alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). t k/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T PI ERRE G EN EV I ER, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, s u b s titu te df

o rS ta te o f

C a lif o rn ia D e p a rtm e n t o f

S o c ia l S e rv ic e s ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 55236 D. C . No . C V- 0 7 - 0 5 5 4 8 - AG ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A ndr e w J . G ui l f

or d, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P ie rr e G e n e v ie rap p e a ls p r o s e f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e rd is m is s in g h is F e de r a l T ortC l a i m s A c t( “ F T C A ” ) a c t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 

# FI LED DE C 08 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSt k / Res ea r ch 08- 55236 2 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e r evi ew de no vo di sm i ss al for l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att er ju r is d ic tio n . B rady v. U ni ted States , 2 1 1 F .3 d4 9 9 , 5 0 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l yc onc l ude d tha tG e ne vi e r ’ s a c t i on w a s not c o g n iz ab le u n d e rth e F T C A b e c au s e , in r e s p o n s e to th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to d is m is s , G e n e v ie rd idn o t a lle g e a n yth e o ryo f liab ilityu n d e rw h ic h th e d e f e n d a n ts w o u l db e l i ab l e as p ri v at e i n d i v i d u al s. Se e U ni te d State s v . O l

s on , 546 U . S . 43, 45- 46 (200 5) (hol di ng thatthe F T C A do es no tappl y t o act i on s bas ed on a s t at e l aw that“ i m po se s l i abi l i ty on m un i ci pal or other l ocal go vernm ent s f or the negl i gence o f th e ira g e n ts ” ) ; see a l

so Ke e nan v . A l lan , 91 F . 3d 1275, 1279 ( 9th C i r . 1996) (s t at i ng thatthe courti s notob l i gat ed t o scour the re cord i n searc h o f pot ent i al a r g u m e n ts ) . G e n e v ie r ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . A ll p e n d in g m o tio n s a r e d e n ie da s m o o t. AF F I RME D.
# Sitemap

## May 25, 2016

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2016
- 05
- May 25, 2016

            - Orion Service Module Testing Sounds Off
            - NASA Awards Financial and Business Management Services Contract
            - NASA, France to Collaborate on Planetary Science and Space Exploration
            - GOODS-S 29323
            - NASA Glenn’s Plum Brook Station Announces Open House Details
            - Mice Studies in Space Offer Clues on Bone Loss
            - This Week in NASA History: First Crewed Skylab Mission Launches — May 25, 1973
            - NASA’s OSIRIS-REx Spacecraft Prepared for Mission to an Asteroid
            - Antares Test Scheduled for NET May 31
            - The Marshall Star
#### The Brookville Insurance Company *v.*Records.

Monday, *November 18.*

The record showed that the plaintiffs, a corporation, appeared by attorney. *Held,*that the appearance was sufficient. '

If a statute of a private nature contain a clause declaring it a public act, it will be noticed by the Courts as a public act.

APPEAL from the *Fayette*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

This suit was commenced by the plaintiffs as assignees of one *Brown*against the defendant, before a justice of the peace. A promissory note for fifty dollars, payable to *Brown*and assigned to the plaintiffs, was filed as the cause of action. The justice dismissed the suit for want of a sufficient cause of action. The plaintiffs appealed. The Circuit Court also, on motion of the defendant, dismissed the suit at the costs of the plaintiffs; from which judgment they have appealed to this Court.

It is contended that the judgment of the Circuit Court is right, because the plaintiffs, being a corporation, can only appear by attorney specially appointed; and, 2ndly, that the cause of action should have recited so much of the act incorporating *The Broolmlle Insurance*Company, as to show to the *171Court that the plaintiffs are authorized to take the assignment of notes, and sue on them in their corporate name.

*G.*Holland, for the appellants.

*G. B. Smith*and *S. W. Parker,*for the appellee.

The record shows that the parties appeared in the Circuit Court by their attorneys; and that, according to the decision of this Court in the case of *The State Bank of Indiana*v. Bell, *May*term, 1839, is sufficient (1).

The second point is equally untenable. The act incorporating *The Broohmlle Insurance Company*is, by a clause in the 17th section, declared to be a public act. Where a statute of a private nature is declared to be a public act, its contents need not.be pleaded nor shown to the Court; but the Courts will take notice of them, as they do of other public statutes. Bac. Abr. tit. statute, letter (F).

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 Ante, p. 127.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.02 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Martek Biosciences Corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:  a)
    the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended January 31,
2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934; andb)
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: March 14, 2005 By /s/ Peter L. Buzy Peter L. Buzy
Chief Financial Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to Martek Biosciences Corporation and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. NJ11-2-000]

Take notice that on October 8, 2010, East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. submitted its tariff filing per 35.25(e): Baseline Non-Jurisdictional Tariff Filing to be effective 10/8/2010.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 29, 2010.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-26688 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 31.1I, Thomas A. Daiber, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Centrue Financial Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [intentionally omitted]  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: November 14, 2005 /s/ Thomas A. Daiber   Thomas A. Daiber   Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

COLIN LOVETTE BOSBY, AKA Colin

Bosby, AKA Colin L. Bosby, AKA Colin

Lovett Bosby, AKA Colin Lovettee

Bosby, AKA JSmiley, AKA Smiley, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10532

D.C. No. 

1:16-cr-00171-LJO-SKO-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2019** 

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, O’SCANNLAIN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Colin Lovette Bosby appeals his conviction on one count of receiving or

distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), and two

FILED

MAR 04 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
counts of possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). 

He contends that the district court erred in admitting evidence that he possessed

child pornography on two other occasions. The first occasion was in 2003, 13

years before the conduct charged in this case, and the second in October 2016, two

months after. His argument is that the first was too early and the second too late.

Evidence that Bosby possessed child pornography in 2003 and in October

2016 is evidence of “child molestation,” making it admissible in this “case on any

matter to which it is relevant,” provided its probative value outweighs its potential

to cause undue prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 414(a); see also United States v. Sheldon,

755 F.3d 1047, 1050–51 (9th Cir. 2014).

That Bosby’s possession of child pornography in 2003 preceded the charged

conduct by 13 years does not preclude admissibility. See United States v. Rude, 88

F.3d 1538, 1550 (9th Cir. 1996) (there is no “bright line rule” precluding remote

evidence) (citation omitted); United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1029 (9th Cir.

2001) (admitting uncharged acts from 11 years prior).

As to the evidence of possession in October 2016, two months after the

charged conduct, there is no rule or reason to have precluded it. Although

colloquially termed “prior bad act evidence,” Rule 414 is titled “Similar Crimes in

Child-Molestation Cases,” and provides that “the court may admit evidence that

2
the defendant committed any other child molestation.” Fed. R. Evid. 414(a). We

have never limited this rule to past conduct. See also United States v. Lloyd, 807

F.3d 1128, 1157–58 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting in the more restrictive Rule 404(b)

context that “[e]vidence of a subsequent bad act is admissible”) (citations omitted);

United States v. Sioux, 362 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that

subsequent acts evidence is permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 413).

AFFIRMED.

3
[No. 57297-6.

Department One.

November 8, 1990.]

#### The City of Seattle, *Petitioner,*v. Clarence Hein, *Respondent.*

*556
      *Mark H. Sidran, City Attorney,*and *Charlotte E. ClarkMahoney, Assistant,*for petitioner.

*Suzanne Lee Elliott*of *Associated Counsel for the Accused,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The City of Seattle's motion to modify the ruling of the Commissioner of this court in the above entitled case is denied. The essential elements rule, discussed in *State v. Leach,*113 Wn.2d 679, 782 P.2d 552 (1989), applies to citations.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**








**Section
      1350 Certification of Chief Executive Officer**









In connection with the quarterly report of Nano-Proprietary, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, R.D.
      Burck, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of
      operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in
      the
      report.








Date:      
                July 28, 2006
            /s/ R.D. Burck
              R.D.
                Burck
              Chief
                Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 the Quarterly Report of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry A. Goldstone, President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Larry A. Goldstone               
|Larry A. Goldstone                   
|President and Chief Operating Officer
|August 8, 2007
2 min read

# NASA Administrator Hosts Crew-1 Astronauts, Exhibit on Capitol Hill

### NASA

Nov 16, 2021

MEDIA ADVISORYM21-155

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

**Credits: NASA/Bill Ingalls**

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson and the agency’s SpaceX Crew-1 astronauts will visit Capitol Hill Wednesday, Nov. 17, to meet with members of Congress, discuss work aboard the International Space Station, tour the Destination Station exhibit, and highlight America’s future deep space exploration plans.

Nelson along with NASA astronauts Michael Hopkins, Victor Glover, and Shannon Walker, and Soichi Noguchi of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) also will be available to answer questions from the media during their visit with members as follows:
            - With House of Representatives members at Destination Station on Maryland Avenue SW outside of the United States Botanic Garden from 11:30 a.m. to noon EST
            - With Senate members between the Dirksen and Russell Senate Office buildings on the corner of First St. NE and C St. NE from 4 to 4:30 p.m.

Destination Station is a NASA exhibit designed to promote how the space station enables research and brings value to our nation, inspires the next generation of researchers and explorers, and enables a robust marketplace in low-Earth orbit. The exhibit will be open to members of the Hill from 9 a.m. to noon and 2 to 5 p.m.

Students from two local high schools will also have opportunities to learn about the critical roles science, technology, engineering, and math play in NASA missions. BASIS DC seniors from will explore Destination Station at 9:30 a.m. and School Without Walls students will visit at 11:30 a.m. and meet Nelson and the Crew-1 astronauts.

Media interested in speaking with Nelson and the astronauts should RSVP by 9 a.m. Wednesday, Nov. 17, to Jackie McGuinness at: jackie.mcguinness@nasa.gov. Media interested in the students’ visits should contact Katherine Brown at: katherine.m.brown@nasa.gov.

For information about NASA’s missions, discoveries, and activities, visit: 

**https://www.nasa.gov**

-end- 

Marc Etkind / Jackie McGuinness Headquarters, Washington 202-358-1600 marc.r.etkind@nasa.gov / jackie.mcguinness@nasa.gov
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                                  ODWALLA, INC.

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                             Three        Thirteen
                                                            Months           Weeks
                                                             Ended           Ended
                                                      November 30,     November 29,
                                                              1996            1997
                                                       -----------      ----------

                                                              (in thousands)
<S>                                                   <C>              <C>    
Weighted average shares of common stock
   outstanding for the period .................           4,958           5,033

Weighted average common share equivalents .....               -               -
                                                          -----           -----

Shares used in computing net earnings 
   per share .................................            4,958           5,033
                                                          =====           =====
</TABLE>




                                       21
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 21, 2012

p0514 

# Order

May 21, 2012

144270

CHANDU MANSHARAMANI and SAVITRI BHAMA M.D., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 144270 COA: 299870 Macomb CC: 2 008-005714-NO GREGORY D. DEMOPOULOS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 22, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KEVIN SOUFFRANT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 642 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.