alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J-S76019-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. STEPHEN JAMES CHAPMAN Appellant No. 921 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 9, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-20-SA-0000037-2013

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and OLSO N, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED FEBRUARY 4, 2015 The trial court convicted Appellant, Stephen James Chapman, of the summary offense of driving while operating privileg e is suspended, DUI related. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 7543(b)(1). Chapman does not dispute that his driver’s license was suspended at the time of the i ncident. On appeal, Chapman simply maintains that the Commonwealth pres ented insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction as “there was no direct evidence that [he] operated the vehicle in question.” 1 Appellant’s Brief, at 3. The Commonwealth need not produce direct evidence t hat Chapman operated the vehicle, “but may instead rely on circ umstantial evidence

____________________________________________

1 For our standard of review, see Commonwealth v. Harden , 103 A.3d 107, 111 (Pa. Super. 2014).J-S76019-14

- 2 -

creating the inference that the vehicle had been in motion in order to meet its evidentiary burden.” Commonwealth v. Herb , 852 A.2d 356, 361 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted). Here, Trooper John Michalak testified that he obse rved a parked minivan situated partially in the lane of travel. T here was no one in the minivan. The only person in the vicinity was a man, later identified as Chapman, across the road using a cell phone. Chapma n informed the trooper that he had been driving a group of Amish home and that the vehicle

broke down. See N.T., Summary Appeal Hearing, 5/9/14, at 7-8, 11. T he passengers were no longer there as someone else cam e and picked them up. Chapman’s argument centers on the fact that Troope r Michalak did not observe him driving the minivan firsthand. But he d id not need to. There is an abundance of circumstantial evidence that Chapma n was the driver: Chapman admitted to the trooper that he was the dri ver of the vehicle; there were no other people present on the rural str etch of road; and the vehicle was left partially in the lane of travel. T he trial court credited Trooper Michalak’s testimony. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/14/14, at 3. The Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain the

conviction. Judgment of sentence affirmed.J-S76019-14

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 2/4/2015
COLORADO RIVER BELOW GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO.Latitude: 39.555Longitude: -107.338Elevation: 5700.75

COLORADO RIVER BELOW GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO.

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Middle Fork Camp Site Page...



Middle Fork Camp

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Arapaho Ridge Site Page...



Arapaho Ridge

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Never Summer Site Page...



Never Summer

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mccoy Park Site Page...



Mccoy Park

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beaver Ck Village Site Page...



Beaver Ck Village

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bear River Site Page...



Bear River

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



Chapman Tunnel

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elliot Ridge Site Page...



Elliot Ridge

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Taylor Site Page...



Upper Taylor

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fool Creek Site Page...



Fool Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to High Lonesome Site Page...



High Lonesome

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sawtooth Site Page...



Sawtooth

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Arrow Site Page...



Arrow

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



Bear Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Berthoud Summit Site Page...



Berthoud Summit

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



Bison Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brumley Site Page...



Brumley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Columbine Site Page...



Columbine

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Copper Mountain Site Page...



Copper Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fremont Pass Site Page...



Fremont Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grizzly Peak Site Page...



Grizzly Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hoosier Pass Site Page...



Hoosier Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Independence Pass Site Page...



Independence Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Kiln Site Page...



Kiln

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



Lake Irene

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Loveland Basin Site Page...



Loveland Basin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lynx Pass Site Page...



Lynx Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mc Clure Pass Site Page...



Mc Clure Pass

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



Nast Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to North Lost Trail Site Page...



North Lost Trail

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Phantom Valley Site Page...



Phantom Valley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Schofield Pass Site Page...



Schofield Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Stillwater Creek Site Page...



Stillwater Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Summit Ranch Site Page...



Summit Ranch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Vail Mountain Site Page...



Vail Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Willow Creek Pass Site Page...



Willow Creek Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buffalo Park Site Page...



Buffalo Park

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Jackwhacker Gulch Site Page...



Jackwhacker Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Michigan Creek Site Page...



Michigan Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Jones Pass Site Page...



Jones Pass
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 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, 2004.



|                   |  |     |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Paul C. Hudson                   
|                   |  |     |  | Paul C. Hudson                       
|                   |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  |     |  | Broadway Financial Corporation       
|                   |  |    
|Date: May 13, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Alvin D. Kang                    
|                   |  |     |  | Alvin D. Kang                        
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer              
|                   |  |     |  | Broadway Financial Corporation
#### Deborah Cappello et al., Appellants, v Jay L. Randall et al., Respondents.

— Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered March 13, 1986 in Sullivan County, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) from an order of said court, entered June 18, 1986 in Sullivan County, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for renewal.

Orders affirmed, without costs, upon the opinions of Justice Robert C. Williams. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 20, 2011

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 11-10290

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cv-03594-KOB

TAFT J. PERRY, JR.,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARY L. JORDAN, 

MARGARET ROBINSON,

Dr. 

LAWSON STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE,

 Defendants-Appellees,

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(July 20, 2011)

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Taft Perry, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal

of his complaint for failing to allege a federal claim upon which relief may be

granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On appeal, Perry does not challenge the

district court’s dismissal of his suit, but instead argues the merits of his complaint

that he was denied his federal civil right to a college education.

We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state

a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and view the allegations in the

complaint as true. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 2003)

(citation omitted). Pro se pleadings are construed liberally. Id. at 1160. 

However, issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned. Access Now, Inc. v.

Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). 

A court shall dismiss a case proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time if the

court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A pleading that states a claim for

relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new

jurisdictional support.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). 

Perry has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted by failing

2
to raise that issue in his appellate brief. Moreover, the district court did not err in

dismissing Perry’s complaint without prejudice because Perry did not assert any

federal constitutional or statutory violation in his complaint. Thus, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

3
#### Euclides Rafael ROSARIO-BENCOSME, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-2990-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 7, 2011.

Amanda E. Gray (David K.S. Kim, Jules E. Coven, Kerry W. Bretz, on the brief), Bretz *&*Coven, LLP, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.

Andrew C. Brinkman, Trial Attorney, (Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, on the brief), United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Present: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge, JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Euclides Rafael Rosario-Bencosme, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitions for review of a June 25, 2010 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming a decision of an immigration judge finding him removable as an aggravated felon pursuant to subsections M and U of section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M), (U). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Although we lack jurisdiction to review final agency orders of removal based on an alien’s conviction of an aggravated felony, “we are permitted to review questions of law,” including whether a specific conviction constitutes an aggravated felony. *Blake v. Gonzales,*481 F.3d 152, 155-56 (2d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review *de novo*questions of law. *Id.*at 156.

Rosario-Bencosme pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States “by acquiring, possessing, using, and redeeming approximately $5,600,000 worth of [United States Department of Agriculture] food stamp coupons in a manner contrary to [law].” J.A. at 100-01. Rosar*35io-Bencosme was ordered to pay $5,600,000 in restitution.

Under the INA, “an offense that ... involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim ... exceeds $10,000” constitutes an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(M)(i). There is “nothing unfair” about the BIA’s determination that the government satisfied its burden of demonstrating the requisite loss by clear and convincing evidence when it presented the criminal information and restitution order, and Rosario-Bencosme did not present any conflicting evidence. *Nijhawan v. Holder,*- U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 2303,174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009).

Finding no merit in Rosario-Bencosme’s remaining arguments, we hereby DISMISS the petition for review.
datetime,flow volume2015-05-20,423.50922
PAONIA RESERVOIRLatitude: 38.949Longitude: -107.343Elevation: 6450

PAONIA RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mc Clure Pass Site Page...



Mc Clure Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to North Lost Trail Site Page...



North Lost Trail

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Overland Res. Site Page...



Overland Res.
RUEDI RESERVOIRLatitude: 39.366Longitude: -106.804Elevation: 7749

RUEDI RESERVOIR

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
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 6/4/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

FIRST NATIONAL BANK, OF BOSTON

(Guernsey) LIMITED, 

Plaintiff - Counter-defendant -

 Appellant,

No. 95-2075

v. (D.C. No. CIV-94-231-JC)

UNITED NEW MEXICO BANK, FIRST

SECURITY BANK, N.A., 

(D. N.M.)

Defendant - Third-Party 

 Plaintiff,

 and

SUNWEST BANK OF ALBUQUERQUE,

N.A.,

 Defendant - Counter-claimant,

 Third-Party Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RICHARD D. LUEKER, N. JOAN LUEKER,

A. ROLFE BLACK, DOROTHY W. BLACK,

ROY W. BIDWELL, EILEEN BIDWELL,

VAUN T. FLOYD, NORMAN C.

BARNHART,

 Third-Party Defendants,

 Counter-claimants - Appellees.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

**The Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit, sitting by designation.

2

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, McKAY, and JONES,** Circuit Judges.

We AFFIRM for substantially the reasons given by the district court.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
#### THOMAS, Respondent, v. LENNON, Appellant,

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23,1896.)

Action by John Thomas, administrator, against William F. Lennon.

PER CURIAM.

The same considerations which have been applied in the case of Gamble v. Lennon (decided at this term) .41 N. Y. Supp. 277, obtain and control here. There was no attempt, apparently, at proper diligence in preparing to print and file the cases. No valid excuse is given for the delay, and no reason is shown why the attorney should not have procured an extension of time in the proper way. The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, with $10 costs.
#### 176-178 Ashburton Avenue Corp., Also Known as 176-178 Ashburton Corp., Appellant, v New York Property Insurance Underwriting Association, Respondent.

An examination of the instant complaint indicates that the plaintiff has merely reiterated the allegations set forth in the third cause of action asserted in a complaint in a prior action. That cause of action had been dismissed for legal insufficiency, without leave to amend the complaint, by an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 1, 1984. Accordingly, Special Term properly dismissed the complaint in the case at bar. We strongly disapprove of the plaintiffs attempt to circumvent the order denying it leave to amend the complaint in the prior action through the simple and transparent expedient of disguising this essentially identical action as one sounding in tort instead of contract. Brown, J. R, Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000113 29-MAR-2018 10:06 AM
Exhibit 10.35

Amendment No. 3 (the "Amendment") To  Employment Agreement between  Univision Communications Inc. ("Univision") and Douglas Kranwinkle  (the "Employment Agreement")

December 17, 2001

|To: |  | Douglas Kranwinkle
c/o Univision
|--- |  | --------------------------------

Dear Douglas:

You
and Univision agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

1.Term. The Term of the Employment Agreement is extended through December 31, 2004, unless earlier terminated in
accordance with the provisions of the Employment Agreement.

2.Salary. Your annual Base Salary rate will be: Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000) for the annual period from
January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004.

3.Effective Date of Amendment. Upon execution by you and Univision, this Amendment will become effective as of the date
first provided above.

4.Notices. Any notice to Univision's General Counsel shall be sent to the following address: Univision, 5999 Center Drive,
Los Angeles, California 90045.

5.Other. Except as provided in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions in the Employment Agreement will remain in
full force and effect, and the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is ratified and confirmed.

|                                        |  | UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS INC.
|--------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                                        |  | By:                          
|                                        |  |                              
|                                        |  |                              
|/s/DOUGLAS KRANWINKLEDouglas Kranwinkle |  |                              

---

QuickLinks
# C_2021021EN.01000101.xml

| 20.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 21/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10030 — Ube Industries/Mitsubishi Materials Corporation/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 21/01)

On 13 January 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10030. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10030. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20595

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO VILLAREAL-GONZALEZ,

also known as Francisco GonzalezVasquez,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CR-74-1

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Villareal-Gonzalez (Villareal) appeals from his

guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry of a deported alien,

8 U.S.C. § 1326. Villareal contends that the district court

erred by failing to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d) during

rearraignment and that the failure requires that his conviction

and sentence be vacated. We have reviewed the record and the

briefs of the parties, and we hold that the district court’s 
No. 98-20595

-2-

error in failing to inquire specifically whether Villareal’s plea

was the result of force or threats was harmless, particularly in

light of the remainder of the Rule 11 colloquy. See United

States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 299, 301-03 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.5.3 


 


	CONFIDENTIAL	 




 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO


COMMERCIALIZATION AGREEMENT


 


THIS Second Amendment to the
January 9, 2017 Commercialization Agreement (“Second Amendment”), effective as of the date this Second Amendment is signed
by both parties (the “Effective Date”), is made by and between Sera Prognostics, Inc. (“Sera”) and Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings (“Labcorp”). Sera and Labcorp may be referred to herein each as a “Party” or collectively
as “Parties.”


 


RECITALS


 


A.           Sera
and Labcorp entered into a Commercialization Agreement having an effective date of January 9, 2017, as amended June 25, 2018 (the “Agreement”);
and,


 


B.            The
Parties now wish to amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Second Amendment.


 


TERMS


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and
valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and the mutual covenants set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.            Section
10.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:


 


10.1       Term.
This Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and, unless terminated pursuant to the terms hereof, will automatically renew on each
anniversary of the Effective Date.


 


2.        All
capitalized terms used in this Second Amendment and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned them in the Agreement.
Except as expressly stated in this Second Amendment, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties
hereto have executed this Second Amendment through their authorized representatives signing below.


 


	LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS

                                                                                
	 	SERA PROGNOSTICS, INC.
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Michael F. Minahan	 	By:	/s/ Douglas Fisher, MD
	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:	Michael F. Minahan	 	Name:	Douglas Fisher, MD
	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:	SVP & General Manager	 	Title:	Chief Business Officer
	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:	1/26/2021	 	Date:	1/25/2021
Order entered January 3 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 16
- 01523
- CV
IN RE GUARDIANSHIP O F CLARENCE LAMAR NOR SWORTHY, AN INCAPACITATED PER SON, Relator Origin al Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR
- 16
- 1331
- 2 

### O RDER Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator Jeanette Norsworthy ’s December 29, 2016 petition for writ of mandamus.
We ORDER relator Jeanette Norsworthy to bear the costs, if any, of this original proceeding

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE