alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Todd DUNN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jean HILL, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 08-35443.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 8, 2009.

*84Nell Brown, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Summer Gleason, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Todd Dunn, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258, and we affirm.

Dunn contends that the sentencing court violated his rights under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), by departing upward from the presumptive sentence under the state Sentencing Guidelines based upon findings made by the sentencing judge rather than by a jury. This contention fails. *Blakely*does not apply to Dunn because his sentence was final before *Blakely*was decided. *See Schardt v. Payne,*414 F.3d 1025, 1033-36 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that *Blakely*does not apply retroactively on collateral review). We conclude that the state court’s rejection of Dunn’s *Apprendi*claim was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

Dunn also contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the sentence on *Apprendi*grounds, and by failing to preserve the issue for direct review. However, even if Dunn counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, Dunn has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that his sentence would have been different if counsel had preserved the error. *See Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); *see also Washington v. Recuenco,*548 U.S. 212, 222, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006) (holding that *Blakely*error is subject to harmless error review). We therefore conclude that the state court’s rejection of Dunn’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. *See id.,*466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Terry Lynn CASEY, Appellant, v. GRANT COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; Robert Bird, Detective, Grant County Sheriffs Department; Shane Green, Deputy, Grant County Sheriffs Department; Brett Turner, Former Deputy, Grant County Sheriffs Department, Appellees.

No. 07-3288.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 1, 2008.

Filed: Jan. 14, 2009.

Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Terry Casey challenges the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After careful de novo review, *see Ramlet v. E.F. Johnson Co.,*507 F.3d 1149, 1152 (8th Cir.2007) (standard of review), we conclude that Casey’s claims regarding the traffic stop are either barred by collateral estoppel, *see Crumley v. City of St. Paul, Minn.,*324 F.3d 1003, 1006-07 (8th Cir.2003); *O’Marra v. Mackool,*361 Ark. 32, 204 S.W.3d 49, 53 (2005), or fail on *27their merits as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47 B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
EXHIBIT 32.2

BEA SYSTEMS, INC.

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 periodic report of BEA Systems, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Mark P. Dentinger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.



|                   |  |                                          
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------
|Date: June 9, 2006 |  | /s/Mark P.
Dentinger                     
|                   |  | Mark P. Dentinger Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.1


 


July 21, 2021


 


Brooks H. Pierce


President & COO


Inspired Entertainment, Inc.


c/o Inspired Entertainment, Inc.


250 West 57th Street


Suite 2223


New York, New York 10107


 


Re: Contract Extension


 


Dear Brooks:


 


The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors
of Inspired Entertainment, Inc. wishes to invoke Section 2a of your February 17, 2020 Agreement and extend the termination date of that
Agreement to December 31, 2024.


 


We are grateful for your leadership role in the Company
and the outstanding manner in which you performed your duties during the pandemic which helped the Company survive and indeed thrive in
portions of its operations. In consideration for your agreement, the Committee has determined to increase your Base Salary as reflected
in Section 5a to $525,000 per year effective January 1, 2022 and to award you 75,000 RSUs as a Sign On incentive, which will vest on December
31, 2024, provided you remain with the Company to that date, or that your departure from the Company is the result of your death or change
of control event as described in your Agreement, in which case vesting shall occur under the provisions applicable. Again, we look forward
to your continued service with thanks.


 


	Sincerely,	 
	 	 
	/s/ Steve Saferin	 
	Steve Saferin	 
	Chair	 
	Compensation Committee	 
	Inspired Entertainment Inc 	 
	 	 
	Acknowledged and agreed this 21st day of July, 2021	 
	 	 
	/s/ Brooks H. Pierce	 
	Brooks H. Pierce
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                             EXHIBIT 12

                                          MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II
                                          MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING II, L.P.
                                            COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                                COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS

                                                FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED              FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                       MARCH 26, 1999                         MARCH 27, 1998
                                           ------------------------------------    ------------------------------------
                                            MERRILL LYNCH       MERRILL LYNCH       MERRILL LYNCH       MERRILL LYNCH
                                              PREFERRED           PREFERRED           PREFERRED           PREFERRED
                                           CAPITAL TRUST II    FUNDING II, L.P.    CAPITAL TRUST II    FUNDING II, L.P.
                                           ----------------    ----------------    ----------------    ----------------

<S>                                           <C>                 <C>                 <C>                 <C>       
EARNINGS                                      $6,185,568          $7,254,260          $6,185,568          $7,253,513
                                              ==========          ==========          ==========          ==========

FIXED CHARGES                                 $       --          $       --          $       --          $       --

PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTION
  REQUIREMENTS                                 6,000,000           6,185,568           6,000,000           6,185,568
                                              ----------          ----------          ----------          ----------

TOTAL COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND
  PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS          $6,000,000          $6,185,568          $6,000,000          $6,185,568
                                              ==========          ==========          ==========          ==========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED
  FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED
  SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS                          1.03                1.17                1.03                1.17
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.01****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8(Nos. 333-49494, 333-56654, 333-77052, 333,89220, 333-104100, 333-118408, 333-124660 and333-131402) of Transmeta Corporation of our reports dated March 14, 2006, relating to theconsolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2005 and for the year then ended, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2005, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K./s/ Burr, Pilger & Mayer LLPPalo Alto, California
#### Providenza M. Fraccola, Respondent, v Alan P. Fraccola, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 587]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Michael E. Daley, J.), entered August 2, 2011 in a divorce action. The judgment, inter alia, equitably distributed the marital property.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Garni and Sconiers, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Entrust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |        |  |                        
|----------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 8, 2007 |  |        |  | /s/ F. William Conner  
|                  |  | Name:  |  | F. William Conner      
|                  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### PAULA SCHISANO, ADMINISTRATRIX *AD PROSEQUENDUM*AND ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN SCHISANO, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BRICKSEAL REFRACTORY CO., A CORPORATION, XZIT BRICKSEAL CO., A CORPORATION, AND XZIT CHEMICAL CO., A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Argued October 11, 1960

Decided October 24, 1960.

*Mr. John*W. *Taylor*argued the cause for the appellants.

*Mr. Bernard Chazen*argued the cause for the respondent *(Messrs.*Balter, *Garber &*Chazen, attorneys).

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of Judge Sullivan in the court below.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Jacobs, Eeancis and Peoctok — 4.

*For reversal*— Justices Bukling, Hall and Schettino — 3.
# C_2019357EN.01004201.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/42

---

Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO – Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)

(Case T-595/19)

(2019/C 357/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GRILLOUMI BURGER – Application for registration No 15 963 283

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2019 in Case R 1356/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
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

      ( print page 40067)    
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 material, 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 Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Mitochondria and Aging.                    

*Date:*                         September 3, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anita H. Undale, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-7428,                         *anita.undale@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 21, 2021.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-15866 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Bank of New York, Appellant, v Michael G. McLean et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

In an action, inter alia, *547to recover on the individual defendants’ guarantee of a promissory note, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated December 18, 1984, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s complaint sought to recover $310,211.28 upon a written promissory obligation dated October 25, 1982, and upon written guarantees of the same. However, plaintiff thereafter moved for judgment upon 11 separate demand notes, a letter of credit and an accommodation check. Therefore, the inconsistencies which appear on the face of plaintiff’s own papers prohibit the granting of summary judgment, despite the inadequacy of the opposing papers *(see, e.g., Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center,*64 NY2d 851, 853). Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal C 154/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.154.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 154 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5312 June 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.154.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 154

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5312 June 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 154/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 154/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2010/C 154/02 | Draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2010 — Council position | 4 |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 154/03 | Euro exchange rates | 5 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2010/C 154/04 | Extract of a winding-up measure decided under Article 9 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions | 6 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2010/C 154/02

Draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2010 — Council position

4

European Commission

2010/C 154/03

Euro exchange rates

5

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2010/C 154/04

Extract of a winding-up measure decided under Article 9 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions

6

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 154/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5859 — Whirlpool/Privileg Rights) (1) | 7 |
| 2010/C 154/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5789 — Geely/Daqing/Volvo Cars) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 8 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2010/C 154/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5859 — Whirlpool/Privileg Rights) (1)

7

2010/C 154/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5789 — Geely/Daqing/Volvo Cars) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernesto Martinez, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 95]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J., at hearing; Bruce Allen, J., at trial, plea, and sentencing), rendered September 9, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting testimony that the police apprehended defendant on a subway train after recognizing him from a wanted poster bearing his photograph. The testimony was admitted not for its truth, but to provide background information explaining why the police approached and arrested defendant at the particular time and place in question *(see People v Tosca,*98 NY2d 660 [2002]). Under the circumstances, to leave the officers’ actions unexplained “would have placed a mystery before the jury and invited speculation” *(People v Barnes,*57 AD3d 289, 290 [2008], *lv denied*12 NY3d 781 [2009]). Furthermore, the court provided a suitable limiting instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed. In particular, we find there was no danger that the jury would draw an inference that anyone other than testifying witness gave any information to the police *(compare United States v Reyes,*18 F3d 65, 70-71 [1994]).

The challenged portion of the prosecutor’s summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The prosecutor did not act as an unsworn expert witness on the issue of eyewitness identification. Instead, in response to counsel’s summation, the prosecutor essentially asked the jurors to apply ordinary life experiences and common sense.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Román, JJ.