alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN LOUIS HIRATA,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

GAIL LEWIS,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 06-55436

D.C. No. CV-03-00504-NM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Nora M. Manella, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2009** 

Before: SKOPIL, LEAVY, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Steven Louis Hirata appeals from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm. 

FILED

MAR 10 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Hirata contends that the trial court violated his Fourteenth Amendment right

to due process by admitting into evidence prior uncharged conduct, tending to

show propensity to commit the charged offenses. We conclude that the state

court’s decision rejecting this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable

application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States

Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 75

n. 5 (1991); Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 863-7 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Hirata also contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by eliciting

profile evidence and improper expert testimony, and that the trial court

compounded that misconduct by admitting this evidence in violation of his due

process rights. We conclude that the state court’s decision rejecting this claim was

not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181-3 (1986); 

Briceno v. Scribner, 555 F.3d 1069, 1077-8 (9th Cir. 2009); Drayden v. White, 232

F.3d 704, 713-4 (9th Cir. 2000).

To the extent Hirata raises uncertified issues in his briefs, we construe those

contentions as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability and we deny the

motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-5 (9th Cir.

1999) (per curiam). 
3

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dennis Jeffers, Appellant.

On February 27, 1981, a felony complaint was issued against defendant charging him with burglary and grand larceny, both in the third degree, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Despite their efforts, the police were unable to locate the defendant.

On August 1, 1981, the defendant went to the police station voluntarily and inquired about the possibility of an outstanding warrant. At that time he was incorrectly advised that there was no warrant pending against him, apparently because it had been filed under one of his aliases.

Shortly thereafter, on August 29, 1981, the defendant was arrested for the crimes charged in the February felony complaint. A preliminary felony hearing was then conducted on September 28, 1981, and the case was held for the Westchester County Grand Jury, which returned an indictment in the County Court, Westchester County, on November 12, 1981. The defendant was subsequently arraigned upon that indictment on December 4, 1981, at which time the People announced that they were ready for trial.

The defendant moved, *inter alia,*to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30, on the ground that he had been denied his statutory right to a speedy trial because the People were not ready to try the case until nine months after the filing of the felony complaint. That branch of his motion was denied, however, on the ground that the six-month period between the filing of the felony complaint in February and the defendant’s voluntary appearance at the police station could not be *825charged to the People since the defendant was not represented by counsel during that period (CPL 30.30 [4] [f]).

We agree that the defendant was not deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial.

In *People v Bratton*(103 AD2d 368, *affd*65 NY2d 675), decided subsequent to the instant matter at Criminal Term, it was held that the policy of the Westchester County District Attorney’s office not to indict absent defendants constituted an adequate excuse for the failure to indict. Accordingly, the People cannot be charged with the six-month period of the defendant’s absence during which they failed to indict. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant was not deprived of a speedy trial.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and have found it to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2460 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2460

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2016

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the provision of 
              adult day health care services for veterans.

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

SECTION 1. PROVISION OF ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1745 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d)(1) The Secretary shall enter into an agreement under section 
1720(c)(1) of this title or a contract with each State home for payment 
by the Secretary for adult day health care provided to a veteran who is 
eligible for, but does not receive, nursing home care pursuant to 
subsection (a).
    ``(2) Payment under each agreement or contract between the 
Secretary and a State home under paragraph (1) for each veteran who 
receives care under such paragraph shall be made at a rate that is 
equal to 65 percent of the payment that the Secretary would pay to the 
State home pursuant to subsection (a)(2) if the veteran received 
nursing home care under subsection (a) rather than under paragraph (1) 
of this subsection.
    ``(3) Payment by the Secretary under paragraph (1) to a State home 
for adult day health care provided to a veteran described in that 
paragraph constitutes payment in full to the State home for such care 
furnished to that veteran.''; and
            (2) in the heading, by inserting ``, adult day health 
        care,'' after ``home care''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 17 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
section 1745 and inserting the following new item:

``1745. Nursing home care, adult day health care, and medications for 
                            veterans with service-connected 
                            disabilities.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2


 


to


 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


dated December 11, 2017


 


by and between


AXIS Specialty U.S. Services, Inc. (the “Company”)


and


Peter Vogt (the “Executive”)


 


Dated: June 17, 2021


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into an employment agreement
dated December 11, 2017, subsequently amended by Amendment No. 1 dated October 2, 2020 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of AXIS
Capital Holdings Limited, the Company and the Executive have determined that it is in the best interests of the Company, AXIS Capital
Holdings Limited and its shareholders to amend certain components of the Executive’s compensation;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended, effective as of July
1, 2021, as follows:


 


		1.	Section 2(a) of the Agreement (Compensation and Benefits) is hereby amended to replace the reference to “$550,000” in
the first line thereof with “$675,000”.



 


		2.	Section 2(b) of the Agreement (Compensation and Benefits) is hereby amended to replace the reference to “115%” in the
second line thereof with “125%”.



 


		3.	Section 2(c) of the Agreement (Compensation and Benefits) is hereby amended to replace the reference to “$1,000,000” in
the third line thereof with “$1,200,000”.



 


		4.	Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed
this Amendment No. 2 as of the date first above written.





 






     


     


    

 


	 	 	AXIS SPECIALTY U.S. SERVICES, INC.
	 
	 	 	By:	/s/ Noreen McMullan
	 	 	Name:	 Noreen McMullan
	 	 	Title:	Executive Vice President
	 
	Accepted and Agreed:	 	 	 
	 
	/s/ Peter Vogt	 	 	 
	Peter Vogt
#### Edward M. Kruszczynski, Respondent, v Kathleen Charlap, Appellant.

Memorandum: The evidence supports the conclusion that respondent’s conduct was contumacious and calculated to defeat or impede petitioner’s visitation rights. The record indicates that the conduct of respondent interfered with visitation and was calculated to dissuade the child from visiting with petitioner *(see, Wostl v Wostl,*75 AD2d 1013, *appeal dismissed 52*NY2d 787).

We reject respondent’s contention that the court erred in hearing evidence of contumacious acts that occurred after the filing of the petition. Respondent’s attorney did not object to the receipt of this evidence, nor did he indicate that he was unprepared to meet it. Had respondent objected, the trial court, in the interest of judicial economy, could have permitted an amendment of the petition and granted a continuance to enable respondent to prepare to meet the new allegations *(see,*CPLR 3025 [b]). Moreover, in the absence of a showing of prejudice, a pleading may be amended to conform to the proof, even on appeal *(see,*Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3025:15, pp 486-487; CPLR C3025:17, p 488).

Respondent’s contention that she should have been given an opportunity to purge herself of the contempt is without merit. Respondent was imprisoned for her past violations of the order of visitation, not because of "an omission to perform an act or duty, which is yet in the power of the offender to perform”; hence, there is no requirement that she be "imprisoned only until [s]he has performed” the act (Judiciary Law § 774 [1]).

Concerning respondent’s contention that her sentence, consisting of incarceration on weekends over a period of six months, is harsh and excessive, we decline to interfere with Family Court’s discretion. Family Court has the responsibility of enforcing its orders and it is in a superior position to determine the extent of the punishment necessary to compel *1074future compliance. We note that the court has the option to terminate the sentence when it comes up for review three months from its commencement, should conditions at that time so warrant *(see,*Judiciary Law § 774 [2]). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Notaro, J. — violation of visitation.) Presents — -Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-82260, 333-60099, 333-31699, and
333-137025 on Form S-8 of our reports dated April 2, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Coldwater Creek Inc. (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),Share-based
Payment, and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158,Employers' Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement
Plansan amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R)), and the effectiveness of Coldwater Creek Inc.'s internal control over financial
reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Coldwater Creek Inc. for the year ended February 2, 2008.

/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Portland,
Oregon
April 2, 2008

---



QuickLinks
#### Eastern Alloys, Inc., Appellant, v Gleason Security Service, Inc., Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and negligence, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Patsalos, J.), dated January 16, 1986, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate a default judgment entered September 11, 1985, and for leave to serve an answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the defendant’s time to interpose an answer is extended until 20 days after service upon it of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 317 within one year of the entry of a default judgment against it, seeking to vacate its default and for leave to serve an answer. The summons and complaint were not personally served on the defendant or upon an agent designated by CPLR 318. The Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion upon finding that the defendant "did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and [that the defendant] has a meritorious defense”.

Even though the fault for not having received notice of the summons delivered to the Secretary of State was the defendant’s for not having updated its address on file, that failure was not shown to have been intentional and is not fatal to the defendant’s motion.

There is no claim that the defendant received any other notice of the summons "in time to defend” which in this case would be 30 days from the initial service on the Secretary of State *(see,*CPLR 320 [a]).

Further, the defendant has shown a sufficient claim of merit to entitle it to a trial on the issues. Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Hooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMO
FIBERGEN INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 3, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                          21,752
<SECURITIES>                                    36,319
<RECEIVABLES>                                      675
<ALLOWANCES>                                        30
<INVENTORY>                                        507
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,638
<PP&E>                                           6,727
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,416
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,029
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,164
<SALES>                                          4,836
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,836
<CGS>                                            2,656
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,656
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,877
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,098
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,098
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
^aoismv-ziAMiiKfITHE.HOmEiCft&r5^dUJa\a,4aia!18^a"Sc3"s)M^nj.^Of—r&10^isis^03^jQojudoCL.«^liilAi^'^>Ajl"s^'^6d^,'yMt34^^Hig«0dI.3<3,5:J^3tfC?

# nS o 

## • ji'—~ 

# .'^v. ^•:

* «• • 

### ~ I 

# 4^if5^!r— ^-r

-••'? /



# 'f

. . ' . 

# J

t 

### • - - - . . '
— f 1 I 

# ' - , 1
— • •• • " ' 1 

# 1

-- -• • 

# i ••../ /• ' /. : *'* ' • .j-' -'' • V. f -V 

# i 

# j 1 

# • !••:->! . !


# I I >; /



# .L^.L:i.u

# 8_N"!ll4-A^ci^ ^ Cs^vCvrjiXa^

-4. • I 

# S^©![-tt^ M- G _xm Cvo 11

. 3016^LO\S^8>4»^ oitiCx?€> Cwci^ 

# S^4otc4£)_^ SlBiEKi' _|H^C



# HD-SrooSaJf; ' 

# • • ' . _i. '' -^•

-. j " -• •-; •' 

# 1 

# .! -

1 

# i

• r . • ^." -- f



## -. j 

# 1
-. - i

- 

# 1 f 

# *•» -"*• /- ^ - I. f,. ;

.' - • * . ' *, . ; N ; •. / 

# •• -. a" •• 

# 'A 1 ! -*: 

# . '. V-'- • 4 ^



### - ; , 

# i !

-- 

### ^^ T : 

# ^ y-

- ffr

. L-' • -=-
-


# • T

- - 

# i I 1 

# 1



# tr; »

### • -i-S
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20387-20388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9467]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50


Public Workshop on Risk-Informed Regulation--Option 2

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will host a public 
workshop to provide an opportunity for discussion of the Nuclear Energy 
Institute's (NEI) guidance on special treatment requirements, advanced 
notice of proposed rulemaking, and possible alternative approaches to 
Option 2 in risk-informed regulations. The workshop is open to the 
public.

DATES: The workshop will be held on Thursday, April 27, 2000, from 9 
a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Ramada Inn Bethesda, Room Embassy III, 8400 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland. The hotel's phone number is (301) 654-1000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Egan Y. Wang, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555, telephone: (301) 415-1076, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cbaeb2bc8ba5b9a8e5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="77120e003719051459101801">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The discussion topics are tentative and

[[Page 20388]]

subject to change. Anyone interested in providing a presentation on 
these or other related topic(s), please contact Egan Wang at (301) 415-
1076. This workshop will provide an opportunity to discuss topics 
related to Option 2 in risk-informed regulations.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of March 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Cynthia A. Carpenter,
Chief, Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch, 
Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-9467 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

TECHNICAL WORK GROUP MEETING VIA WEBEX/CONF CALL

OCTOBER 10, 2018 

FINAL AGENDA

START

TIME

(Duration)

Wednesday, October 10, 2018 

Topic, Presenter, and Purpose

8:03 Welcome and Administrative:  Seth Shanahan, Technical Work Group (TWG) Chair  

PDT   Introductions and Determination of Quorum (16 members) 

 Approval of June 25‐26, 2018, Meeting Minutes 

9:00   Next Meeting Dates: February 12‐14, 2019 (Annual Reporting ‐ February 12‐13; TWG ‐ February 

MDT 14) 

 Update on Federal Funding

 Update on Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Project C.9 ‐ Temperature Control Method 

 Update on Non‐native Aquatic Species Management Plan Environmental Assessment 

(comments due October 11) 

 Update on Rainbow Trout Stocking in Glen Canyon

 Update on the Progress of the Bug Flow Experiment

 Update on Monitoring and Research Trips to Occur from Today until Next Meeting 

 Updates on Items of Interest that are in Consideration for Implementation before Next TWG 

Meeting

8:57  Update on the Historic Preservation Plan: Bill Chada, Reclamation

 Presentation (5 minutes)

 Q&A and discussion (5 minutes)

9:05 

Riparian Rehabilitation along the Colorado River in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Larry 

Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

 Presentation (10) 

 Q&A and discussion (5 minutes) 

9:20  Progress Report on Advancing Recommendations from the “Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center Water‐Quality Program Review”: Mike Moran, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center (GCMRC) 

 Presentation (5 minutes)

 Q&A and discussion (5 minutes)

9:35  Update on Hydrology, Operations, and Reservoir/Release Temperatures: Heather Patno, 

Reclamation 

 Presentation (10 minutes)

 Q&A and discussion (5 minutes)

9:40 

(:05) 

BREAK
   

   

      

START

TIME

(Duration)

Wednesday, October 10, 2018 

Topic, Presenter, and Purpose

9:58  Potential Fall High Flow Experiment (HFE) ≤ 96 hours or ≤ 192 hours; status of resources and 

experimental plan: Scott VanderKooi, GCMRC, and Katrina Grantz, Reclamation

 Presentation (15 minutes)

 Q&A and discussion (30 minutes)

10:43 

Discussion of Aquatic Food Base Enhancement Opportunities: Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon

Wildlands Council, and others 

 Presentation (15 minutes)

 Q&A and discussion (30 minutes)

11:28  Discussion of Emerging Issues and Request for Agenda Items for Next Meeting: Seth Shanahan, 

TWG Chair 

 Discussion (45 minutes)

11:58  Public Comment 

12:00  ADJOURN