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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

ROHILLCO BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, 

and GAP FUNDING COMPANY, LLC, 

 No. 3:15-cv-02270-SB 

 Plaintiffs, 

 OPINION AND ORDER 

v. 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 

 Defendant. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On June 24, 2016, Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued her Findings and 

Recommendation (F&R) [29], recommending the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 

[12] should be GRANTED. No objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed. 

DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

Case 3:15-cv-02270-SB Document 31 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 2
2 – OPINION AND ORDER 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 

[29] as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 25 day of July, 2016. 

 _/s/ Michael W. Mosman______ 

 MICHAEL W. MOSMAN 

 Chief United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-02270-SB Document 31 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Apogee Technology, Inc.,a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, that:

TheAnnual Report for the year ended December 31, 2004, including the restatedinformation for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the “Form 10-KSB/A, Amendment No. 3”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB/A, Amendment No. 3fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

|                               |   | /s/ Herbert M. Stein                                                                   |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: October 28,  2005 |   | Herbert M. Stein                                                                       |
|                          |   | *Chief Executive Officer and President  (principal executive officer)*                 |
|                          |   | /s/ Paul J. Murphy                                                                     |
| Dated: October 28,  2005 |   | Paul J. Murphy                                                                         |
|                          |   | *Chief Executive Officer and Vice President  of Finance (principal financial officer)* |
|                          |   |                                                                                   |
|                          |   |                                                                                   |
|                          |   |                                                                                   |
|                          |   |                                                                                   |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
#### In the Matter of Grace L., Appellant, v James C., Respondent, and Sheila L., Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 472]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about February 17, 2011, which denied petitioner maternal grandmother’s petition for custody of the subject children, and awarded custody to respondent mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award of custody to respondent is in the best interests of the children and was warranted by the totality of the circumstances *(see generally Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167 [1982]). The children were removed from respondent and placed with petitioner when respondent was only 16 years old and the removal was based on domestic abuse committed by the children’s father who resided in petitioner’s home with respondent. A decade later, the evidence established that respondent has a stable and loving home with a different partner and is better able to provide the children with the discipline and structure that they require. She consistently sought the return of the children over the 10-year period, complied with all of the conditions imposed upon her during this time, and has always been involved in the children’s day-to-day lives.

Although petitioner provided the children with a loving home and met all of their needs, the family court’s determination is amply supported by the record. Notably, petitioner admitted that she is unable to control at least one of the children, has difficulty maintaining order in her home, and relies on the mother to keep the children from hurting each other *(see id.).*Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Grand Canyon Monitorinand Research Center: Socioeconomics UpdateLucas BairEconomistGrand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
Triennial Budget and Workplan

 Project Element 13.1

 Economic Values of Recreational Resources 

Colorado River – Grand Canyon Whitewater Fand Glen Canyon Angler Values

 Project Element 13.2

 Tribal Perspectives for and Values of Resourc

Downstream of Glen Canyon Dam

 Project Element 13.3

 Applied Decision Methods for the Glen Canyo

Adaptive Management Program
Project Element 13.1

 Economic Values of Recreational Resources alo

Colorado River – Grand Canyon Whitewater FloaGlen Canyon Angler Values

 Federal Register Notice (1024-NEW ended October 24 Department of Interior review Office of Management and Budget review

 Implementation January 2015

 Cooperation with AZGFD

 Creel survey

 Coordination with National Park Service

 Whitewater floater contact information
Colorado Mesa University 

Presentation
Presentation Topics

 Background of GCDAMP System analysis Economic value energy Grand Canyon Monitoring and Researc

Center
Benefit-Cost Analysis

 Measure of economic efficiency

 Increase in social welfare (benefit) Decrease in social welfare (cost)

 Baseline condition compared to condit

under management action

 Discounting and planning horizon

 Time value of money
Economic Benefits and Costs

 Economic benefit is willingness to pay

demand, for a good or service

 Demand is a function of price Individual income (fixed) Prices of all others goods and services (fix

 Economic cost is foregone opportunity 

in other sectors on the economy

 Labor  Capital Resource inputs (e.g., water)
Economic Supply and Demand

Price

Quantity

SupDem

$

Q
What is Economic Value?

Price

Quantity

SupDem

$

Q

CSPS
State of the Interconnection 2013 Western Electricity Coordinating Council 155 North 400 West Suite 200 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Economic Value of Energy

Price

Quantity

Sup

Hydropower/nuclear

Coal

Natural gas
State of the Interconnection 2013 Western Electricity Coordinating Council 155 North 400 West Suite 200 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Economic Value of Energy

Price

Quantity

Sup

Demand

$

Q
Hydropower

Natural Gas

Economic Value of Energy

Price

Quantity

$

Q

Donpeak

Avoided Cost Meth
Hydropower

Natural Gas

Economic Value of Energy

Price

Quantity

Avoided Cost Meth

$

Q

[MC Natural Gas - MC Hydropower ]* Q

Value

Donpeak
Onpeak

Offpeak

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. August 2014 DOI-DOE Federal Family Call Glen Canyon Operations Coord
Capacity Expansion Costs

 Avoid double counting

 Variable cost of energy and fixed cost of c

 Technologies need to be comparable

2020

2025
System Impacts

 Downstream resource

 Benefits Costs

 Energy production

 Water use  Emissions Etc.
Estimating Economic Value of...

http://gallery.usgs.gov/photos/04_27_2009_eIYl15O
Questions?
*Order Entered April 13, 2007:*

#### People v Larry McGhee,

No. 130031.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2005, judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant are considered. On the Court’s own motion pursuant to MCR 7.316(A)(3), the Court directs each party to file a supplemental brief not later than 42 days after the date of this order, specifically addressing whether the prosecution has standing to seek review in this Court when a defendant’s conviction has been affirmed in the Court of Appeals. In considering that question, the parties may address the relevance, if any, of potential federal habeas corpus proceedings following a final decision by the Court of Appeals affirming a defendant’s conviction. The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae on the issue described above. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of that issue may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. Reported below: 268 Mich App 600.
# C_2006021EN.01000201.xml

| 28.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 21/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/2

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2006/C 21/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Date of adoption:

Number of the aid: N 274/2005

Member State: Poland

Title in original language: Huta Cynku Miasteczko Śląskie

Legal basis: Ustawa z dnia 30 sierpnia 1996 r. o komercjalizacji i prywatyzacji — art. 56 ust. 1 pkt 2 oraz art. 56 ust. 5

Objective: Rescue of firms in difficulty

Duration: 6 months

Further information:

| 1) | Form of aid: Guarantee |
| --- | --- |

1)

Form of aid: Guarantee

| 2) | Name and address of the granting authority: ARP S.A. Domaniewska 41, Budynek ‘MARS’, klatka A, PL-02-672 Warszawa |
| --- | --- |

2)

Name and address of the granting authority: ARP S.A. Domaniewska 41, Budynek ‘MARS’, klatka A, PL-02-672 Warszawa

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption:

Member State: Germany

Aid number: N 501/2003

Title: Prolongation of the programme for the employment of innovation assistants in Berlin

Objective: employment

Legal basis: Verwaltungsvorschriften zu §44 Landeshaushaltsordnung

Budget: EUR 1,8 million per year

Intensity or amount: Up to 65 %

Duration: 1.1.2004 — 31.12.2006

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: France

Aid No: N 531/05

Title: Measures relating to the creation and operation of the Banque Postale (post office bank)

Objective: Banking and insurance

Legal basis: Loi no 2005-516 du 20 mai 2005 relative à la régulation des activités postales; Décret no 2005-1068 du 30 août 2005 pris pour l'application de l'article 16 de la loi no 2005-516 du 20 mai 2005 relatives à la régulation des activités postales

o

o

o

Aid intensity or amount: Measures not constituting aid

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

---
Exhibit 13.1



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 Coles Myer Ltd, an Australian company (the registrant), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended July 25, 2004 (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 registrant.



|                    |  |  |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                    |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | /s/ J.E. FLETCHER      
|                    |  |  |  | (Signature)            
|                    |  |  |  | J.E. Fletcher          
|Date March 18, 2005 |  |  |  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4355

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MELVILLE DANCY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:16-cr-00861-TMC-1)

Submitted: December 15, 2022 Decided: December 19, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. 

Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4355 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Melville Dancy appeals the district court’s decision to revoke his supervised release 

and impose an eight-month sentence. While this appeal was pending, Dancy was released 

from custody. 

“When a case or controversy ceases to exist—either due to a change in the facts or 

the law—the litigation is moot, and the court’s subject matter jurisdiction ceases to exist 

also.” Porter v. Clarke, 852 F.3d 358, 363 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “Because mootness is jurisdictional, we can and must consider it even if neither 

party has raised it.” United States v. Ketter, 908 F.3d 61, 65 (4th Cir. 2018). Dancy has 

already served his sentence and faces no additional term of supervised release; thus, there 

is no longer a live controversy. Dancy’s challenge to the revocation of his supervised 

release is therefore moot. See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4355 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Anderson *v.*Southern Railway Co.

*Setting Out Fire.*

(Decided November 13, 1913.

63 South. 473.)

*Appeal and Error; Review; Order (granting New Trial.*— Where the evidence was largely circumstantial and the record does not inform upon what ground the motion for a new trial was granted, the order granting a new trial will not be reviewed on appeal.

Appeal from Payette Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Bernard Harwood.

Action by William A. Anderson against the Southern Railway Company, for damages for setting out fire. Judgment for plaintiff and on motion of defendant the judgment and verdict was set aside and a new trial ordered, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Transferred from the Court of Appeals under the statute in such cases made and provided.

R. F. Peters, and Rat & Cooner, for appellant.

The case of *Birmingham R. L. & P. Go. v. Taylor,*152 Ala. 105, is almost on all-fours with the present case, and was tried very much as this case was tried, and on the authority of this case the cause should be reversed and remanded.

Bankhead & Bankhead, for appellant.

Under the rules of this court as announced in *Gobi) v. Malone,*92 Ala. 630, the matters complained of will not be reviewed on appeal.

MAYFIELD, J.

— This is an appeal from an order and judgment granting a motion for a new trial. Many grounds are assigned in the motion, and we are not in*469formed by the record upon what ground the motion was granted. If on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, or to the great preponderance of the evidence, we are not willing to reverse the action of the trial court. The trial judge had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and hearing the evidence — of which we are deprived. He therefore acted on some evidence of which, and of the nature of which, we are uninformed. The evidence, it is true, was largely circumstantial; but, under the rules of this court as announced in the case of *Cobb v. Malone,*92 Ala. 630, 9 South. 738, we are not willing to reverse the ruling granting the motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Anderson and de Grapfenried, JJ., concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1825 

To direct the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration 

to prohibit certain employees of the Transportation Security Administration from using the title of ‘‘officer’’ and from wearing metal badges 

or uniforms resembling those of law enforcement officers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2015 

Mr. ROONEY of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Transportation Security 

Administration to prohibit certain employees of the 

Transportation Security Administration from using the 

title of ‘‘officer’’ and from wearing metal badges or uniforms resembling those of law enforcement officers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop TSA Abuses 

5 Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1825 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE 

2 TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRA3 TION USING THE TITLE ‘‘OFFICER’’ AND 

4 WEARING METAL BADGES OR UNIFORMS RE5 SEMBLING THOSE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT 

6 OFFICERS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of the Trans8 portation Security Administration) shall prohibit any em9 ployee of the Transportation Security Administration de10 scribed in subsection (b) who is not a sworn law enforce11 ment officer with arresting authority and who has not suc12 cessfully completed Federal, State, or local law enforce13 ment training from— 

14 (1) using the official job title of ‘‘officer’’; or 

15 (2) wearing a metal badge resembling a police 

16 badge or a uniform resembling the uniform of a 

17 Federal law enforcement officer. 

18 (b) EMPLOYEES DESCRIBED.—An employee de19 scribed in this subsection is any of the following: 

20 (1) Checkpoint Transportation Security Officer. 

21 (2) Checked Baggage Transportation Security 

22 Officer. 

23 (3) Travel Document Checker. 

24 (4) Behavior Detection Officer. 

25 (5) Transportation Security Specialist—Explo26 sives. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1825 IH

1 (6) Any other employee the Administrator of 

2 the Transportation Security Administration deter3 mines appropriate. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ex_186381.htm


 


Exhibit 10.4


 


Amendment to Letter Agreement (“Agreement”) dated March 4, 2020 between Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. (the “Company”) and Kristian Gathright.


 


The purpose of this Amendment is to acknowledge that, as a result of the recent effects of COVID-19 on the operating results for the Company, each party to the Agreement has agreed that payment of the Additional Benefit will be deferred until a mutually agreed upon date later in calendar year 2020. The remaining terms of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.


 


 


 


 


Accepted and Agreed


 


 


/s/ Justin Knight                                   


Justin Knight


Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.


 


 


/s/ Kristian Gathright                                   


Kristian Gathright


 


 


March 30, 2020                                        


Date
#### Richard S. Jackson et al. *v.*Henry J. Conland et al.

*Robert Ewing*and *George G. Hastings,*in support of the motion.

*John 8. McGeeney,*in opposition.

Submitted July 7

decided July 9, 1975

The plaintiffs’ motion to expedite the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is denied.
Exhibit 10.20

Cash Bonus Plan

The board of directors has approved a bonus plan for Mr. Hoback that is contingent upon meeting certain financial and development performance criteria. The plan provides for a bonus of up to 30% of salary for Mr. Hoback depending on meeting or exceeding the performance criteria, which is based primarily on actual cash flow versus planned cash flow. The final determination of the bonus amount may be paid ratably based upon performance ranges and is ultimately at the discretion of the Board of Directors.  The bonus plan and the performance criteria are reviewed annually by the Compensation Committee.
# C_2009084EN.01000101.xml

| 8.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5452 — Daimler/Evonik/LI-TEC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 84/01

On 25 February 2009, 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 German 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 32009M5452. 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 32009M5452. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---