alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon, United States District Judge for the *

Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDGAR KUNKLER,

 Petitioner - Appellee,

 v.

MADELENE M. MUNTZ,

 Respondent - Appellant.

No. 06-55555

D.C. No. CV-05-06473-TJH

ORDER

Before: CANBY and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and CONLON, District *

Judge.

The State of California, on behalf of Warden Madelene Muntz, appealed the

district court order granting Edgar Kunkler’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In a memorandum disposition filed March 7, 2007, we

reversed, finding the California governor’s decision to deny Kunkler parole was

supported by “some evidence.” Kunkler v. Muntz, 226 Fed. Appx. 669, 670-71

(9th Cir. 2007). Kunkler timely petitioned for panel rehearing and rehearing en

banc. Relying on Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc),

Pearson v. Muntz, 606 F.3d 606, 608 (9th Cir. 2010), amended on denial of reh’g,

625 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2010), Cooke v. Solis, 606 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2010), rev’d,

FILED

MAR 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

131 S. Ct. 859 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2011), and In re Lawrence, 190 P.3d 535, 539 (Cal.

2008), we vacated the March 7, 2007 memorandum disposition and affirmed the

district court, finding the State failed to establish “some evidence” of Kunkler’s

future dangerousness. Dkt. No. 50 (Dec. 27, 2010). The State petitions for panel

rehearing in light of Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2011) (per

curiam). Although invited to do so, Kunkler did not file a response.

In Swarthout, the Supreme Court held federal habeas review of California

parole decisions is limited to procedural due process, namely whether the state

parole applicant had an opportunity to be heard and received a statement of the

reasons underlying the denial of parole. Id. at 862. Swarthout prohibits

examination whether the California state courts applied the “some evidence”

standard correctly. Id. at 862-63. In this case, there has been no showing that

Kunkler was denied an opportunity to be heard at his parole hearing or was not

provided a statement of the reasons for his parole denial.

Accordingly, the petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The December

27, 2007 order affirming the district court is VACATED. The district court order

granting Kunkler’s habeas corpus petition is REVERSED. Kunkler’s motion for

further or modified order to specify the form of habeas relief is DENIED as moot.
FRYINGPAN RIVER NEAR THOMASVILLELatitude: 39.345Longitude: -106.674Elevation: 8210

FRYINGPAN RIVER NEAR THOMASVILLE

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chapman Tunnel Site Page...



Chapman Tunnel

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Kiln Site Page...



Kiln

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Nast Lake Site Page...



Nast Lake
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**LQ 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 LQ Corporation, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Seymour Holtzman, 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 informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: March 29, 2004
**Exhibit 10.3.6**

 

**Summaryof Directors’ Compensation**

 

Eachnon-employee director and alternate director who owns less than 5% of Univision’scommon stock and who is not affiliated with A. Jerrold Perenchio, GrupoTelevisa, S.A. and its affiliates (“Televisa”) or Corporacion Venezolana delTelevision, C.A. (VENEVISION) and its affiliates (“Venevision”) is paid$100,000 for each year of service. In addition, each non-employee director,other than A. Jerrold Perenchio and John G. Perenchio, and each alternate directormay be granted options to purchase our Class A Common Stock. In 2005,Univision did not award any options but made its annual grants of options in January 2006,at which time each of Messrs. Gaba, Horn, Cassara, Tichenor, Johnson,Rivera and Cisneros received 25,000 nonqualified stock options that vestratably over 4 years.

 

----
#### Pountney v. Pountney.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

May 12, 1890.)

Divorce—Costs—Attorney’s Fees.

In an action by a wife for a limited divorce, an "order was entered allowing alimony, and “$100 for counsel fees, pending the litigation. ” Plaintiff recovered j udg*193ment. *Held,*that defendant was not entitled to have any portion of the $100 applied to payment of witness fees, and that the fact that the check therefor stated that $50 was for witnesses did not change the order.

Appeal from special term, Orange county.

Defendant appeals from an order denying his application for retaxation of costs, and reduction of the judgment for costs entered in plaintiff’s favor. For nature of action, see the preceding case, *ante,*192.

Argued before Babnaed, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*John W. Lyon,*for appellant. *G. JS. Cuddeback,*for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

This action was for a divorce. A motion was made by the plaintiff for alimony and expenses before trial. The affidavit of the plaintiff states that $50 was granted for counsel fees, and $50 for witness fees. The order was not so entered, but alimony was allowed, and “$100 for counsel fees, pending the litigation.” With this order standing, there is no basis for a retaxation of costs. The order allows nothing for witness fees or expenses, and the defendant has no right to ask the plaintiff’s attorney to apply any portion of the $100 to the payment of witness fees. The form of the check by which the $100 was paid, stating that $50 was for counsel fees and $50 for witnesses, did not change the order. The plaintiff’s attorney could receive the $100 as his right, under the order. Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James B. Cameron, Appellant.

Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s contention that his constitutional right to present evidence in his defense was denied because he was precluded from displaying his withered limbs to the jury. Defendant had full opportunity to place into evidence his physical condition through numerous hospital records and indeed did so. In fact, considerable evidence was submitted with respect to defendant’s physical abilities. Thus, the showing of his limbs would have been cumulative. Further, a simple showing of his limbs to the jury without more would not have established his inability to have committed the crime charged. Even if it was error to deny his request, in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, there is no reasonable possibility that this error contributed to the conviction and, therefore, such error must be considered as harmless *(People v Daly,*98 AD2d 803, 804, *affd*64 NY2d 970).

Trial Term erred in permitting the prosecutor in summation to exhibit defendant’s alleged signatures on the hospital record to the jury. The record was not in evidence and it was never established that defendant had in fact signed them. Considering, however, the limited nature of the error when compared with the overwhelming evidence of guilt, there is no significant probability that defendant would have been acquitted but for this error *(People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242).

We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme *1045Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. — burglary, second degree, and robbery, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Lawton, JJ.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

February 23-24, 1999

List of Attachments

No. Title Author / Presenter

1 Minutes of Feb. 18, 1999 Meeting

2 Changes to Physical Resources Presentation (Nov. 1998) Ted Melis

3 Biological Resources Barbara Ralston

4 Socio-cultural Resource Projects Ruth Lambert

5 Information Technology Mike Liszewski

6 Lake Powell Management Objectives and Information Needs
Richard F. McGinty, OSB 86071

P.O. Box 12806

Salem, OR 97309

503-371-9636

Fax: 503-371-2879

richard@mcginty-belcher.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

SARA J. WILLIAMS, Case No.: 6:16-cv-00439-JE 

 Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

This Court, having considered the Plaintiff’s Motion, having reviewed record, and seeing

no objection to the Plaintiff’s Motion, finds the requested fee is reasonable and awards Plaintiff

an EAJA Attorney Fee in the amount of $7,265.09 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and $0 for costs

and expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, for at total of $7,265.09, subject to debt owed the

U.S. Government pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130

S.Ct. 2521 (2010). If Plaintiff has no such Treasury debt then the EAJA fee check shall be made

out to Plaintiff’s attorney Richard F. McGinty, and mailed to Plaintiff’s attorney at: PO Box

12806, Salem, OR 97309-0806. If Plaintiff has a Treasury debt then the check for any remaining

// 

 Page -1- ORDER 6:16-cv-00439-JE
funds after offset of the Treasury debt shall be made out to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's

attorney at the address indicated above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January ____, 2018.

____________________________________

United States District Court Magistrate Judge

Presented by:

Richard F. McGinty OSB #86071

503-371-9636

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

 Page -2- ORDER 6:16-cv-00439-JE

XXXXX

 February 5, 2018

/s/ John Jelderks

XXXXXXXX
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION


OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Manhattan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. do hereby certify that, to the best of their
knowledge:


(a) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009 (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 Manhattan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.





Dated:
      May 15, 2009
            /s/ Douglas
  AbelDouglas
      AbelPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerDated:
      May 15, 2009
            /s/ Michael G.
      McGuinnessMichael
      G. McGuinnessChief
      Operating and Financial Officer
#### ROGERS, ET AL. v. DAUGHDRILL.

(Decided December 4, 1913.

Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Samuel B. Browne.

Bestor & Young, for appellant.

D. B. Cobbs, for appellee.

Sayre, J.

— Affirmed on tbe authority of *Brannen v. Henry,*175 Ala. 454; *Brue v. McMillan,*175 Ala. 416.

McClellan, Mayfield and Somerville, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
        32 - Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 In
        connection with the annual report of Digital Creative Development Corporation
        (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        "Report"), Gary Herman, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
        of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that:
  (1)
              The
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities and 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.
 
 DIGITAL
        CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
 
 By: 
        Gary Herman, CEO
 Gary
        Herman, CEO
 
 
 Dated:
        November 17, 2005
 
 By: 
        Skuli Thorvaldsson
 Skuli
        Thorvaldsson, Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 Dated:
        November 17, 2005
datetime,flow volume2015-05-20,4960.7438
# C_2021398EN.01000801.xml

| 1.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/8

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 15 April 2021 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40330 – Rail cargo

Rapporteur: Luxembourg

(2021/C 398/07)

1.

The Advisory Committee (14 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the anti-competitive conduct in form of customer allocation covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practice between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the Treaty.

2.

The Advisory Committee (14 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the product and geographic scope of the infringement set out in the draft decision.

3.

The Advisory Committee (14 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty, as set out in the draft decision.

4.

The Advisory Committee (14 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practice was capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States.

5.

The Advisory Committee (14 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the overall duration of the infringement and as regards the duration of the participation of each undertaking in that infringement.

6.

The Advisory Committee (14 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.

7.

The Advisory Committee (14 Member States) agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice and the 2008 Settlement Notice.

8.

The Advisory Committee (14 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

9.

The Advisory Committee (14 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---
Exhibit 14.(a).4



CONSENT



I hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-149175) of Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. (the "Company")
of the summary of my appraisal of the Company's investment property located under the captions “Summary of Significant Accounting
Policies” (note 2f) in the consolidated financial statements of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012 which appear
in this Form 20-F.



|Tel Aviv, Israel | /s/ Barak, Friedman Cohen & Co  
|---------------- | --------------------------------
|April 25, 2013   | Barak, Friedman Cohen & Co.     
|                 | Economic & Real Estate Appraisal
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

LAURENCE WOODS and 

CLIFFORD LUCAS 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SHERIFF D. STATON and 

CHAPLAIN KYLE 

Defendants. 

MOSMAN,J., 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

No. 3:15-cv-02169-PK 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On June 2, 2017, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation 

("F&R") [61], recommending that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [30] should be 

GRANTED. Plaintiff Woods objected [64] and Defendants responded [65]. 

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 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 
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 under 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)(l)(C). 

Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Papak's recommendation and ADOPT the F&R 

[61] as my own opinion. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [30] is GRANTED and 

Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this __Qday of August, 2017. 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER
Exhibit
32.2 -Certification of Principal Financial Officer




CERTIFICATION
IN ACCORDANCE WITH


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED BY


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Internet America, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the three months ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Jennifer S. LeBlanc, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company,
certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge 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/ Jennifer S.
      LeBlancJennifer
      S. LeBlancChief
      Financial Officer and SecretaryDate:
      October 28, 2008







21
GCDAMP and NPS River Trips and Field Activities, April through June, 2018.

Launch Take 

out

Project Number, Agency, and Project Description Location

11-Apr 24-Apr Project F, GCMRC, Aquatic food base monitoring Glen and Grand 

Canyon

24-Apr 30-Apr Project H, GCMRC, Rainbow trout monitoring in Lees Ferry Glen Canyon

26-Apr 8-May Project I, AZGFD, System-wide native and non-native fish 

monitoring

Glen and Grand 

Canyon

17-Apr 27-Apr Project G, USFWS, Humpback chub monitoring in the Little 

Colorado River

Little Colorado 

River

28-Apr 15-May Project D, GCMRC, Cultural resources monitoring Grand Canyon

11-May 30-May Project G, GCMRC, Juvenile humpback chub monitoring Grand Canyon

15-May 25-May Project G, USFWS, Humpback chub monitoring in the Little 

Colorado River

Little Colorado 

River

19-May 1-June Hualapai Cultural Monitoring Grand Canyon

May NPS, Razorback sucker (Bright Angel Creek-Pearce Ferry), 

small-bodied/larval fish seining Grand Canyon

May NPS, Havasu Creek humpback chub translocation monitoring Havasu Creek

May NPS, PIT-tag antenna installation at Bright Angel/Phantom 

Ranch

Bright Angel 

Creek

May NPS, Bright Angel Creek humpback chub translocation

Bright Angel 

Creek

6-june 15-June Paiute Consortium Cultural Monitoring Grand Canyon

13-June 6-July GCMRC, Juvenile Humpback chub monitoring Grand Canyon

14-June 29-June Projects F & M, GCMRC Partners in Science, Aquatic food 

base monitoring Grand Canyon

28-June 9-July GCMRC, Juvenile Humpback chub monitoring-LCR Little Colorado 

River

June NPS, Razorback sucker (Bright Angel Creek-Pearce Ferry), 

small-bodied/larval fish seining Grand Canyon

June NPS, Shinumo Creek/Shinumo Inflow aggregation 

monitoring Grand Canyon
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Travis Servey, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 884]

Appeal from a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (John T. Ward, J.), rendered August 5, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20). Defendant contends that County Court erred in sentencing him without first receiving and considering a presentence report pursuant to CPL 390.20 (1). Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review *(see*CPL *1429470.05 [2]), he further contends that this Court nevertheless should review it pursuant to the “narrow exception to preservation where a mode of proceedings error affects a court’s jurisdiction and power over a defendant” *(People v Williams,*14 NY3d 198, 220 [2010], *cert denied*562 US —, 131 S Ct 125 [2010]). Here, however, the record establishes that the prosecutor indicated that the pre-plea report would serve as the presentence report, whereupon defendant indicated that he was ready to proceed with the plea and sentencing that same day. We thus conclude that defendant is deemed to have waived his present contention concerning the presentence report. In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant did not waive his present contention, we conclude that this is not such an error “implicating the integrity of the process” such that preservation would not be required in the absence of the waiver *(People v Hansen,*95 NY2d 227, 231 [2000]).

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
#### GROSS v. DRY DOCK, E. B. & B. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November, 1896.)

Action by Julia Gross against the Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

An appeal from the judgment in this case was argued in connection with the case of Gillespie v. Same Defendant, 42 N. Y. Supp. 245, and the same errors are relied upon in each case. The only difference is that *1126in the Gillespie Case the person injured was a servant of the defendant, and questions were raised which grew out of the relation of master and servant. Those questions are not in this case, but in all other respects there is no differ- • ence between the two cases, and the conclusion we have reached in the Gillespie Case requires the affirmance of the judgment in this case also.