alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1- NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

AND AFFILIATION OF COUNSEL

Martin & Richards, LLP

111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3150

Portland, Oregon 97204

Phone: 503.444.3449

Fax: 503.296.5834

Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. 114992

gabby@cascadialawyers.com

MARTIN & RICHARDS, LLP

111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3150

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: 503.444.3449

Facsimile: 503.296.5834

Erick J. Haynie, OSB No. 982482

EHaynie@perkinscoie.com

Jeffrey M. Peterson, OSB No. 115723

JeffreyPeterson@perkinscoie.com

PERKINS COIE LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Telephone: 503.727.2000

Facsimile: 503.727.2222

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LNV Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

LNV CORPORATION, a Nevada 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01836-MO

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

AND AFFILIATION OF COUNSEL

(Clerk’s Action Required)

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 118 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 2
2- NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

AND AFFILIATION OF COUNSEL

Martin & Richards, LLP

111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3150

Portland, Oregon 97204

Phone: 503.444.3449

Fax: 503.296.5834

TO: Clerk of Court

AND TO: All Named Parties

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, pursuant to LR 83-10(b), that the mailing address, business

e-mail address and firm affiliation for Gabrielle D. Richards of Perkins Coie LLP has changed. 

Ms. Richards’ new business address, business e-mail address and firm affiliation are as follows:

Martin & Richards, LLP

111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3150

Portland, Oregon 97204

Telephone: 503.444.3449

Facsimile: 503.296.5834

gabby@cascadialawyers.com

This notice shall be effective immediately. All further notices and pleadings, exclusive 

of original process, are to be served upon Ms. Richards as noted above and upon Erick J. Haynie 

and Jeffrey M. Peterson of Perkins Coie LLP, who also remain counsel of record.

DATED: December 4, 2015 /s/ Gabrielle D. Richards

Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. 114992

gabby@cascadialawyers.com

Martin & Richards, LLP

111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3150

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: 503.444.3449

Facsimile: 503.296.5834

Attorney for Plaintiff LNV Corporation

DATED: December 4, 2015 /s/ Erick J. Haynie

Erick J. Haynie, OSB No. 982482

EHaynie@perkinscoie.com

Jeffrey M. Peterson, OSB No. 115723

JeffreyPeterson@perkinscoie.com

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Telephone: 503.727.2000

Facsimile: 503.727.2222

Attorneys for Plaintiff LNV Corporation

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 118 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of William J. Ryan et al., Appellants, v Martin Moran et al., Respondents.

*587To the extent that the order entered April 9, 1985, denied the motion to renew, Special Term was correct. The petitioners did not present, as they were required to, new material facts justifying the granting of renewal *(see, Matter of Annis v New York City Tr. Auth.,*108 AD2d 643). To the extent that Special Term’s order denied the motion to reargue, it is not appealable *(see, Montalvo v Key Indus.,*98 AD2d 767). In any event, the motion to reargue was untimely made *(see, Henegar v Freudenheim,*40 AD2d 825). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 19

- 00913

- CR

Victoria Nicole Saldivar, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 391ST DISTR ICT COURT OF TOM GRE EN COUNTY NO. D

- 17

- 0065

- SB, TH E HONORABLE BRAD GOO DWIN, JUDGE PRESI DI NG

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Victoria Nicole Saldivar has filed a motion to dismiss her appeal. The

motion is signed by both appellant and her attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). We g rant the

motion and dismiss the appeal. See id

.

____________ ______________________________ Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before C hief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: January 23, 2020

D o Not Publish
**EXHIBIT 32.2** **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-KSB    (the “Report”) of PYR Energy Corporation (the    “Company”) for the year ended August 31, 2006,    Jane M. Richards, 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. /s/  Jane    M. Richards
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-8219

___________

 *

Cyril A. Kolocotronis *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri

*

Veera Dr. Reddy, M.D. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Psychiat., *

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 29, 1998

 Filed: February 3, 1999

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Cyril A. Kolocotronis filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action contesting the

administration of psychotropic medication. The district court transferred the petition

to this court because Kolocotronis had not obtained our authorization prior to filing a

successive petition. Although Kolocotronis captioned his complaint as a federal

habeas petition, his claims should have been brought as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
-2-

challenging forced medication as a condition of his confinement. See Washington v.

Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990); Walton v. Norris, 59 F.3d 67 (8th Cir. 1998). We

therefore remand this matter to the district court for further consideration of the matter

as a section 1983 claim. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Lamona JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-16489

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 13, 2007.

Edward Lamona Johnson, Jr., Jesup, GA, pro se.

*929Terry Flynn, E. Bryan Wilson, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, BARRETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Edward Lamona Johnson, Jr., proceeding *pro se,*appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss count one of the indictment pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 38, which he styled as a motion to dismiss count one of the indictment under Rule 33. A jury found Johnson guilty in 1997, and he filed the motion on October 13, 2006. The district court denied Johnson’s motion to dismiss count one of the indictment, finding that his motion was not filed within three years of the verdict in his case, as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(b)(1).

Although *Pro se*pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed, *Tannenbaum v. United States,*148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir.1998), when an appellant fails to raise an argument in his initial brief, that issue is abandoned. *United States v. Thomas,*242 F.3d 1028, 1033 (11th Cir.2001). Here, although we must construe Johnson’s brief liberally, he fails to challenge in any way the district court’s conclusion that his motion was untimely under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(b)(1). Timeliness is the only issue the district court decided, and Johnson abandons any argument related to that issue. Accordingly the decision of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
734 A.2d 1286

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Steven SANABRIA, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Aug. 11, 1999.

Decided Sept. 9, 1999.

Joseph C. Madenspacher, Dist. Atty., Susan E. Moyer, Asst. Dist. Atty., District Attorney’s Office, for Com.

David K. Grubb, Columbia, for Steven Sanabria.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Based upon our disposition in *Commonwealth v. Williams,*557 Pa. 285, 733 A.2d 593 (1999), we affirm the Order of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas dated May 3, 1999. Furthermore, we remand the matter to the Superior Court for disposition of any remaining issues.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.
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
 Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        Agricultural Systems Research
                                    Pest Management Research
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and Management:
                    Plains Area OfficeSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






TEAM Tech Transferheadline bar No pages to list.


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
---

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Martin S. Smiley, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of mPhase Technologies,
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's
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
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

> a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
>   design or operation of internal control 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 control over financial reporting.

/s/ Martin S. Smiley

Martin S. Smiley 
Chief Financial Officer 
October 7, 2005

---
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 41 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-141757) and Amendment No. 548 to the 1940 Act Registration
      Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-09763), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2020, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln
      Life & Annuity Company of New York and (b) April 15, 2020, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln New York Account N For Variable Annuities for the registration of
      interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    May 15, 2020
#### Cynthia C. Krieble *v.*Frederick Brayton Krieble

House, C. J., Loiselle, MacDonald, Bogdanski and Longo, Js.

Argued January 14

decision released February 18, 1975

*Ralph G. Dixon,*with whom, on the brief, were *Thomas J. Groarle, Jr.,*and *Renard J. Kolasa,*for the appellant (defendant).

*H. Meade Alcorn, Jr.,*with whom, on the brief, were *John L. Bonee*and *Stephen B. Hazard,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

The decisive issue on this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of alimony awarded to the plaintiff in its judgment granting a divorce to her on the uneontested ground of desertion. Despite the vigor with which the appeal has been prosecuted and defended and the substantial amounts involved in the award made by the trial court, the issue remains a simple one.

It is well settled that the trial court’s decision as to the type and amount of alimony awarded in a divorce action is based upon the circumstances of the parties to the action and “is within the sound discretion of the trial court, taking into account the circumstances of the case such as the amount of the estate of the husband, his income, his age, health and earning capacity and the age, health, station *8and separate estate of the wife.” *Baker*v. *Baker,*166 Conn. 476, 488, 352 A.2d 277; see also *Wood*v. *Wood,*165 Conn. 777, 783, 345 A.2d 5; *Hotkowski*v. *Hotkowski,*165 Conn. 167, 170, 328 A.2d 674; *Stoner*v. *Stoner,*163 Conn. 345, 307 A.2d 146.

Our review of the record leads to the conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and reached its decision by the application of the standards which have been well established by our cases.

There is no error.
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1848

To suspend temporarily the duty on propanoic acid, 2-[4-[(5-chloro-3-fluoro2-pyridinyl)oxy]-phenoxy]-2-propynyl ester.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 24, 1998

Mr. HELMS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on propanoic acid, 2-[4-

[(5-chloro-3-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]-phenoxy]-2-propynyl

ester.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROPANOIC ACID, 2-[4-[(5-CHLORO-3-FLUORO-2-

4 PYRIDINYL)OXY]-PHENOXY]-2-PROPYNYL

5 ESTER.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

9 new heading:
2

•S 1848 IS

‘‘ 9902.29.19 Propanoic acid, 2-[4-[(5-

chloro-3-fluoro-2-

pyridinyl)oxy]-phenoxy]-2-

propynyl ester (CAS No.

105512–06–9) (provided for

in subheading 2918.90.20) ... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/02 ’’.

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to articles entered, or

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 2 6 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,
P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

J O S E D E J E S U S G A R C I A , A l s o K n o w n a s J o s e J e s u s G a r c i a , A l s o K n o w n a s J o s e G a r c i a ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s N o

. 5 : 0 8

- C R

- 3 2 5

- 1

B e f o r e D A V I S , S M I T H , a n d S O U T H W I C K , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. P E R C U R I A M : *

T h e a t t o r n e y a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t J o s e d e J e s u s G a r c i a h a s m o v e d f o r U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary26 , 20 11
Lyle W . Cayce Clerk U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary26 , 20 11
Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-50826 Document: 00511361744 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2011N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 2 6

l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v

. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. G a r c i a h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e

. W e d o n o t e n f

o r c e G a r c i a ’ s a p p e a l w a i v e r i n l i g h t o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s f a i l u r e t o a d m o n i s h h i m a d e q u a t e l y o f i t s c o n s e q u e n c e s

. N e v e r t h e l e s s , o u r i n d e
p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f

t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f

r i v o l o u s i s s u e f o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D ,

c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e a p p e a l i s D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

.

2 Case: 09-50826 Document: 00511361744 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2011
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of CD&L, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Russell J. Reardon, 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, that:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
               Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated results of
               operations of the Company for the periods presented.

Dated: August 15, 2005


                                                        \s\ Russell J. Reardon
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        Russell J. Reardon
                                                        Chief Financial Officer


     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
     906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of Section
     1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, united States Code) and is not being filed as
     part of Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure statement.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
     been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
     furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
     request.
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

JAMES H. PARSLEY and MARIE E. 

PARSLEY,

No. 3:16-cv-00175-SB

Plaintiffs, 

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al., 

 Defendants. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On April 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and 

Recommendation (“F&R”) [50], recommending that Defendant Ditech’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment [20] should be GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint [28] should be 

DENIED. No objections to the F&R 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 

recommendations as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the 
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

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

[50] as my own opinion. Ditech’s Motion for Summary Judgment [20] is GRANTED, and 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint [28] is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 5th day of July, 2017. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman_________ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge