alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SCOTTRADE, INC., Plaintiff, and Kristine Davenport, Defendant-cross-defendant-Appellant, v. Patricia FALLER; Arnold Faller; Shane M. LeFeber, Defendants-cross-claimants-Appellees.

No. 15-35355

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 6, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed April 17, 2017

Kristine Davenport, Pro Se

Jon G. Beal, Attorney, Beal Law Firm, PLLC, Missoula, MT, for Defendants-cross-claimants-Appellees Patricia Faller, Arnold Faller

Jeffery J. Oven, Attorney, Michael Ten-nant, Attorney, Crowley Fleck PLLP, Billings, MT, for Defendant-cross-claimant-Appellee Shane M.-LeFeber

Before: KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,** District Judge,

*

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

**

 The Honorable Frederic Block, United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

1. We previously remanded this case to the district court for it to determine only ■ the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs to be awarded to LeFeber and the Fallers. Under the rule of mandate, the district court lacked authority to consider Davenport’s other arguments. See United States v. Thrasher, 483 F.3d 977, 981-82 (9th Cir. 2007). Davenport repeats these other arguments to us, but we have already decided these issues. Our prior rulings constitute the law of the case. Id.; Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 790 F.2d 769, 774-75 (9th Cir. 1986). We consider only Davenport’s arguments about the reasonableness of the fees and costs awards.

“The party opposing the fee application has a burden of rebuttal that requires submission of evidence to the district court challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged or the facts asserted by the prevailing party in its submitted affidavits.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397-98 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). The parties seeking fees and costs supported their requests with experts, affidavits and detailed timekeeping reports. Davenport failed to show the rates were unreasonable, the tasks performed were duplicative or excessive, or the district court otherwise abused its discretion. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s fees and costs awards.

2. Davenport’s appeal is not frivolous because she challenged the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees awards. Therefore, LeFeber’s Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 motion (dkt. no. 13) is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.

***

 disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan GUEST, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-13065 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(April 24, 2017)

R. Brian Tanner, Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., Brian T. Rafferty, Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

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

PER CURIAM:

David McCrea, appointed counsel for Alan Guest in this direct criminal appeal, has 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 Guest’s conviction and sentence is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 1997
FIRST QUARYTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,797
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             872
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    362,557
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        232,223
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,113
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 670,342
<DEPOSITS>                                     455,348
<SHORT-TERM>                                    78,023
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,248
<LONG-TERM>                                     14,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 670,342
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,722
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,893
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,426
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,459
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 967
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,189
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       75
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,936
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,936
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,857
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.41
<LOANS-NON>                                        814
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,031
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,113
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,113
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo MACIEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10571 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 3, 2017)

Evelio Jesus Yera, U.S. Attorney’s Office, West Palm Beach, FL, Roy K. Altman, Wifredo A. Ferrer, William C. Healy, Andrea G. Hoffman, Emily M. Smachetti, Evelio Jesus Yera, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ricardo Maciel, Pro Se

*764Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ricardo Maciel appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Maciel claims that he is entitled to relief based on Amendment 801 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We disagree. Section 3582(c)(2) allows relief only in accordance with the policy statements of the Sentencing Commission. And the Commission’s policy statement, which is codified at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, allows for sentence reductions based only on amendments to the guidelines that are specifically listed in § 1B1.10(d). Because Amendment 801 is not listed there, Maciel is not entitled to relief.'

AFFIRMED.
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Meeting Documentation Date Staff Contact 

Information (Name, email, phone #) 

Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.) 

Written CommeProvidedDid they submit tDocket? 

6/14/10 Email Correspondence 

Caroline Cochran, ICF International, ccochran@icfi.com 202-862-1143 on behalf of EPA under Contract EPW-07-068, Task Order 68 

Mike Jeffs ISOPA mike.jeffs10@googlemail.com 

1. Could you provide any insight on the 

magnitude of imports vs. exports in the U.S.? (e.g., imports 2x greater than exports?) 

There is a lot of manufacturing of domestic refrigerators and freezers in Mexico for import into the US. Manufacturers such as GE and Whirlpool have facilities in Mexico. Some use pentane-based foam technology. I believe that the local Mexican producer Mabe also exports to the US. Some units may be re-exported to Canada or be delivered there directly ex Mexico. Some large refrigerators are exported to the EU, although this is probably a small number. I would guess that in this product area that imports exceed export by about 5:1 Trade in building products such as sandwich panels is probably limited to a low level from Mexican producers in Monterray to the Southern 

US. 

 2. Regarding packaging foam: could you provide any insight on the types of foams that are typically used for packaging and whether these foams are open- or closed-cell? We know that Polyolefin and XPS foams can both be used for packaging, and that both of these are closed-cell foams; 

N/A 
however, a commenter on the proposed rule 

mentioned that some packaging foams are open-cell, and we’d like to confirm this statement. 

Regarding packaging foams - this is a broad field - There are uses of flexible open celled foam for packaging of high value goods (electronics, etc.). Rigid PU foams are also injected around articles (including armaments) and high closed cell contents is not necessary.
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 on Form 10-K of Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended April
30, 2021, as amended, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,
Philipp Stratmann, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|(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 the Company.



|/s/ Philipp Stratmann                 | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|Philipp Stratmann                     | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|                                      | 
|Date: January 24, 2022                | 



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Samuel Bailey, Executor, Appellant, *versus*Josiah Blanchard.

An executor is bound to make oath to the truth and correctness of his accounts, and to answer such specific interrogatories as may be put to him by the adverse party touching the subject matter of the accounts 5 but he cannot be admitted, upon his own motion, as a competent witness generally to his accounts and to the items and particulars of them, except to support small charges not exceeding forty shillings.

*Nov. 5th.*

*Per Curiam.*

This was an appeal from the judge of probate ; the executor’s accounts had been referred to an auditor, and several questions arose upon the auditor’s report.

One question was, whether before the auditor, the executor could offer himself as a witness generally to his accounts and to the items and particulars of them. The Court are of opm*171¡on, that he could not be considered as a competent witness before the auditor. Like other accountants, he is bound to account on oath, that is, to make oath to the truth and correctness of his account. And he is also bound to answer all such specific interrogatories as may be put to him by the other party, touching the subject matter of the account; and the other party is at liberty to read his answers in evidence, or not; but if he does offer them, the accountant is entitled to have the whole read and taken together. This decision however is not to interfere with a rule established by long usage in the probate courts, to allow executors and other accountants to support small cash charges, not exceeding forty shillings, by their own oath ; nor will it affect the rule of evidence, established by the ancient usage of this State, to allow a party, in certain cases, to offer his own books of entry in evidence, supported by his suppletory oath.

For the purpose of explaining a particular item the report is recommitted.

*Sampson*for the appellant.

*Kingsbury*for the appellee.
Table of Contents

Exhibit 32.2

iDNA, INC.CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934AND 18 U.S.C. (SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of iDNA, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the ‘‘Registrant’’), in connection with the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), do hereby represent, warrant and certify, in compliance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C Sections 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 the Registrant.

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--------|
| /s/ Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.                                     |  |  |   |
| Name: Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.Title: Chief Financial Officer(principal accounting and financial officer)                                                                                                                                             |  |  |   |
| Date: September 18, 2007                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |  |  |   |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to iDNA, Inc. and will be retained by iDNA, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

43

----
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04310]


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

FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSURANCE CORPORATION


Board of Directors Meeting

SUMMARY: Notice of the forthcoming regular meeting of the Board of 
Directors of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC), is 
hereby given in accordance with the provisions of Article VI of the 
Bylaws of the FCSIC.

DATES: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 9, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the current operating 
status of the FCSIC, the public may only virtually observe the open 
portions of this meeting. If you would like to virtually observe, at 
least 24 hours in advance, visit FCSIC.gov, select ``News & Events,'' 
and then select ``Board Meetings.'' From there, access the linked 
``Instructions for board meeting visitors'' and complete the described 
registration process.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you need more information or 
assistance for accessibility reasons, or if you have questions, contact 
Ashley Waldron, Secretary to the Board. Telephone: 703-883-4009. TTY: 
703-883-4056.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Status: Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest 
of the meeting will be closed to the public.
    Matters To Be Considered:

Portions Open to the Public

<bullet> Approval of January 27, 2022, Minutes
<bullet> Quarterly FCSIC Financial Reports
<bullet> Quarterly Report on Insured Obligations
<bullet> Quarterly Report on Annual Performance Plan
<bullet> Annual Report on Investment Portfolio
<bullet> Presentation of 2021 Audit Results

Portions Closed to the Public

<bullet> Quarterly Report on Insurance Risk
<bullet> Executive Session of the FCSIC Board Audit Committee with the 
External Auditor

Ashley Waldron,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-04310 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
#### In the Matter of the Application of Daphne Hellman, Appellant, for an Order Awarding Her the Custody of Alexander Bull, an Infant. Harry Bull, Respondent-Appellant.

Argued November 22, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*793I. *Maurice Wormser, René A. Wormser*and *Michael J. Kiely, Jr.,*for petitioner-appellant.

*George W. Whiteside, Dwight R. Collin*and *Henry A. Bull*for1 respondent-appellant.

. Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lotjghban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 606 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.606

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen

                                 An Act

 
     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain 
  compensation received by public safety officers and their dependents 
                           from gross income.

    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 ``Don't Tax Our Fallen Public Safety 
Heroes Act''.
SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY PUBLIC SAFETY 
OFFICERS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS.
    Subsection (a) of section 104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4), by striking 
the period at the end of paragraph (5) and inserting ``; and'', and by 
inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
        ``(6) amounts received pursuant to--
            ``(A) section 1201 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
        Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796); or
            ``(B) a program established under the laws of any State 
        which provides monetary compensation for surviving dependents 
        of a public safety officer who has died as the direct and 
        proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of 
        duty,
    except that subparagraph (B) shall not apply to any amounts that 
    would have been payable if death of the public safety officer had 
    occurred other than as the direct and proximate result of a 
    personal injury sustained in the line of duty.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATA COMPLETENESS REPORT Sep. 12, 2012 Report Request ID: 1018569 Report Code: AMP430

Selection Criteria Page 1 User ID:KHO

State County City

Site Parameter POC AQCR UAR CBSA CSA EPA Region Method Duration Begin Date End Date 06 06 101

115 GEOGRAPHIC SELECTIONS

PROTOCOL SELECTIONS Parameter Classification Parameter Method Duration CRITERIA 88101

SELECTED OPTIONS

OZONE EVALUATION AGENCY ROLE MERGE PDF FILES Option Type Option Value SEASONAL-HOURLY REPORTING YES SORT ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Order Column

EPA_REGION STATE_CODE MONITOR_TYPE COUNTY_CODE SITE_ID PARAMETER_CODE POC GLOBAL DATES

2012 Start Date End Date 2012 01 12 Tribal CodeSep. 12, 2012 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM DATA COMPLETENESS REPORT



### Page 1 of 3 MONITORS NOT REPORTINGSep. 12, 2012 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM DATA COMPLETENESS REPORT



### Page 2 of 3 DATE RANGE: REGION:(09) SAN FRANCISCO

California MONITOR TYPE: California Air Resources Board SLAMS JAN. 01, 2012 DEC. 31, 2012

THRU

SITE ID CITY ADDRESS PARAMETER POCDURATION METHOD ------------------------------- OBSERVATIONS ------------------------------- NUMBER / PERCENT
06-101-0003 88101PM2.5 - Local Conditions 1 7 Yuba City 773 ALMOND ST, YUBA CITY 118 28 90% 29 100% 31 100% 30 100% 27

87% 30 100% 175 48% MONITORS REPORTING

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR STATE: REP ORG:Sep. 12, 2012 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM DATA COMPLETENESS REPORT



### Page 3 of 3 DATE RANGE: REGION:(09) SAN FRANCISCO

California
MONITOR TYPE:

California Air Resources Board SLAMS JAN. 01, 2012 DEC. 31, 2012

THRU

PARAMETER ACTIVE MONITORS # NOT REPORTING # MONITORS > 75% MONITORS AVG COMPLETENESS 88101 PM2.5 - Local Conditions 1 0 0 48.0% 1 0 0 48.0% 1 0 0 48.0% 1 0 0 48.0% 1 0 0 48.0% 1 0 0 48.0% California Air Resources Board California REGION SUMMARY:(09) SAN FRANCISCO REPORT SUMMARY: MT SUMMARY:SLAMS REPORT SUMMARY

STATE:

STATE SUMMARY: REP ORG:

RO SUMMARY:
April 26 , 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TEX

- FIN, INC. , AND TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION , Appellant s
NO. 14

- 15

- 00267

- CV V.

GUSTAVO E. DUCHARNE , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the final summary judgment in favor of appell ee Gustavo E. Ducharne, signed January 25, 2015, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error

. We therefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED with regard to the portion of the judgment remanding the case to the TWC for further proceedings to determine the amount of wages due to Ducharne. We order the remainder of the judgment AFFIRMED and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with our opinion

. We further order that appellant Tex

- Fin, Inc. , shall pay costs by reason of this appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for o bservance.