alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ernest White, Appellant, v Harold J. Smith, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed *(see, People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent,*50 *1008NY2d 901). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Ostrowski, J. — habeas corpus.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Pine and Balio, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Visual Networks, Inc.
 Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (a)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2006 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2006

      To amend SAFETEA-LU to ensure that projects that assist the 
 establishment of aerotropolis transportation systems are eligible for 
                certain grants, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 23, 2015

  Mr. Cohen introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend SAFETEA-LU to ensure that projects that assist the 
 establishment of aerotropolis transportation systems are eligible for 
                certain grants, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Aerotropolis Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. PROJECTS OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.

    (a) Eligible Project Defined.--Section 1301(c)(2) of SAFETEA-LU (23 
U.S.C. 101 note) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(2) Eligible project.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible project' 
                means any surface transportation project eligible for 
                Federal assistance under title 23, United States Code, 
                including freight railroad projects and activities 
                eligible under such title.
                    ``(B) Inclusion of aerotropolis transportation 
                system projects.--The term `eligible project' includes 
                a combination of projects described in subparagraph (A) 
                that, as a group--
                            ``(i) assist the establishment of an 
                        aerotropolis transportation system; and
                            ``(ii) satisfy the requirement under 
                        subsection (d).''.
    (b) Aerotropolis Transportation System Defined.--Section 1301(c) of 
SAFETEA-LU (23 U.S.C. 101 note) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(4) Aerotropolis transportation system.--The term 
        `aerotropolis transportation system' means a planned and 
        coordinated multimodal freight and passenger transportation 
        network that, as determined by the Secretary, provides 
        efficient, cost-effective, sustainable, and intermodal 
        connectivity to a defined region of economic significance 
        centered around a major airport.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

WINSTON SHROUT, 

Defendant. 

3 :l 5-cr-00438-JO 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on defendant's Motion to Continue Release Pending Appeal. 

[# 179] The court denied this motion by minute order entered December 14, 2018 and modified to 

correct a clerical error on December 17, 2018. [# 180] I now provide additional findings and 

conclusions. I appreciate the exceptional effort of defense counsel in representing a most difficult 

client, but the court does not require additional briefing to resolve this matter. 

As reflected by the jury's verdict, defendant is guilty of the charges brought against him 

beyond any doubt. Further, the final evaluations by two distinguished psychological professionals 

establish that defendant is not psychotic and is indeed competent and has been competent from the 

beginning of these proceedings until the present. He is a crafty, manipulative and lmowledgeable 

individual who enjoys, not suffers from, a grandiose opinion of himself. After being cautioned, he 

represented himself at trial with the services of stand by counsel, and demonstrated that he 

I ORDER 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 181 Filed 12/17/18 Page 1 of 2
understood the charges against him and any possible defenses. In sum, this individual has been 

pretending to be incompetent knowing full well that he is responsible for his criminal acts. 

Accordingly, defendant's Motion to Continue Release Pending Appeal[# 179] is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 17TH day of December, 2018. 

Robert E. Jon'es 

United StatekDi;trict Judge 

2 ORDER 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 181 Filed 12/17/18 Page 2 of 2
#### Forces v. Marion.

Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court.

Tried before the Hon. John Moore.

L. E. Jeffries and Daniel Partridge, Jr., for appellant.

Pettus & Pettus, for appellee.

Action of detinue prosecuted by Forbes .against Marion. Defendant interposed six pleas. Plaintiff demurred to pleas numbered three, five and six. It is ■assigned as error that the court below erred in overruling these several demurrers. There is no other matter sought to be presented by the assignments of exmor. The action of the circuit *court*upon the demurrers is not shown by a *judgment*upon them. To the contrary all that does appear in this connection is the following purporting to be a minute entry: “Came the plaintiff and demurs to the defendant’s pleas filed in this case, and the court having considered such demurrers, the same are overruled.” In consonance with many decisions of this court, it is held that this is not a judgment upon the demurrers, and that assignments of error can not be based upon *it.*— Jasper *Merccmbile Go. v. O’Bear,*112 Ala. 247; *Granoforcl v. Graivford,*119 Ala. 34; *McDonald v. Ala. Mid. Baihoay Go.,*123 Ala. 227; *Gartlidge v. Sloan,*124 Ala. 596.

The judgment for the defendant is affirmed.

Opinion by

McClellan, C. J.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHELSEY L. FRIESEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

MARSH, Judge 

Case No. 6:15-cv-02174-MA 

ORDER FOR EAJA FEES 

On December 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Stipulated Application for Fees Pursuant to the Equal 

Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in which the parties agree that Plaintiff should 

be awarded fees in the amount of $4,828.43. ECF No. 17. 

Accordingly, based on the agreement of the paiiies, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees 

in the amount of $4,828.43 shall be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to EAJA. There are no costs or 

expenses. The parties agree that attorney fees will be paid to Plaintiffs attorney subject to 

verification that Plaintiff does not have a debt which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, · 

pursuant to the Treasmy Offset Program as discussed inAstrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). 

1 - ORDER FOR EAJA FEES 

Case 6:15-cv-02174-MA Document 19 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 2
If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made out to Plaintiffs attorneys, at their 

address: Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, 474 Willamette Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401. If 

Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt shall be made out 

to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office at the address stated above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this__:£_ day of DECEMBER, 2016. 

Malcolm F. Marsh 

United States District Judge 

2 - ORDER FOR EAJA FEES 

Case 6:15-cv-02174-MA Document 19 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 2
Technical Work Group Meeting 

October 10, 2018 

Before I give the status of the HPP, I have been asked to give a little background on the HPP and the 

cultural resources process that has led us to the HPP and where we are today.

The Process:

1. There are a number of steps required to reach compliance with cultural resources law. Each step 

in the compliance process builds on the previous step. 

2. The first step to occur under the cultural resources law and LTEMP EIS, Reclamation 

acknowledged that operations of the Glen Canyon Dam under the LTEMP is an undertaking as 

defined by the National Historic Preservation Act (54 § 300320). The undertaking is the proposed 

operation of the Glen Canyon Dam for a period of 20 years under the LTEMP (LTEMP EIS:3-

146) 

3. As an undertaking then, Reclamation, as lead federal agency, shall take into account the effect of 

the undertaking on any historic property – generally identified as Section 106 (54 § 306108, 

formerly Section 106 of the NHPA). 

4. Reclamation has determined that this undertaking has the potential to cause adverse effects 

cultural resources (as identified in the LTEMP EIS: 3-147). This includes inundation, exposure, 

erosion and bank slumping to name a few. 

5. Because Reclamation could not identify and resolve all adverse effects prior to the beginning of 

dam operations under the LTEMP, Reclamation was required to develop a Programmatic 

Agreement (PA) to address potential adverse effects. The PA was completed and executed on 

9/6/2017 with the signing by the ACHP. 

6. Because not all adverse effects could be identified within the PA, the PA stipulates that an 

Historic Preservation Plan (HPP) be developed. 

7. HPP is Reclamation’s “Roadmap” to be followed to assure Reclamation’s compliance with 

Section 106. Specific contents of the HPP were defined in the stipulations of the PA. 

8. The HPP consists of step by step instructions for Reclamation to be carried out under LTEMP. It 

identifies how Reclamation will deal with the discoveries of new historic properties or new 

effects on currently known properties. Mainly, this is the documentation of Reclamation’s 

compliance procedures. Some of the shortcomings in the past have concerned the lack of 

thorough documentation of effects. This will be eliminated with the new HPP. 

9. Status of the HPP is that the newest version of the draft HPP will be released for review by the 

parties of the PA on October 12, 2018. 

10. This review will last until October 19, 2018 with all comments returned to me. 

11. The week of October 22nd will be used to compile comments together into a final HPP document. 

12. On or before October 31, Brent Rhees will approve and sign the HPP. 

13. Distribution of the HPP will be immediately completed electronically to all parties of the PA, 

AMWG and TWG members and others as requested. 

Submitted by Bill R. Chada 

T:\ERD\22_Archeology\LTEMP PA & EIS\2018 LTEMP HPP\Meeting Notes\HPP Presentations & Talking Points\2018 10-10 

TWG HPP presentation
CONSENT OF AMEC AMERICAS LIMITED





Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Annual Report) of Cumberland Resources Ltd. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.



We hereby consent to the references to our name under the heading Narrative Description of Business -- Meadowbank Gold Project, Nunavut Territory, Canada in the Companys Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2006 which is included as part of the Annual Report, and to all other references to our name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report, and we further consent to the reliance in the Annual Report on our independent technical reports entitled Meadowbank Resource Estimate dated January 29, 2004,  and Meadowbank Gold Project, Nunavut Technical Report, dated March 31, 2005 which the Company used, or directly quoted from, in preparing summaries concerning the Meadowbank Gold Project, which appear in such Annual Report.





AMEC Americas Limited



By: /s/ Steve Toevs
Name: Steve Toevs Title: Vice President, Finance

March 29, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Edwards, Appellant.

We reject the defendant’s contention that his statements should have been suppressed because the police allegedly placed him in custody without probable cause in order to question him. The record unequivocally establishes, and the hearing court found, that the defendant voluntarily consented to accompany the detectives to the precinct. Indeed, the record is barren of any indication that the police used force, threats or intimidation to coerce the defendant into accompanying them, and he was neither handcuffed nor restrained in any manner. Additionally, while at the precinct, the defendant was informed that if he chose not to talk to the officers but was subsequently found to have been involved in the crime, he would be taken into custody *at a later date.*Under these circumstances, the defendant was not in police custody at the time he made the challenged statements *(see, e.g., People v Quartararo,*113 AD2d 845; *People v Baird,*111 AD2d 1044; *People v Villeroel,*106 AD2d 481; *People v Mertens,*97 AD2d 595; *People v Bryant, 71*AD2d 564, *affd*50 NY2d 949, *cert denied*449 US 958).

In any event, the hearing court correctly concluded that the detectives had probable cause to arrest the defendant, had they been so inclined, based upon their prior receipt of a written and sworn statement from a citizen informant who was reliable and which indicated that the defendant had criminally possessed stolen property *(see generally, People v Johnson,*66 NY2d 398; *People v Marcus,*123 AD2d 788; *People v Inman,*80 AD2d 622; *People v Seppinni, 77*AD2d 852, *appeal dismissed*54 NY2d 625).

Furthermore, the defendant’s contentions concerning the *819issue of consensual police entry upon his premises are not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law *(see, e.g., People v Tutt,*38 NY2d 1011; *People v Carolina,*112 AD2d 244). Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
AMWG Motion Information

AMWG Motion For Consideration

“The Technical Work Group accepts the Proposal to Amend the High-Flow Experiment Protocol and Other Considerations and moves to forward 

it to the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) to meet the Directive given at the February 15, 2023, AMWG meeting.”

(Mel Fegler, State of Wyoming) Made a motion to accept the recommendation 

(Ryan Mann, Arizona Game and Fish Department) Seconded.

[Seth Shanahan, Southern Nevada Water Authority] Motion passed by consensus.
PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

GLACIER FILMS (USA), INC. and 

GLACIER FILMS 1, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DANIEL GALLATIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-01632-SB

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and 

Recommendation in this case on May 12, 2016. Dkt. 32. Judge Beckerman recommended that 

Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment be granted and a default judgment be entered in the 

amount of statutory damages of $750. No party has filed objections.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court 

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

or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended 

Case 3:15-cv-01632-SB Document 38 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – ORDER

to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); 

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

court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but 

not otherwise”). 

Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude 

further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” 

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings 

and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge 

Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 28. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment 

(Dkt. 28) is GRANTED. A judgment will be entered against Defendant, permanently enjoining 

him from infringing Plaintiffs’ rights in the movie American Heist and awarding $750 in 

statutory damages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 2nd day of June, 2016.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01632-SB Document 38 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 2
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6619

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. NARATIO BOWLES, a/k/a Rato, a/k/a Roto , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr
- 00455

- LMB

- 1 )

Submitted : July 26, 2018 Decided: July 31, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Naratio Bowles, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Naratio Bowles appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Uni ted States v. Bowles , No. 1:13

- cr
- 00455

- LMB

- 1 (E.D. Va. May 8, 2018) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AF FIRMED
WILBORN LAW OFFICE, P.C. 

TIM WILBORN, Attorney at Law - OSB # 944644 

tim@wilbornlaw.com 

P.O. Box 370578 

Las Vegas, NV 89137 

Voice: (702) 240-0184 

Fax: (503) 926-9133 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

JADE MAB GORDON, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

COMMISSIONER of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3: 16-cv-569-AA 

·ORDER 

Attorney fees in the amount of$5,549.18 are hereby awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the 

Equal Access To Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Subject to any offset allowed under the Treasury 

Offset Program, payment of this award shall be made via check sent to Tim Wilborn's address: P.O. 

Box 3 70578, Las Vegas, NV 8913 7. In accordance with the fee assigmnent which Plaintiff has 

signed, payment shall be made in Tim Wilborn's name if no debt subject to offset exists. 

DATED this l<t>~yofr\114.-' e.J-.... ,,,2017. 

Submitted on March 9, 2017 by: 

sf Tim Wilborn 

TIM WILBORN, OSB # 944644 

(702) 240-0184 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ORDER - Page 1 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-00569-AA Document 18 Filed 03/09/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Clifford Hayden, Respondent, v Helen Walters, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in memorandum decision at Supreme Court, McLaughlin, J. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, McLaughlin, J. — constructive trust.) Present— Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A0 62 2 . RANDY SHI ELDS v . THE STATE.

Ran d y Sh iel d s was co n v i ct ed of rap e, ag g rav at ed s o d o m y , ag g rav at ed as s au l t

,

an d fal s e i m

p ri s on m en t

. Th i s Co u rt affi rm ed h is co n v i ct i on s

. See S h i el d s v. S t a t e , 2 6 4 Ga. Ap p

. 2 3 2 (5 9 0 SE2 d 2 1 7 ) (2 0 0 3 ). In M ay o f 2 0 1 3, Sh iel d s fi l ed a “ M o t i o n

fo r New Tri al Vo i d In d ict m en t ,” wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt p ro perl y co n s t ru ed as an

ex t rao rd i n ary m o t i o n fo r n ew tri al

. Th e tri al c o u r t d en i ed t h e m o ti o n , an d Sh i el d s

fi led th i s d i rect ap p eal . W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. An o rd er d en y i n g an ex trao rd i n ary m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al m ay o n ly b e ap p eal ed

b y d i scret i o nary ap p l i cat i o n

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (7 ). Becau s e Sh i el d s i s n ot

en t i t l ed to a di rect ap p eal fro m t h e o rd er h e ch al l en g es , t h i s a p p eal i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 12/10/2014 December 10, 2014
#### In the Matter of William Oliver, Respondent, v Walter R. Kelly, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants.

— Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Contrary to the court’s assumption, *Matter of Coleman v Coombe*(65 NY2d 777) does not require a Hearing Officer to call character witnesses to testify on an inmate’s behalf at disciplinary hearings.

In balancing the State’s considerable interest in the speedy resolution of disciplinary matters with the interest of the prisoner and in light of the questionable value of such evidence, we conclude that the additional burden of calling character witnesses should not be imposed upon prison officials, and that the Hearing Officer did not err by refusing to call petitioner’s counselor as a witness *(see, Graham v Baugh*
      *948
      *man,*772 F2d 441, 445). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — art 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.