alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re TRANSCISCO INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Debtor. Roger A. Noback, Appellant, v. Transcisco Industries, Inc., Appellee.

No. 99-15679, 99-15781.

D.C. No. CV-96-04523-SI.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 2001.*

Decided March 23, 2001.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Roger A. Noback appeals the bankruptcy court’s attorney fee award and the deni*449al of his motion for sanctions and motion to file an enlarged motion for sanctions before the district court. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 158(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Noback contends that the bankruptcy court erred when it deviated from the lodestar approach in calculating his attorney’s fees. We review a bankruptcy court’s fee award for an abuse of discretion and a bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error. *See Unsecured Creditors’ Comm. v. Puget Sound Plywood, Inc.,*924 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir.1991). Although the lodestar approach is customary for attorney fee calculations, this court has held that it is not required in the bankruptcy context where it would “not realistically quantify to numerical precision” the fee award. *Id.*at 960 (quoting *In re*Great *Sweats, Inc.,*113 B.R. 240, 244 (Bankr. E.D.Va.1990)). Because the record supports the bankruptcy court’s determination that Noback’s work was so “incompetent” and “grossly inefficient” as to render the lodestar approach useless, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it deviated from the lodestar approach. *See id.*Further, our review of the record reveals that the bankruptcy court’s fee award to Noback was generous indeed, and, regardless of the particular procedure used to determine the fee in this case, the amount would not exceed the $70,000 awarded.

Noback moves for sanctions against Transcisco for numerous so-called “false” assertions made in Transcisco’s opening brief before the district court. We review a district court’s denial of sanctions under Fed. R.App. P. 38 for an abuse of discretion. *See Lyddon v. Geothermal Properties, Inc.,*996 F.2d 212, 213 (9th Cir.1993). After reviewing Noback’s motion for sanctions before the district court, we conclude that none of his claims has merit. Noback also contends that the district court erred when it denied as duplicative his 207-page motion to enlarge his motion for sanctions. The district court did not abuse its discretion because No-back’s original motion for sanctions was utterly without merit and Noback’s 207-page brief for an enlarged sanctions motion followed his filing of over 500 pages of other pleadings making the same or similar arguments.

Finally, Noback’s motion for sanctions against Transcisco in this court is frivolous and is denied.

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT
32.1




Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Mandalay Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does
hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended December 31, 2008 of the
Company (the “Form 10-Q/A”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Date:
December
3, 2009


/s/ Ray SchaafRay
      SchaafPresident(Principal
      Executive Officer)
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Michelle Caezza, Respondent, v Via Health et al., Appellants, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 243]

*1034Stein, J.P.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed November 22, 2011, which ruled, among other things, that claimant sustained a permanent total disability.

Claimant, a hospital unit technician, suffered a back injury while moving a patient in 2002 and successfully applied for workers’ compensation benefits. Her claim was subsequently amended to include right knee and hip injuries, cauda equina syndrome and incontinence. The Workers’ Compensation Board ultimately amended the claim to include a consequential left knee injury and found that claimant had a permanent total disability. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator (hereinafter collectively referred to as the employer) now appeal.

We initially reject the employer’s arguments that the claim alleging a left knee injury was time-barred. The two-year limitations period set forth in Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 does not bar the amendment of a timely-filed claim to include a consequential injury *(see Matter of Zucker v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*57 AD3d 1249, 1251 [2008]; *Matter of Skippon v T.M. Kenney’s Inc.,*296 AD2d 634, 635 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 502 [2002]). The record evidence here indicated that claimant experienced pain in both knees soon after the accident occurred, but that her knee problems were exacerbated as a result of frequent falls related to her back condition. Further, claimant’s treating orthopedist opined that her left knee problems were caused by her efforts to ambulate as limited by her right knee and back injuries. Thus, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that the left knee injury was a consequence of her original injuries *(see Matter of Scofield v City of Beacon Police Dept.,*290 AD2d 845, 846 [2002]; *Matter of Petillo v Wyckoff Hgts. Hosp.,*288 AD2d 515, 516 [2001]).

Substantial evidence similarly supports the Board’s determination that claimant had suffered a permanent total disability. Conflicting medical evidence was presented as to the extent of claimant’s disability, but the Board was free to credit the testimony of claimant’s treating physician, orthopedist and orthopedic surgeon, all of whom opined that she is totally disabled and unable to engage in any employment *(see Matter of VanDermark v Frontier Ins. Co.,*60 AD3d 1171, 1172 [2009]). The doctors further explained their reliance upon the workers’ compensation guidelines in rendering those opinions which, in any event, are nothing more than useful criteria for the Board *1035
      *(see Matter of Eaton v Dellapenna Assoc.,*91 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2012]; *Matter of VanDermark v Frontier Ins. Co.,*60 AD3d at 1172).

McCarthy, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, with costs to claimant.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CRIMINAL NO. 15-00134-CG

)

RAYFIELD SNOWDEN, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

Indictment (Doc. 70), and the United States’ response thereto (Doc. 72).

Upon due consideration and in accordance with this Court’s Order (Doc. 19), 

the motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Indictment against Rayfield Snowden 

filed on June 25, 2015, is hereby DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that 

Rayfield Snowden be and is hereby released from pretrial supervision.

DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cr-00134-CG-C Document 73 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1913 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1913

  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Library of 
 Congress, Copyright Office Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Library of 
 Congress, Copyright Office Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 
              COPYRIGHT OFFICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Library of Congress, 
Copyright Office Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may not 
exceed $93,407,000.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2098 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of Columbia, 

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Public Defender Service 

for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of Columbia, Federal Payment to the District of 

Columbia Public Defender Service for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FEDERAL PAYMENT 

5 TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC DE6 FENDER SERVICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for District of Columbia, Federal Payment to the DisVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:37 Apr 18, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2098.IH H2098

DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2098 IH

1 trict of Columbia Public Defender Service for fiscal year 

2 2024 may not exceed $45,858,000. 

Æ 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY

ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the President and the Treasurer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    MEL
KARMAZINMel Karmazin President (Principal Executive Officer)By:

/s/    DAVID J. FREARDavid J. Frear Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)


March 13, 2009

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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

QUYANCE ANDERSON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 15-0140-WS-C

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all issues raised, and there having been no 

objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l)(B) and dated October 20, 2015 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 10th day of November, 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00140-WS-C Document 17 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit
    12.2
  Doral
    Financial Corporation
    Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred
    Stock Dividends
  For the six month period endedJune 30, 2007Including Interest on
    DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax income from continuing
    operations

$
(67,830
)Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding
    capitalized interest)


239,252Total Earnings

$
171,422Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized

$
237,279Amortized premiums, discounts, and
    capitalized expenses related to indebtedness


419An estimate of the interest
    component within rental expense


1,554Total Fixed Charges before
    preferred dividends


239,252Preferred dividends


(16,650
)Ratio of pre tax income to net
    income


0.907Preferred dividend
    factor


(15,102
)Total fixed charges and
    preferred stock dividends

$
224,150Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
    Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends


(A
)Excluding Interest on
    DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax income from continuing
    operations

$
(67,830
)Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding
    capitalized interest)


152,359Total Earnings

$
84,529Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized

$
150,386Amortized premiums, discounts, and
    capitalized expenses related to indebtedness


419An estimate of the interest
    component within rental expense


1,554Total Fixed Charges before
    preferred dividends


152,359Preferred dividend
    factor


(15,102
)Total fixed charges and
    preferred stock dividends

$
137,257Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
    Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends


(A
)   (A)
    
    Due to the Companys pre-tax loss the ratio coverage was
    less than 1:1.
Exhibit 32.1

BULOVA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.

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 Bulova Technologies Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Stephen L Gurba, Principal Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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/ Stephen L GurbaStephen L GurbaPrincipal Executive Officer
January 25, 2011
****
 **Exhibit
31.1**
  CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I,
Jeffrey Lieberman, certify, that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of WorldTeq Group
      International, Inc.;
 International, Inc.;
  2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the annual report does not contain any untrue statement
      of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake
      the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis
      annual report;
  3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation
      included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects
      the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe
      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
      report;
  4.
    The
      registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing
      and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin
      Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and wehave:
  a.
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant,
      including our consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown
      to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe
      period in which this annual report is being
prepared;
  b.
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols
      and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions
      about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand
      procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport
      based on such evaluation; andc.
      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internalcontrol
      over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected,
      or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's
      internal control over financial reporting.
  5.
    The
      registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour
      most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee
      or registrant's board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent
      function):
  a.
    All
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of theinternal
      controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely
      to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,process,
      summarize and report financial information; and
  b.
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal
      controls.
 
 
 /s/
Jeffrey Lieberman
 Jeffrey
Lieberman
 Chief
Executive Officer,
 President,
Treasurer and Chairman of the Board
 
 Date:
April 14, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Omar Reina, Appellant.

[826 NYS2d 143]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (DiBella, J.), rendered June 8, 2004, convicting him of rape in the first degree and attempted rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s plea of guilty was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered *(see People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9 [1983]). The various grounds for the defendant’s claim that the plea was involuntary either are based on matter dehors the record *(see People v Hosgor,*24 AD3d 569 [2005]; *People v Bruno,*269 AD2d 540 [2000]) or are without merit *(see People v Reels,*17 AD3d 488 [2005]; *People v Abney,*10 AD3d 617 [2004]).

Appellate review of the defendant’s claims concerning his *510factual allocution at the plea proceeding and the sentence imposed are precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248 [2006]; *People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273 [1992]; *People v Mydosh,*27 AD3d 580 [2006]; *People v Curras,*1 AD3d 445, 446 [2003]). Adams, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 192 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 192

To prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from 
            voting in elections in the District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

 Mr. Pfluger (for himself, Mr. Ellzey, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Babin, and Mrs. 
Greene of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
             the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from 
            voting in elections in the District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING VOTING BY NONCITIZENS IN ELECTIONS IN DISTRICT 
              OF COLUMBIA.

    An individual who is not a citizen of the United States may not 
vote in an election for public office in the District of Columbia or in 
any ballot initiative or referendum in the District of Columbia.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAULA PETTWAY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO 08-0618-KD-M 

)

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, )

LLC, et al, )

)

Defendants. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered this date granting the motions for summary judgment

filed by defendants Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Experian Information Solutions,

Inc., it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that plaintiff's claims against these 

defendants be and hereby are DISMISSED with prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 12th day of February, 2010. 

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00618-KD-M Document 109 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 1