alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CHARLES ARTHUR COOPER, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 10235

December 20, 1978

587 P.2d 1318

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City, and *George Holt,*District Attorney, Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Charles Arthur Cooper stands convicted of use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, stemming from the December 2, 1976 robbery of the El Burrito Cafe on Fremont Street, Las Vegas. Cooper appeals, claiming the evidence was insufficient *745to support a finding of the specific intent required for a conviction of attempted murder. This contention is meritless.

While running in an attempt to escape with money taken from the cafe, appellant twice turned and fired gunshots in the direction of the victim, who was pursuing him. The first shot was from a distance of about twenty feet; the second, from twenty-five to thirty-five feet. Appellant had a straight clear shot at the victim, who heard a “bam,” and heard a bullet whiz by him.

Appellant concedes these facts establish an overt act, but claims specific intent to kill cannot be inferred from facts constituting an overt act, but must be proved by evidence of facts other than those of the overt act. He predicates this contention on Graves v. State, 82 Nev. 137, 413 P.2d 503 (1966).

In *Graves,*we explained that when a defendant is charged with attempted murder, an instruction on general intent is improper because, unlike a murder case, no homicide has occurred and therefore no foundation exists from which to *presume*the accused intended the natural and probable consequences of his act. Although *Graves*may be read to prohibit presuming the specific intent required for attempted murder, *Graves*did not, as appellant claims, prohibit the jury from drawing reasonable inferences of specific intent from facts proved — though some facts also establish an overt act by the defendant. The law directs that a “presumption” be raised, while an “inference” typically is merely permissible.

From the facts of this case, the jury could reasonably infer that defendant specifically intended to kill the victim.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2

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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Earle M. Jorgensen Company ("EMJ") for the period ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William S. Johnson, as Chief Financial Officer of EMJ, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  This
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  Information
contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of EMJ.

Date:
February 7, 2003

|                                                                                              |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/WILLIAM S. JOHNSONWilliam S. Johnson
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |  | 

---

QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22169]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>10222 and <greek-i>10223]


Florida Disaster Number FL-00011

AGENCY: Small Business Administration

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-1609-DR), dated 10/24/
2005.
    Incident: Hurricane Wilma.
    Incident Period: 10/23/2005 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 10/30/2005.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/23/2005.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/24/2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business 
Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 
Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, 
Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of Florida, dated 10/24/2005 is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:
Primary Counties:
    Brevard, Indian River, and Okeechobee.
Contiguous Counties:
    Florida: Orange, Osceola, Polk, Seminole, and Volusia.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008.)
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-22169 Filed 11-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00120

- CV

JUDGE CARLOS CORTEZ, Appellant
V. COYT RANDAL (RANDY) JOHNSTON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court No. DC

- 10

- 14346

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.2 

### O RDER
Carlos Cortez has filed an appeal from an order denying his motion to seal court records and vacating extant sealing orders. At this point, only a notice of appeal has been filed. The
order , signed October 29, 2013, was provided to this Court by Cortez in conne ction with a contemporaneously

- filed petition for writ of mandamus. The case is now before this Court after transfer by the Texas Supreme Court from the
Fifth Court of Appeals. We perceive that if the documents which are the ultimate focus of this ap peal are released to the public by the district clerk, the purpose of the a ppeal

— to prevent their release

— will be
vitiated , and the appeal would be moot. To protect our jurisdiction, we therefore temporarily stay the trial court’s October 29,
2013 , Order Denying Motion to Seal and Vacating Sealing Order while we consider the merits of the appeal. See Dallas Morning News v. Fifth Court of Appeals , 842 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)

. The clerk of this C ourt is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court judge, and the trial court clerk.
IT IS SO ORDERED

.

BY THE COURT
Date: November 15 , 2013
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6794

OORELL SHARRIEFF,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CAPTAIN PARKER, Unknown; EARL P. HICKS; LIEUTENANT AKERS, Unknown; LIEUTENANT HARRISTON,

Unknown; SERGEANT IRVING, Unknown; T. JONES,

Correctional Officer; DARIN CUNNINGHAM, Correctional Officer; BOONE, Correctional Officer, Unknown; R. SKYES, Correctional Officer;

HUNTER, Correctional Officer, Unknown,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-94-105)

Submitted: November 21, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oorell Sharrieff, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order entering

judgment on the jury's verdict finding in favor of Appellees.* We

have reviewed the record before us and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge's order. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### ROBERTS v. STEWART

No. 1 PC.

Case below: 3 N.C. App. 120.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 21 January 1969.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS CANCHOLA

- JUAREZ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 19

- 72717 Agency No. A206

- 784

- 664

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 15, 2022 * *
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges

. Carlos Canchola

- Juarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying a motion to remand
and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 72717

§ 1252. We r eview for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand. Taggar v. Holder , 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review Canchola

- Juarez’s challenges to the BIA ’s denial of cancellation of removal where the IJ denied relief as a matter of
discretion

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Lopez

- Castellanos v. Gonzales , 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2006 ) (the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s disc retionary good moral character determination). Although the court retains jurisdiction over questions of law and constitutional claims , Canchola

- Juarez’s contentions do not amount to colorable claims that would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 125 2(a)(2)(D) ; Lopez

- Castellanos , 437 F.3d at 854

. 1 Canchola

- Juarez waived his challenge to the agency’s consideration
of evidence before the ten

- year period for good moral character because he raised it for the first time in his reply brief

. See Nguyen v. Barr , 983 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2020) (petitioner waived a claim first challenged in the reply brief). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Canchola

- Juarez’s motion to
remand for failure to show how the newly submitted evidence w ou ld have changed
the result in the case

. See Shin v. Mukasey , 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008 )

1 Canc hola

- Juarez’s reliance on Guerrero

- Lasprilla v. Barr , ––– U.S.

–––– , 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020), is misplaced. See Ramadan v. Gonzales , 479 F.3d 646, 650, 656 (9th Cir. 2007)

.3 19

- 72717

(applicants “who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence

w ould likely change the result in the case” ( internal citation omitted ))

. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68468-68469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22482]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. the grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose

[[Page 68469]]

confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material, and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, ``Review of an Unsolicited (R24) 
Application''.
    Date: November 22, 2005.
    Time: 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Cheryl K. Lapham, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, NIH/NIAID, Scientific Review Program, Room 2217, 
6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-496-
2550, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#42212e23322a232f022c2b232b266c2c2b2a6c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e0838c819088818da08e89818984ce8e8988ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 1, 2005.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-22482 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# L_2007298EN.01002301.xml

| 16.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 298/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 298/23

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2007 of 18 September 2007 amending and updating Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 278 of 22 October 2007
  )

On page 6, under definition ‘Adjusted Peak Performance’:

for:

‘1012’,

read:

‘1012
  ’.

12

On page 140, second paragraph:

for:

‘1012’,

read:

‘1012
  ’

12

---
Careview Communications, Inc. 8-K


Exhibit 10.37


 


HEALTHCOR HYBRID OFFSHORE MASTER FUND,
L.P.


 


ALLONGE NO. 4
TO SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE 


(issued January 31, 2012)


 


March 8, 2022


 


This Allonge No. 4 to Senior Secured Convertible
Note (this “Allonge”) shall be affixed to that certain Senior Secured Convertible Note dated January 31, 2012
(as amended by Allonge No. 1 to Senior Secured Convertible Note, dated June 26, 2015, Allonge No. 2 to Senior Secured Convertible
Note, dated July 10, 2018, and Allonge No. 3 to Senior Secured Convertible Note, dated April 20, 2021, the “Note”),
issued in the original principal amount of $2,671,000, made by CareView Communications, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”)
and payable to the order of HealthCor Hybrid Offshore Master Fund, L.P. (the “Holder”), and shall become a permanent
part thereof and shall amend the Note as provided herein.


 


		1.	Amendment to Maturity Date. The second sentence
of Section 1 of the Note is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:



 


The “Maturity Date” shall be the
earlier to occur of (a) April 20, 2023 or (b) 120 calendar days following a written demand for payment by the Holder to the Company;
provided, that such written demand may not be given prior to the twelve month anniversary of the date on which the obligations
of the Company under the PDL Credit Agreement are repaid in full.


 


2.           No Further Amendments;
Authorization to Affix to Note. Except as specifically amended hereby, the Note shall remain in full force and effect. The
Company hereby authorizes the Holder to affix this Allonge to the Note and it shall for all purposes henceforth be part of the
Note.


 


[signature page follows]


 


[Signature Page to Allonge No. 4 to CareView
Communications Inc. Secured Convertible Note

Issued January 31, 2012 (Hybrid Fund)]


 




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused
this Allonge to be executed by its officer thereunto duly authorized, as of the date first above written.


 


	 	COMPANY:
	 	 	 
	 	CAREVIEW COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
	 	a Nevada corporation
	 	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Steven G. Johnson
	 	Name:  Steven Johnson
	 	Title:    Chief Executive Officer



 


	AGREED AND ACCEPTED:	 
	 	 	 
	HOLDER:	 
	 	 	 
	HEALTHCOR HYBRID OFFSHORE MASTER FUND, L.P.	 
	By:	HealthCor Hybrid Offshore G.P., LLC, as General Partner 	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Laurie Hadick	 	 
	Name:	Laurie Hadick	 
	Title:	CCO	 


 


[Signature Page to Allonge No. 4 to CareView
Communications Inc. Secured Convertible Note

Issued January 31, 2012 (Hybrid Fund)]
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5591 

To designate the facility of the Federal Aviation Administration located at 

Spokane International Airport in Spokane, Washington, as the ‘‘Ray 

Daves Air Traffic Control Tower’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2010 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the Federal Aviation Administration located at Spokane International Airport in Spokane, Washington, as the ‘‘Ray Daves Air Traffic Control Tower’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RAY DAVES AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the Federal Avia5 tion Administration located at Spokane International Air6 port in Spokane, Washington, shall be known and des7 ignated as the ‘‘Ray Daves Air Traffic Control Tower’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5591 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Ray Daves Air Traffic 

5 Control Tower’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
**
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**THETRUSTEE***

**OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, andfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joshua R. Peterson, Head of Trust Real Assets & Mineral Resources and Senior Vice President of BBVA USA, on behalf of BBVA USA, the Trustee ofthe San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”), not in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee of the Trust, hereby certify that: 

 
 1.
The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (as explained in Note 3 to the Trust’s financial statements, in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin Topic 12:E, Financial Statements of Royalty Trusts, theTrust prepares its financial statements in a manner that differs from generally accepted accounting principles; such presentation is customary to other royalty trusts); and 

 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Trust. 

 
BBVA USA, AS TRUSTEE OF THESAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
/s/ Joshua R. Peterson

By:
 Joshua R. Peterson Head of Trust Real Assets & Mineral Resources and Senior Vice PresidentDate: March 16, 2020
 
*
The Trust has no executive officers. 
**
#### LANIER, COMR. OF INS. v. VINES

No. 521

Case below: 1 N.C. App. 208.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 23 August 1968. Case set with appeals from the 8th, 24th and 25th Districts.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CLOVER POST 

OFFICE, Clovis, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0889

Issued: June 29, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On May 23, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a November 1, 2021 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 22-0889.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that it has jurisdiction to review final 

adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 For final 

adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review authority 

is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the November 1, 2021 decision was May 2, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until May 23, 2022, more than 180 days after the

November 1, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0889 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

to establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by 

OWCP within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal 

docketed as No. 22-0889, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0889 is dismissed.

Issued: June 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance. ” 

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).