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

The significant issue in this circumstantial evidence case is whether the jury indulged in any unwarranted inferences in applying the reasonable hypothesis standard and whether the jury reached a reasonable determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Giuliano,*65 NY2d 766, 767-768; *People v Betancourt,*111 AD2d 762, 763, *affd*68 NY2d 707). Here the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to *674the People shows that the defendant was guilty of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 415-a (1), (5) (a), and (b), that the jury did not indulge in any unwarranted inferences, and that it reached a reasonable determination.

The defendant is also incorrect in asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to request a pretrial *Sandoval*hearing. The mere fact that the defendant’s counsel did not engage in a pretrial procedure available to the defendant does not, in itself, indicate that the attorney was ineffective *(see, People v Jackson,*110 AD2d 853; *People v Taylor,*105 AD2d 814), and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the defendant’s representation, reveal that the defendant received meaningful representation *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147).

The claimed errors with respect to the trial court’s charge on reasonable doubt and its failure to charge on reasonable doubt as requested by the defendant were not properly preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Whalen,*59 NY2d 273, 280; *People v Dawson,*115 AD2d 612; *People v Irazarry,*114 AD2d 1041, 1042), and do not, under the circumstances of this case, warrant reversal in the interest of justice.

Similarly, the defendant’s contentions that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 415-a (1) is not properly a strict liability offense, or that if it is, the felony penalty for the statute’s violation is contrary to constitutional due process requirements, also have not been preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Elliott,*65 NY2d 446, 447; *People v Oliver,*63 NY2d 973, 975; *People v Singleton,*107 AD2d 828; *People v Cates,*104 AD2d 895, 897).

The recent case of *People v Burger*(67 NY2d 338, *cert*granted— US —, 93 L Ed 2d 20) is not applicable to the facts of this case. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re: Steve A. Coston

No. 06-17-00132-CR

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the relief 

sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED JULY 20, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### Robert Hagerman *v.*State of Connecticut

*Robert Hagerman,*pro se, on the application.

Submitted April 14

decided April 23, 1975

The “Ex Parte Application for Court Records in Forma Pauperis” filed in this court on April 14, 1975, is dismissed.
# C_2009223EN.01001101.xml

| 16.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5582 — Gonvarri/Severstal/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 223/03

On 4 September 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 English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5582. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5582. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Sunterra Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the transition period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and as of the date indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (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/    NICHOLAS J. BENSON
|NICHOLAS J.
BENSON       
|Chief Executive Officer  
|Dated: December 14, 2004
1 - ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SACHA GILBERT, No. 3:16-cv-00465-AC

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

 

NURTURE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 

NURTURE 247 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

and AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES

NORTHWEST, LLC dba PINNACLE, AN

AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES

NORTHWEST COMPANY,

 Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [58] on November 19, 

2018, in which he recommends that this Court: (1) grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ 

Motion to Strike [41]; and (2) grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment [35]. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
2 - ORDER

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation.

Pl. Obj., ECF 60. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & 

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the 

Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th 

Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Plaintiff raises two objections to the F&R. First, Plaintiff argues that her claims against 

Defendants Nurture LLC and Pinnacle are not barred by judicial estoppel. Second, Plaintiff 

argues that her First and Tenth claims under the Fair Housing Act and Or. Rev. Stat. (“ORS”)

§ 659A.145 against Defendant Nurture 247 are not barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. 

The Court agrees with Judge Acosta that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Nurture LLC and 

Pinnacle are barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. In addition, Plaintiff cited no evidence to 

support the merits of her reasonable accommodation claims in responding to Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment. See F&R 5 (noting that “Plaintiff’s Response [did] not include any 

citations to the record”). Accordingly, after careful consideration of Plaintiff’s objections and de 

novo review of the pertinent legal principles and portions of the record, the Court concludes there 

is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///
3 - ORDER

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation [58].

Defendants’ Motion to Strike [41] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment [35] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All claims 

against Defendants Nurture LLC and Pinnacle are dismissed with prejudice. The Court also 

dismisses Plaintiff’s First, Tenth, and Seventh Claims, and grants Defendants summary judgment 

on Plaintiff’s Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth claims. Plaintiff is granted summary 

judgment on her Fourth claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ____________ day of _________________, 2019.

__________________________________________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                              64
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,605,338
<ALLOWANCES>                                   473,155
<INVENTORY>                                    483,565
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,959,296
<PP&E>                                          72,053
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,137,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,085,324
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,600
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,007,672
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,137,596
<SALES>                                      2,371,977
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,371,977
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               388,900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             371,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                618,942
<INCOME-TAX>                                   249,133
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            369,809
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   369,809
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11



</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES GREGORY REECE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

TERRY DICKENSON, et al., 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-16333

D.C. No. 

2:09-cv-01350-TLN-CMK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2015**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Charles Gregory Reece appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging access-to-courts 

and due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo, Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009), and we 

 

* 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).

FILED

FEB 26 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Reece’s due process claim as barred by 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because Reece challenged disciplinary 

proceedings and the resulting loss of good time credits. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 

544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (inmate’s § 1983 action is barred if “success in that 

action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its 

duration”); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645-48 (1997) (challenge to loss of 

good-time credits not cognizable under § 1983).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Reece’s 

access-to-courts claim against Dickenson because Reece failed to raise a genuine 

dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of 

Dickenson’s alleged misconduct in processing his prison appeal. See Lewis v. 

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-53 (1996) (setting forth actual injury requirement); see 

also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth 

non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA 19-0565

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER,

Petitioner/Appellee,

vs.

MONTANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, MONTANA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATION,

Appellant, and

NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION d/b/a NORTHWESTERN

ENERGY,

Respondent/Appellant.

Order for 30-day Extension

Based upon the unopposed motion pursuant to M.R.App.P. 26(1)

and good cause appearing;

The motion is hereby GRANTED. Appellants shall each have up

to and including April 24, 2020, to file reply briefs.

03/18/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0565
Dated this ay of March, 2020.

2
2021 LTEMP

Archaeological Site Section 106 

Monitoring

Jennifer Dierker, Archaeologist Grand Canyon National Park
LTEMP FEIS and ROD:

Acknowledge the affected area varies 

by resources and extends outside the 

immediate river corridor

LTEMP Programmatic Agreement Area 

of Potential Effect is defined as 

“the area of direct and indirect effects 

to the character or use of historic 

properties on the Colorado River 

Corridor in the Canyons from Glen 

Canyon Dam to the western boundary 

of Grand Canyon National Park 

including direct or indirect effects that 

may be caused to historic properties 

by the Undertaking from rim-to-rim of 

the Canyons”
What is Monitoring?

Physically observing and 

documenting current conditions.

Conducted by archaeologists 

meeting the Secretary of Interior’s 

professional qualification standards.

Based on established protocols and 

definitions at the WASO level.

Monitoring schedules are based on 

the presence or absence of 

disturbances, the disturbance levels 

and effect on National Register 

Integrity. Schedules range from 

annual to once every 15 years. 
Site type examples 

along the river corridor

Multi-room structures

Historic boat 

Large donut-shaped roasting feature

Images pecked into rock
Examples of 

erosion at 

LTEMP sites

erosion at 

LTEMP sites

Cutbank exposure and 

retreat

Surface erosion

Wind erosion

Gullying
2021 Sites
Bar chart of 2021 

documented 

disturbances
LTEMP Monitoring
2021 Summary

79% of sites were in 

Good condition –

with no treatment 

recommendations. 

Water erosion 

continues to be the 

most frequently 

documented 

disturbance.

One site is so 

impacted by erosion 

that National 

Register eligibility is 

threatened. Data 

recovery is planned 

at this site.
NPS Resource 

Programs on the 

river

Colorado River Management 

Plan

• Archaeological site 

monitoring & mitigation

• Campsite monitoring & 

mitigation

Trails river maintenance

Vanishing Treasures

List of Classified Structures
March 2021 4,000 cfs
March 2021 4,000cfs rapids
Final Slide

Questions?
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19364]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Nursing Research 
Special Emphasis Panel; Institutional Training Grants.
    Date: September 24, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Nursing Research, 6701 Democracy 
Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ming Yan, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Immunology (IMM), DPPS, Center for Scientific Review, National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4205, Bethesda, MD 
20892, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d342c232024232a0d202c242163232425632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bac3dbd4d7d3d4ddfad7dbd3d694d4d3d294ddd5cc">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, 
Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 2, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-19364 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Investigator Initiated Program Project Applications (P01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         September 27-28, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A,  Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Soheyla Saadi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 669-5178,                         *saadisoh@niaid.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 31, 2021.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-19110 Filed 9-2-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 32

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the foregoing Report
on Form 10-QSB pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities
law.

Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78) and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broadway Financial Corporation as of
and for the three months ended March 31, 2006.



|      |  |              |  |  |  |     |  |                               
|----- |  | ------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------
|Date: |  | May 15, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Paul C. Hudson            
|      |  |              |  |  |  |     |  | Paul C. Hudson                
|      |  |              |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer       
|      |  |              |  |  |  |     |  | Broadway Financial Corporation
|      |  |              |  | 
|Date: |  | May 15, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Sam Sarpong               
|      |  |              |  |  |  |     |  | Sam Sarpong                   
|      |  |              |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer       
|      |  |              |  |  |  |     |  | Broadway Financial Corporation
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                              L Q CORPORATION, INC.
                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 of L Q Corporation, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Melvyn Brunt, Co-Chief
Executive 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, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.



Dated: March 31, 2005


                                          /s/  Melvyn Brunt
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Melvyn Brunt
                                          Chief Financial Officer