alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
585 A.2d 367

#### C.I.C. CORPORATION v. RED BANK RECREATION, INC.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25915]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis (ACET)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned 
committee:

    Times and Dates:
    8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., November 2, 2010.
    8:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m., November 3, 2010.
    Place: Corporate Square, Building 8, 1st Floor Conference Room, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone (404) 639-8317.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. 
The meeting room accommodates approximately 100 people.
    Purpose: This council advises and makes recommendations to the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Assistant Secretary for 
Health, and the Director, CDC, regarding the elimination of 
tuberculosis. Specifically, the Council makes recommendations 
regarding policies, strategies, objectives, and priorities; 
addresses the development and application of new technologies; and 
reviews the extent to which progress has been made toward 
eliminating tuberculosis.
    Matters To Be Discussed: Agenda items include issues pertaining 
to TB outbreaks within the homeless population; TB issues along the 
U.S.-Mexico border; foreign born guidelines update and endorsement; 
Bacille Calmette-Gu[eacute]rin (BCG) guidelines update and 
endorsement; STOP TB USA retreat update; and other related 
tuberculosis issues. Agenda items are subject to change as 
priorities dictate.
    Contact Person for More Information: Margie Scott-Cseh, CDC, 
1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E-07, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, 
telephone (404) 639-8317.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: October 6, 2010.
Elaine Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2010-25915 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FROILAN A. RODRIQUEZ.

October 6, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HECTOR RIVERA.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JA NUARY 13, 2017

NO. 03

- 15

- 00247

- CR

Kayla Jean Lardieri, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLA ND

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the recor d and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgments of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgments of

conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudicati on of costs

is made.
April 23, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GUGGENHEIM CORPORATE FUNDING, LLC, ORPHEUS HOLDINGS LLC, 

STELLAR FUNDING LTD., AND ORPHEUS FUNDING LLC, Appellants

NO. 14-13-00809-CV V.

VALERUS COMPRESSION SERVICES, L.P., Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Valerus 

Compression Services, L.P., signed June 19, 2013, was heard on the transcript of 

the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We 

order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellants, Guggenheim Corporate Funding, LLC, Orpheus 

Holdings LLC, Stellar Funding Ltd., and Orpheus Funding LLC, jointly and 

severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador ACEVES-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-10426.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 14, 2000.

Decided Jan. 12, 2001.

*713Before REINHARDT, LEAVY and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM1

Salvador Aceves-Lopez appeals his 70 month sentence resulting from his guilty plea to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we af-fjj-jn

Aceves first contends that the district court erred by increasing his offense level sixteen points pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. A defendant’s offense level may be increased by sixteen points if the defendant has a prior conviction for even one aggravated felony. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 (2000). Aceves admits that his prior conviction for attempted distribution of a controlled substance is an aggravated felony. We hold that his prior convictions for battery and burglary also are aggravated felonies because he was sentenced to at least one year imprisonment for each offense. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, n. 1; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43).

Aceves also contends that the district court erred in not granting a downward departure in his sentence for the minor nature of his prior aggravated felony. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, n. 5 (2000). If a district court is aware of its authority to grant such departure and declines to do so, we lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of a downward departure. *United States v. Berger,*103 F.3d 67, 70 (9th Cir.1996). Here, the court was aware of its authority and expressly chose not to grant such departure; we lack jurisdiction to review this decision. *See also*U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, n. 5.

AFFIRMED.

1

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### WILLIAM SCOTT, JR. v. FOOD HAULERS, INC.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0476 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NELDIA MARIE PUCCINELLI,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 19 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 9 2023

05/09/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0476
585 A.2d 399

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MAYNARD REID.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### EDWARD FARRELL v. UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

October 20, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 228

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JANE R. MARTINEZ.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE; Eric Runte, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SONORA COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; Donovan Teel; Hillside Obstetrics and Gynecology; Medical Group, Inc.; Louis Erich; Sonora Medical Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 98-17424.

D.C. No. CV-96-5380 REC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 15, 2000.

Decided Jan. 5, 2001.

*654Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, NOONAN and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Dr. Eric Runte appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his defamation claims in favor of defendant Dr. Donovan Teel. We affirm.1

Whether a statement is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory interpretation is a question of law. *See Smith v. Maldonado,*72 Cal.App.4th 637, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 397, 403 (Ct.App.1999) (“Only once the court has determined that a statement is reasonably susceptible to such a defamatory interpretation does it become a question for the trier of fact whether or not it was so understood.”). Because California law does not impose liability for opinion, a charge of defamation must rest on a false factual assertion. *See Campanelli v. Regents,*44 Cal.App.4th 572, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 891, 894-95 (Ct.App.1996).

We conclude as a matter of law that the various statements that Dr. Runte alleges are defamatory are merely opinions; thus, they are not susceptible to defamatory interpretation.2 People’s feelings, beliefs, and concerns about Dr. Runte’s competence are non-actionable opinion. *See id.*at 895 (holding that statements phrased as feeling are protected opinion). As a matter of law, there is no “reasonable interpretation [of] the language [of any of the statements in issue that] is susceptible [to] a defamatory meaning.” *Selleck v. Globe Int’l, Inc.,*166 Cal.App.3d 1123, 212 Cal.Rptr. 838, 843 (Ct.App.1985).

The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Teel on Dr. Runte’s defamation claims is AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. In a concurrently filed opinion we dispose of the remainder of the appeal, relating to plaintiffs' antitrust claims. In that opinion, we establish our appellate jurisdiction and set forth the applicable standards of review, including on summary judgment. The parties are familiar with any additional facts pertinent to the defamation claims and we do not recite them here.

2

. Although the district court concluded that some of the statements were privileged communications under Cal. Civ.Code § 43.8, we "may affirm a summary judgment on any ground supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the district court.” *Rhoden v. United States,*55 F.3d 428, 431 n. 3 (9th Cir.1995).
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 100 

Recognizing the significance of the Greensboro Four Sit-In. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Mr. BUDD (for himself, Ms. ADAMS, Mr. JONES, Mr. WALKER, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. HOLDING, Mr. MCHENRY, 

Ms. FOXX, Mr. ROUZER, and Mr. PRICE of North Carolina) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the significance of the Greensboro Four SitIn. 

Whereas Joseph Mcneil, Jibreel Khazan (formerly Ezell 

Blair, Jr.), Franklin McCain, and David Richmond are 

the members of the Greensboro Four; 

Whereas the Greensboro Four Sit-In was in response to the 

brutal killing of 14-year-old Emmett Till; 

Whereas the Greensboro Four attended North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University; 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

•HRES 100 IH 

Whereas the Greensboro Four were refused service at the 

Woolworth Lunch Counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, on February 1, 1960; 

Whereas the Greensboro Four ignited a movement to challenge racial inequality throughout the South; 

Whereas the Greensboro Four were joined by female students 

from Bennett College and Greensboro Women’s College; 

Whereas the sit-ins spread nationwide with over 700,000 people participating, including students, clergymen, and citizens, both White and Black; 

Whereas the protests resulted in more than 3,000 arrests; 

Whereas the Greensboro Four remained peaceful throughout 

the 6-month sit-in; and 

Whereas the Woolworth Lunch Counter was integrated on 

July 26, 1960: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the significance of the Greens3 boro Four and acknowledges their contribution to 

4 the Civil Rights Movement, and recognizes the sig5 nificance of the Greensboro Four as a catalyst for 

6 the mobilization of college students in the Civil 

7 Rights Movement coalescing in the formation of the 

8 Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee 

9 (SNCC); 

10 (2) recognizes that ethnic and racial diversity of 

11 the United States enriches and strengthens the Na12 tion; and 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

3 

•HRES 100 IH 

1 (3) encourages all States to include in their 

2 year-round educational curriculum the history and 

3 contributions of the Greensboro Four in North Caro4 lina, and the country as a whole. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
#### RICHARD BROWN AND ERNEST KING v. CITY OF NEWARK.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification granted.
**VIRGINIA:** In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Friday, the 11th day of May, 2001.

Magco of Maryland, Inc., Appellant, against Record No. 002146 Court of Appeals No. 2377-99-4 John Mills Barr, Commissioner of Labor and Industry, Appellee.

Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals of Virginia on the 1st day of August, 2000.

Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument of counsel, the Court is of opinion that it cannot reach the merits of the issues raised by the assignments of error. The Court of Appeals determined not only that the knowledge of the appellant’s supervisor regarding hazards on the work site may be imputed to the appellant, but also that the senior officers of the appellant knew or should have known of those

hazards. Magco of Maryland, Inc. v. Barr , 33 Va. App. 78, 85, 531 S.E.2d 614, 617-18 (2000). The appellant did not assign error to the finding that the appellant’s senior officers knew or should have known of the hazards. Consequently, since there is an independent basis for the judgment of the Court of Appeals that is not challenged on appeal, this Court cannot reach themerits of those errors assigned by the appellant. Rash v. Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. , 251 Va. 281, 286-87, 467 S.E.2d 791, 794- 95 (1996). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is final in relation to the issue of knowledge by the appellant’s senior officers and bars any appellate relief on the issues raised

before this Court. United Leasing Corp. v. Thrift Ins. Corp. , 247 Va. 299, 308, 440 S.E.2d 902, 907 (1994). For these reasons, this Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals. This order shall be certified to the Court of Appeals and to the Circuit Court of Arlington County and shall be published in the Virginia Reports. A Copy,

Teste:

David B. Beach, Clerk
#### LINDA MILLER v. MYRON BERGMAN, D.P.M., AND ROBERT KAPLAN, D.P.M.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7702
JERRY ROSS BRAZELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusFLORA BOYD, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner for South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-2969-4-2BD) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: September 30, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Ross Brazell, Appellant Pro Se. E. Meredith Manning, ROBINSON, MCFADDEN & MOORE, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brazell v. Boyd , No. CA-93-2969-4-2BD (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 1995). 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
SCPW-20-0000522 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
GREGORY WILLIAMSON, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE JAMES H. ASHFORD, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit,

State of Hawai # i, Respondent Judge,

and
A LLIANCE PERSONNEL, INC., Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NO. 13-1-1840) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Johnson, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Gregory Williamson’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on August 24, 2020, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief from this court. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000522 04-SEP-2020 10:08 AMrelief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; a writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fees.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, September 4, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Ronald G. Johnson

2
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES CAMARATA.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 819 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit aliens in an 

unlawful immigration status from claiming the earned income tax credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2017 

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia (for himself, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. CARTER of Georgia, 

Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia, Mr. ALLEN, and Mr. 

GAETZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit 

aliens in an unlawful immigration status from claiming 

the earned income tax credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tax Credit Account5 ability Act of 2017’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 819 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISALLOWING EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR 

2 ALIENS IN UNLAWFUL IMMIGRATION STATUS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 32(c)(1) of the Internal 

4 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following new subparagraph: 

6 ‘‘(G) EXCEPTION FOR ALIENS IN UNLAW7 FUL IMMIGRATION STATUS.—The term ‘eligible 

8 individual’ does not include any alien individual 

9 who, at any point during the taxable year, is in 

10 an unlawful immigration status.’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 this section shall apply to— 

13 (1) any return of tax which is filed after the 

14 date of the enactment of this Act, and 

15 (2) any amendment or supplement (to any re16 turn of tax) which is filed after such date (without 

17 regard to the date on which the return of tax is 

18 filed). 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99.1

                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                          AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanced Recycling
Sciences, Inc.,on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Ehrenfried Liebich, Chief Executive Officer and
John F. Pope, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


Date: August 14, 2002         /s/ Ehrenfried Liebich
                              -----------------------------------
                              Ehrenfried Liebich, Chief Executive Officer


Date: August 14, 2002         /s/ John F. Pope
                              -----------------------------------
                              John F. Pope, Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David M. Kirk, Chief Executive Officer and President of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 14th day of July, 2008.



/s/ David M. KirkName:

David M. KirkTitle:

Chief Executive Officer and President




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