alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SMITH, Respondent, v. BADEAU, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 15, 1898.)

Action by Edward O. Smith, by guardian, against Henry Badeau.

No opinion.' Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Bennie David GUY, Appellant, v. Ed LAXTON, County Investigator, Crittenden County, AR; Chet Dunlap, Attorney, Poinsette County, Appellees.

No. 11-2676.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 25, 2011.

Filed: Oct. 28, 2011.

Bennie David Guy, Brickeys, AR, pro se.

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Bennie David Guy appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Upon our careful review, we affirm for the reasons provided by the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny as moot Guy’s pending motion for appointment of counsel.

1

. The Honorable D. Price Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

 

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Real Estate Associates Limited VI (the"Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D.Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, andStephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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 Partnership.

 

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Soil Management Research: Morris, MN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Morris, Minnesota Soil Management Research Docs





- Employment at NCSCRL
- Human Resources Division
- Office of Personnel Management - Employment and Benefits
- Download OF-306 (Declaration for Federal Employment)
- Reprints
- Publications by Author
- Publications by Year
- Weather Data

About Usheadline bar North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory (NCSCRL)   Midwest Area    Agricultural Research Service (ARS)      United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Directions to our Laboratory Directions to the Swan Lake Research Farm History of the Laboratory EMS Policy Statement


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:16-CR-43-TLS 

) 

JUAN M. GONZALEZ ) 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 71], filed on October 11, 2017. The Defendant has waived objection 

to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings 

and Recommendation [ECF No. 71] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. 

Subject to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), if applicable and necessary, the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 

One (1) of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such 

offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on October 31, 2017. 

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
# C_2008237EN.01000401.xml

| 16.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5291 — Abenex Capital/Natixis Private Equity/Colbison SAS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 237/07)

On 2 September 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5291. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5291. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
# C_2008111EN.01000801.xml

| 6.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4999 — Heineken/Scottish & Newcastle assets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 111/02)

On 3 April 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4999. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4999. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 22, 2021)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 32629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13207]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 22, 2021 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 32629]]

                Memorandum of June 8, 2021

                
Delegation of Authority Under Section 1217(c) of 
                Public Law 116-283

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
                America, including section 301 of title 3, United 
                States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of 
                State, in coordination with the Director of National 
                Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense, the 
                authority to submit to the Congress the reports 
                required by section 1217(c) of Public Law 116-283 on 
                verification and compliance regarding the ``Agreement 
                for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan Between the Islamic 
                Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the 
                United States as a state and is known as the Taliban 
                and the United States of America.''

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, June 8, 2021

[FR Doc. 2021-13207
Filed 6-21-21; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
**Exhibit 13.02**

 

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Genetic Technologies Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eutillio Buccilli, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| /s/   Eutillio Buccilli  |                      |
|--------------------------|---------------------------|
| Name:                    | Eutillio   Buccilli       |   |
|                     | Chief   Financial Officer |   |
|                     |                      |   |
|                     |                      |   |
| October 29   , 2014 |                      |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

MARKEL INSURANCE COMPLANY, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:16-CV-220-JVB-JPK

)

UNITED EMERGENCY MEDICAL )

SERVICES, LLC, et al., )

Defendants. )

)

)

UNITED EMERGENCY MEDICAL )

SERVICES, LLC, )

Third Party Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

INSURANCE SERVICE CENTER, INC. )

n/k/a ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO., )

Third Party Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Rau’s Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document Re 

Markel Summary Judgment and Rau’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 94) [DE 112], 

filed by Defendant Lilian Rau on January 4, 2019. No response was filed, and the deadline by 

which to do so has passed.

Rau asks for the Court’s leave to file a page from an insurance policy under seal. Rau 

represents that the document contains “commercially sensitive data.” The Court recognizes that 

Rau may not be the party that designated the document as confidential.

Pursuant to Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 5-3, “[n]o document will be maintained 

under seal in the absence of an authorizing statute, Court rule, or Court order.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 5-

3(a). The public pays for the courts and, thus, has an interest in judicial records. Forst v. SmithKline 
2

Beecham Corp., 602 F. Supp. 2d 960, 974 (E.D. Wis. 2009). The general presumption that judicial 

records are public is overridden when “the property and privacy interests of the litigants . . . 

predominate in the particular case.” Citizens First Nat’l Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 

945 (7th Cir. 1999). The agreement of the parties is no substitute for the good cause required for 

sealing a document, as the parties do not adequately represent the public’s interest. Id.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed that “many litigants would like to 

keep confidential the salary they make, the injuries they suffered, or the price they agreed to pay 

under a contract, but when these things are vital to claims made in litigation they must be revealed.” 

Baxter Int’l., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 547 (7th Cir. 2002).

The rationale presented by Rau for the sealing of the document at issue is that it has been 

marked as confidential pursuant to the agreed protective order issued in this case. More 

justification is needed before the Court will authorize sealing the document. This motion is denied, 

but Rau or another party may renew the request in a motion that sets forth a more robust argument 

in support of maintaining the document under seal.

Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES without prejudice Rau’s Motion for Leave to File 

Sealed Document Re Markel Summary Judgment and Rau’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 

(Doc. 94) [DE 112]. If no further request to maintain the document under seal is made by January 

31, 2019, then the Court will have the seal lifted.

So ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2019.

s/ Joshua P. Kolar

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSHUA P. KOLAR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TYRONE W. MILES,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-15633

D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01002-JF

Eastern District of California, 

Fresno

ORDER

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 15, 2012

Submission Vacated February 21, 2012

Resubmitted September 28, 2012

San Francisco, California

Before: HUG, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Having considered the parties’ stipulation and joint motion to vacate the

court’s opinion in this case, the court orders the following:

1. The opinion filed on September 28, 2012 and reported at 696 F.3d 889

is withdrawn.

2. This case is ordered remanded to the district court with directions to

enter judgment granting a writ of habeas corpus directing that

Petitioner Miles be released from custody as soon as possible and no

later than 48 hours after entry of the district court’s judgment.

FILED

NOV 21 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
3. The filing of this order shall serve as the court’s mandate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.
COUNSEL

Michael S. Romano (argued), Mills Legal Clinic, Stanford, CA for petitionerappellant.

David Eldridge (argued), Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento,

CA for respondents-appellees.
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                            |   |                   |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|------------------------|--------|
| Date:  August 6, 2009 |   | /s/ G. Anthony Busseni |   |
|                            |   | G. Anthony Busseni     |   |
|                            |   | President and CEO      |   |

----
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1930 

To amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 to reauthorize State mediation 

programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

Mr. LUCAS (for himself, Mr. OSBORNE, Mr. CASE, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, and Mr. MORAN of Kansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 to reauthorize 

State mediation programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF STATE MEDIATION PRO4 GRAMS. 

5 Section 506 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 

6 (7 U.S.C. 5106) is amended by striking ‘‘2005’’ and in7 serting ‘‘2010’’. 

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey R. Dombrowski, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 830]

Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Erie County Court (Michael F. Pietruszka, J), entered December 3, 2009. The appeal was held by this Court by order entered September 30, 2011, decision was reserved and the matter was remitted to Erie County Court for further proceedings (87 AD3d 1267 [2011]). The proceedings were held and completed.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a nonjury trial of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), and that judgment of conviction was affirmed on appeal *(People v Dombrowski,*55 AD3d 1358 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 924 [2009]). Defendant thereafter moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 and 440.20 to vacate the judgment and to set aside *1417the sentence. After that motion was summarily denied, we granted his CPL 460.15 application for a certificate granting leave to appeal. We note at the outset that, on appeal, defendant failed to raise any contention concerning that part of his motion seeking to set aside the sentence, and we thus deemed any issues with respect thereto abandoned (Dombrowski, 87 AD3d 1267, 1267). We concluded, however, that defendant was entitled to a hearing on the issue whether defense counsel had a tactical reason for failing to call exculpatory witnesses, two of whom were present in the courthouse during defendant’s trial, and we remitted the matter to County Court for a hearing on that issue *(id.*at 1268).

At the hearing upon remittal, trial counsel discussed his reason for not calling those witnesses and, while in hindsight that decision may not have been the best strategy, it is well settled that disagreement over trial strategy is not a basis for a determination of ineffective assistance of counsel *(see generally People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146 [1981]). We therefore conclude that, upon remittal, defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the absence of a legitimate or strategic basis for trial counsel’s decision not to call those witnesses and has thus failed to establish that he was denied effective assistance of counsel *(see e.g. People v Collins,*85 AD3d 1678, 1679 [2011]; *People v Gonzalez,*62 AD3d 1263, 1265 [2009], *lv denied*12 NY3d 925 [2009]; *People v Roman,*60 AD3d 1416, 1417-1418 [2009], *lv denied*12 NY3d 928 [2009]),

As defendant correctly contends, however, the certificate of conviction mistakenly recites that he was sentenced as a second violent felony offender. The sentencing minutes establish that defendant was sentenced as a “second felony offender,” and the certificate of conviction must therefore be amended to correct the clerical error *(see generally People v Saxton,*32 AD3d 1286, 1286-1287 [2006]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.
[No. 34263-1-I.

Division One.

August 25, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Matthew Byron Wright, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 93-1-03427-6, Bobbe J. Bridge, J., entered March 11, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Baker, C.J., concurred in by Coleman and Grosse, JJ.