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



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 6-K
 Report of Foreign Private Issuer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934
 For the month of October 2005
    
    Commission File Number: 001-15014
 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL INC.
  
 (Translation of registrants name into English)
 150 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 1J9
 
 (Address of principal executive offices)
  Form 20-F
    
    o
    
    Form 40-F
    
    þ
 Rule 12g3-2(b)
 Yes
    
    o
    
    No
    
    þ
 Rule 12g3-2(b)
 N/A
   Exhibit99.1
    
    Interim Managements Discussion and Analysis for the period ended September 30, 2005.99.2
    
    Interim Consolidated Financial Statements for the period ended September 30, 2005.99.3
    
    Dividend Press Release dated October 27, 2005.99.4
    
    Certificates of the Companys Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer in the
form required by Canadian Multilateral Instrument 52-109  Certification of Disclosure in
Issuers Annual and Interim Filings.




---



##### 



SIGNATURE
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Sun Life Financial Inc. 
          (Registrant)Date: October 27, 2005
    By
    /s/ Thomas A. BogartThomas A. Bogart,Executive Vice-President and Chief Legal Officer
#### Erwin L. GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debra W. YANG, U.S. Attorney, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-55523.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*12Submitted Sept. 18, 2006.*

Filed Sept. 25, 2006.

Erwin L. Green, Huntington Park, CA, pro se.

USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Civil *&*Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that 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).

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment. *See Imbler v. Pachtman,*424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); *Ross v. U.S. Attorney’s Office,*511 F.2d 524 (9th Cir.1975).

Appellant’s motion for sanctions 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.
#### In the Matter of Carl A. Gutzmer, Appellant, v Myriam L. Santini, Respondent.

Submitted April 6, 2009;

decided June 24, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11730 and #11731]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1835-DR), dated 04/28/2009.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Flooding, Tornadoes, and Straight-line Winds.                    

*Incident Period:*                         03/25/2009 through 04/03/2009.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         05/04/2009.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         06/29/2009.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         01/28/2010.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Alabama, dated 04/28/2009, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

*Primary Counties:*

Dekalb.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Acting Associate, Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-11035 Filed 5-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Order entered June 11, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00556-CR

JASON ALLEN SKINNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-00955-M

ORDER

Appellant has informed the Court that he wishes to file a pro se response to the Anders

brief filed by appellate counsel. Accordingly, we ORDER appellate counsel Valencia Bush to 

provide appellant with copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s records. We further ORDER

appellate counsel to provide this Court, within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, with 

written verification that the record has been sent to appellant.

Appellant’s pro se response is due by SEPTEMBER 1, 2015.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copies of this order to the Honorable Ernest White, 

Presiding Judge, 194th Judicial District Court; Belinda Baraka, official court reporter, 194th 

Judicial District Court; Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk; Valencia Bush; and the Dallas 

County District Attorney’s Office.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first-class mail, to Jason Skinner, 

TDCJ No. 1929580, Ware Unit, 1681 F.M. 3525, Colorado City, Texas 79512.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 5 , 2016

t 0202 

# Order

Clerk February 5 , 2016

151421

TOD Mc LAIN, Personal Representa tive of the

ESTATE OF TRACY Mc LAIN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 151421

COA: 318927

Ingham CC: 11

- 000859

- NH

LANSING FIRE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF

LANSING, and JEFFREY WILLIAMS,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

MICHAEL DEMPS,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR

7.305(H)(1). The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this

order addressing: (1) whether the hospital intern’s medical progress notes indicating that

the plaintiff’s decedent had been observed with the breathing tube lodged in her

esophagus were admissible evidence; and (2) if so, whether the Court of Appeals

correctly ruled that even if they were admissible, the notes were insufficient to create a

question of fact as to whether the defendants were g rossly negligent. The parties should

not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
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 Quarterly Report of Cubic Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31, 2005 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  I, CEO and CFO,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: October 5, 2005                       Signature: /s/ Calvin A. Wallen, III
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Calvin A. Wallen, III, CEO

Date: October 5, 2005                       Signature: /s/ Jon Stuart Ross
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Jon Stuart Ross, CFO
Exhibit
32.3





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 on Form 10-Q of AFP Imaging Corporation
(the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Elise Nissen, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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/__  _ Elise Nissen
      _____________Elise
      NissenChief
      Financial OfficerExecutive
      Vice President of Finance





Date:
February 23, 2009
#### Maria A. Santana, Appellant, v 3410 Kingsbridge LLC et al., Respondents.

[973 NYS2d 23]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered August 3, 2012, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on an interior staircase while descending from the fifth to the fourth floor, because the stairs were wet from water that leaked from a skylight over the stairs when it rained, and were slippery from improper waxing. In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants failed to establish absence of constructive notice of the wet condition since they did not offer specific evidence as to their activities on the day of the accident, including evidence indicating the last time the fifth floor staircase, landing or skylight was inspected or maintained before plaintiff fell (see *Cater v Double Down Realty Corp.,*101 AD3d 506 [1st Dept 2012]; *Moser v BP/CG Ctr.*7, *LLC,*56 AD3d 323 [1st Dept 2008]). With regard to whether there was a dangerous wax condition, issues of credibility exist which cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment (see *Santos v Temco Serv. Indus.,*295 AD2d 218, 218-219 [1st Dept 2002]).

In any event, plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether defendants had notice of an “ongoing and recurring dangerous condition exist [ing] in the area of the accident which was routinely left unaddressed by the landlord” *(David v New York City Hous. Auth.,*284 AD2d 169, 171 [1st Dept 2001]; see *Santiago v JP Morgan Chase & Co.,*96 AD3d 642 [1st Dept 2012]).

We note that the affidavit of plaintiffs sister, Angela Bernal, should have been considered by the motion court, since her name and address had been previously made known to defendants by plaintiff at her deposition (see *Sadler v Brown,*108 AD2d 739, 740 [2d Dept 1985]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Saxe and Clark, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alfredo Ariosa, Also Known as Cuba, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 874]

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered June 5, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law § 220.21 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence *(see id.*at 255; *see generally People v Lococo, 92*NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present — Smith, J.P, Peradotto, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
From: The District Court of the 3rd Judicial District. County of Powell.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. TIMOTHY DEHERRERA, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-07-129 DECISION

On November 16, 2008, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count II: Five (5) years in the State Prison, for the offense of Riot, a felony; and Count III: Ten (10) years in the State Prison, to run concurrently with Count II, for the offense of Criminal Mischief, a felony. This sentence shall run consecutively to the Defendant’s unrelated Yellowstone County sentences which he is currently serving.

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, 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 12th day of February, 2009.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00743]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the Secretary; Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals; 
Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority

    Part A, Office of the Secretary, Statement of Organization, 
Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health 
and Human Services, is being amended at Chapter AK, Office of Medicare 
Hearings and Appeals (OMHA), as last amended at 70 FR 36386-36387, 
dated June 23, 2005, and most recently at 76 FR 19995 (Apr. 11, 2011) 
as follows:
I. Under Section AK.10, Organization, delete the bullets and sub-
bullets after the phrase, ``OMHA consists of the following 
components,'' and replace with the following:
    <bullet> Medicare Hearings and Appeals Chief Judge's Office (CJO) 
(Headquarters Office)
    -- Office of Operations
    -- Office of Programs
    <bullet> Medicare Hearings and Appeals Field Offices
II. Under Section AK.20, Functions, Paragraph B, replace ``Medicare 
Hearings and Appeals Field Offices (AKB1-4)'' with ``Medicare Hearings 
and Appeals Field Offices.''
III. Under Section AK.20, Functions, Paragraph B, ``Medicare Hearings 
and Appeals Field Offices,'' replace all references to the ``Managing 
Administrative Law Judge (MALJ)'' with ``Associate Chief Administrative 
Law Judge (ACALJ).''

    Dated: January 13, 2015.
E.J. Holland, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA).
[FR Doc. 2015-00743 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-24-P
# Older Americans Month, 2009 

Older Americans have carried our Nation through great challenges and triumphs.  They have enriched our national character and strengthened the Republic for those who have followed.  During the month of May, we pay tribute to the wisest among us.

Throughout the land, older Americans are strengthening our communities and the American way of life.  Many senior citizens remain in the workforce to support themselves and their families.  Others are embarking on second careers and exploring new interests and fields of knowledge.  Inspiring citizens of all ages, many serve as advocates and volunteers in community service roles.  In this important work, they make a real difference in the daily lives of fellow citizens of all ages, while promoting and strengthening the American spirit of civic participation.

My Administration is working to create opportunities for older Americans to share their skills and wisdom with younger generations.  One of the bills I recently signed into law, the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, expands and improves service opportunities for older Americans.  Our Nation can benefit greatly from the experience and hard work of our older Americans, and I am committed to providing service opportunities to achieve this end.

We owe older Americans a debt of gratitude and must work to help them age with dignity.  Through home- and community-based services, including health promotion and preventive care programs, many older Americans are able to live more independent and healthier lives.  This year’s theme for Older Americans Month, “Living Today for a Better Tomorrow,” captures the importance of helping seniors today so they can enjoy the years ahead.

My Administration is committed to supporting older Americans and is working to strengthen health care, retirement, community involvement, and other programs vital to their interests and beneficial to all of us.  Older Americans have earned this support, and we owe them nothing less.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 2009 as Older Americans Month.  I invite Americans of all ages; representatives of government at all levels; businesses and communities; faith-based and neighborhood organizations; and health, academic, and recreational institutions to acknowledge the contributions of older Americans during this month and throughout the year.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

[FR Doc. E9-10859

Billing code 3195-W9-P
#### In the Matter of Joshua H. Grace N., Nonparty Appellant; Christopher R. et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 27, 2009;

decided September 22, 2009

Reported below, 62 AD3d 795.

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jamarrio DOBBS, a/k/a Sleepy, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-4220.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2009.

Decided: May 12, 2009.

Louie Thompson Price, Holroyd & Yost, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. John J. Frail, Erik S. Goes, Samuel D. Marsh, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamarrio Dobbs appeals his sentence for possession with intent to distribute fifty or more grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West Supp.2008). The district court initially sentenced Dobbs to 188 months’ imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. Dobbs subsequently moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006). The district *205court granted the motion and resentenced Dobbs to the statutory mandatory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions whether the district court erred by not imposing a term less than the statutorily required minimum sentence. Although advised of his right to do so, Dobbs has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no error, we affirm.

Possession of fifty or more grams of cocaine base with the intent to distribute carries a mandatory 120-month minimum sentence. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(A)(iii) (2006). The district court did not have authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum because the Government did not move for a downward departure to reflect substantial assistance with law enforcement. Likewise, Dobbs did not qualify for the safety valve provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (2006). In sum, the district court was bound by the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by § 841(b)(l)(A)(iii). *See United States v. Robinson,*404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir.2005) (“[A] district court has *no*discretion to impose a sentence outside the statutory range established by Congress for the offense of conviction.”).

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Dobbs, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Dobbs requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be Mvolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Dobbs.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*