alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Judicial Conduct Opinions 2023

CL-23-90351

CL-23-90352

CL-23-90353

CL-23-90354

CL-23-90355

CL-23-90356

CL-23-90357

CL-23-90359

CL-23-90360

CL-23-90361

CL-23-90362

CL-23-90363

CL-23-90364

CL-23-90365

CL-23-90366

CL-23-90367

CL-23-90368

CL-23-90369

CL-23-90370

CL-23-90371

CL-23-90372

CL-23-90373

CL-23-90374

CL-23-90375

CL-23-90376

CL-23-90377

CL-23-90378

CL-23-90379

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary, for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE).

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) announces the award of a grant in the amount of $782,000 for the period of April 1, 2000 through March 31, 2001 to Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville in support of the SIUE Institute for Urban Research. This project was earmarked in the FY 2001 Policy Research Appropriation.

For more information contact Mrs. Adrienne D.B. Little, Grant Management Officer, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 405F, 200 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20201.

Dated: April 3, 2000.

Margaret A. Hamburg,

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

[FR Doc. 00-9418  Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4154-05-M
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 23, 

2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00171-CV

YUN ATKINSON, Appellant

V.

EQY INVEST OWNERII, LTD, LLP, Appellee

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-31350

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed February 15, 2024. On March 28, 

2024, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted. 

We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant.
#### In the Matter of Chan Rodriguez, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 908]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After a search of petitioner’s cube produced an allegedly gang-related item in a photo album, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison rule prohibiting the possession of such material. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing. Although the penalty was modified upon administrative review, the determination of guilt was otherwise affirmed, prompting the commencement of this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, along with the documentary evidence, hearing witnesses, petitioner’s own statements and the testimony of a correction officer trained in recognizing gang materials, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see *Matter of Ortiz v Fischer,*91 AD3d 1006 [2012]; *Matter of Arrington v Venettozzi,*87 AD3d 1215 [2011] ). Petitioner’s claim that the confiscated material was not gang-related and was simply “graffiti” presented a credibility issue to be resolved by the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Ortiz v Fischer,*91 AD3d at 1006). Contrary to petitioner’s argument, our review confirms that the determination of guilt resulted from the evidence presented at the hearing and not hearing officer bias *(see Matter of Alicea v Fischer,*94 AD3d 1316, 1317 [2012] ).

*1334Petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or lacking in merit.

Lahtinen, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr., Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 386 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2357 

[Report No. 114–506] 

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise Form S–3 

so as to add listing and registration of a class of common equity securities on a national securities exchange as an additional basis for satisfying 

the requirements of General Instruction I.B.1. of such form and to 

remove such listing and registration as a requirement of General Instruction I.B.6. of such form. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2015 

Mrs. WAGNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

APRIL 19, 2016 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2357 RH

A BILL 

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise 

Form S–3 so as to add listing and registration of a 

class of common equity securities on a national securities 

exchange as an additional basis for satisfying the requirements of General Instruction I.B.1. of such form 

and to remove such listing and registration as a requirement of General Instruction I.B.6. of such form. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2357 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Accelerating Access 

5 to Capital Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY FOR USE OF FORM S–3. 

7 Not later than 45 days after the date of the enact8 ment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission 

9 shall revise Form S–3— 

10 (1) so as to permit securities to be registered 

11 pursuant to General Instruction I.B.1. of such form 

12 provided that either— 

13 (A) the aggregate market value of the vot14 ing and non-voting common equity held by non15 affiliates of the registrant is $75,000,000 or 

16 more; or 

17 (B) the registrant has at least one class of 

18 common equity securities listed and registered 

19 on a national securities exchange; and 

20 (2) so as to remove the requirement of para21 graph (c) from General Instruction I.B.6. of such 

22 form. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 386 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2357 

[Report No. 114–506] 

A BILL 

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission 

General Instruction I.B.6. of such form. such listing and registration as a requirement of Instruction I.B.1. of such form and to remove basis for satisfying the requirements of General on a national securities exchange as an additional istration of a class of common equity securities to revise Form S–3 so as to add listing and regAPRIL 19, 2016 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2021 Student Art Contest Finalists

Ada N., 5th grade, Valley View Elementary School, Rocklin, CA. Clara L., 5th grade, Spicewood Elementary School, Austin, TX.

Camila N., 7th Arianna B., 5 grade, St. Francis of Assisi, Cordova, TN. th grade, College Park Elementary School, San 

Mateo, CA.

Amanda G., 9th Ava M., 10 grade, The Pine School, Hobe Sound, FL. th grade, Mundelein High School, Mundelein, IL.
Hsing-Yu L., 3rd grade, Oster Elementary School, San Jose, CA.

Ying-Chen L., 6th Nathan B., K grade, Dartmouth Middle School, San Jose, CA. ., Cootes Paradise Elementary School, 

Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Isabel T., 11th grade, Northview High School, Grand Rapids, MI.

2021 Student Art Contest Grand Prize Winners

Ahdia M., 3rd Jolie Z., 7 grade, Valley View Elementary School, Rocklin, CA. th grade, Wang Qi Art Institute, San Francisco, CA.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL D. W OODFALL, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C ORREC TIONS C ORPOR ATION OF AM E R IC A; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-15147 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-00163-SR B M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Susa n R . B olton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 * * B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. M ic ha e l D. W oodfa ll, a

form e r Hawa ii sta

te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from the d istric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging de libe ra t e indiffe re nc e to his se rious m e dic a l ne e ds while house d in Ariz ona . W e 

# FIL ED FEB 27 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use W oodfa ll fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda nts we re de libe ra t e ly

indiffe re nt in tre ating his lower ba c k injury . Se e id . at 1057-58 (a prison offic ia l a c ts with de libe rate indiffe re nc e only if he or she knows of a nd disre ga rds a n e xc e ssive risk to theprisone r’ s he a lth; ne ithe r a prisone r’ s diffe re nc e of opinion c onc e rning thec ourse of tre atm e nt nor m e re ne glige nc e in dia gnosing or tre ating a m e dic a l c o n dition a m ounts to de libe rate indiffe re nc e ). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f. Se e Padge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D .

1 3 - 1 5 1 4 7 2
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of eLinear, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB  for  the  quarter  ended  June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevan M. Casey, Chief
Executive  Officer  and  Principal  Accounting  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  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

(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/  Kevan  M.  Casey
-----------------------------------
Kevan  M.  Casey,
Chief  Executive  Officer  and
Principal  Accounting  Officer

August  27,  2003



     A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to  eLinear,  Inc.  and  will  be  retained by eLinear, Inc. and
furnished  to  the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT DAMION COLLINS, Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D21-3575 September 30, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Mark D. Kiser, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Daniel Muller, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
LINITED STATES OF AMERICA

I].S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

T]NITED STATES COAST GUARD

I.]NITED STATES COAST GUARD

Colnplainant

VS,

RI-CHARD WILLIE HOGGARD

Respondent

Docket Number 202i'0161

Enforcemenr Acliviry No. 7661910

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about May 11,2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of

Settlement Agrccment and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewcd the terms of the Scttlement Agreement and find that it is fair,

reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. S 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, thc Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. The Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated this 30th day of May 2023, at

Galveston, Texas

HON. TOMMY B. CANTRELL

LINITED STATES COAST GUARD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ruDGE

I
Suggesting a History of Similar Violations Without Evidence Is Not Helpful 

Written By CDR Evan Hudspeth

In the Preliminary Assessment Letter (PAL) sent to the charged party there is a 

sentence that is often overlooked which simply states that, “Whatever you want 

me to consider should be supported by evidence, or else it might not be very 

persuasive.” The same advice could be given to a Coast Guard unit that is 

initiating a case for an alleged offense. If you want the Hearing Officer to 

consider in aggravation a history of similar violations, then documentation 

should be provided showing that the charged party does in fact have a violation 

history.

During the preliminary review of the case file, the Hearing Officer takes a 

serious look at any evidence of previous similar violations to assist in the 

assessment of an appropriate preliminary civil penalty amount. Most often, the 

larger the number of similar past violations, the greater the preliminary penalty 

amount will be, because the Hearing Office’s goal is to gain compliance and 

ensure deterrence. It follows that if a violation is repeated, then the previous 

penalty amount was not an effective deterrent, and a greater penalty amount is 

necessary to prevent future similar violations. 

It is important to understand that the only information and evidence that the 

Hearing Officer may consider is that which is in the case file, and has been 

shared with the charged party. The Hearing Officer and the charged party do 

not have access to the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement 

(MISLE) database. Typically, the Enforcement Summary section titled “Past 

Violation(s) History” is the only information provided in the case file 

concerning a charged party’s repeat offense(s). This section of the Enforcement 

Summary only provides: the law or regulation and its description, the violation 

date and activity number, the finding (proved or dismissed), and the penalty 

amount. This information tends to leave the Hearing Officer with more 

questions than answers about the details of previous offenses. In some cases, 
amplifying evidence that explains how the previous violation(s) relate to the 

current alleged violations may make for a more persuasive case. 

Timely submission of case files is important because a case that is still being 

adjudicated cannot be considered “history;” it hasn’t been finally “proved” yet. 

Giving a verbal warning to an alleged violator usually is not recorded as part of 

their violation history. Generally speaking, if there is no evidence of a past 

proved violation in the case file, then the Hearing Officer will assume that there 

is no violation history, and the alleged offense is the first for the charged party.
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.66


                                 ADDENDUM No. 2
                       TO LOG SALES CONTRACT No. 11-21-01
                             Dated November 27, 2000

     This Addendum No. 2 to Log Sales Contract No. 11-21-01, dated November 27,
2000 (hereinafter referred to as "Addendum NO. 2"), is entered into and becomes
effective as of April 25, 2001, by and between Closed Joint-Stock Company
"Forest-Starma" (hereinafter referred to as the "Seller") and Rayonier Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as the "Buyer") as follows:

     1.     In addition to round logs, the Seller agrees to sell and the Buyer
            agrees to buy lumber products produced by the Seller on terms
            contained in Log Sales Contract No. 11-21-01.  The specific
            quantity, composition, specification and prices of all lumber
            products shipments shall be set forth in separate addenda to Log
            Sales Contract No. 11-21-01.

     2.     All lumber products shall meet the requirements of Russian GOST
            standard 26002-83 ("Coniferous Sawn Timber of Northern Grading
            Supplied for Export") for quality grading with the exception that
            the nominal thickness of lumber products can exceed 100 mm, or GOST
            standard 8486-86 ("Coniferous Sawn Timber; Specifications") as
            appropriate for the named lumber product.

     3.     Unless otherwise stated herein, all other terms and conditions of
            Log Sales Contract No. 11-21-01 remain in full force and effect.

     4.     Both original and faxed signatures of the parties on this Addendum
            No. 2 shall have equal legal force with regard to execution of this
            Addendum No. 2.

     In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Addendum No. 2 to Log
     Sales Contract No. 11-21-01, dated November 27, 2000, which shall become
     effective as of April 25, 2001.


     Rayonier, Inc.                          JSC "Forest-Starma"
     Buyer                                   Seller


      /s/ Robert J. Cartano                   /s/ Valery Limarenko
     -----------------------------           ---------------------------------
     Robert J. Cartano                       Valery Limarenko
     Director, Operations                    Acting General Director on the
     International Forest Products           basis of Power of Attorney of
                                             May 14, 2001

                                              /s/ Nadezhda Obukhova
                                             ---------------------------------
                                             Nadezhda Obukhova
                                             Acting Chief Accountant
                                             (Order No. 18 of May 2001)
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6356

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ARNOLDO AVITA GAMBOA, a/k/a Angel Martinez, a/k/a Tony , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Charleston

. John T. Copenhaver, Jr

. , District Judge. ( 2:08

- cr
- 00151

- 2 )

Submitted : June 22, 2017 Decided: June 2 7 , 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Arnoldo Avita Gamboa , Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, Joshua Clarke Hanks , Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opin ions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Arnoldo Avita Gamboa appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) motion . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reas ons stated by the district court. United States v. Gamboa , No. 2:08

-

cr
- 00151

- 2 ( S.D. W. Va. Mar. 2, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       5,210,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,752,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    97,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,530,000
<PP&E>                                      15,154,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,000,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,428,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,304,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    49,772,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (22,662,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,428,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           132,140,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              126,567,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               650,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             110,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,813,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,803,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,010,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,010,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34


</TABLE>
#### Gabriel Capital, L.P., et al., Appellants, v CAIB Investment-bank AG., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Submitted January 29, 2007;

decided May 1, 2007

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*7 NY3d 922].
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Special Masters - Biographies

                                    - Brian H. Corcoran , Chief Special Master
                                    - Nora Beth Dorsey
                                    - Thomas Gowen
                                    - Daniel Horner
                                    - Christian J. Moran
                                    - Katherine E. Oler
                                    - Mindy Michaels Roth
                                    - Herbrina D. Sanders

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400