until heha s e xha u ste d his sta

te re m e die s. S

e e , e .g., Olv e ra , 371 F.3d a

t 573–74. B e c a

use the distric t c ourt c ould the n c onside r any

ne w e vide nc e pre se nte d by Sm ith to the sta te c o urt, Sm i th’ s argum e nt tha

t C u l le n v . Pinholster , 131 S. C t. 1388 (2011) a ffe c ts our a na ly sis is -2-m e ritle s s.

DISM I SSE D.

-3-
#### Herbert Brody et al., Appellants, v Edgar Foedish et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[631 NYS2d 80]

In an action to rescind a contract to purchase real estate and for the return of the down payment, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated June 2, 1994, which, *inter alia,*granted the motion by the defendants Edgar Foedish and Patricia Foedish for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them, and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated June 13, 1994, which, *inter alia,*dismissed the complaint and all cross claims insofar as they are asserted against the defendants Edgar Foe-dish and Patricia Foedish.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The specific disclaimers in the contract negate any allega*575tions that the written agreement was executed in reliance upon contrary oral misrepresentations *(see, Danann Realty Corp. v Harris,*5 NY2d 317). The plaintiffs’ contention, which is raised for the first time on appeal, that there were mutual mistakes in entering into the contract is unpreserved for appellate review and without merit, as the contract did not misdescribe the property *(cf., Weiland v Bernstein,*12 AD2d 945).

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.
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 Annual Report of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the
year ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Todd M. Hornbeck, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 1, 2010 |  | /s/ Todd M. Hornbeck                           
|                     |  | Todd M. Hornbeck                               
|                     |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at March 31, 2000 (Unaudited) and
the Consolidated Statement of Income for the nine months ended March 31, 2000
(Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         172,313
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,007
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               215,367
<PP&E>                                       1,693,346
<DEPRECIATION>                                 447,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,490,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          405,780
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        98,821
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,985,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,490,168
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  494,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (494,025)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (494,025)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 59,340
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (434,685)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.005)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.005)


</TABLE>
#### Mundon, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*April 7*

July *17, 1928.*

*470The cause was submitted for the plaintiff in error on the brief of *Walker & Christenson*of Lancaster, and for the *471defendant in error on the brief of the *Attorney General, J. E. Messerschmidt,*assistant attorney general, and *R. M. Orchard,*district attorney of Grant county.

Rosenberry, J.

The defendant alleged as error the failure of the court to suppress the evidence procured by means of a search warrant issued by a justice of the peace. The complaint for the warrant is as follows:

> “Walter Vesperman, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is informed, has good reason to believe, and does believe, that on the 6th day of August, in the year 1927, at said county, George *alias*Pete Mundon did transport and have in his possession privately distilled intoxicating liquor,” etc.

No record was made of the examination of the person who signed the complaint. At the trial there was an attempt to ■supplement the record. Upon this branch of the case it is ruled by *Glodowski v. State*(decided June 18, 1928), *ante,*p. 265, 220 N. W. 227.

It is clear that in sentencing the defendant the court sentenced him for three offenses and gave him three distinct sentences. This matter was treated at considerable length in *Watson v. State,*190 Wis. 245, 208 N. W. 897, and it is there held that the sole office of sec. 359.14, Stats., is to increase the penalty for the offense of which the defendant is convicted, and the fact that he is guilty of a second offense does not make him guilty under sec. 359.14 of a separate offense for which he may be sentenced.

Inasmuch as some evidence was obtained without the aid of the search warrant, it is considered that the cause should be reversed and remanded for a new trial unless in the opinion of the district attorney evidence independent of the search warrant would not justify such a trial.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court for Grant county is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings as indicated in the opinion.
No. 91-579.

#### Min-chuan Ku *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1687 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1687

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to lower the mileage 
threshold for deduction in determining adjusted gross income of certain 
expenses of members of reserve components of the Armed Forces, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2017

 Mr. Poliquin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to lower the mileage 
threshold for deduction in determining adjusted gross income of certain 
expenses of members of reserve components of the Armed Forces, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Tax Relief for Guard and Reserve 
Training Act''.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF MILEAGE THRESHOLD FOR DEDUCTION IN DETERMINING 
              ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 62(a)(2) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``100 miles'' and inserting ``50 miles'', 
        and
            (2) by striking ``for any period'' and inserting ``for any 
        period (without regard to whether such period includes an 
        overnight stay)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2016.

SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FROM 2 PERCENT FLOOR ON MISCELLANEOUS ITEMIZED 
              DEDUCTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 67 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11),
            (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and 
        inserting ``, and'', and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(13) the deductions allowed by section 162 which consist 
        of expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with 
        the performance of services by such taxpayer as a member of a 
        reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States for 
        any period (without regard to whether such period includes an 
        overnight stay) during which such individual is more than 50 
        miles away from home in connection with such services.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
#### Catherine Petrossian, Appellant, v Howard L. Gross-man et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[631 NYS2d 187]

In an action to recover damages, *inter alia,*for fraud and self dealing, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated October 8, 1993, which denied her motion to disqualify Jerome R. Halperin, Esq., Guy S. Halperin, Esq., and the firm of Halperin, Klein & *588Halperin from representing any of the defendants in this action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiffs motion to disqualify Jerome R. Halperin, Esq., Guy S. Halperin, Esq., and Halperin, Kramer & Halperin, their predecessors, successors, and associates (hereinafter collectively HKH) as counsel for the defendants they represent.

A party’s choice of counsel is a substantive right not to be taken away absent some overriding public interest *(see, Matter of Abrams [Anonymous],*62 NY2d 183). The burden is on the proponent of such disqualification to show sufficient proof to warrant such a determination *(see, Schmidt v Magnetic Head Corp.,*101 AD2d 268, 280).

The plaintiff herein was not a named party in the prior suit in which HKH represented Prime Concern, Inc. (hereinafter Prime), a close corporation owned by the plaintiffs father. Further, the plaintiff has failed to allege the nature of the actual confidential information allegedly transmitted to HKH about her *(see, Greene v Greene,*47 NY2d 447; *Kushner v Herman,*215 AD2d 633; *Schmidt v Magnetic Head Corp.,*97 AD2d 151) or even show the reasonable probability that such information was transmitted in the course of HKH’s prior representation of Prime *(cf., Sirianni v Tomlinson,*133 AD2d 391).

We also reject the plaintiffs contention that she could not be more specific as to any information without waiving her privilege. There is no reason why the plaintiff could not have submitted the information to the court for an in camera inspection, or submitted it pursuant to an appropriate protective order *(see, Lipin v Bender,*84 NY2d 562; *Lopez v Precision Papers,*99 AD2d 507 [as to implicit use of in camera inspections]). Such a submission would appear to be especially appropriate here, since, according to the plaintiff, HKH was already aware of this alleged confidential information.

We have examined the plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 81790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33531]

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

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

14 CFR Part 23

Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter 
Category Airplanes

CFR Correction

    In Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1 to 59, 
revised as of January 1, 2011, on page 351, in Appendix C to Part 23, 
Note (4) to the table is corrected to read as follows:

APPENDIX C TO PART 23--BASIC LANDING CONDITIONS

* * * * *

0
Note (4). L is defined in Sec.  23.725(b).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-33531 Filed 12-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
ex10-1.htm












CONSULTING AGREEMENT


 


THIS CONSULTING AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) made as of the 18th day of January, 2011.







BETWEEN:


 


NATURE’S CALL BRANDS, INC., a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada


 


(the “Company”)


 


                                            - and -


 


CORCOM, INC., a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada


 


(the “Consultant”)


 


WHEREAS the Company is desirous of engaging the Consultant and the Consultant is desirous of accepting such mandate, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged), the parties hereto agree as follows:







NOW THEREFORE








	
  

	
1.

	
The Consultant will assist the Company in providing administrative and related services including, but not limited to, accounting, coordination of annual audits and quarterly reviews, management and review of legal documentation and ensuring timely fulfillment of all regulatory filings (the “Consulting Services”).













	
  

	
2.

	
In consideration of the provisions of the Consulting Services, the Company shall pay to the Consultant the sum of US$2,000 per month, on the 15th day of each calendar month for the duration of the Agreement, exclusive of any applicable sales tax. The first monthly payment shall be due on February 15, 2010.













	
  

	
3.

	
This Consulting Agreement shall continue indefinitely unless terminated by either party with sixty (60) days advance written notice to the other party.













	
  

	
4.

	
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Nevada, without reference to conflict of laws principles.







 



	
  

	
5.

	
This Consulting Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which execution may be by facsimile, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement.







 






  





 











  









	
  

	
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above written.







 







 



	  	  	
NATURE’S CALL BRANDS INC.


	  	  	
By:

	
/s/ Robbie Manis


	  	  	  	
Name:  Robbie Manis


	  	  	  	  	
Title:  Chief Executive Officer












 



	  	  	
CORCOM, INC.


	  	  	
By:

	
/s/ Chris Kape


	  	  	  	
Name:  Chris Kape


	  	  	  	  	
Title:  Director
















  





2
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Multi-capable Airmen ‘Agile Combat Employment’ Training at Cope North 21

Senior Airman Jonathan Valdes

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
No. 82-5905.

#### McClain *v.*Oklahoma.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 90-6152.

#### Bailey *v.*United States (two cases).

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Zoran
Corporation (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Karl Schneider, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |  |  |                                   
|------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------
|Dated: May 9, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Karl Schneider                
|                   |  |  |  | Karl Schneider                    
|                   |  |  |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
No. 1072, Misc.

Pétitioner *pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Sidney M. Glaser*for the United States.

#### Woykovsky *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari .denied.