alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INTEGRATED RISK ASSESSMENT IN 

SUPPORT OF MCAN J-10-2 

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0994 

JANUARY 31 2012 

EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
EPA SANITIZED
#### Myra YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOT SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT; Larry Patrick, Special Operations Supervisor, Hot Springs Police Department; Scotty Dodd, Police Officer, Hot Springs Police Department; 18th Judicial District East Drug Task Force; Garland County Prosecutor’s Officer; Theresa Harris, “Terri”, Garland County Prosecutor; The Hot Springs Sentinel Record, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-3815

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 6, 2017

Filed: September 11, 2017

Myra Young, Pro Se

*470John Lennon Wilkerson, Arkansas Municipal League, North Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees Hot Springs Police Department, Larry Patrick

Delena C. Hurst, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Ap-pellees Scotty Dodd, 18th Judicial District East Drug Task Force, Garland County Prosecutor’s Officer, Theresa Harris

Robert Alexander Gaines, Williams *&*Anderson, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee The Hot Springs Sentinel Record

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Myra Young appeals the district court’s1 dismissal without prejudice of her action against state and local government officials and agencies, as well as a newspaper, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. After carefully reviewing the record and the briefs, we find no error warranting reversal. The judgment is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Willowbridge Strategic Trust
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>          
<CIK>               0001005006
<NAME>              Willowbridge Strategic Trust
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1998

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1998

<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1998

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos

<CASH>                          36,935,868

<SECURITIES>                    668,840

<RECEIVABLES>                   25,503

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                37,630,211

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  37,630,211

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,283,959

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      36,346,252

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    37,630,211

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                (7,040,392)

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,538,800

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (9,579,192)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (19.86)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   (19.86)

</TABLE>
[Civ. No. 2195.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

November 4, 1919.]

#### J. C. HOFFMAN, Respondent, v. E. R. GURNSEY, Appellant.

[1] Accounting—Conflicting Evidence—Finding—Appeal.—Where in an action for an accounting the evidence is conflicting as to what the contract between the parties was, the finding of the trial court, based on plaintiff’s version, is conclusive on appeal.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Grant Jackson, Judge.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

John E. Daly and James H. Daly for Appellant.

Eugene C. Campbell for Respondent.

THOMAS, J.

This is an action for an accounting, and for judgment in the sum of $1,669.34. Judgment went in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $1,589.37. There was a motion for new trial which was denied. The appeal is from the order denying said motion and from the judgment so entered.

Appellant urges two points in support of his appeal: (1) Insufficiency of the evidence to support finding 1, “that the contract between the parties was that set out in paragraph 1 of the complaint”; and (2) that the judgment is in excess of that justified by the evidence. Neither of these points, we think, is well taken.

[1] First of all, there was conflict in the evidence as to what the contract between the parties was. The court accepted plaintiff’s version. That question, therefore, is settled, so far as this court is concerned. *(Bradley*v. *Davis,*156 Cal. 267, [104 Pac. 302]; *Knox*v. *Moses,*104 Cal. 502, [38 Pac. 318]; *Brown*v. *Campbell,*100 Cal. 635, [38 Am. St. Rep. 314, 35 Pac. 433].) According to the agreement under which the parties hereto worked together, plaintiff was to find a customer and defendant was to furnish the listings, the office, and the machine, and give plaintiff half of the profits made on the customers he brought in. That the plaintiff *99brought in four customers, as alleged in the complaint, is true. That defendant did not carry out his part of the agreement, but concealed the facts as to what the profits actually were— notably so in the cases of the Barbour and Eberle transactions—is equally true. There is, we think, ample evidence to support the finding attacked.

This brings us to a consideration of the second point urged. This, in effect, is an attack on the third finding made by the court, wherein the court finds that in the Barbour-Hill deal the gross profit was six thousand dollars, that the gross expenses on same were $1,567.34, that the net profits were $4,232.66, and that plaintiff had received no more than $716.33 on that account. We think no good purpose can he served by a verbose statement of the facts or by setting out here lengthy quotations from the evidence to support our conclusion, and refrain from so doing. The judgment is amply supported by the findings, which, in turn, are supported by the evidence, and is, therefore, not excessive.

Judgment affirmed.

Einlayson, P. J., and Sloane, J., concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
     THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
3/29/97 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
THE THREE  MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                  1000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-26-1998
<CASH>                                                      58,078
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               22,149
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   309
<INVENTORY>                                                  5,955
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           104,456
<PP&E>                                                      12,798
<DEPRECIATION>                                               6,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             126,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       31,584
<BONDS>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                       289
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  94,041
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               126,142
<SALES>                                                     15,829
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            15,829
<CGS>                                                        3,611
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                3,611
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            10,705
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              1,665
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   583
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          1,082
<DISCONTINUED>                                              22,624
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                23,706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 0.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0.78
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Douglas LATKA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50044

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 7, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed August 18, 2017

L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Christopher Copeland Kendall, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Cassie D. Palmer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Benjamin Lee Coleman, Coleman & Bal-ogh LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

1.Latka’s indictment was sufficient because “it contained] the elements of the charged crime in adequate detail to inform [him] of the charge, and ... enablefd] him to plead double jeopardy.” See United States v. Morlan, 756 F.2d 1442, 1444 (9th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted).

Further, the indictment wasn’t “constructively amended, which] occurs when the defendant is charged with one crime but, in effect, is tried for another crime.” United States v. Mancuso, 718 F.3d 780, 792 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted); see also Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 214-15, 80 S.Ct. 270, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960) (holding that an indictment for moving sand was impermissibly amended when the conviction was for moving steel); United States v. Choy, 309 F.3d 602, 607-08 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that an indictment for bribing a public official was impermissibly amended when the conviction was for giving money to a private individual).

“The continuous nature of [Latka’s offense] prevents the indictment from being duplicitous.” Mancuso, 718 F.3d at 792 (citation omitted). The trial court’s unanimity instruction also remedied any possible duplicity. See United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 273 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2007).

2. The district court didn’t violate Lat-ka’s right to confront Ellsworth because the excluded evidence wasn’t relevant and the jury had “sufficient information to assess [Ellsworth’s] ... credibility[.]” United States v. Cazares, 788 F.3d 956, 983-84 (9th Cir. 2015).

3. A district court may, for good cause, remove “any jurors who are unable to perform or who are disqualified from performing their duties.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(c)(1); see Williams v. Cavazos, 646 F.3d 626, 652 (9th Cir. 2011), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 133 S.Ct. 1088, 185 L.Ed.2d 105 (2013). The district court didn’t abuse its *288discretion because it had good cause to remove Juror 9.

4. There being no individual errors, Lat-ka’s cumulative error claim fails.

AFFIRMED

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11494-11495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04229]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 06/06-0349]


Main Street Capital III, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under 
Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Main Street Capital III, L.P., 1300 
Post Oak Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77056, a Federal Licensee under 
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (the ``Act''), in 
connection with a financing involving small concern NuStep, LLC located 
at 511 Venture Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, provided notice of this 
transaction to the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') pursuant to 
the Regulations found at 13 CFR 107. The financing is brought within 
the purview of 13 CFR 107.730--Financings which constitute conflicts of 
interests, of the Regulations because NuStep, LLC is an Associate of 
Main Street Capital III, L.P. because Associate Main Street Equity 
Investment, Inc. owns a greater than ten percent interest in the 
NuStep, LLC.
    This financing is pursuant to Sec.  107.730 (f) of the Regulations 
because Main Street Capital III, L.P.'s parent corporation, Main Street 
Capital Corporation, is registered under the Investment Company Act of 
1940 and received an exemption from the Securities and Exchange 
Commission for the transaction.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction within fifteen days of the date of 
this publication, to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment 
and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street 
SW, Washington, DC 20416.


[[Page 11495]]


U.S. Small Business Administration.
Bailey DeVries,
Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2022-04229 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6225 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6225

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for a 
housing loan guaranteed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to certain 
          individuals who performed active duty for training.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 3, 2023

  Mr. Ryan (for himself and Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for a 
housing loan guaranteed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to certain 
          individuals who performed active duty for training.

    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 ``Expanding Home Loans for Guard and 
Reservists Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR HOUSING LOANS GUARANTEED BY 
              SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) Eligibility Expansion.--Section 3701(b) of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraphs:
            ``(8) The term `veteran' also includes, for the purposes of 
        home loans, an individual who performed active duty for 
        training for a period of not less than 30 consecutive days.
            ``(9) The term `active duty for training' has the meaning 
        given such term in section 101 of this title, but does not 
        include basic training (as such term is used in sections 7419, 
        8431, and 9419 of title 10).''.
    (b) Entitlement to Housing Loan.--Section 3702(a)(2) of such title 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(H) Each individual described in section 3701(b)(8) of 
        this title.''.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk June 25, 2012

h0618 

# Order

June 25, 2012

144543

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144543

COA: 303886

Saginaw CC: 09

- 032995

- FC;

OSCAR AGUSTUS WILLIAMS, 09

- 032996

- FC

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 4, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Esther Serlin, Appellant, *v.*City of New York, Respondent.

Argued June 15, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*597
      *Louis L. Friedman*and *Irving D. Josefsberg*for appellant.

*Robert H. Schaffer, Acting Corporation Counsel (Joseph F. Mulgueen, Jr.,*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, without costs; Ho opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thacher, J.
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 Asian Financial, Inc. on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, the undersigned officers of
Asian Financial, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant
to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our
knowledge:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Asian Financial,
Inc.




September
14, 2009




By:
                  /s/ Christopher Patrick HolbertChristopher Patrick HolbertChief Executive OfficerBy:
                  /s/ William D. SuhWilliam D. SuhChief Financial
Officer
#### New York Telephone Company, Appellant, *v.*New York City Tunnel Authority, Respondent.

Argued November 22, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*767
      *Irving W. Young, Carl M. Abromeit, Earle M. Simonson, Hugh N. Wells*and *Charles T. Bussell*for appellant.

*Ignatius M. Wilkinson, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*and *Alfred D. Jahr*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. See *Matter of Young*v. *Kracke*(262 App. Div. 67, affd. 287 N. Y. 634, reargument denied, 287 N. Y. 754); *Bachmann*v. *New York City Tunnel Authority*(263 App. Div. 945, appeal dismissed, 288 N. Y. 707).

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thacher, J.
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------



                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                                 --------------

      I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


               1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on
                    Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
                    covered by this report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan
                    Trust 2006-36T2 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

               2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,
                    taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing
                    and other information required to be provided under Form
                    10-D for the period covered by this report is included in
                    the Exchange Act periodic reports;

               4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by
                    the servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance
                    review(s) conducted in preparing the servicer compliance
                    statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of
                    Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
                    periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their
                    obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material
                    respects; and

               5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with
                    servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their
                    related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with
                    servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
                    be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of
                    Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
                    been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
                    otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
                    of noncompliance described in such reports have been
                    disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

               In giving the  certifications  above, I have reasonably relied on
               information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
               The Bank of New York, as Trustee.

               Date: March 27, 2007


             /s/ Steve Bailey
             ---------------------------
             Steve Bailey
             Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration