alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael R. TORRES; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY; et al., Defendants, and The Boulevard Bar & Grill, Inc., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-55648.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 17, 2006.

Michael R. Torres, San Diego, CA, pro se.

Jarrod Jene Harshaw, San Diego, CA, pro se.

*122Felix Torres, Jr., Laguna Hills, CA, pro se.

Stephanie E. Kish, Esq., Office of the County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.

Joseph Charles Lacosta, San Diego, CA, for Defendant — Appellant.

Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

The court has reviewed appellees’ motion for dismissal and for sanctions, appellant’s opposition thereto, and appellee’s response to the opposition. The motion to dismiss this appeal is construed as a motion for summary adjudication of this appeal. So construed, the motion is granted. The questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). *See Hawaii Carpenters’ Trust Funds v. Stone,*794 F.2d 508, 513 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that a party in default is required to make some showing of a meritorious defense as a prerequisite to vacating an entry of default or default judgment).

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.

The motion for sanctions is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot.

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.
From: The District Court of the 18th Judicial District. County of Gallatin.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JOHN LEBRUM, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-06-212B DECISION

On May 7, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to forty (40) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Robbery, a felony. This sentence shall run consecutively to Cause No. DC-05-296.

On May 8, 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, A Avignone and Lisa Banick. The state was represented by Marty Lambert.

*35Before hearing the application, the defendant was 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 wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 8th day of May, 2009.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2191 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System 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 Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System 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 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 

5 HAZARDOUS WASTE ELECTRONIC MANIFEST 

6 SYSTEM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2191 IH

1 Waste Electronic Manifest System for fiscal year 2024 

2 may not exceed $0. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
From: The District Court of the 10th Judicial District. County of Fergus.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT LEWIS, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-04-60 DECISION

On April 8, 2008, the defendant was sentenced for the following offenses: Count I: Ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Criminal Mischief, a felony; Count II: Twenty (20) years in the Montana State Prison, with no parole eligibility, for the offense of Arson, a felony; and Count III: Six (6) months in the Fergus County Jail for the offense of Solicitation to Commit Assault, a felony. Counts I - III shall run consecutively. Against the time period specified above, the defendant shall receive credit for jail time previously served in the Fergus County Detention Center of 794 days. The 20 year term imposed for Arson shall run first, and it is during this first 20 years of the defendant’s sentence that he may not be released on parole or any type of supervised release from prison.

*36On May 7, 2009, the defendant appeared before the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was advised of his right to be represented by counsel. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was 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 wished to continue his hearing so that he could provide a financial affidavit to the Office of the Public Defender for their review to determine whether or not he would be eligible for a public defender to represent him at his sentence review hearing.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the Application for Review of Sentence shall be continued until the next available hearings in August 2009.

Done in open Court this 7th day of May, 2009.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of
YaFarm Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or
about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhiguang Zhang, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:  April
      9, 2009
            /s/  Zhiguang
      ZhangBy:  Zhiguang
      ZhangIts:  Chief
      Executive Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2129

ROGELIO BLACKMAN HINDS, Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States, * Respondent.

**ERRATA SHEET** The opinion of this Court issued on June 24, 2015 is amended as follows: On page 12, line 11, underline "See".

* Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch has been substituted for former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. as respondent.
Exhibit 33.1

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA**

Commonwealth Bank of Australia (the "**Asserting Party**") is responsible for assessing compliance as of June 30, 2007 and for the period from February 27, 2007 (date of issuance of the Medallion Trust Series 2007-1G) through June 30, 2007 (the "**Reporting Period**") with the servicing criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the "**CFR**"), except for criteria 229.1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), 229.1122(d)(2)(i)-(ii), 229.1122(d)(2)(iv)-(vii), 229.1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 229.1122(d)(4)(x)-(xii), 229.1122(d)(4)(xiv)-(xv) in the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the servicing of the Medallion Trust Series 2007-1G asset-backed securitization transaction backed by housing loan receivables and serviced by the Asserting Party (the"**Applicable Servicing Criteria**"). The sole asset-backed securitization transaction covered by this report was the Medallion Trust Series 2007-1G.

 

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Medallion Trust Series 2007-1G asset-backed securitization transaction backed by housing loan receivables serviced by the Asserting Party.

 

Securitisation Advisory Services Pty Limited is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Commonwealth Bank of Australia.  Pursuant to board resolutions that authorize employees of Commonwealth Bank of Australia to act on behalf of Securitisation Advisory Services Pty Limited in performing the servicing functions of Securitisation Advisory Services Pty Limited in relation to the Medallion Trust Series 2007-1G, the servicing duties of Securitisation Advisory Services Pty Limited in relation to the servicing of the Medallion Trust Series 2007-1G have been effected by employees of Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

Ernst & Young, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

 

   /s/ Leanne Leong______

Date:  3 September 2007

By:  General Manager Structured Finance

 

Name: Leanne Leong
663 A.2d 641

#### IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK CHUNG, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 14, 1995.

ORDER

FREDERICK CHUNG, JR., of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1978, having pleaded guilty to receiving more than $10,000 in cash in a transaction and failing to file the report of the transaction as required by law, in violation of 26 *U.S.C.A*60501 and 7203, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*1:20 — 13(b)(1), FREDERICK CHUNG, JR., is temporarily suspended from the practice of law pending the final resolution of ethics proceedings against *435him, effective immediately and until the further order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that FREDERICK CHUNG, JR., be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that FREDERICK CHUNG, JR., comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys.
#### In the Matter of Oana Abidi, Respondent, v Octavian Antohi, Respondent. Syed Abidi, Nonparty Appellant.

[873 NYS2d 638]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, Syed Abidi, the mother’s husband, appeals, by permission, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Greenberg, J.), dated March 14, 2008, as denied the mother’s cross motion to quash judicial subpoenas duces tecum served upon him by the father and *727directed him to fully comply with the judicial subpoenas duces tecum dated November 6, 2007, December 11, 2007, and January 2, 2007, respectively.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

In 2007 the mother and father filed separate petitions seeking, inter alia, to modify the provisions of a 1999 child support order. In connection with the support proceedings, the father served judicial subpoenas duces tecum on the mother’s husband, the nonparty appellant Syed Abidi, seeking business records related to the appellant’s medical practice. By order dated March 14, 2008, the Family Court, inter alia, directed the appellant to fully comply with three of the subpoenas, concluding that the records sought were relevant on the issue of child support. The appellant moved for leave to appeal and to stay enforcement of the order dated March 14, 2008, and this Court granted his motion. In the interim, the Family Court support hearing was completed, and on May 5, 2008 a Support Magistrate issued orders dismissing the father’s petition and granting the mother’s petition for an upward modification of the father’s support obligation. The father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s orders were subsequently denied by the Family Court.

On appeal the father concedes that production of the business records he subpoenaed while the support proceedings were still pending would no longer serve a useful purpose. Furthermore, since the support proceedings have now concluded, the rights of the parties will not be directly affected by the resolution of this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal has been rendered academic, and dismissal of the appeal is appropriate *(see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; *Matter of King v Jackson,*52 AD3d 974, 975 [2008]; *Matter of Dawson v Wiley,*35 AD3d 735, 736 [2006]; *Matter of Bayville Fire Co. No. 1 v New York State Dept. of Labor,*173 AD2d 540 [1991]). Skelos, J.E, Dillon, McCarthy and Eng, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1301** 

KENNETH G. SMITH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service; DR. FRANCIS COLLINS, Director, National Institute of Health; ARNE DUN CAN, Secretary of Education, U. S. Department of Education , Defendants

- Appellees
.

**No. 13**  **- 1494** 

KENNETH G. SMITH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service; DR. FRANCIS COLLINS, Director, National Institute of Health; ARNE DUN CAN, Secretary of Education, U. S. Department of Education , Defendants

- Appellees.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. James C. Cacheris , Senior District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00790

- JCC

- TRJ )2 Submitted : September 30, 2013 Decided: October 11, 2013

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

No. 13

- 1301 affirmed ; No. 13

- 1494 dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Kenneth G. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Reynolds Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In Case No. 13

- 1301, Kenneth G. Smith appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6) & 56(a). We have carefully reviewed the record and Smith’s informal briefs and find no legal or factual basis to reverse the district court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm. In Case No. 13

- 1494, Smith appeals the district court’s order s denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment and denying as moot his motion to strike. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a
p arty, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court ’ s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court ’ s order s were entered on the docket

on January 23, 2 013, and January 31, 2013 , respectively . The4 notice of appeal was filed on April 10, 2013
. Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. Smith’s motions for set tlement and to strike this court’s prior order are denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process. No. 13

- 1301 AF FIRMED No. 13

- 1494 DISMISSED
[771 NYS2d 281]

#### 1041 Bushwick Ave. Assoc., Respondent, v Juanita Soriano, Respondent, and Livingston Harris, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

November 21, 2003

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Brooklyn Legal Services Corp. A (Martin S. Needelman*and *Gibb Surette*of counsel), for appellant. *Cohen, Hurkin, Ehren*
      *13
      *feld, Pomerantz & Tenenbaum,*Brooklyn *(Robert Ehrenfeld*of counsel), for 1041 Bushwick Ave. Assoc., respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Final judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

Following a prior appeal in this proceeding, which landlord commenced in October 1994 after its successful action to remove the tenant of record from possession, we reversed an order which had dismissed the petition on the ground that the inclusion of occupant’s name on a lease amendment and on one or more section 8 recertification forms (none of which occupant signed) estopped landlord from denying occupant’s tenancy claim *(1041 Bushwick Ave. Assoc. v Soriano,*168 Misc 2d 525, 526-527 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1996]). Following remand for a trial limited to the issue of occupant’s entitlement to succeed to the former tenant’s project-based section 8 subsidized housing unit, the court below concluded that occupant failed to prove he was a nontraditional member of tenant’s family. We now affirm.

An “objective examination” of the parties’ relationship (Bras*chi v Stahl Assoc. Co.,*74 NY2d 201, 212 [1989]) as established at trial revealed that aside from occupant’s claim that he lived with the section 8 tenant “as man and woman,” and the aforementioned documents, occupant failed to offer any proof of the intermingling of finances, legal obligations, family activities, and other behavior indicative of a “family relationship” *(cf.*Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6 [o] [2]; *Ramirez v Lewis,*177 AD2d 296, 297 [1991]). A long-term intimate cohabitation does not create a family relationship for succession purposes *(e.g. 390 W. End Assoc. v Wildfoerster,*241 AD2d 402 [1997]) and we decline to infer a section 8 tenancy from what amounts to the former tenant’s acknowledgment, on certain documents, that she and occupant engaged in such cohabitation.

Pesce, EJ., Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
10.3








AMENDMENT
TO PROMISSORY NOTE




THIS AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE (this
“Amendment”) is
made by and among ACROSS
AMERICA REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE, INC.(“Company”), and WESTMOUNTAIN
PRIME, LLC (“Holder”), effective
as of October 16, 2009.




RECITALS




A.           The
Company executed that Promissory Noted dated as of October 16, 2008 (“Note”) in favor of
Holder.




B.           The
Company desires to extend the term of the Note, and Holder has agreed to such
extension on the terms provided herein.




NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the
promises contained in the Note and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Maker, Guarantors, and
Lender hereby agree as follows:




1.           The
“Due Date”, as defined in Section one of the Note, is hereby changed from
October 16, 2009 to October 16, 2010.




2.           Except
as modified by this Amendment, the terms of the Note shall remain unchanged and
in full force and effect.




ACROSS
      AMERICA REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE, INC.By:
            /s/  Brian
      L. KlemszName:
      Brian L. KlemszTitle:   PresidentWESTMOUNTAIN
      PRIME, LLCBy:
            /s/
      Joseph ZimlichName:
      Joseph ZimlichTitle:  Manager
----

----

|   | 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/  Daniel      L. Baxter                                |   |   |   |
| Daniel      L. BaxterChief      Executive OfficerApril      8, 2008 |   |   |   |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 251 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 251

    To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in 
   Vallejo, California, as the ``Delphine Metcalf-Foster VA Clinic''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2023

 Mr. Garamendi (for himself and Mr. Thompson of California) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in 
   Vallejo, California, as the ``Delphine Metcalf-Foster VA Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC, 
              VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Vallejo, 
California, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known 
and designated as the ``Delphine Metcalf-Foster VA Clinic''. Any 
reference to such clinic in any law, regulation, map, document, record, 
or other paper of the United States shall be considered to be a 
reference to the Delphine Metcalf-Foster VA Clinic.
                                 <all>
```
#### Grace Ruth Lucido, as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Lucido, Deceased, Respondent, v Mary Mancuso, Defendant, and Greenburgh Partnership No. 26 et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Delcon Construction Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Decided April 7, 2009

Appeal withdrawn pursuant to stipulation of the parties.