alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD H. LEVIN; LINDA D. LEVIN,

Petitioners

- Appellants,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 19

- 70314

IRS No. 11578

- 14L

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted May 6, 2020 * *

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER

, Circuit Judges.

Richard H. Levin , an attorney, and Linda D. Levin appeal pro se from the

T ax Court’s summary judgment upholding the Internal Revenue Service’s

determination to collect by levy the appellants’ unpaid federal income taxes for the

year 2010. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a) (1). We review de

* 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

MAY 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 70314

novo the Tax Court’s summary judgment, Johnston v. Comm’r , 461 F.3d 1162,

1164 (9th Cir. 2006), and for an abuse of discretion the T ax C ourt’s evidentiary

rulings

, Sparkman v. Comm ’ r

, 509 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007)

. W e affirm.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in considering the settlement

officer’s declaration and administrative record when evaluating the m otion for

s ummary j udgment

. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) (authentication requirement is

satisfied by “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the

proponent claims it is”); Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) and (7) (authentication by witness

testimony and evidence that document was filed in a public office); United States

v. Pang

, 362 F.3d 1187, 11 91

- 93 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 901 permits a court to

admit evidence if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a trier of fact can

find in favor of authenticity or identificatio n ).

We do not consider issues raised by the appellants in their brief which are

not supported by argument

. See Acosta

- Huerta v. Estelle , 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.

1992).

AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2699 Filed: 06/20/19 Entered: 06/21/19 08:16:46 Page 1 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2699 Filed: 06/20/19 Entered: 06/21/19 08:16:46 Page 2 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2699 Filed: 06/20/19 Entered: 06/21/19 08:16:46 Page 3 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2699 Filed: 06/20/19 Entered: 06/21/19 08:16:46 Page 4 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2699 Filed: 06/20/19 Entered: 06/21/19 08:16:46 Page 5 of

5
Exhibit32.1

Certification Pursuant To Section 906 Of TheSarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. Section1350(A) And (B))

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(a)and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as anofficer of Metaldyne Corporation (the"Company") that the Quarterly Report of theCompany on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 27, 2004 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company at the end of and for the periodscovered by such Report.

|                        |  |                                                                     |  |  |  |  |
|------------------------|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| Date:November 10, 2004 |  | /s/ Timothy D.Leuliette Timothy D. Leuliette Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
|                        |

----
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 1 of19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 2 of19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 3 of19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 4 of19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 5 of19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 6 of19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 7 of19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 8 of19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 9 of19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 10of 19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 11of 19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 12of 19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 13of 19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 14of 19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 15of 19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 16of 19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 17of 19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 18of 19

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1373    Filed: 04/15/19    Entered: 04/15/19 10:32:06    Page 19of 19
Exhibit B 

Wildfires 

1. Butte Fire (2015) 

2. North Bay Wildfires (2017): 

a. LaPorte 

b. McCourtney 

c. Lobo 

d. Honey 

e. Redwood / Potter Valley 

f. Sulphur 

g. Cherokee 

h. 37 

i. Blue 

j. Pocket 

k. Atlas 

l. Cascade 

m. Nuns 

n. Adobe 

o. Norrbom 

p. Pressley 

q. Partrick 

r. Pythian / Oakmont 

s. Maacama 

t. Tubbs 

u. Point 

3. Camp Fire (2018)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3841-2 Filed: 09/09/19 Entered: 09/09/19 14:27:35 Page 1

of 1
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|                                                          |  |                                   |     |     
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------- | --- | ----
|Name of entity and place of jurisdiction                  |  | Voting SecuritiesOwned Percentage |    
|PennantPark SBIC LP (Delaware)                            |  |                                   | 100 | %(1)
|PennantPark GP, LLC (Delaware)                            |  |                                   | 100 | %   
|PennantPark SBIC II LP (Delaware)                         |  |                                   | 100 | %(1)
|PennantPark GP II, LLC (Delaware)                         |  |                                   | 100 | %(2)
|PNNT Acentia, LLC (Delaware)                              |  |                                   | 100 | %   
|PNNT Alabama Holdings Inc. (Delaware)                     |  |                                   | 100 | %(3)
|PNNT CI (Galls) Prime Investment Holdings, LLC (Delaware) |  |                                   | 100 | %   
|PNNT Transportation 100 Holdco, LLC (Delaware)            |  |                                   | 100 | %   
|SuttonPark Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)                      |  |                                   | 100 | %(4)
|SuttonPark Capital LLC (Delaware)                         |  |                                   | N/A | (4) 



|(1) | The entity is directly owned 99% by us and 1% by PennantPark SBIC GP, LLC which is effectively wholly-owned by us.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | The entity is directly owned 99% by us and 1% by PennantPark SBIC GP II, LLC, which is effectively wholly-owned by us.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(3) | This entity is non-operational.
|--- | -------------------------------

|(4) | This is a controlled investment.
|--- | --------------------------------

|(5) | The entity is indirectly owned by us and directly owned by SuttonPark Holdings, Inc.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Annual Report of Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don A. Turkleson, Chief Financial Officer of Cheniere Energy Partners GP, LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 Partnership.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 26, 2008



|                                                                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                               
|/s/ Don A. Turkleson                                                                                                           
|Don A. Turkleson Chief Financial Officer of Cheniere Energy Partners GP, LLC, general partner of Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.
[661 NE2d 1381, 638 NYS2d 600]

#### Judith A. Williams, as Executor of the Estate of Bruce Taylor, Deceased, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

Decided December 7, 1995

*858APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Mark P. Denbeaux,*New City, *Andrea Moran,*Kingston, and *Bruce D. Blatchly,*New Paltz, for appellant.

*Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General,*Albany *(Michael S. Buskus, Victoria A. Graffeo*and *Peter H. Schiff*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Claimant’s decedent, Bruce Taylor, was convicted of sale of a controlled substance in 1974. After serving over five years in jail and four years on probation, Taylor successfully moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct, i.e., the false testimony of the arresting police officer and failure to disclose the circumstances in which the informant against defendant was working with the police. Taylor then commenced this action for unjust conviction and imprisonment pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8-b.

To succeed on a claim for unjust conviction and imprisonment, the claimant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that "he did not by his own conduct cause or bring about his conviction” (Court of Claims Act § 8-b [5] [d]).

The trial court found that Mr. Taylor’s testimony at his criminal trial was less than candid as to his familiarity with the drug transaction for which he was arrested and his interac*859tians with his codefendant on the night of his arrest, and that Mr. Taylor had directed his attorney not to call his wife to testify in order to prevent disclosure of her involvement in the crime. Based on those findings, the trial court concluded that Taylor had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had not caused or brought about his own conviction. The Appellate Division affirmed.

There is evidence in the record that supports the findings below that Taylor directed his attorney not to call his wife to testify in order to protect her, rather than to advance his own cause. Thus, the court’s consideration of that decision was not impermissible consideration of trial strategy *(cf., Ivey v State of New*York, 80 NY2d 474, 482), and its conclusion that claimant had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had not caused or brought about his conviction was not in error.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.
#### Russell R. Cornell and Theodore H. Ward, Copartners, Doing Business in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, under the Name and Style of “Cornell & Ward,” Respondents, v. Fitzgibbon Paper Company and Others, Defendants, Impleaded with Jacob C. Kenyon and Beebe, as Receivers in Sequestration of the Property of inson Paper Company, Appellants.

Judgmentmodfñed by the provision for the payment of costs by the] as modified affirmed, without costs. No opin^

berg, Burr, Woodward and Rich, JJ., eoncurrel
#### Matter of Judicial Settlement of Executors of Henry R. Worthington.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PennantPark Investment Corporation for the annual period ended
September 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Aviv Efrat, as Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge 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 Registrant.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ Aviv Efrat                
|Name: Aviv Efrat              
|Title: Chief Financial Officer
|Date: November 21, 2016
#### Marie Enteman, Respondent, v. The Nassau Electric Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order of the Municipal Court unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Hirsehberg, Burr, Thomas and Carr, JJ.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION and 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

Chapter 11

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a). 

Transferee hereby gives evidence and notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure of the transfer, other than for security, of the claim referenced in this 

evidence and notice.

Olympus Peak Master Fund LP Owl Creek Investments I, LLC

Name of Transferee Name of Transferor

Phone: 212-373-1189

Last Four Digits of Acct #: N/A

Phone: 646-825-7623

Last Four Digits of Acct #: N/A

Name and Address where notices and 

payments to transferee should be sent: 

Olympus Peak Master Fund LP

745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1604

New York, New York 10151

Attention: Leah Silverman

Claim No: 1250

Debtor: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (19-30089)

Date Filed: March 5, 2019

Total Amount of Claim: $1,282,917.06

Transferred Amount of Claim: $1,282,917.06

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice is true and correct 

to the best of my knowledge and belief.

By: /s/ Leah Silverman Date: July 15, 2019

Transferee/Transferee’s Agent

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 

U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2969 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 08:10:33 Page 1 of

2
11

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2969 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 08:10:33 Page 2 of

2
#### Franklin Township’s Election Districts.

Argued Oct. 2, 1905.

Appeal, No. 26, April T., 1906, from order of Q. S. Greene Co., May T., 1905, No. 8, dividing a township into election districts in the case of Franklin Township’s Election Districts. Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Or-lad y; Smith, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ. Affirmed.

December 10, 1905:

Opinion by

Rice, P. J.,

The action of the court brought up for review in this case was taken at the same time as the proceedings for the division of the two wards of the borough of Waynesburg. The questions raised by the assignments of error and by the argument are precisely the same as those raised in those cases, although the facts are somewhat different. We have gone quite fully into the discussion of those questions, so far as they are properly before us for review, in the cases referred to and it will be unnecessary to go over the same ground in this case. It is sufficient to say that we find no error in the record brought up for review which would warrant us in reversing or setting aside the proceedings. The order is, therefore, affirmed.
Entered on Docket 

February 06, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 337 Filed: 02/06/19 Entered: 02/06/19 16:08:36 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consentof Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statement No. 333-84818 on Form S-4 andRegistration Statement Nos. 333-06133, 333-06145, 333-42280, 333-81491,333-90209, 333-88340, and 333-88342 on Form S-8 of our reports dated February18, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financialstatement schedule of Zomax Incorporated as of and for the year ended December27, 2002, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Zomax Incorporatedfor the year ended December 27, 2002.

 
| **/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP** |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|
|                              |
| Minneapolis,  Minnesota,          |
| March 27,  2003                   |
#### STATE v. CHARLES BERRY.

(Filed 28 October, 1925.)

1. Constitutional Law — Criminal Law — Trial by Jury — Conviction— Verdict.

It is required by our organic law that with certain reservations conferred on the Legislature in ease of misdemeanors, that for a lawful conviction of a crime a unanimous verdict must be rendered by a jury of twelve in open court, and a verdict of guilty rendered by a less number is unconstitutional. Const, of N. C., Art. I, sec. 13.

2. Appeal and Error — Record.

The record of the trial on appeal is to be observed in the Supreme Court as importing verity.

Appeal by defendant from *Galvert, J.,*and a jury, at March Term, 1925, of Oeange. New trial.

Defendant was tried and convicted of an assault with a deadly weapon upon Louis Porter and Charles Porter, and from the judgment upon such conviction appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State. ■*

*Gattis & Gattis for defendant.*

ClaeKSON, J.

In the record of the case sent to this Court, it appears that the jury which tried defendant was composed of only ten men.

The Constitution of North Carolina, Art. I, sec. 13, provides: “No person shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of a jury of good and lawful men in open court. The Legislature may, however, provide other means of trial for petty misdemeanors with the right of appeal.”

*Nash, C. J.,*in *S. v. Moss,*47 N. C., p. 68, says: “These principles are dear to every freeman; they are his shield and buckler against wrong and oppression and lie at the foundation of civil liberty; they are declared to *be rights*of the citizens of North Carolina, and ought to be vigilantly guarded.”

*Ashe, J.,*in *S. v. Stewart,*89 N. C., p. 564, says: “It is a fundamental principle of the common law, declared in ‘Magna Charta,’ and again in our Bill of Eights, that ‘no person shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of a jury of good and lawful men in open court.’ Art. I, sec. 13. The only exception to this is, where the Legislature may provide other means of trial for petty misdemeanors with the right of appeal — Proviso in same section.”

*364In *S. v. Rogers,*162 N. C., p. 659, *Brown, J.,*says: “It is elementary that a jury, as understood at common law and as used in our Constitutions, Federal and State,, signifies twelve men duly impaneled in tbe case to be tried. A less number is not a jury. *Traction Co. v. Hof,*174 U. S., 1.” *S. v. Holt,*90 N. C., 749 ; *S. v. Cutshall,*110 N. C., 538; *S. v. Wood,*175 N. C., 809; *Bartholomew v. Parrish,*186 N. C., 85.

Tbe record proper “imports verity.” *S. v. Wheeler,*185 N. C., p. 670; *S. v. Palmore,*189 N. C., p. 538.

Waiver of certain privileges and rights was discussed recently by *Stacy, C. J.,*in *S. v. Hartsfield,*188 N. C., p. 357, and we need not repeat bere.

Tbe defendant waived nothing, but insisted, on bis rights, as tbe record disclosed. It appearing by tbe record that tbe defendant was tried and convicted by ten men, tbe conviction was improper and no judgment could be rendered. For tbe reason given, there must be a

New trial.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1293 CA 12-01130**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

EUGENE PALLADINO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CNY CENTRO, INC., CHARLES WATSON, AS BUSINESS AGENT OF AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 580 AND AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 580, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

FERRARA, FIORENZA, LARRISON, BARRETT & REITZ, P.C., EAST SYRACUSE (CRAIG M. ATLAS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CNY CENTRO, INC.

BLITMAN & KING LLP, SYRACUSE (KENNETH L. WAGNER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS CHARLES WATSON, AS BUSINESS AGENT OF AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 580 AND AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 580.

ROBERT LOUIS RILEY, SYRACUSE, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (James P. Murphy, J.), entered April 12, 2012. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied in part the motions of defendants for summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motions are granted in their entirety and the amended complaints are dismissed.
Memorandum: Defendants appeal from an order that granted only in part their respective motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaints against them. We agree with defendants that Supreme Court should have granted their motions in their entirety. Defendants Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 580 (Union) and Charles Watson, as business agent of the Union, contend that the Union is a voluntary unincorporated association and that plaintiff has failed even to plead that the Union’s conduct was authorized or ratified by the entire membership of the association. We agree ( see Martin v Curran , 303 NY 276, 282; Zanghi v Laborers’ Intl. Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO , 8 AD3d 1033, 1034, lv denied 4 NY3d 703). Thus, we further agree with those defendants that plaintiff’s contention that the Union breached its duty of fair representation is “fatally defective” ( Walsh v Torres-Lynch , 266 AD2d 817, 818). In light of our conclusion, we do**-2- 1293 CA 12-01130** 
not address defendants’ remaining contentions.

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court