alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

KAREN RENEE SALAZAR,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-01294-KI

JUDGMENT

Karen Renee Salazar

13325 SE Lee Ave.

Milwaukie, OR 97267-1139

Pro se Plaintiff

Billy J. Williams

United States Attorney

District of Oregon

Janice E. Hebert

Assistant United States Attorney

1000 SW Third Ave., Ste. 600

Portland, OR 97204-2902

Page 1 - JUDGMENT

Case 3:15-cv-01294-KI Document 38 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 2
Jordan D. Goddard

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

Social Security Administration

701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 2900 M/S 221A

Seattle, WA 98104-7075

Attorneys for Defendant

KING, Judge:

Based on the record, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the

Commissioner is affirmed and this case is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2016. 

 /s/ Garr M. King 

Garr M. King

United States District Judge

PAGE 2 - JUDGMENT

Case 3:15-cv-01294-KI Document 38 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Weyman Tinch, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 916]

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered January 25, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence *(see id.*at 255; *see generally People v Lococo, 92*NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
#### Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York, Respondent, v Canmac Incorporated, *Also*Known as Canmac, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Harold S. Swanson, Appellant.

No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.
Merrill Schneider, OSB #77336 

merrillschneider@schneiderlaw.com 

Schneider Kerr & Robichaux 

PO Box 14490 

Portland, Oregon 97293 

Phone: 503-255-9092 

Fax: 503-255-9145 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MENDY HARMON, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

 Defendant. 

3:15-CV-02127-YY 

ORDER FOR ATTORNEY 

FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 

The court finds and orders an attorney fee of $23,577.75 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

Dated this _______ day of ____________________, 2018. 

________________________________ 

Youlee You 

United States Magistrate Judge 

3rd October

/s/Youlee Yim You
# C_2006180EN.01009201.xml

| 2.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/92

---

Communication in accordance with Article 12(5)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, on the information provided by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature.

(2006/C 180/07)

Binding tariff information ceases to be valid from this day if it becomes incompatible with the interpretation of the customs nomenclature as a result of the following international tariff measures:

Amendments to the Harmonized System Explanatory Notes and the Compendium of Classification Opinions, approved by the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC doc. NC1004 — report of the 36th Session of the HS Committee):

AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO BE DONE UNDER ARTICLE 8 PROCEDURE OF THE HS CONVENTION AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS EDITED BY THE HS COMMITTEE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION

(36th SESSION OF THE HSC IN SEPTEMBER 2005)

DOC. NC1004

Amendments of the Explanatory Notes of the Nomenclature annexed to the HS Convention

| 15.17 | L/2 |
| --- | --- |
| 20.09 | L/17 |
| 21.02 | L/9 |
| 21.06 | L/9 |
| 22.01 | L/17 |
| 26.21 | L/6 |
| 28.38 | L/14 |
| 28.41 | L/14 |
| 38.08 | L/14 |
| 38.24 | L/5 |
| 49.07 | L/10 |
| 51.10 | L/15 |
| 57.03 | L/18 |
| 84.79 | L/12 |
| 84.81 | L/17 |
| 90.18 | L/16 |
| 90.19 | L/16 |
| 95.04 | L/7 |
| 97.05 | L/10 |

15.17

L/2

20.09

L/17

21.02

L/9

21.06

L/9

22.01

L/17

26.21

L/6

28.38

L/14

28.41

L/14

38.08

L/14

38.24

L/5

49.07

L/10

51.10

L/15

57.03

L/18

84.79

L/12

84.81

L/17

90.18

L/16

90.19

L/16

95.04

L/7

97.05

L/10

Classification Opinions approved by the HS Committee

| 2102.20/1 | L/3 |
| --- | --- |
| 3206.11/1 | L/1 |
| 3824.90/13 | L/4 |
| 3824.90/14 | L/5 |

2102.20/1

L/3

3206.11/1

L/1

3824.90/13

L/4

3824.90/14

L/5

Information regarding the contents of these measures can be obtained from the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commission (rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, B-1049 Brussels) or can be downloaded from the internet site of this Directorate-General.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/harmonised_system/index_en.htm

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7632

TREVON TERRELL OLDS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN TRUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-05-810-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Trevon Terrell Olds, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Trevon Olds seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). The order is not appealable 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, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Olds 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 Matter of the Petition of William T. Van Tassell, Respondent, *v.*John Derrenbacher, as County Treasurer, etc., Appellant.

(Argued October 20, 1890;

decided December 2, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, made May 26, 1890, which affirmed an order made by the county judge of Ulster county commanding the treasurer of said county to comply with the statutes in reference to the application of taxes collected from a railroad company.

*A. T. Clearwater*for appellant.

*Augustus H. Van Buren*for respondent.

Agree to affirm on opinion below.

All concur.

Order affirmed.
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2129 Reported in Senate (RS)]






                                                       Calendar No. 552
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2129

                          [Report No. 105-313]

To eliminate restrictions on the acquisition of certain land contiguous 
                   to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 2, 1998

 Mr. Akaka (for himself and Mr. Inouye) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

            September 8, (legislative day, August 31), 1998

              Reported by Mr. Murkowski, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
To eliminate restrictions on the acquisition of certain land contiguous 
                   to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.

    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 ``Hawaii Volcanoes National Park 
Adjustment Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK.

    The first section of the Act of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 781, 
chapter 530; 16 U.S.C. 391b), is amended by inserting before the period 
at the end the following: ``, except for the land depicted on the map 
entitled `NPS-PAC 1997HW', which may be purchased with donated or 
appropriated funds.''.
                                     





                                                       Calendar No. 552

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2129

                          [Report No. 105-313]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To eliminate restrictions on the acquisition of certain land contiguous 
                   to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.

_______________________________________________________________________

            September 8, (legislative day, August 31), 1998

                       Reported without amendment`
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Wells Real Estate Fund II-OW (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the
undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



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



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Leo F. Wells, III  
|Leo F. Wells, III      
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 23, 2009         



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Douglas P. Williams
|Douglas P. Williams    
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 23, 2009
Katherine Eitenmiller, OSB # 145731 

Robert A. Baron, OSB # 89020 

HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C. 

474 Willamette Street 

Eugene, OR 97401 

(541) 686-1969 

keitenmiller@hwbm.net 

Of Attorneys for the Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHARLES E. ADKINS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER, 

Social Security Administration , 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

~~~~~=-======--~~~- Defendant. ) 

Case No. 6:15-cv-01275-MC 

ORDERFORPAYMENTOFATTORNEY 

FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA 

Based upon the Stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of $9,006.99 are hereby awarded to Plaintiff, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Payment of this award shall be paid via check made payable to 

Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorneys at Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C., 474 

Willamette Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, the award shall be made 

payable to Plaintiff's attorney if the commissioner confirms that Plaintiff owes no debt to the 

government through the federal treasury offset program. There are no costs or expenses to be 

paid herein. 

Dated this 2- I'.\ day of December 2016. 

PRESENTED BY: 

s/ Katherine Eitenmiller 

Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C. 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

\....__ __ 

U.S. District Judge/Magistrate 

f 

' l 

I i 

I 

t 

t 

f 

Case 6:15-cv-01275-MC Document 23 Filed 12/29/16 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          31,022
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  164,370
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,959)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               205,080
<PP&E>                                          37,815
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,061,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          124,340
<BONDS>                                        497,295
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           339
<OTHER-SE>                                     421,821
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,061,164
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               121,701
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,824
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,082
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,119
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,555
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,564
<DISCONTINUED>                                   4,650
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,212
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Anthony Fragosa, Petitioner, v J. Miller, as Hearing Officer, Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 918]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

During a search of petitioner’s cell, a correction officer found a piece of metal, approximately *21U*inches long, sharpened on one end. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing a weapon. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing, and the determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

*1525We confirm. The detailed misbehavior report and visual inspection of the article in question provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see *Matter of Chiarappa v Fischer,*84 AD3d 1628, 1629 [2011]; *Matter of Gonzalez v Fischer,*53 AD3d 945, 945-946 [2008]). Although petitioner testified that he used the piece of metal to relieve stress by cutting himself, this is not a defense to the charge as it does not change the dangerous nature of the item. Moreover, upon reviewing the record, we find nothing to indicate that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of McGowan v Fischer,*88 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2011]; *Matter of Barnes v Bezio,*86 AD3d 884, 885 [2011]). Petitioner’s remaining procedural claims have not been preserved for our review.

Mercure, J.P, Rose, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of mPhase Technologies,
Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10K/A for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Durando, Chief Executive Officer of the Company
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

> 1.
>   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
> 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
> 2.
>   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
> material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
> Company.

/s/ Ronald A. DurandoRonald A. DurandoChief
Executive Officer

May 11, 2010

---
CHARLES L

. MORRIS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4368

______ _______________________/

Opinion filed January 5, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. T. Michael Jones , Judge

.

Charles L. Morris , pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
# L_2009198EN.01005401.xml

| 30.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 198/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 198/54

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 27 July 2009

appointing one Romanian member of the European Economic and Social Committee

(2009/575/EC, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 259 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 167 thereof,

Having regard to Decision 2007/3/EC, Euratom (1),

Having regard to the proposal of the Romanian Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the Commission,

Whereas a member’s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Marius PETCU,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Sorin Cristian STAN, Employees Group (Group II), is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2010.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 27 July 2009.

For the Council

The President

C. BILDT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 1, 4.1.2007, p. 6.

1

---
#### Rosa Lia Reyes, Appellant, v Michael A. Marchese et al., Respondents. (And Another Title.)

[946 NYS2d 500]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated February 1, 2011, as denied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, the driver of a vehicle intending to turn left “shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is . . . so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.” A plaintiff *927driver is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if he or she demonstrates that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the defendant driver’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 *(see Gause v Martinez,*91 AD3d 595 [2012]; *Gabler v Marly Bldg. Supply Corp.,*27 AD3d 519, 520 [2006]). The driver with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that the opposing driver will obey the traffic laws requiring him or her to yield *(see Gause v Martinez,*91 AD3d 595 [2012]; *Ahern v Lanaia,*85 AD3d 696 [2011]; *Loch v Garber,*69 AD3d 814, 816 [2010]). However, a driver who has the right-of-way has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle that allegedly failed to yield the right-of-way *(see Wilson v Rosedom,*82 AD3d 970 [2011]; *Todd v Godek,*71 AD3d 872 [2010]; *Cox v Nunez,*23 AD3d 427 [2005]).

Here, in support of her summary judgment motion, the plaintiff submitted deposition testimony and an excerpt of a surveillance video depicting the accident that failed to establish that the defendant Michael A. Márchese’s alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 was the sole proximate cause of the accident *(see Fogel v Rizzo,*91 AD3d 706 [2012]; *Pollack v Margolin,*84 AD3d 1341 [2011]; *Todd v Godek,*71 AD3d at 873). In light of the plaintiffs failure to meet her prima facie burden, we need not consider the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants Márchese and A-Val Architectural Metal Corp., which is Marchese’s employer and the owner of the vehicle driven by Márchese. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER ON MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSDIERATION

Appellate case name: Suran Wije v. David A. Burns, The University of Texas at Austin, Jane 

Doe, and John Doe

Appellate case number: 01-19-00024-CV

Trial court case number: D-1-GN-18-002435

Trial court: 201st District Court of Travis County

The motion for en banc reconsideration filed January 19, 2021, is DENIED. It is so 

ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Richard Hightower___________________________

Acting for the Court

Date: _April 6, 2021_______

The en banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, 

Hightower, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.