alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934  Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
    
    JANUARY 10, 2005
 NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED    CANADA(State or other jurisdictionof incorporation)
    
    000-30758(CommissionFile Number)
    
    62-12-62580(IRS EmployerIdentification No.)8200 DIXIE ROAD, SUITE 100, BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, CANADA(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    L6T 5P6(Zip Code)
  Registrants telephone number, including area code
    
    905-863-0000
     Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the
filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 2.02     Results of Operations and Financial Condition On January 10, 2005, Nortel Networks Corporation issued a press release regarding the filing of its
2003 financial statements. Such press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and furnished in
accordance with Item 2.02 of Form 8-K. Nortel Networks Corporation owns all of the registrants common shares and the registrant is Nortel
Networks Corporations principal direct operating subsidiary. Item 8.01     Other Events On January 10, 2005, Nortel Networks Corporation issued the press release attached hereto as
Exhibit 99.1, and such press release is incorporated by reference herein (other than information
included on or linked from Nortel Networks Corporations website, referenced in such release, which
is not incorporated by reference into this report). Item 9.01     Financial Statements and Exhibits  (c)
    
    Exhibits  99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on January 10, 2005.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized. NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITEDBy:
    /s/ Gordon A. DaviesGordon A. DaviesAssistant General Counsel  Securitiesand Corporate SecretaryBy:
    /s/ Tracy S.J. Connelly McGilleyTracy S.J. Connelly McGilleyAssistant Secretary Dated: January 10, 2005




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on January 10, 2005.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Range P. Scully, Appellant.

Submitted August 10, 2009;

decided August 27, 2009

Reported below, 61 AD3d 1364.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Frank J. Nebush, Jr., Esq., Oneida County Public Defender, Union Station, 321 Main Street, Utica, New York 13501 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ERIC HARVEY LITTLECALF, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30196 

D.C. No. 

1:14-cr-00130-SPW-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 31, 2017**

Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,*** District Judge.

Eric Littlecalf appeals his convictions for assault resulting in serious bodily 

injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6), 1153(a), and 3559(f)(3), and felony 

 

* 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).

*** The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

FILED

OCT 12 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

child abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153(b) and Montana Code Annotated 

§ 45-5-212(1) and (2). The convictions stem from injuries suffered by K.L., his 

eight-month-old son. Littlecalf contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain 

the convictions. We affirm.

There is sufficient evidence to support a conviction if, after considering the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, “any rational trier of fact 

could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

Evidence at trial established that K.L. suffered a skull fracture and subdural 

hematoma. The government presented evidence that Littlecalf admitted to striking 

K.L. and that K.L.’s injuries were consistent with Littlecalf’s admission. One of 

K.L.’s treating physicians testified that K.L.’s injuries involved the protracted loss 

or impairment of the function of a body member, organ, or mental faculty, and two 

of K.L.’s treating physicians testified that his injuries involved extreme physical 

pain.

Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to convict 

Littlecalf.

AFFIRMED.
##### 



(FAIRMONT LOGO) EXHIBIT NO. 99.1 For immediate release FAIRMONT HOTELS & RESORTS INC. TO PRESENT AT
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC. CONFERENCE TORONTO, October 29, 2004 Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc. (FHR)(TSX/NYSE:
FHR) will participate in the Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. Hospitality & Gaming
Conference held in New York on November 4, 2004. Thomas W. Storey, FHRs
Executive Vice President, Development, will present at approximately 8:30 a.m.
Eastern Time. Interested participants can access a live audio webcast of the presentation and
slide materials through FHRs website at www.fairmont.com/investor. A replay
of the presentation will be archived for 90 days. The webcast will last for
approximately 30 minutes. About Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc. FHR is one of North Americas leading owner/operators of luxury hotels and
resorts. FHRs managed portfolio consists of 82 luxury and first-class
properties with more than 33,000 guestrooms in the United States, Canada,
Mexico, Bermuda, Barbados and the United Arab Emirates. FHR owns Fairmont
Hotels Inc., North Americas largest luxury hotel management company, as
measured by rooms under management, with 44 distinctive city center and resort
hotels such as The Fairmont San Francisco, The Fairmont Banff Springs and The
Fairmont Scottsdale Princess. FHR also owns Delta Hotels, Canadas largest
first-class hotel management company, which manages and franchises 38 city
center and resort properties in Canada. In addition to hotel management, FHR
holds real estate interests in 22 properties and an approximate 24% investment
interest in Legacy Hotels Real Estate Investment Trust, which owns 24
properties. -30- Contact:
    
    Emma ThompsonExecutive Director Investor RelationsTel: 416.874.2485Email: investor@fairmont.comWebsite: www.fairmont.com
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

     Certification by David C. Warren Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
          Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of

In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year
Ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") by eMerge Interactive, Inc.
("Registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies that:

1.   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.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.


March 25, 2003                    /s/ David C. Warren
                                  _________________________________
                                  David C. Warren
                                  President, Chief Executive
                                  Officer and Director (Principal
                                  Executive Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Luis E. Rivera, Sr., Respondent, v Vincent Alaimo et al., Appellants.

Submitted March 9, 2009;

decided April *2,*2009

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*12 NY3d 702 (2009)].

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
From: The District Court of the 16th Judicial District. County of Rosebud.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. WILLIAM PIPER, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-2007-14 DECISION

*11On November 17, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, for the offense of Theft, a felony.

On February 12,2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, counsel and the defendant advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the application for review of sentence shall be waived.

Done in open Court this 12th day of February, 2009.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.
#### CAPITOL VENDING CO., Inc., Plaintiff, v. Robert G. BAKER et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 2249-63.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

Sept. 8, 1964

*46See also D.C., 35 F.R.D. 510.

David Carliner, Washington, D. C., for the plaintiff.

Carl Eardley, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for James E. Webb, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

This is a motion by James E. Webb, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to vacate a subpoena served on him requiring him' to appear for the taking of his deposition in this action to which he is not a party.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for broad and liberal discovery, among them the right to take the deposition of any prospective witness. Nevertheless, the discovery is not unbridled or unlimited. For example, to take an extreme illustration, a litigant may not pick somebody at random, summon him before a notary public and question him for several hours. There must be some showing, if the right to take a deposition is challenged by the prospective witness, why the prospective witness should be examined. This applies particularly to heads of government agencies. If the head of a government agency were subject to having his deposition taken concerning any litigation affecting his agency or any litigation between private parties which may indirectly involve some activity of the agency, we would find that the heads of government departments and members of the President’s Cabinet would be spending their time giving depositions and would have no opportunity to perform their functions.

There is no showing here that the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, whose deposition it is sought to take, has any knowledge of any matters that are germane to the litigation. It would be oppressive and vexatious to l-equire him to submit to an interrogation that might last for several hours and that would, of course, disturb government business.

I think if the plaintiff seriously thinks that he may elicit some definite information that is germane he should be allowed to proceed by written interrogatories.

Accordingly, the motion of James E. Webb, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to quash the subpoena directed to him is granted, without prejudice to the taking of his deposition on written interrogatories.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00289]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; K-awards and R13 conference 
support review.
    Date: February 25, 2015.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, DEM II, Suite 920, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Manana Sukhareva, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 959, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
301-451-3397, [email protected].

    Dated: January 7, 2015.
Melanie J. Gray,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-00289 Filed 1-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
<PAGE>

                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer

                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-16 OR 15D-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                                  June 2, 2004

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

           Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will
            file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                           Form 20-F [X]  Form 40-F [ ]

       Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K
          in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

       Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K
          in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

    Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in
              this Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing
          the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b)
                   under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                 Yes [ ]  No [X]

  If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant
                in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________

<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT LIST

         <Table>
<Caption>
Exhibit  Description
-------  -----------
<S>      <C>

99.1     Press release, dated June 1, 2004, regarding the issuance of a
         management and insider cease trade order by the Ontario Securities
         Commission which prohibits certain current and former directors,
         officers and insiders of Hollinger Inc. from trading in securities of
         Hollinger Inc., subject to certain exceptions.

</Table>
<PAGE>
                                   SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date:  June 2, 2004


                                      HOLLINGER INC.

                                      By  /s/ Peter G. White
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Peter G. White
                                          Title: Co-Chief Operating Officer and
                                                 Secretary
#### Dean G. Skelos et al., as Duly Elected Members of the New York State Senate, Respondents, v David Paterson, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.

Submitted September 8, 2009;

decided September 15, 2009

Reported below, 65 AD3d 339.

Motion by United Federation of Teachers et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.4

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.

In connection with the quarterly report of Spectrum Laboratories, Inc. and its
subsidiaries, SLI Acquisition Corp., Spectrum Europe B.V. and Spectrum
Chromatography (collectively, the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
September 28, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), Roy T. Eddleman, Chairman and 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
         Section 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.

Dated: November 12, 2002.


/s/ Roy T. Eddleman
-------------------------------------


Roy T. Eddleman
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWIN ESTUARDO CASTANEDA 

RIVERA, AKA Edwin Estuardo Castaneda, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-71011 

Agency No. A074-788-534 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Edwin Estuardo Castaneda Rivera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to 

 

* 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

DEC 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-71011 

reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed 

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to 

reopen, and we review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 

F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition 

for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying 

Castaneda Rivera’s motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed his motion 19

years after his final order of deportation and failed to show due diligence after 

2001 for equitable tolling of the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(1); see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 

2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing 

a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the alien exercises 

due diligence in discovering such circumstances); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 

1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due 

process challenge).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen sua sponte 

where Castaneda Rivera has not shown the decision was premised on any legal or 

constitutional error. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).

Castaneda Rivera’s request for a stay of deportation is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-60491 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DONALD G. HOLMES, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:95-CR-48-5

- - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Donald G. Holmes appeals his sentence following a guilty plea conviction to exchanging and delivering a stolen U.S. Treasury check and to falsely representing a Social Security number to obtain money. The district court did not err by denying Holmes a recommended reduction for acceptance of responsibility without providing Holmes with notice of the district court’s intended actions prior to sentencing. See United States v. Knight , 76 F.3d 86, 88-89 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.