alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 20

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 328-20 Filed 06/28/19 Page 1 of 2
...,.,. 

I-L -

. I ALU 

J l'\'tl ! 

1'19" 

• ' - -

SVEP 3: Add!Uo.:wil r rod1Kt1 

,.. ,c,,11.,,,,, ..- r,-.n .. r ,., ....i ~, I ,., ~ 

p 0 T 0 

~""-•t" '"• '" ~' ,,,,, ,,.. 

h a f arm to t877. S4.7. 1570 

50 Cli Lt)!rl, , S S!-'..At:t 

MFAI.S f>Ol-¥A"'a0'~ s:l:it 

<.I •• L 

.~.. , ,.,.,. ,... 1 fl • 

Ill'\ ffl 1.h.1,1t1 tru!Yllct lill o.W) -·NIii Qn t11t1'*1t ~ llo,a>:l!I , .10 ,.,,p ilnl•l\".t ~ · HVLI' ....... , . , 

•"t W 1 1i\,.,J wo,.....,. c,,""'r" .... ' 11'1 r Nt1Jtn-4:<Wl1""°1 ~ • 0 ••ol!Qt 

, etr/l' r..;,. f,"~ . .., 

I 0 c,- r.,111 1i. i... L 

I .,. 

.

,'l!d.ll 

....... 

,~r c,. V!ri--,,. .. 

. ,;,

•!. 

u111

I 

J

i-~ 

..,._ 

: . - ..... . "~ 

111.ttJ;,m~ 

~ tt lllf<1tlP 

I..Oll'fl10:/ 111'T1' 

IIJ1 

J • 

~ r. 

-, 0 

J -

·-lv -

,ir.,. ·i11~ W tt. '7"11. 1 t u t , ·t rwn11. •' ~ . wt I t,.. .. ., 

_.-,1,,.,~,, .... '1"<-f".,.,.-: } T ,IIMl)kll'f'N-V.1 ..... , , 

,_ 

I 

r. 

C 

n 

f 4-•,1!,c, ti .,. 

Cn l~;:c O 't ,> 

I Y\Ot.m .l.\ ll 114AI I v.l.l t J.•1::u 11f t ki<!IM HI .,,.-1,. (11 ,, MJ"1 QI l;i,J.,l. JCr; ~ ,t/li'f TIM, 

fCli' MU fL::all 11.hl'lfl!llt.,O DMI I!'! ~o· ic:t Cf r,u 11:S\u: ij "...¥1 ll 11,tt/ll'llDIII ~ 110 ~ 

t 11 C\'.IIIN.li' MM IIL h ...:t,U I 11'\l\\ I ~ , , , 11\h ,) •lf Cfll10 1,Q< l'Oo'.'19;i,1! 

JT J:111 l l f ,... t ,.0. ~~ -

At.!i ~• siirau:, ~· a-, .. _ I/ P.. l/ ~ !.-1 _ 11,,: 1!~<11 h ncl Cftt :it:'Ni CIY!r.o!:I; ui~ ~ Ilk~ rot:"'°'~f· I ; • ·1 ·~ <mi ds»J ,t ~p k;t1.:i ,μa.a\; Ind~ hl.:WJ ·~•,. ~ h'l"<lit....., :001• ; , 

.- , ~ ht1 • N:&1 4 (' ..... ~"" .. JJ •YC/-': ' • ~'\ 1•• • \:. •11:11 ,-.",,..,t _.,,,....., =- n •n ! 

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 328-20 Filed 06/28/19 Page 2 of 2
#### Steven D’Argenio, Appellant, v Monroe Radiological Associates, P. C., Respondent. (And Another Action.)

The defendant Monroe Radiological Associates, P. C., moved pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change the venue of these *542consolidated medical malpractice actions from Suffolk County, where the plaintiff resides, to Monroe County, where the alleged malpractice occurred. Although the cause of action arose in Monroe County, the papers submitted in support of the application failed to establish that there were a majority of material nonparty witnesses whose convenience would be served by a change of venue *(see, Brevetti v Roth,*114 AD2d 877; *Hurlbut v Whalen,*58 AD2d 311). An affidavit for a change of venue based upon the convenience of material nonparty witnesses must contain, *inter alia,*the names and addresses of the prospective witnesses, a statement of what the party expects to prove by those witnesses, and the basis for the movant’s belief as to what those witnesses will testify *(Hurlbut v Whalen, supra; see also, Thorner-Sidney Press v Merling Marx & Seidman,*115 AD2d 328). The affidavit submitted at bar failed to provide anything other than vague details as to the identity and possible testimony of the non-party witnesses who were members of the staff of the infirmary at the State University of New York College of Brock-port, and since the only other witnesses referred to appear to be agents or employees of the other defendant, Lakeside Memorial Hospital, their convenience is not relevant to a determination of the motion (see, *Lundgren v Lovejoy, Wasson, Lundgren & Ashton,*82 AD2d 912). Further, the fact that the medical records relating to the alleged malpractice are located in Monroe County demonstrates no real inconvenience since they could be mailed to the court *(see, Wecht v Glen Distribs. Co.,*112 AD2d 891; *Stavredes v United Skates of Am., 87*AD2d 502). Nor do counsel’s conclusory statements regarding calendar congestion in the two counties substantiate the claim that a trial could be had more swiftly in Monroe County. Although motions for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) are addressed to the discretion of the court, we find that the affidavits offered in support of the motion herein were legally insufficient to support an exercise of the court’s discretion to change venue. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.
Technical Work Group Meeting 

F I N A L AGENDA 

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group Meeting 

Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

500 N. 3rd Street, 3rd Floor, Conference Room A 

Phoenix, Arizona March 30, 2004 

START 

TIME TOPIC PERSON PURPOSE MATERIALS 

Noon LUNCH 

9:45 a.m. Welcome and 

Administrative 

Norm Henderson 

1. Introductions and 

 Determination of Quorum 

2. Review Action Items from 

 Feb. 2-3, 2004, Meeting 

3. Approval of Feb. 2-3, 2004, 

 Meeting Minutes 

4. Report/Assignments from 

 AMWG Meeting 

Agenda 

Action Items/ 

Draft Minutes 

10:35 a.m. 

AMP FY04-FY05 

Activity Schedule 

Revision and 

Implementation 

TWG/GCMRC Discussion and Feedback FY04-05 Activity 

Schedule 

12:15 – 

1:00 L U N C H 

1:10 p.m. 

Glen Canyon Dam 

Maintenance/TCD 

Schedule 

Ken Rice/ 

Dennis Kubly Discussion and Feedback 

2:40 p.m. 

Strategic Planning 

 - Core Monitoring Plan 

 - Long-term Exp. Plan

 - Ad Hoc 

GCMRC Discussion and Feedback Strategic 

Planning 

3:00 p.m. BREAK 

3:15 p.m. 

Strategic Planning 

(cont.) 

- Schedule 

- MATA or ? 

- Ad Hoc 

GCMRC Discussion and Feedback Strategic 

Planning 

5 p.m. Wrap-up and Adjourn Norm Henderson 
Technical Work Group Meeting 

F I N A L AGENDA 

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group Meeting 

Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 

500 N. 3rd Street, 3rd Floor, Conference Room A 

Phoenix, Arizona 

March 31, 2004 

START 

TIME TOPIC PERSON PURPOSE MATERIALS 

8:10 a.m. 

Welcome and 

Administrative Norm Henderson Information and Discussion Agenda 

8:15 a.m. Outyear Budget 

Process 

BAHG / 

Dennis Kubly Information and Discussion Budget 

8:15 a.m. Hualapai Native Fish 

Facility Kerry Christensen Information and Discussion 

9:30 a.m. Riparian Restoration 

on the Colorado River Fred Phillips Information and Discussion 

9:55 a.m. Tamarisk Removal in 

Grand Canyon 

Tributaries 

Larry Stevens Information and Discussion 

Presentations 

10:15 a.m. B R E A K 

10:30 a.m. Tributary Mechanical 

Removal Bill Liebfried Discussion and Feedback Presentations 

11 a.m. TWG Effectiveness/ 

Operating Procedures Norm Henderson 

Discussion and Consideration 

of Motion TWG 

Effectiveness 

11:30 a.m. 

► Agenda Items for 

 future meetings 

► Meeting schedule 

 for remainder of 

 the year 

Norm Henderson Discussion 

11:45 a.m. Adjourned
---

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 OfficerApril 16, 2010

---
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2171 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2171

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
   construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Arkansas.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES.

    Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of the Federal 
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
upon the request of the licensee for FERC Project No. 10455 (and after 
reasonable notice), is authorized, in accordance with the good faith, 
due diligence and public interest requirements of section 13 and the 
Commission's procedures under such section, to extend the time required 
for commencement of construction of the project for up to a maximum of 
three consecutive two-year periods. This section shall take effect for 
the project upon the expiration of the extension (issued by the 
Commission under section 13) of the period required for commencement of 
such project.

            Passed the Senate October 2, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2171

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
   construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Arkansas.
```
| 1.   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;      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/      Robert F. Apple                                                      |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Robert      F. AppleExecutive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |   |   |                                                                          |
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NHY/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KAMALJIT KAUR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-70881

Agency No. A079-267-267

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Kamaljit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion,

FILED

JAN 20 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
NHY/Research 2 07-70881

Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny the petition for

review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Kaur’s motion

to reopen because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s April

29, 2004, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kaur failed to establish grounds

for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897-98 (deadline for filing a

motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from

filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due

diligence”). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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
 Pest Management Research: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NPARL
                        Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory
                                    Agricultural Systems Research Unit
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and ManagementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Sidney, Montana Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory Pest Management Research PMRU Docs Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and Management: Outbreak and Survey Info





- NPARL Home
- PMRU Home
- ASRU Home
- Site Highlights
- Outbreak and Survey Info
- ID Tools | Apps
- Grasshopper Management
- IPM Handbook
- USDA Research | Contact Info

Outbreak Info: 2004 Adult Grasshopper Survey Mapheadline bar **National Cumulative Adult Grasshopper Density**(Oct 20, 2004) /ARSUserFiles/30320505/grasshopper/Extras/images/Maps/10_04_AG.jpg Return to Outbreak Info


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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6086
In Re: MIGUEL QUINONES,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:06-cv-00072) Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 19, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Miguel Quinones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Miguel Quinones has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he alleges that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Quinones asks this court to issue an order directing the district court to order the Respondent to answer his petition. The district court ’s docket report reveals that after Quinones filed his writ of mandamus, the Respondent answered Quinones’s petition. Because Quinones has received the relief he sought, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis but deny Quinones’s mandamus petition as moot. 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.

PETITION DENIED
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 Solely for the purpose of complying with 19 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Senior Vice President  Finance and Chief
Financial Officer of Nicholas Financial, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my
knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three and nine months
ended December 31, 2004, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Ralph T
Finkenbrink  
 Date: February 14, 2005
EXHIBIT 14

ITRONICS INC.

CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS

 

March 25, 2004

The Board of Directors of Itronics Inc. has adopted the following Code of BusinessConduct and Ethics (the Code). This Code is applicable to all directors, officers, andother senior management personnel (Management) of Itronics Inc. and its subsidiaries. Thepurpose of this Code is to promote the highest standards of ethical conduct of business.

> 
Management will practice honesty, integrity and good faith in every aspect of dealing    with other Company personnel, shareholders, the public, customers, suppliers and    government authorities. All persons are to be treated with dignity and respect.

Management will respect and obey all applicable federal, state, and local laws and    regulations. Management will not only follow the letter of the law, but the spirit as    well. 

Management will do its utmost to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest in our    business dealings. Apparent conflicts of interest are to be disclosed to the appropriate    person promptly. 

Management will prepare reports and other disclosures to be disseminated to the public    or to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission or other governmental    authorities in a full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable manner. The needs of our    investors and the investing public will always be the foremost priority in preparing such    reports or disclosures.

Trading of the Company’s securities will be conducted under all applicable laws    and rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Management will not take unfair    advantage of any publicly undisclosed information it may have regarding the operations of    the Company and its subsidiaries. 

Each member of Management is responsible to conduct him or herself in accordance with    this Code. Any observed violations are to be reported to the appropriate person promptly.    Violations of this Code subject the individual to disciplinary action and possible    termination.

Management includes directors, the principal executive officer, the principal    accounting officer or controller, or employees performing similar functions. 

 

The appropriate person to discuss any questions about this Code, observed violations of  the Code, or potential conflicts of interest is the principal executive officer, which is  currently the President of the Company. 

78

----
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4824

_____________________________

JOSEPH KEVIN ROPER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Edward P. Nickinson, III, Judge.

December 19, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and ROBERTS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Robin B. Rogers, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Joseph Kevin Roper, 

pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# L_2009173EN.01000501.xml

| 3.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 173/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/5

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 22 June 2009

on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the United Arab Emirates on certain aspects of air services

(2009/511/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2), in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | The Council authorised the Commission on 5 June 2003 to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Council authorised the Commission on 5 June 2003 to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.

| (2) | On behalf of the Community, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement with the United Arab Emirates on certain aspects of air services (2) (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On behalf of the Community, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement with the United Arab Emirates on certain aspects of air services (2) (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.

| (3) | The Agreement was signed on behalf of the Community on 30 November 2007 subject to its conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2008/87/EC (3). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Agreement was signed on behalf of the Community on 30 November 2007 subject to its conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2008/87/EC (3).

| (4) | The Agreement should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Agreement should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Community and the United Arab Emirates on certain aspects of air services is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to make the notification provided in Article 9(1) of the Agreement.

Done at Luxembourg, 22 June 2009.

For the Council

The President

J. ŠEBESTA

---

(1)  
  OJ C 66 E, 20.3.2009, p. 84.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 28, 1.2.2008, p. 21.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 28, 1.2.2008, p. 20.

3

---