alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of El Camino Trucking Corporation, Petitioner, v Raymond P. Martinez, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 819]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Raymond P Martinez, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated October 30, 2003, which confirmed the findings of an Administrative Law Judge, made after a hearing, that the petitioner violated New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations (34 RCNY) § 4-15 (b) (9) and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401 (7) (F) (b), and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence based upon the entire record *(see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176,180 [1978]; *Matter of L. Camino Trucking v Martinez,*5 AD3d 597 [2004]). Moreover, “[t]he courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [an administrative agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists” *(Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436, 444 [1987] [internal quotations marks omitted]; *see Matter of Stork Rest, v Boland,*
      *492282 NY 256, 267 [1940]; *Matter of DeLaurie Assoc. v Martinez,*11 AD3d 535 [2004]; *Matter of Clinton Ave. Constr. Corp. v Martinez,*8 AD3d 273 [2004]; *Matter of Scara-Mix, Inc. v Martinez,*305 AD2d 418 [2003]).

Here, the testimony of the officer who issued the summonses regarding the condition of the roadway where the vehicle weighing scales were placed, her training, the accuracy of the scales used, and the manner in which she weighed the petitioner’s vehicle, provided substantial evidence supporting the determination of the Administrative Law Judge *(see Matter of Metro Demolition Contr. Corp. v Martinez,*12 AD3d 513 [2004]; *Matter of Sprint Recycling, Inc. v Martinez,*12 AD3d 451 [2004]; *Matter of Quality Concrete of NY, Inc. v Martinez,*11 AD3d 697 [2004]; *Matter of Omni Waste Servs., Inc. v Martinez,*11 AD3d 696 [2004]; *Matter of Louis A. Petrosino, Inc. v Martinez,*11 AD3d 468 [2004]; *Matter of Masons v Martinez,*8 AD3d 671 [2004]; *Matter of Maspeth Operating Corp. v Martinez,*8 AD3d 670 [2004]; *Matter of City Hawk Indus. v Martinez,*2 AD3d 635 [2003]). Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          62,421
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  676,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,051
<INVENTORY>                                  1,952,096
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               133,170
<PP&E>                                         776,313
<DEPRECIATION>                                 647,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,157,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,719,473
<BONDS>                                        245,024
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,684
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,182,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,157,798
<SALES>                                      1,012,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,012,153
<CGS>                                          618,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  721,045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               223,485
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,688
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,935
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,935
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,935
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30725

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DION LAVERT JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-20099-01

- - - - - - - - - -

February 20, 1997

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

PER CURIAM:*

Dion Lavert Jackson argues that the district court clearly

erred in failing to adjust his offense level for his minimal or

minor participation in the offense.

We have reviewed the record, including the presentence

report, the transcript of the sentencing hearing, and the briefs

and find that the district court did not err in refusing to make

an adjustment for Jackson’s minimal or minor role in the offense. 

Jackson failed to carry his burden of demonstrating 
No. 96-30725

- 2 -

that he was less culpable than other participants involved in the

offense. See United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1260 n.10

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 214 (1994). Further,

Jackson cannot complain because he was held accountable only for

his own offense conduct and not for the conduct of any other

participant in the drug transaction. See United States v.

Flucas, 99 F.3d 177, 181 (5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.
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





The undersigned, Wo Hing Li, the Chief
Executive Officer of CHINA PRECISION STEEL, INC. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY that:





1.      The
Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009
(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.      Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this statement this 28th day of
September, 2009.





/s/ Wo Hing LiWo
      Hing LiChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





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





The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3167 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3167

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under 
  which veterans, their surviving spouses, and their children may be 
   treated as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 19, 2008

     Mr. Burr (for himself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Vitter) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under 
  which veterans, their surviving spouses, and their children may be 
   treated as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONS FOR TREATMENT OF VETERANS, THEIR SURVIVING SPOUSES, 
              AND THEIR CHILDREN AS ADJUDICATED MENTALLY INCOMPETENT 
              FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 55 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 5511. Conditions for treatment of veterans, surviving spouses, 
              and children as adjudicated mentally incompetent for 
              certain purposes
    ``In any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of 
laws and benefits under this title, a veteran, surviving spouse, or 
child who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or 
experiencing an extended loss of consciousness shall not be considered 
adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of 
section 922 of title 18 without the order or finding of a judge, 
magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that 
such veteran, surviving spouse, or child is a danger to him- or herself 
or others.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 55 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following 
new item:

``5511. Conditions for treatment of veterans, their surviving spouses, 
                            and their children as adjudicated mentally 
                            incompetent for certain purposes.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.1




Modification to Compensation Payable to the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board


Upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of MFA Financial, Inc. (the “Company”), which was based on its review of relevant market data, on May 25, 2016, the Board approved the following modification to the compensation payable to the non-executive Chairman of the Company’s Board, effective as of such day:


		
	•
	An increase from $85,000 to $115,000 the grant date value of the annual grant of fully-vested shares of the Company’s common stock or fully-vested restricted stock units made to the non-executive Chairman.  Such grant is in addition to the other cash fees and equity payable to the Chairman of the Board in his capacity as a non-executive member of the Board, which have been previously disclosed by the Company (including in Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014).
# **EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

# **OFFICERS’ CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 63 -1350, the Chief Executive Officer of Austins Steaks & Saloon, Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q for the period ended September30, 2002 and the financial statements contained therein, fully comply with therequirements of Sections 139a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q and the financialstatements thereto fairly present, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of  operations ofthe company.

 

 
| /s/ Victor  F. Foti |   | November 14,  2002 |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------|

 

1

----

#  

# **OFFICERS’ CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 63 -1350, the Chief Financial Officer of Austins Steaks & Saloon, Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q for the period ended September30, 2002 and the financial statements contained therein, fully comply with therequirements of Sections 139a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and the information contained in the Form 10-Q and the financial statementsthereto fairly present, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of  operations of the company.

 

 
| /s/ Robyn B.  Mabe |   | November 14,  2002 |
|--------------------|--------|--------------------|

 

 

2

----
EXHIBIT 32

 

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

ALL-AMERICAN SPORTPARK, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

 

     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of All-American SportPark, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2010:

 

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of All-American SportPark, Inc. 

 

 

Dated:  November 15, 2010

 

 

 

_/s/ Ronald S. Boreta________

Ronald S. Boreta

Chief Executive Officer 

(Principal Executive Officer) and

Principal Financial Officer

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to All-American SportPark, Inc. and will be retained by All-American SportPark, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

 

 

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                Jul-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                        10
<SECURITIES>                  2,365,239
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              0 <F1>
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                2,365,249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         0 <F1>
<BONDS>                       2,279,317
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      10
<OTHER-SE>                    85,922
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  2,365,249
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              49,254
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              413
<LOSS-PROVISION>              5,032
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            43,419
<INCOME-PRETAX>               390
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           390
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  390
<EPS-BASIC>                   0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.00

<FN>
The Company's balance sheet is unclassified.
</FN>




</TABLE>
In the Matter of W.R. appealed by State.

No. 560PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

William P. Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Michelle F. Lynch, for Juvenile, W.R.

Prior report: 179 N.C.App. 642, 634 S.E.2d 923.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 24th day of October 2006 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th day of October 2006 by Attorney General in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3625 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 245 North Main Street in New City, New 

York, as the ‘‘Kenneth Peter Zebrowski Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•S 3625 ES

1 SECTION 1. KENNETH PETER ZEBROWSKI POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 245 North Main Street in New 

5 City, New York, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Kenneth Peter Zebrowski Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Kenneth Peter 

11 Zebrowski Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the Senate October 2 (legislative day, September 17), 2008. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3625 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostZebrowski Post Office Building’’. New City, New York, as the ‘‘Kenneth Peter al Service located at 245 North Main Street in
IN RE A.B.K.

No. COA07-1082.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Wilkes (04JT117).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID CHARLES BEAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 635 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID CHARLES BEAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 636 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of March, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
KELLEY v. SHERIFF'S DEPT.

No. 64P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 21, 2008.

Ginny P. Lanier, Cary, Roger A. Askew, Scott W. Warren, Raleigh, for Sheriffs Dept.

George W. Lennon, Raleigh, for Kelley.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of February 2008 by Defendant (Sheriffs Department) for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 21st day of February 2008."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7121

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY JONES, a/k/a Dog, a/k/a Digity, a/k/a Digity 

Chemist,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

District Judge. (5:04-cr-00324-D-1; 5:08-cv-00582-D)

Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 15, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Rudolf A. 

Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Michael Gordon

James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Jones 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Jones 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
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 50407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16958]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 1, 2005, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), IMS Global Learning Consortium, 
Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Stanford 
University, Stanford, CA; University of Maryland University College, 
Adelphi, MD; and ANGEL Learning, Indianapolis, IN have been added as 
parties to this venture.
    Also, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA; Oracle 
Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA; Saba Software, Inc., Redwood Shores, 
CA; IVIMEDS Limited, Dundee, Scotland, United Kingdom; SumTotal 
Systems, Inc., Bellevue, WA; and Thinq, Baltimore, MD have withdrawn as 
parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. 
intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On April 7, 2000, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its 
original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 
55283).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 9, 2005. 
A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) 
of the Act on June 3, 2005 (70 FR 32653).

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 05-16958 Filed 8-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M