alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of New York

Court of Appeals This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to 

revision before publication in the New York Reports.

No. 97 

The People &c.,

 Respondent,

 v.

Lance Rodriguez, 

 Appellant.

Hannah Kon, for appellant. 

Mariana Zelig, for respondent.

Alice Ristroph et al.; Transportation Alternatives et al., amici curiae.

Reargument ordered for a future Court session. Acting Chief Judge Cannataro and Judges 

Rivera, Garcia, Wilson, Singas and Troutman concur.

Decided November 22, 2022
# CE2010076EN.01010702.xml

| 25.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 76/107 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 76/107

---

Thursday 19 February 2009Sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals ***I

P6_TA(2009)0069

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 February 2009 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals (COM(2007)0249 – C6-0143/2007 – 2007/0094(COD))

2010/C 76 E/21

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0249),

having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 63(3)(b) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0143/2007),

having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A6-0026/2009),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as amended on 4 February 2009 (1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as amended on 4 February 2009 (1);

1

| 2. | Approves the Joint Statement annexed hereto; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Approves the Joint Statement annexed hereto;

| 3. | Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0043.

1

---

Thursday 19 February 2009P6_TC1-COD(2007)0094

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 19 February 2009 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2009/.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive 2009/52/EC.)

---

Thursday 19 February 2009ANNEX

Joint Statement by the European Parliament and the Council

The Parliament and the Council state that rules on subcontracting agreed upon in Article 8 [former Article 9] of this Directive shall be without prejudice to other provisions on this issue to be adopted in future legislative instruments.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,669
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             500
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,991
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    108,645
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           7,130
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             7,023
<LOANS>                                        166,678
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,144
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 298,426
<DEPOSITS>                                     216,948
<SHORT-TERM>                                    33,661
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,619
<LONG-TERM>                                     16,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,010
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,688
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 288,426
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,610
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,440
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    38
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,088
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,130
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,170
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,918
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      352
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (58)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,617
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,617
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,231
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.74
<LOANS-NON>                                        886
<LOANS-PAST>                                       131
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,202
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,805
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       13
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,144
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,652
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            492



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro DIAZ-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7328.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 12, 2011.

Decided: May 20, 2011.

Alejandro Diaz-Gutierrez, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, Kenneth Michel Smith, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*353Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alejandro Diaz-Gutierrez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Diaz-Gutierrez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense "with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT 99.1



THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS BEING MADE TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1349), WHICH CARRIES WITH IT CERTAIN CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN THE EVENT OF A
KNOWING OR WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION.


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

     Re:  Centiv, Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     In accordance with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 USC 1349), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

     (i)  this  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  fully  complies  with  the
          requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of  1934  (15  U.S.C.  78m  or  78o(d));  and

     (ii) the  information  contained  in  this  report  fairly presents, in all
          material  respects,  the financial condition and results of operations
          of  Centiv,  Inc.

Dated as of this 9th day of August, 2002.



/s/  William M. Rychel                         /s/ Thomas M. Mason
----------------------                      ----------------------
William M. Rychel                             Thomas M. Mason
President and Chief Executive Officer         Vice President and Chief Financial
Financial                                     Officer
1

IF-352

(Rev. 01/15)

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES COURTS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544 Date: 07/25/2023

GUIDE TO JUDICIARY POLICY

TRANSMITTAL 07-015 VOLUME/PART 7A CHAPTER(S) 4

TO: Judges, United States Courts of Appeals

Judges, United States District Courts

United States Magistrate Judges

Circuit Executives

Federal Public/Community Defenders

District Court Executives

Clerks, United States Courts of Appeals

Clerks, United States District Courts

Chief Probation Officers

Chief Pretrial Services Officers 

Senior Staff Attorneys 

Circuit Librarians

Chief Circuit Mediators

FROM: Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf 

RE: DEFENDER SERVICES

This transmittal provides notice of changes to Guide to Judiciary Policy, Volume 7 (Defender 

Services), Part A (Guidelines for Administering the CJA and Related Statutes): 

Chapter 4 – Defender Organizations

The chapter was updated to reflect delegations from the AO Director to the Chief of the AO’s

Defender Services Office for the administration of Grant and Conditions agreements with 

community defender offices (CDOs). The significant changes are detailed in the Redline 

Comparison below. 

Questions regarding this transmittal may be directed to the AO Defender Services Offices, at 

202-502-3030.
2

REDLINE COMPARISON REFLECTING CHANGES

§ 420 Types of Defender Organizations 

[. . .] 

§ 420.20 Community Defender Organizations 

[. . .] 

(d) The Director has delegated authority to the Chief of the AO Defender Services Office to: 

(1) sign and manage Director-approved Grant and Conditions agreements with 

community defender organizations; 

(2) establish, manage, and modify disbursement schedules within the current grant 

ceilings as needed for representations and other expenses under the Criminal Justice 

Act; and 

(3) modify current grant ceilings, by written amendment and subject to the availability of 

funds, up to the annual amount approved by the Judicial Conference’s Committee on 

Defender Services, to include any additional authorities delegated by the Committee 

to the AO Defender Services Office. 

(e) The Director retains authority to approve all other substantive modifications, exceptions, or 

waivers to the terms of community defender office Grant and Conditions agreements.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

                     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

            THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1, dated October 31, 2002 (the "Amendment"), is
an amendment to the Employment Agreement dated February 7, 2002 (the "Employment
Agreement"), between VerticalNet, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the
"Company") and John A. Milana (the "Employee"). All capitalized terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Employment Agreement.

            WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to amend certain terms
and conditions of the Employment Agreement as further set forth herein.

            NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
obligations contained herein, and intending to be legally bound, the parties
agree as follows:

            SECTION 1. Amendment to Section 12. Section 12 of the Employment
Agreement is amended by inserting the following sentence before the first
paragraph of such section:

            "During the 3 month period after a Change of Control, if the
            Employee terminates this Agreement for any reason by giving the
            Company written notice of termination (which the Employee shall have
            the right to do during this 3 month period), then all the rights,
            benefits and obligations under Section 11 of this Agreement for
            termination without "cause" by the Company shall apply."

            SECTION 2. Employment Agreement as Amended. The terms "Agreement"
and "Employment Agreement" as used in the Employment Agreement shall be deemed
to refer to the Employment Agreement as amended hereby. This Amendment shall be
effective as of the date hereof and, except as set forth herein, the Employment
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and be otherwise unaffected
hereby.

            SECTION 4. Governing Law. This Amendment is governed by Pennsylvania
law.

            SECTION 5. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or
more counterparts, each of which when executed shall be deemed to be an
original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
<PAGE>
            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to
be duly executed, all as of the date first above written.

                                        VERTICALNET, INC.:


                                        By:______________________________
                                           Name:  Kevin McKay
                                           Title: President and CEO



                                        EMPLOYEE:

                                           ______________________________
                                           John A. Milana


                                      -2-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDRA ESPINOZA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 And

DAVID PERRY,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ALASKA AIR GROUP, INC. And

ALASKA AIRLINES,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-55801

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01271-MMM-MAN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 3, 2013

Pasadena, California

Before: D.W. NELSON, WARDLAW, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JAN 07 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Sandra Espinoza (Espinoza) appeals from the district court’s denial of her

motion, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP),

to set aside the dismissal of her lawsuit against Appellees Alaska Air Group, Inc.

and Alaska Airlines (collectively Alaska Airlines). 

We review a district court’s decision to deny a motion under Rule 60(b) for

abuse of discretion. See Lal v. State of Cal., 610 F.3d 518, 523 (9th Cir. 2010). 

In determining if counsel’s conduct constituted excusable neglect under Rule

60(b), the district court considered the factors set forth in Pioneer Investment

Services Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), as applied to

Rule 60(b) by Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997). 

The district court must consider “the danger of prejudice to the [non-movant], the

length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for

the delay . . . and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Pioneer, 507 U.S. at

395 (citation and footnote reference omitted).

Alaska Airlines will not suffer prejudice if the dismissal is set aside because,

as Alaska Airlines conceded at oral argument, it had already interviewed

employees who witnessed the underlying incident. Conversely, Espinoza “would

suffer the ‘ultimate’ prejudice absent relief because the statute of limitations on

[her] claim has run.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1196 (9th Cir.

2
2009). In addition, the record does not reflect that Espinoza or her counsel acted in

bad faith, and the district court did not consider less drastic sanctions. See Leon v.

IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958, 960 (9th Cir. 2006).

When compared to the neglect we excused in Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d

853 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc), we conclude that similar relief is warranted in this

case. Moreover, counsel adequately explained the reasons for the six-month delay,

which was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, we REVERSE

the district court’s denial of Espinoza’s motion for relief pursuant to FRCP 60(b),

and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

3
EXHIBIT 21

                               SUBSIDIARIES OF DVL

The Company's only significant subsidiaries are Professional Service Corporation
(a Delaware Corporation), Del Toch, LLC (a Delaware Limited Liability
Corporation), Delborne Land Company, LLC (a Delaware Limited Liability
Corporation), S2 Holdings, Inc. (a Delaware Limited Liability Company), DVL
Mortgage Holdings, LLC (a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation), Receivables
II-A, LLC, (a Nevada Limited Liability Corporation), Receivables II-B, LLC (a
Nevada Limited Liability Corporation), Delbrook Holdings, LLC (a Delaware
Limited Liability Corporation), DVL Kearny Holdings, LLC (a Delaware Limited
Liability Company).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6118 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.6118

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, in Washington, D.C., as the ``Dorothy I. 
                          Height Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DOROTHY I. HEIGHT POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, in Washington, D.C., shall be 
known and designated as the ``Dorothy I. Height Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dorothy I. 
Height Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
**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**          Inconnection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Tier Technologies, Inc. (the“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, RonaldL. Rossetti, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.  2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: November 10, 2006 /s/ Ronald L. Rossetti   Ronald L. Rossetti, Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuan t to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________ No. 97-20866

____________________
HI-PORT INCORPORATED

Plaintiff - Appellant

v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY; AIG CLAIMS SERVICES INCORPORATED; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SURPLUS LINES AGENCY INCORPORATED

Defendants - Appellees

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-3279)

_________________________________________________________________ October 19, 1998 Before KING, GARWOOD, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The judgment of the district court is affirmed for essentially the reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion filed September 4, 1997.
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.2
                           CLICKABLE ENTERPRISES, 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  Quarterly  Report of Clickable  Enterprises,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Guy
Pipolo, Chief Financial 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; and

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

This  Certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed  "filed" by the  Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




Date:  February 22, 2005


/s/ Guy Pipolo
----------------------
Guy Pipolo
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)




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