alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aubrey Thomas, Appellant.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Meeting 

March 15-16, 2010 

List of Attachments

AIF = Agenda Information Form 

No. Attachment Presenter / Author 

1 Action Item Tracking Report 

2a Revised Core Monitoring Plan prepared by Shane Capron Shane Capron 

2b General Core Plan for the GCD-AMP PPT John Hamill 

2c General Core Monitoring Plan TWG Workshop Results John Hamill 

2d Core Monitoring Plan: Next Steps PPT Helen Fairley 

3a Partial Workshop Report Including Polling Results of the 

GCMRC TWG Socioeconomic Workshop 

3b Final Report of the GCMRC Socioeconomic Research Review Helen Fairley 

Panel 

3c Socio-economic Workshop: Final Report and Next Steps PPT

4a TWG Biennial Process Paper 

4b GCDAMP Biennial Process Paper approved by AMWG on Shane Capron 

May 6, 2010 

5a Appendix E – FY2011-12 spreadsheet 

5b GCMRC GCD AMP Preliminary FY11-12 Budget PPT John Hamill 

5c John Hamill Memo including Project Summary Table 

5d BAHG Conference Call Summary 2010 Dennis Kubly 5e Budget Ad Hoc Group FY2011-12 Discussions PPT 

6 Electrical Power System Economics Clayton Palmer 

7 Sediment and Temperature Modeling Update PPT as 

presented at January 2010 Annual Reporting Meeting Paul Grams 

8 Science Plan for Fall Steady Flows PPT John Beeman 

9 Letter from Anne Castle to Rick Johnson, dated Feb. 22, 2010, 

Subject: Monthly distribution from Glen Canyon Dam Rick Johnson 

10 Fiscal year 2009 Science Advisors program Report to 

GCDAMP PPT Dave Garrett 

11 

AIF: GCMRC Updates 

• 2009 Protocol Evaluation Panel for Fish Monitoring 

Programs 

• 2000 LSSF Synthesis Report 

• Nonnative Fish Technical Report 

• Nonnative Fish Workshop, March 30-31, 2010 

• 2008 High Flow Experiment Reports and Publication 

Status 

• Proposed April 13-15, 2010, Integrated Modeling 

Workshop at Saguaro Lake Ranch, AZ 

• Update on Status of the Cultural Monitoring R&D 

Project 

AIF: GCMRC Updates – Sediment 

• Long Term Monitoring for Changes in Sediment 

Storage “Sed Trend” PPT

John Hamill 

Paul Grams 

12 Ad Hoc Group Updates Shane Capron
# Delegation of Authority Under Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the authority under section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to direct the drawdown of up to $60 million in defense articles and services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training, to provide assistance to Ukraine and to make the determinations required under such section to direct such a drawdown.

                        You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                         *Federal Register*.                    

[FR Doc. 2021-19180

Billing code 4710-10-P
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

LAWRENCE P. CIUFFITELLI, et al., 

No. 3:16-cv-00580-AC

Plaintiffs, 

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, et al.,

 Defendants. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On April 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Amended Findings and 

Recommendation (“F&R”) [242], recommending GRANTING in part and DENYING in part the 

Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Deloitte & Touche LLP, Eisneramper LLP, Sidley 

Austin LLP, and Tonkon Torp LLP [74] and the individual Motions to Dismiss filed by 

Defendants Eisneramper LLP [78], Tonkon Torp LLP [80], Sidley Austin LLP [81], Deloitte & 

Touche LLP [85], Integrity Bank & Trust [95], andTD Ameritrade, Inc. [113]. 

Defendants Eisneramper LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., Deloitte & Touche LLP, and 

Integrity Bank & Trust filed objections, and Plaintiffs responded to the objections. Defendants 

Sidley Austin LLP and Tonkon Torp LLP did not file objections. 

///

///
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

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 

recommendations 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 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny with 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 careful review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendations and ADOPT the 

Amended Findings and Recommendation [242] as my own opinion. The Joint Motion to 

Dismiss and individual Motions to Dismiss [74, 78, 80, 81, 85, 95, and 113] are GRANTED in 

part and DENIED in part. This matter is referred back to Judge Acosta for the issuance of an 

appropriate scheduling order, including a deadline for filing of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended 

Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 5th day of July, 2017. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman________ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge
Exhibit 31.1

I, Kenneth T. Myers, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Digital Lightwave, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants
other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: March 30, 2006



By:

/s/ KENNETH T. MYERSKenneth T. MyersPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### In the Matter of Florence Schweizer, Appellant, v David Christian Jablesnik, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 891]—

In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated June 13, 2011, which denied her amended petition to modify an order of the same court dated February 6, 2007, awarding joint custody of the subject child with sole physical custody to the father, so as to award her sole custody of the child, and awarded sole custody of the child to the father, with visitation to her.

Ordered that the order dated June 13, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). “Since custody determinations turn in *1342large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” *(Matter of Chery v Richardson,*88 AD3d 788, 788 [2011]). A change of custody should be made only if the totality of the circumstances warrants a modification *(see Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89, 95-96 [1982]).

Joint custody is encouraged “as a voluntary alternative for relatively stable, amicable parents behaving in mature civilized fashion” *(Braiman v Braiman,*44 NY2d 584, 589-590 [1978]). A change from joint legal custody to sole custody by one parent is warranted where “the parties’ relationship is so acrimonious that it effectively precludes joint decision-making’’ *(Matter of Picado v Doan,*90 AD3d 932, 933 [2011]). Here, the Family Court properly concluded that the parents’ relationship was too acrimonious to allow for joint decision-making *(see Matter of Edwards v Rothschild,*60 AD3d 675, 677 [2009]), and properly determined that it was in the child’s best interests to award sole legal and physical custody to the father, with the mother retaining significant visitation *(see Matter of Pavone v Bronson,*88 AD3d 724, 725 [2011]; *Freihofner v Freihofner,*33 AD3d 585, 586 [2006]). Accordingly, the court properly awarded sole custody to the father and denied the mother’s amended petition to modify the prior order awarding joint custody of the subject child with sole physical custody to the father, so as to award her sole custody of the child.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.E, Eng, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.12



                          [Health Care REIT Letterhead]



                                October 16, 1996



Mr. Glenn Kaplan
Kapson Senior Quarters Corp.
242 Crossways Park West
Woodbury NY  11797

RE:  Credit Facility for Kapson Senior Quarters Corp.

Dear Glenn:

This letter will confirm our agreements  regarding the line of credit amount and
minimum net worth  covenant based upon the recent IPO. The line of credit amount
will be $100,000,000 with a minimum net worth requirement of $13,000,000. Health
Care REIT,  Inc. (HCN) will have the right to increase the line of credit amount
to the original  proposed  amount of $140,000,000 if HCN determines to waive the
original net worth  covenant of  $20,000,000,  or Kapson and HCN mutually  agree
upon a new minimum net worth covenant.

Please  acknowledge  your agreement to the foregoing by executing a copy of this
letter.

Very truly yours,

HEALTH CARE REIT, INC.



Raymond W. Braun
Vice President

Kapson Senior Quarters Corp.

By:     /s/ Glenn Kaplan
       --------------------------

Title:       C.E.O.
       --------------------------
#### August URBANEK, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 84-201.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 26, 1984.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE DATA)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              THREE MONTHS ENDED            NINE  MONTHS ENDED
                                                                 SEPTEMBER 30,                 SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                             1996           1995           1996           1995
                                                            -------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                         <C>           <C>             <C>           <C>
PRIMARY:
Weighted average common shares outstanding for the
  period..................................................   19,836,114     3,789,136      19,367,646     3,182,028
Weighted average shares from assumed conversion of
   preferred stock........................................                 11,116,918                    11,116,918
Common equivalent shares from restricted stock subject
   to repurchase..........................................      337,768       558,860         421,512       478,422
Common equivalent shares pursuant to Staff Accounting
   Bulletin No. 83........................................                  1,128,822                     1,128,822
Common equivalent shares assuming conversion of stock
  options and warrants under the treasury stock method....    1,546,582       608,428       1,566,244       638,979
                                                            -----------   -----------     -----------   -----------
Shares used in computing per share amounts................   21,720,464    17,202,164      21,355,402    16,545,169
                                                            ===========   ===========     ===========   ===========
Net income................................................  $     3,169   $        12     $     5,299   $       890
                                                            ===========   ===========     ===========   ===========
Net income per share......................................  $       .15   $      .001     $       .25   $       .05
                                                            ===========   ===========     ===========   ===========
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Report") of PYR Energy
Corporation (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2002, each of
the undersigned D. Scott Singdahlsen, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Andrew P. Calerich, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the
undersigned's 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 Company.


Dated: December __, 2002.




/s/ D. Scott Singdahlsen
------------------------
D. Scott Singdahlsen, Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Andrew P. Calerich
----------------------
Andrew P. Calerich, Chief Financial Officer
3 

Historical Perspectives 

1968 NAS; Water Crisis in Colorado River Basin 

1987 NRC Review; River and Dam Management 

1991 NRC; Symposium on Colorado River and Dam Management 

1991 NRC; Review of Phase II Draft Integrated Research Plan 

1992 NRC; GCES Long Term Monitoring Workshop 

1994 NRC; Review of Draft EIS 

1994 NRC; Review of Draft Federal Long Term Monitoring 

 Plan 

1996 NAS; River Resource Management in Grand Canyon 

1998 NRC; GCDAMP Strategic and Annual Plans 

1999 NRC; Downstream; A Review of GCDAMP Programs 
4 

Historical Perspectives con’t 

1994 Review of Draft Federal Long Term Monitoring Plan 

1999 Downstream: Review of GCDAMP 

 Long term data sets absent due to absence of 

LTMP 

 Excellent concepts of monitoring but limited detail 

on actual plan activities and procedures 

 Clarity needed on how to accomplish integration 

 Need improved designs for system approaches 
5 

Historical Perspectives con’t 

 Programs must evaluate different scales 

 Identify candidate core variables early on 

using ecosystem level multi-species 

perspectives 

 Design overall plan in stages 

 Design to minimize impacts from new 

proposed approaches or budget shifts 
6 

Historical Perspectives con’t 

 Maximize cost effectiveness and flexibility through 

external contracts 

 Program management independent of any specific 

management agency 

 Should not have blanket delegation of monitoring 

programs to collaborating agencies. Scientists 

should design protocols, sampling designs, write 

assessments etc. 

 Annual costs could exceed current budget. Should 

insure available budget for research studies
#### BODINE et al., Respondents, v. BROWN et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 22, 1896.)

Action by Clothilda Bodine and others against Ronald IC. Brown and others. J. M. Gardner, for appellants. F. J. Worcester, for respondents.

No opinion. Motion for new trial denied, upon opinion heretofore handed down. 42 N. Y. Supp. 202.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

THOMAS BAUER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BANK OF AMERICA, NA; 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, 

NA, 

Defendants. 

PAPAK, Magistrate Judge. 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

Civ. No. 3:16-cv-00266-PK 

ORDER 

This matter comes before the Comt on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ECF Dkt. #5. 

The parties appeared for oral argument on April 5, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. and reached the following 

stipulations: 

First, the patties stipulate that Plaintiffs Third Claim for Relief, for negligent 

misrepresentation, should be dismissed with prejudice. 

Second, the parties agree that Plaintiffs remaining claims are more properly litigated in 

the earlier-filed Multnomah County Circuit Comt case Bank of America National Association v. 

Thomas L. Bauer et al., Case No. 121216501. In June 2013, Plaintiff filed an Answer and 

Page I - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00266-PK Document 14 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 2
Counterclaim in that case, Robinson Deel. Ex. 1, and that counterclaim remains pending before 

the state court. The parties agree that there are no compulsory counterclaims under Oregon law, 

but that Plaintiffs counterclaim in the ongoing state court case exercises a potentially preclusive 

effect on Plaintiffs claims in this case. See State ex rel. English ex rel. Sellers v. Multnomah 

Cty., 348 Or. 417, 433 n.11 (2010) ("[I]f the defendant actually raises a counterclaim in the first 

action, the rule of bar applies as though the defendant was a plaintiff in the first action."). The 

parties stipulate to the dismissal of Plaintiffs remaining claims without prejudice, so that 

Plaintiff can seek leave to amend the counterclaim in Bank of America National Association v. 

Thomas L. Bauer et al., Case No. 121216501. 

Therefore, based on the stipulation of the parties, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF 

Dkt. #5, is GRANTED in pmt. Plaintiffs Third Claim for Relief, for negligent 

misrepresentation, is DISMISSED with prejudice. All of Plaintiffs other claims are 

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED and DATED this 5th day of April 2016. 

\:_/) (' ) \ 'u/ ,-- ~o/k_ PAULPAPAK 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Page 2 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00266-PK Document 14 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Annual Report of Intelligroup, Inc, (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the annual period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alok Bajpai, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and to the
best of my knowledge and belief, that:

|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d); and     
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) |  | The information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the Company.
|   

|DATE:  March 31, 2008 | By: | /s/ Alok Bajpai               | 
|--------------------- | --- | ----------------------------- | 
|                      |     | Alok
      Bajpai             | 
|                      |     | Chief
      Financial Officer | 

117

---