alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 –ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JULIE A SOLER AMOR,

3:14-cv-01526-TC

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 

26), and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, I have reviewed the 

file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I find no error and conclude the report is 

correct.

Case 3:14-cv-01526-TC Document 32 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 2
2 –ORDER

Plaintiff’s due process arguments are poorly taken. Plaintiff received appropriate process 

in the administrative hearings. That process included: the opportunity to be represented by an 

attorney of her choosing; the opportunity to present evidence in support of her claim; the 

opportunity to testify at a hearing before an administrative law judge; and the opportunity to 

appeal any adverse decision. As noted by Judge Coffin, under the circumstances present here, the 

regulations do not permit this Court to reopen the record.

Plaintiff argues that “Had the Magistrate found that the AC’s failure to make the 

supplemental medical information submitted to it part of the record on review was erroneous, he 

would not have been able to conclude that the ALJ’s credibility finding was valid.” Pl.’s Obj. 11. 

I disagree. The ALJ found plaintiff not credible in part because, despite alleging disability as of 

2003, plaintiff worked as late as January 1, 2010, and left that work for reasons other than her 

impairments. Those are both valid reasons for finding Amor less-than credible. See Gartzke v. 

Colvin, 2015 WL 5178709 at *n.7 (D. Or. 2015) (continuing to work after an alleged onset date 

is a clear and convincing reason for finding a claimant not credible); Bruton v. Massanari, 268 

F.3d 824, 828 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ may point to the fact that a claimant left work for reasons 

unrelated to impairments in finding claimant not credible).

Magistrate Judge Coffin’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) is adopted in 

full. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 11th day of February, 2016.

_______/s/ Michael J. McShane________

Michael McShane

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01526-TC Document 32 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

RODNEY DEWALT,

Plaintiff,

v. 

WILLIAM GRAVES,

Defendant.

Civil Case No. 3:13-CV-00777-KI

JUDGMENT

Rodney DeWalt

9203 S.W. 75 Ave th

Portland, OR 97223

Pro se Plaintiff

Page 1 - JUDGMENT

Case 3:13-cv-00777-KI Document 11 Filed 08/21/13 Page 1 of 2
Justin P. Grose

Assistant Attorney General

Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General

Litigation Section

313 NE 21 St. st

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Attorney for Defendant

KING, Judge:

Based on the record, this action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 21 day of August, 2013. st

 /s/ Garr M. King 

Garr M. King

United States District Judge

Page 2 - JUDGMENT

Case 3:13-cv-00777-KI Document 11 Filed 08/21/13 Page 2 of 2
Attorney Search : The State Bar of California http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/125092

1 of 3 11/20/2017, 9:38 AM

Exhibit B - Page 1 of 3

Case 6:14-cv-01192-MC Document 94-2 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 3
Attorney Search : The State Bar of California http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/125092

2 of 3 11/20/2017, 9:38 AM

Exhibit B - Page 2 of 3

Case 6:14-cv-01192-MC Document 94-2 Filed 11/20/17 Page 2 of 3
Attorney Search : The State Bar of California http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/125092

3 of 3 11/20/2017, 9:38 AM

Exhibit B - Page 3 of 3

Case 6:14-cv-01192-MC Document 94-2 Filed 11/20/17 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
interim financial statements of the Company for the three months ended March 31,
2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such interim financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         1034258
<NAME>                        Noble International, Ltd.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         225
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  18,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    6,266
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               27,423
<PP&E>                                         57,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          21,365
<BONDS>                                        19,834
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       27,693
<OTHER-SE>                                     513
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,998
<SALES>                                        25,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               25,064
<CGS>                                          17,013
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,843
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             515
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,665
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,371
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,294
<DISCONTINUED>                                 11,085
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (394)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   12,985
<EPS-BASIC>                                    1.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.66



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           554,089
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                           44,780
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                             46,464
<EQUITIES>                                          23
<MORTGAGE>                                     145,770
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   43,375
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,016,346
<CASH>                                          31,663
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             187,125
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          32,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,479,932
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                434,315
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             29,065
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 305,125
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 76,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,286
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       187,681
<OTHER-SE>                                     263,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,479,932
<PREMIUMS>                                     928,901
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             69,293
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               4,805
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  47,050
<BENEFITS>                                     719,455
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     14,810
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             4,218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,750)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,915)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,791)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  29,679
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,888
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.80
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: September 4, 2014 105482 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES WAITE JR.,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: August 21, 2014

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________

Erin C. Morigerato, Albany, for appellant.

Alexander Lesyk, Special Prosecutor, Norwood, for

respondent.

__________

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence

County (Richards, J.), rendered September 24, 2012, convicting

defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal

possession of marihuana in the second degree.

In full satisfaction of an indictment and other uncharged

crimes, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of

marihuana in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. 

County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to two years in

prison, followed by one year of postrelease supervision, to be

served concurrently with the sentence defendant already was

serving. Defendant now appeals.
-2- 105482 

We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the validity of his

appeal waiver is without merit. Our review of the plea colloquy

and the written waiver executed by defendant reveals that he was

apprised of and understood the rights he was relinquishing,

including the right to appeal his sentence. Accordingly, we

conclude that defendant's waiver was knowing, intelligent and

voluntary (see People v Newton, 113 AD3d 1000, 1000-1001 [2014],

lvs denied ___ NY3d ___ [July 15, 2014]; People v Smith, 112 AD3d

1232, 1232 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1203 [2014]). Although

defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives

his appeal waiver, it is unpreserved for our review, inasmuch as

the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate

postallocution motion (see People v Trombley, 115 AD3d 1114, 1114

[2014]). Further, the narrow exception to the preservation rule

was not implicated, as defendant did not make any statements

during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt or

otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see

People v Bressard, 112 AD3d 988, 989 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d

1137 [2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2013], lv

denied 22 NY3d 1089 [2014]). Finally, defendant's contention

that his sentence is harsh and excessive is precluded by his

valid appeal waiver (see People v Campbell, 114 AD3d 996, 997

[2014]; People v Graves, 113 AD3d 998, 999 [2014], lv denied ___

NY3d ___ [July 14, 2014]). 

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
#### DRURY, Respondent, v. FINCH et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

September 22, 1896.)

Action by M. Francis Drury against Henry C. Finch and Wallace Cleveland.

No opinion. Judgment of county court affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### McDONALD *v.*HEAD.

1. Where an equitable petition, seeking to obtain an injunction against the collection of a judgment for the purchase-money of land, was filed, and certain persons, who claimed to hold bonds for title under the plaintiff, sought to intervene, but their interventions were stricken, this furnished no ground for exception by the plaintiff in the equitable proceeding.

2. There was no error in refusing to grant the interlocutory injunction sought.

May 12, 1915.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Highsmith. Jeff Davis superior court. January 4-, 1915.

*8. D. Dell,*for plaintiff.

*Wilson, Bennett & Lambdin*and *J. Marie Wilcox,*for defendant.

Lumpkin, J.

McDonald brought an equitable petition against Mrs. Head, seeking to enjoin a proceeding by her to sell certain land under a judgment obtained by her against him for an unpaid balance of the purchase-money. He alleged, that the defendant had leased certain portions of the property sold to him to other persons, with the privilege on their part of purchasing such portions at as high a price as others would give therefor; that he took a bond for title from her, and entered into an agreement with her to carry out her contracts with such persons; that afterward he made bonds for title to them, collected sums of money from them, and paid over the amounts collected to his vendor; and that he was insolvent and unable to respond in damages for a breach of his bonds. The defendant denied that she had received any payments made by the holders of the original options. The holders of the options *457sought to intervene. Their interventions were dismissed, but they did not except. The injunction was denied, and the plaintiff excepted.

1. The plaintiff did not make the holders of the options from his vendor parties defendant to his action, or show that he was entitled to any relief against them, or pray any such relief. They did not except to the striking of their interventions, and it did not furnish any ground of exception by the plaintiff. *Gammage*v. Powell, 101 *Ga.*540 (28 S. E. 969).

2. The evidence was in conflict as to material issues in the case. Under it, there was no error in refusing to grant the injunction.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices*concur, *except*Pish, *C. J., absent.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6536

FRANK M. CONNELL, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CA-02-167-2)

Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: August 20, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank M. Connell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Frank M. Connell, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Connell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 4 0 9 1 8 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,
P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
.
H I P O L I T O A R C E

- G O N Z A L E Z ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 7 : 0 9

- C R

- 1 6 4 4

- 1

B e f o r e J O N E S , C h i e f J u d g e , a n d S T E W A R T a n d S O U T H W I C K , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t H i p o l i t o A r c e
G o n z a l e z ( A r c e ) h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n

a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , a n d U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. F l o r e s , 6 3 2 F

. 3 d 2 2 9 ( 5 t h C i r
. 2 0 1 1 )

. A r c e h a s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. W e h a v e

r e v i e w e d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f a n d t h e r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t e d t h e r e i n ,

a s w e l l a s A r c e ’ s r e s p o n s e
. W e c o n c u r w i t h c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t t h a t t h e a p p e a l

p r e s e n t s n o n o n f

r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w
. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 21 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-40918 Document: 00511514990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2011N o
. 1 0

- 4 0 9 1 8

m o t i o n f

o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

.

2 Case: 10-40918 Document: 00511514990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2011
Exhibit 3.2

                                STATE OF DELAWARE
                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                         OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

INTERACTIVE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

FIRST:  That a meeting of the Board of Directors of INTERACTIVE MEDICAL
TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed
amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring
said amendment to be advisable and calling a meeting of said corporation for
consideration thereof.  The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is
as follows:

RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be amended
by changing the Article thereof numbered "FIRST" so that, as amended, said
Article shall be and read as follows:
          The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the "corporation") is
     KAIRE HOLDINGS INCORPORATED.

SECOND:  That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, a
special meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and held
upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the
State Delaware at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by
the statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

THIRD:     That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

FOURTH:     That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under or
by reason of said amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Owen Naccarato has caused this certificate to be signed
by, Steven Westlund, an Authorized Officer, this 3rd day of February, 1998.

                         By: /s/ Steven Westlund
                                 ---------------
                         TITLE OF OFFICER: Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
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
 Genetics and Sustainable Agriculture Research: Mississippi State, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Mississippi State, Mississippi Crop Science Research Laboratory Genetics and Sustainable Agriculture Research People & Locations







Wei  Dai
                        Genetics and Sustainable Agriculture Research

                        




                        
                        Post Doc (Research Associate)
                        Phone:    
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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