alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mary Brickner, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, *v.*The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Argued December 20, 1871;

decided May 28, 1872.)

This action is similar to and was decided upon the authority of *Laming*v. *N. Y. C. R. R. (ante,*p. 521.) The case reported below, 2 Lansing, 506.

*Samuel Hcmd*for the appellant.

*Isaac Lawson*for the respondent.

Folger, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur, except Allen, J., dissenting, and Rapallo, J., not voting.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David BARRERA-VALDIVIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50070

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 20, 2017

Karla Davis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kristi A. Hughes, Bridget Lynn Kennedy, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Federal De*488fenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

David Barrera-Valdivia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Barrera-Valdivia contends that the district court erred by failing to consider the factors enumerated in the commentary to the minor role Guideline, *see*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), and explain why he was not entitled to a minor role adjustment under those factors. The record reflects that the court considered Barrera-Valdivia’s sentencing arguments concerning the five Guideline factors, and asked questions regarding those arguments. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the court considered the Guideline factors and their application to this case. *See United States v.*Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir, 2008). Moreover, the court’s reasons for denying a minor role adjustment are apparent from the record. *See Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: May 9, 2005 |  | /s/ Michael A. Baker                 
|                   |  | Michael A. Baker                     
|                   |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of the written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



28
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350 and in connection with the accompanying report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 that contains financial
statements for such period and that is being filed concurrently with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
the undersigned officers of Perficient, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies
that:




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




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




Date: March
      5, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      John T. McDonaldJohn
      T. McDonaldChief
      Executive Officer




Date: March
      5, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      Paul E. MartinPaul
      E. MartinChief
      Financial
Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03594]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 9399]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0036]
RIN 1904-AD35

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy 
Conservation Standards for Hearth Products; Correction

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public 
meeting; Correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the DATES section to a notice of 
proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting which published 
in the Federal Register on February 9, 2015, regarding Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation 
Standards for Hearth Products. The day of the week for the March 23, 
2015 meeting is being corrected.

DATES: February 23, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email: 
john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov

Correction

    In the Federal Register published on February 9, 2015, in FR Doc. 
2015-02179, the following correction should be made:
    On page 7082, the first sentence of the DATES section is corrected 
to read:
    Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting on Monday, March 23, 2015, 
from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., in Washington, DC.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 12, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015-03594 Filed 2-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
#### Charles V. SCHNEIDER Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Respondent Charles V. Schneider Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent

No. 16-4122, No. 16-4125

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 30, 2017

Filed: September 12, 2017

Charles Schneider, Pro Se

Thomas J. Clark, Gilbert Steven Roth-enberg, Senior Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Randolph Lyons Hutter, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William Wilkins, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Charles Schneider appeals two decisions of the tax court,1 which granted summary judgment in favor .of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, upheld the assessments set forth in the Commissioner’s notices of deficiency for tax years 2010 and 2011, and assessed penalties against Schneider for asserting a frivolous position. The Commissioner has moved for sanctions on appeal.

Following a careful de novo review, see Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing record in light most favorable to non-movant), we conclude that the Commissioner’s determination was correct, for the reasons explained by the tax court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Finally, the court may award “just damages” and single or double costs if we determine that an appeal is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1912; Fed. R. App. P. 38. In this case, sanctions are appropriate. See United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (this court has rejected, on numerous occasions, tax-protestor argument that federal income tax is unconstitutional direct tax that must be apportioned; granting government’s motion for sanctions for frivolous appeal).

The judgment is affirmed, and we grant the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $6,000.

1

. The Honorable Richard T. Morrison, United States Tax Court Judge.
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

 

----

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

     In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F/A of Wavecom SA (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chantal Bourgeat, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of his knowledge and belief: 

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

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

Dated:  February 28, 2005

|   |   | /s/ CHANTAL BOURGEAT                              |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Chantal BourgeatChief Financial OfficerWavecom SA |

 

----
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KIRSHA BROWN-YOUNGER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

PRECISION OPINION,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-17299

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00392-PMPPAL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 9, 2012** 

Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Kirsha Brown-Younger appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in her employment action alleging disability discrimination in violation

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and failure to pay overtime wages

FILED

OCT 16 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-17299

in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Dietrich v. John Ascuaga’s Nugget, 548

F.3d 892, 896 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown-Younger’s

disability discrimination claim because Brown-Younger failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact as to whether she suffers from a disability and whether she

was subjected to an adverse employment action because of her alleged disability. 

See Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 164 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 1999)

(discussing the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA);

see also Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Because

[Plaintiff] failed to present any evidence in opposition to Appellees’ motion for

summary judgment, she has failed to demonstrate that there are any genuine issues

of material facts in dispute.”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown-Younger’s

FLSA claim because Brown-Younger failed to raise a genuine dispute of material

fact as to whether she was denied overtime pay to which she was entitled. See 29

U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) (requiring covered employers to pay employees one and onehalf wages for hours exceeding 40 hours in a work week); Bias, 508 F.3d at 1219.
3 11-17299

Brown-Younger’s remaining contentions that the grant of summary

judgment deprived her of her right to a jury trial, that the Nevada Department of

the Labor Commissioner ordered Precision Opinion to pay Brown-Younger for

overtime wages and penalties, and that Precision Opinion’s counsel engaged in

misconduct are unpersuasive.

Brown-Younger’s request for an extension of time to submit paper copies of

her brief is denied as unnecessary because only Precision Opinion was ordered to

file the paper copies referenced in Brown-Younger’s request.

Brown-Younger’s motion for a stay of proceedings is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Depomed, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Tammy L. Cameron, Interim Principal Accounting and Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | Date: May 5,  2009                             |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                |
|   |                                                |
|   | /s/ Tammy L.  Cameron                               |
|   | Tammy L. Cameron                                    |
|   | Interim  Principal Accounting and Financial Officer |

 

----
# Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali C 34/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0987
  doi:10.3000/19770987.C_2014.034.mlt |
| --- | --- |
| Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali
  tal-Unjoni Ewropea | C 34 |
| | |
| Edizzjoni bil-Malti | Informazzjoni u Avviżi | Volum 575 ta' Frar 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0987

doi:10.3000/19770987.C_2014.034.mlt

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali

tal-Unjoni Ewropea

C 34

Edizzjoni bil-Malti

Informazzjoni u Avviżi

Volum 575 ta' Frar 2014

---

| Avviż Nru | Werrej | Paġna |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avviżi |
| | PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI |
| | Il-Parlament Ewropew |
| 2014/C 034/01 | Deċiżjoni | 1 |

Avviż Nru

Werrej

Paġna

V   Avviżi

PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI

Il-Parlament Ewropew

2014/C 034/01

Deċiżjoni

1

| MT | |
| --- | --- |

MT

---

V Avviżi

PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI

Il-Parlament Ewropew

| 5.2.2014 | MT | Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea | C 34/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2014

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

C 34/1

---

DEĊIŻJONI

2014/C 34/01

IS-SEGRETARJU ĠENERALI TAL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW,

Wara li kkunsidra r-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KEE, Euratom, KEFA) Nru 259/68 (1), emendat bir-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE, Euratom) Nru 723/2004 (2) u fl-aħħar nett bir-Regolament (UE, Euratom) Nru 1080/2010 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tal-24 ta' Novembru 2010 li jemenda r-Regolamenti tal-Persunal għall-Uffiċjali tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej u l-Kondizzjonijiet tal-Impjieg applikabbli għall-Aġenti l-Oħra ta' dawk il-Komunitajiet (3) u partikolarment l-Artikolu 30 ta' dawn ir-Regolamenti tal-Persunal,

Wara li kkunsidra d-deċiżjoni tal-Bureau tat-3 ta' Mejju 2004 rigward id-delega tas-setgħat tal-Awtorità tal-Ħatra (AIPN) u tal-awtorità mogħtija s-setgħa li tikkonkludi l-kuntratti tal-impjieg (AECE), kif emendata l-aħħar mill-Bureau fl-4 ta' Mejju 2009,

Wara li kkunsidra d-data ta' skadenza, il-31 ta' Diċembru 2013, tal-listi ta' riżerva tal-Parlament Ewropew li ġejjin:

PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, AST/5/08, PE/119/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S, PE/121/S,

Billi l-Kumitat Konġunt intalab jagħti l-opinjoni tiegħu f'perjodu ta' 15-il ġurnata ta' xogħol skont l-Artikolu 10a tar-Regolamenti tal-Persunal,

IDDEĊIEDA:

Artikolu 1

Il-perjodu ta' validità tal-listi ta' riżerva:

AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S u PE/121/S,

se jiġġedded sal-31 ta' Diċembru 2014.

Artikolu 2

Il-perjodu ta' validità tal-listi ta' riżerva:

PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AST/5/08 u PE/119/S,

mhux se jiġġedded.

Il-Lussemburgu, l-20 ta’ Diċembru 2013.

Klaus WELLE

Is-Segretarju Ġenerali

---

(1)  ĠU L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.

1

(2)  ĠU L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.

2

(3)  ĠU L 311, 26.11.2010, p. 1.

3

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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 Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel; COI-K99-Curation.                    

*Date:*                         March 25, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Video Assisted Meeting.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Jan Li, M.D., Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Extramural Programs, National Library of Medicine, NIH, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 500, Bethesda, MD 20892-7968, 301-496-3114,                         *lij21@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 4, 2022.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-02789 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### William BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16678.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 23, 1966.

*842Alva A. Hollon, Hazard, Ky., for appellant.

Florence Wagman Roisman, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kathryn H. Baldwin, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., George I. Cline, U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS and PECK, Circuit Judges, and FOX, District Judge*.

*

 Honorable Noel P. Fox, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a Kentucky coal miner, filed application with the Social Security Administration, seeking a determination that he is entitled to a period of disability and to disability benefits under the Social Security Act.

The Secretary held that none of appellant’s claimed impairments were of such a nature or degree of severity as to have prevented him from returning to his occupation in the coal mines. Senior District Judge H. Church Ford affirmed, ruling that there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the Secretary.

The record contains the testimony of a number of doctors, six of whom expressed the opinion that appellant is not totally and permanently disabled and is physically able to return to his work in the coal mines. Other doctors testified to the contrary.

It is not the function of this court to weigh the evidence. The findings of fact of the Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); King v. Celebrezze, 341 F.2d 108 (C.A.6).

There being substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the Secretary, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.