alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marcus D. SEWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-5140.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 29, 2010.

Mark E. Buchner, Esq., Mark E. Bu-chner, Attorney-at-Law, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Virginia Watson Keyes, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Dallas, TX, Cathryn McClanahan, Office of the United States Attorney, Tulsa, OK, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

DEANELL REECE TACHA, Circuit Judge.

Marcus D. Seward appeals from a judgment of the district court affirming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s denial of his application for disability benefits and supplemental security income benefits. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), we affirm.

Mr. Seward claimed disability beginning in June 2004, due to back and neck injuries, depression, and a childhood polio deformity. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied benefits after finding that Mr. Seward: (1) had the severe impairment of degenerative disc disease; (2) his impairment did not meet or equal a listing; (3) he was not entirely credible; and (4) he retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work. On appeal, Mr. Seward raises the same issues he raised in the district court: (1) the ALJ did not properly evaluate his credibility; (2) the ALJ did not apply the correct legal standards in assessing his RFC; and (3) the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence.

> We review de novo the district court’s decision to reverse the [Commissioner], applying the same standards as those employed by the district court. Judicial review of the [Commissioner’s] decision is limited to a determination whether [his] factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether [he] applied the correct legal standards.

*Nguyen v. Shalala,*43 F.3d 1400, 1402 (10th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). We have reviewed, de novo, the district court’s decision, which adopts the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to affirm the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. The report and recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned and persuasive on each point argued by Mr. Seward again in this court. We see no reason to repeat the analysis, and we affirm for substantially the same reasons set for in the report and recommendation dated August 6, 2009, and *722adopted by the district court in its September 8, 2009 order.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
L1 1 .'‘,1a.-11 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22-0112
WATER FOR FLATHEAD'S FUTURE Inc., AMY WALLER, STEVEN MOORE, and CYNTHIA EDSTROM,

Plaintiffs and Appellees,
v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,

Defendant and Appellant MONTANA ARTESIAN WATER COMPANY

Intervenor-Defendant and Appellant. 

### FP F :77 ) JUN 2 7 2023 Bowen Gr enwooci Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Water for Flathead'sFuture, Inc., etal. (collectively "WFF") has filed a Petition for RehearingofthisCourt'sOpinion entered May 16,2023. See WaterforFlathead'sFuture, Inc. v. Mont. Dep't ofEnvtl. Quality, 2023 MT 86, 412 Mont. 258. Both the Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ) and Montana Artesian Water Company (Artesian) have filed objections to the Petition. This Court "will consider a petition for rehearing presented only upon [a showing] [t]hat it overlooked some fact material to the decision; [t]hat it overlooked some question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case; or [t]hat its decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed by the supreme court." M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a). "A petition for rehearing is not a forum in which to rehash arguments made in the briefs and considered by the Court." State ex rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris, Inc., 217 P.3d 475, 486, 2009 Mont. LEXIS 443 (citingM. R. App. P. 20(1)(a)). Having reviewed the Petition along with DEQ and WFF's responses, we conclude that WFF has 06/27/2023

### not demonstrated the existence any ofthe criteria which would warrant rehearing. M. R.

App. P. 20(1)(a)(i)-(iii). WFF contends that this Court's discussion of remedies is unnecessary dicta and conflicts with § 75-1-201(6)(c)(2), MCA. However, neither ofthese contentions establish a basis for rehearing. The Court did not overlook § 75-1-201(6)(c)(2), MCA, but quoted and discussed it in the opinion. And, while the characterization ofthe discussion as dicta may be a basis for argument or comment, it is not grounds for rehearing. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and DISMISSED. TheClerkofthe SupremeCourt is directedtoprovideacopy ofthis Orderto counsel ofrecord. 1 

### — DATED thisZ

-4-- day ofJune, 2023.
hiefJustice

2 

### Justices
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 33-87882, 33-87776, 33-89382, 333-02340, 333-06303, 333-16963,
333-20853, 333-52603, 333-80861, 333-39462, 333-57670, 333-63550, 333-97101 and
333-107027, and Form S-3 No. 333-63564) of Applix, Inc. and in the related
Prospectus of our report dated March 7, 2003, except for Note 11, as to which
the date is March 17, 2003, and Note 9, as to which the date is May 12, 2003,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Applix, Inc. as of
December 31, 2002 and for each of the two years in the period ended December 31,
2002 included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2003.

                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 29, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1119 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1119

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 21, 2010.
Whereas it was through the brave and noble efforts of the Nation's forefathers 
        that the United States first gained freedom and became a sovereign 
        nation;
Whereas there are more than 1,471,000 active component and more than 1,111,200 
        reserve component members of the Armed Forces serving the Nation in 
        support and defense of the freedom that all Americans cherish;
Whereas the members of the Armed Forces deserve the utmost respect and 
        admiration of their fellow Americans for putting their lives in danger 
        for the sake of the freedoms enjoyed by all Americans;
Whereas the families of members of the Armed Forces make sacrifices commensurate 
        with the men and women of the Armed Forces;
Whereas members of the Armed Forces are defending freedom and democracy around 
        the globe and are playing a vital role in protecting the safety and 
        security of all Americans;
Whereas the Nation officially celebrates and honors the accomplishments and 
        sacrifices of veterans, patriots, and leaders who fought for freedom, 
        this resolution pays tribute to those who currently serve in the Armed 
        Forces;
Whereas all Americans should participate in a moment of silence to support our 
        troops and their families; and
Whereas March 26, 2010, is designated as ``National Support Our Troops Day'': 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that all 
Americans should participate in a moment of silence to reflect upon the service 
and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces both at home and 
abroad, and their families.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14669]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). The nonbanking activities 
will be conducted worldwide. Additional information on all bank holding 
companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website 
at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 9, 2001.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Betsy Buttrill White, Senior 
Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. Citigroup Inc., New York, New York; Citigroup Holding Company, 
Wilmington, Delaware, and Citicorp, New York, New York; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of Grupo Financiero Banamex-Accival, S.A., 
de C.V., Mexico City, Mexico, and Banamex USA Bancorp, Los Angeles, 
California (``Banamex''), and thereby indirectly acquire California 
Commerce Bank, Los Angeles, California, and all of the nonbanking 
companies of Banamex.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 6, 2001.
Robert deV. Frierson
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-14669 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER


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 Madison Ave. Media, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q /A for the period ending February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. FRANKLIN BRADLEY, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant toss. 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 result of operations of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 20 th day of April, 2011.








/s/ J. FRANKLIN BRADLEY


Principal Accounting Officer
No. 491.

#### Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co., Executor, *v.*McLaughlin, Collector of Internal Revenue.

November 11, 1935.

*Mr. Archibald J. Treat*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wide-man,*and *Messrs. James W. Morris*and *John G. Remey*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
```

[Federal Register: December 23, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 67054]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23de97-59]


[[Page 67054]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 23, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-33629 Filed 12-19-97; 2:36 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO    INDEX ========**

----
```

[Federal Register: January 14, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2474]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14ja99-38]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, February 22, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW, Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-958 Filed 1-12-99; 1:07 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX ========**

----
#### Miguel MAGDALENO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George GIURBINO, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-55420.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 15, 2008.

Filed July 29, 2008.

Miguel Magdaleno, Calipatria, CA, pro se.

David Elgin Madeo, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los An-geles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Miguel Magdaleno appeals denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.

*529I

While Olmos’s testimony at the preliminary hearing was testimonial, Magdaleno had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine her. *See Crawford v. Washington,*541 U.S. 36, 57, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). He was represented by counsel; counsel cross-examined Olmos on the record and before a judge; and Olmos testified under oath. *See California v. Green,*399 U.S. 149, 165, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). Magdaleno’s counsel was not denied the chance to show that Olmos was biased or that she had a motive to testify as she did. *See Delaware v. Van Arsdall,*475 U.S. 673, 680, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); *United States v. Larson,*460 F.3d 1200, 1206 (9th Cir.2006). Nor has he explained why the state of discovery impeded the effectiveness of cross-examination. *See United States v. Koon,*34 F.3d 1416, 1427-28 (9th Cir.1994), *rev’d on other grounds,*518 U.S. 81, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996).

II

It was not contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent, or an unreasonable application of it, for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that the prosecution made a good faith effort to have Olmos testify at Magdaleno’s trial. *See Barber v. Page,*390 U.S. 719, 724-25, 88 S.Ct. 1318, 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); *Green,*399 U.S. at 165, 90 S.Ct. 1930. Investigator Barrera took substantial steps to locate Olmos, and Magdaleno points to no Supreme Court authority indicating that the state’s efforts were unreasonable in the circumstances.

III

Even if some or all of Olmos’s statements to her sister and the police were testimonial (on which we express no opinion), admitting these statements would be harmless given the evidence properly admitted against Magdaleno. *See Van Arsdall,*475 U.S. at 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431. Magdaleno cannot have been prejudiced because this was not, as he maintains, the only evidence from which specific intent to commit his crimes could be found. His admissions to Officer Cooper that he questioned Olmos about money, hit her, burned her, poured paint thinner over her, and threatened her, in light of the nature and extent of Olmos’s injuries, sufficed.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Carlos G. Erazo ROBLES, Appellant.

Nos. 03-3124, 03-3125, 03-3133.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 30, 2006.

Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 18, 2006.

John Robert Fisher, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Joseph Virgilio, Law Offices of Joseph Virgilio, Washington, DC, for Appellant.

Before: SENTELLE and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

These appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs by the parties and oral arguments of counsel. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. *See*D.C. CIR. R. 36(b). It is

Ordered and Adjudged that the District Court’s decision is affirmed. Appellants’ arguments are foreclosed by our recent decision in *United States v. Delgado-Garda,*374 F.3d 1337 (D.C.Cir.2004). “One *9three-judge panel ... does not have the authority to overrule another three-judge panel of the court. That power may be exercised only by the full court....” *La-Shawn A. v. Barry,*87 F.3d 1389, 1395 (D.C.Cir.1996) (en bane) (citations omitted).

Pursuant to Rule 36 of this Court, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing *en banc. See*Fed R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31258-31259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14652]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for 
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The NCUA is submitting the following new information 
collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35). This information collection is published to obtain 
comments from the public.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until July 11, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to 
NCUA Clearance Officer or OMB Reviewer listed below:
    Clearance Officer: Mr. James L. Baylen,(703) 518-6411,National 
Credit Union Administration,1775 Duke Street,Alexandria, VA 22314-
3428,Fax No. 703-518-6433,E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8c2cac9d1c4cdc6e8c6cbddc986cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6dcd4d7cfdad3d8f6d8d5c3d798d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a>.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt,(202) 395-7860,Office of Management 
and Budget,Room 10226, New Executive Office Building,Washington, DC 
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the information collection 
requests, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by 
calling the: NCUA Clearance Officer,

[[Page 31259]]

James L. Baylen, (703) 518-6411. It is also available on the following 
website: www.NCUA.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal for the following collection of 
information:
    OMB Number: 3133-0024.
    Form Number: N/A.
    Type of Review: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously 
approved collection.
    Title: 12 C.F.R. Part 708b--Mergers of Federally Insured Credit 
Unions.
    Description: The rule sets forth merger procedures for federally 
insured credit unions.
    Respondents: All credit unions.
    Estimated No. of Respondents/Record keepers: 304.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 15 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Other. Information disclosures required are 
made on an on-going basis.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,560.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $67,853.00.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on June 5, 
2001.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-14652 Filed 6-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-16-00177-CV

____________________

KIERRAH S. BUSHNELL, Appellant

V.

DEMARCUS JAMAL BUSHNELL, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 317th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-223,019 

________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER

Kierrah S. Bushnell filed a declaration of inability to pay costs in the 

appellate court and requested that a clerk’s record be prepared. See Tex. R. App. P.

20.1(c)(1), (3). The trial court clerk filed a contest. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(e). 

When an affidavit of indigence is filed in the appellate court and a contest is filed, 

the Court may refer the matter to the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(h)(4).

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the appeal is abated and the case is

remanded to the trial court for a determination of the appellant’s indigence. The
2

trial court shall hear evidence and grant the appropriate relief. See Tex. R. App. P.

20.1(h)(4). The trial court shall set a hearing and notify the parties and the court

reporter of the setting. The trial court shall either conduct a hearing within ten days 

of receiving the referred contest from this Court or within that time sign an order

extending the hearing date for not more than twenty days. See Tex. R. App. P.

20.1(i) (1), (2)(B), (3). Unless the trial court signs an order sustaining the contest

within the period set for the hearing, the affidavit’s allegations will be deemed true.

See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(i)(4). A supplemental clerk’s record containing any 

orders signed by the trial court in connection with the contest and any documents 

filed with the trial court in connection with the contest, together with a reporter’s 

record of any hearing conducted pursuant to this Order, shall be filed with the 

Court of Appeals by August 22, 2016.

ORDER ENTERED July 21, 2016.

 PER CURIAM

 

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.