alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Leon WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-11080 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed (January 30, 2017)

Yvette Rhodes, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Kelly S. Karase, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*815Michael Leon Williams, Coleman, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before TJOFLAT, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Trúncale, appointed counsel for Michael Leon Williams, moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Williams’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### Shaun ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16318

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 1, 2017

*378Shaun Robinson, Pro Se

Melissa Pagni Barnard, I, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel, Gary A. Cardinal, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel, University of Nevada, Reno, Office of General Counsel, Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appel-lees

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Shaun Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his dismissal from nursing school. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Watison v. Carter,*668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); *Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477*F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal on the basis of claim preclusion). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Robinson’s fraud claim because Robinson failed to allege fácts sufficient to show that defendants intended to induce Robinson to act or refrain from acting in reliance on defendants’ alleged misrepresentations. *See Bulbman, Inc. v. Nev. Bell,*108 Nev. 105, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (1992) (per curiam) (setting forth elements of a fraud claim under Nevada law).

The district court properly dismissed Robinson’s breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, due process, and Title IX claims as barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because Robinson’s claims were raised, or could have been raised, in a prior action between the parties or their privies that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. *See Holcombe, 477*F.3d at 1097-98 (setting forth requirements for claim preclusion under Nevada law). Contrary to Robinson’s contention, the district court’s consideration of the state court decision did not convert defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion into one for summary judgment. *See Shaw v. Hahn,*56 F.3d 1128, 1129 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) (“In deciding whether to dismiss a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court may look beyond the plaintiffs complaint to matters of public record.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Robinson’s contentions concerning extrinsic fraud on the state court and the applicability of the *England*reservation doctrine.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
                                  Exhibit 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.'s
33-16409, 33-38259 and 33-78614 of Shorewood Packaging Corporation each on Form
S-8 and to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-3671
of Shorewood Packaging Corporation on Form S-3 of our report dated July 2, 1999,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Shorewood Packaging Corporation
for the 52 weeks ended May 1, 1999.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New York, New York
July 29, 1999


                                 Page 49 of 49
**Exhibit 99.5**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Craig J. Laurie, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Brookfield Properties Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.  The issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the issuer and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors and theAudit Committee of issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.
Dated: March 31, 2005                                                               /s/ Craig J. Laurie   Craig J. Laurie   Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial
EX PARTE Timothy Ronald DORSEY

CR-16-0347

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
I updated ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Ameresco, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 63513

)

Under Contract No. N40085-20-D-0032 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq.

 Doyle & Bachman LLP

 McLean, VA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

 Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Billy B. Ruhling, II, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: August 8, 2023

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63513, Appeal of 

Ameresco, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: August 8, 2023

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sarahi CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41603 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 14, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Sarahi Cruz, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Sarahi Cruz has moved for *348leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cruz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *348the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-KSB FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         221,417
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               228,167
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 228,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               83
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,517
<OTHER-SE>                                     231,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   237,609
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,014
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,841
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (54,827)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (54,827)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (54,827)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Erick Alan Ponce DE LEON-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50080 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Erick Alan Ponce De Leon-Chavez, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Erick Alan Ponce De Leon-Chavez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ponce De Leon-Chavez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1038 CA 12-00609**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ.

HAMILTON EQUITY GROUP, LLC, AS ASSIGNEE OF HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

JUAN E. IRENE, PLLC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND JUAN E. IRENE, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS THE LAW OFFICE OF JUAN E. IRENE, ESQ., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

HARRIS BEACH PLLC, BUFFALO (RICHARD T. SULLIVAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

RUPP, BAASE, PFALZGRAF, CUNNINGHAM & COPPOLA LLC, BUFFALO (CHARLES D.J. CASE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A. Michalek, J.), entered May 31, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment against defendant Juan E. Irene, individually and doing business as The Law Office of Juan E. Irene, Esq., in the amount of $124,984.37, plus interest, costs, disbursements and attorneys’ fees.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy , 140 AD2d 988; Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts , 63 AD2d 566, 567; see also 5501 [a] [1]).

Entered: December 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### James CATO, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. A. DUMONT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16447

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

FILED OCTOBER 4, 2017

James Cato, Jr., Corcoran, CA, pro se.

Suzanne Antley, John Paul Walters, II, Esquire, AGCA—Office of the Attorney General (San Diego), San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM *

California state prisoner James Cato, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of his placement in administrative segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s legal rulings on exhaustion and for clear error the district court’s findings on disputed issues of material fact relevant to exhaustion. *Albino v. Baca,*747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err by finding that Cato’s grievance was untimely and that Cato did receive a response to his grievance but failed to exhaust his administrative remedies to the highest level. *See id.*at 1170-71 (“[Disputed factual questions relevant to exhaustion should be decided by the judge, in the same manner a judge rather than a jury decides disputed factual questions relevant to jurisdiction and venue.”). Thus, the district court properly granted summary judgment because Cato failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted administrative remedies or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. *See Ross v. Blake,*— U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858-60, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative remedies are unavailable); *Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“[Pjroper exhaustion of administrative remedies ... means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” (cita*381tion, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Subsidiaries of Registrant

Dover Aggregates, Inc., a Delaware corporation doing business as BlowOut Video.

Pro Image Inc., a Utah Corporation doing business as Pro Image and Team Spirit

Streamlined Solutions, Inc., an Oregon corporation doing business as 
Streamlined Solutions, Inc. and Streamlined Informations Systems.

BlowOut Video, Inc., an Oregon corporation, doing business as BlowOut Video.

Mortco, Inc., an Oregon corporation.

Attitude 2 Travel, Inc., an Oregon corporation.

RTK Kelly Limited a foreign corporation.

PDF, Inc., an Oregon corporation.
#### In the Matter of Alfonso Rizzuto, Appellant, v Ronald J. Murphy, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 905]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Benza, J.), entered March 27, 2002 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After being charged with violating three prison disciplinary rules following a search of petitioner and his cell, petitioner was ultimately found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits the possession of contraband based upon petitioner’s possession of a list identifying correction officers’ names and two-way radio numbers. Thereafter, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

Initially, we note that inasmuch as the petition raised an issue of substantial evidence, the proceeding should have been *802transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g). In any event, we shall treat the matter as properly transferred and decide the issue de novo *(see Matter of Morales v Selsky,*281 AD2d 658 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 713 [2001]). Turning to the merits, we reject petitioner’s contention that there is insufficient evidence to support the determination of guilt. The misbehavior report written by the correction officer who discovered the list of correction facility staff and two-way radio communication numbers in petitioner’s possession provides substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Foster v Coughlin,*76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990]). Although petitioner claimed that the list was planted on him in retaliation for numerous grievances he had filed against the correction facility staff, he declined to call any witnesses and the Hearing Officer was free to credit the version of events charged in the misbehavior report *(see Matter of Perez v Wilmot,*67 NY2d 615, 617 [1986]; *Matter of Melluzzo v Goord,*250 AD2d 893, 894 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 814 [1998]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Original Filename

King County 300 acre site 3 Jan 2008 PLC data.xls

King County 300 Acre Site 1 Data Dec-2007.xls

King County 300 acre site 1 Jan 2008 data.xls

King County 300 Acre site 3 December 2007 PLC data.xls

King County 300 Acre Site 2 Dec 2007 data.xls

King County 300 acre site 2 Jan 2008 PLC data.xls
New Filename Date Systems

System 1

System 2

System 1

System 2

System 3

System 4

System 5

System 1

System 2

System 3

System 4

System 5

System 1

System 2

System 3

System 4

System 1

System 2

System 3

System 4

M Pond Jan 2008.xls Jan-08 System 1

Dec-07

Jan-08

F Pond Dec 2007.xls

CDG Pond Jan 2008.xls

Dec-07

Jan-08

Dec-07

CDG Pond Dec 2007.xls

South Pond Jan 2008.xls

South Pond Dec 2007.xls
Corresponding Pond

M Pond

South Pond

South Pond

F Pond

CDG Ponds

CDG Ponds
#### AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY *v.*GROVER.

Appeal from Oakland, Roberts (Farrell E.), J.

Submitted Division 2 October 9, 1968, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 4,521.)

Decided October 22, 1968.

Complaint by Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, a foreign corporation, subrogee of Joseph L. Vallely, against Rodney David Grover for injuries sustained by horse owned by plaintiff’s subrogor. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*John K. Irwin, Jr., for*plaintiff.

*Herbert W. Gordon,*for defendants.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff recovered a judgment in this nonjury negligence action. On appeal, defendant contends the evidence established plaintiff to be contributorily negligent. The trial judge found otherwise, and the record fails to establish that such finding was clearly erroneous. GCR 1963, 517.1.

Affirmed with costs to plaintiff.

Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and Vandeb Wal, JJ., concurred.
From: LeAnn Johnson [mailto:leyjohnson@cox.net] 

Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:06 AM

To: EAS (OST)

Subject: Docket DOS-OST-1997-2935

I am writing to support SeaPort Airlines to continue serving Harrison, Arkansas. I am disabled and can't 

drive long distances, and my grandchildren live in Overland Park, Kansas. I fly to Kansas City as often as 

possible to visit. The other airlines who have applied won't go there.

SeaPort is a perfect fit for our town.

Thank you,

LeAnn Johnson

Harrison, Arkansas

Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give 

up. Galatians 6:9.