alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Reginald Thompson, Petitioner, v Richard L. Buchter, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

[870 NYS2d 798]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Richard L. Buchter, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from resentencing the petitioner in a matter entitled *People v Thompson*pending in that court under indictment No. 519/00. Application by the petitioner to prosecute this proceeding as a poor person.

Ordered that the application to prosecute this proceeding as a poor person is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; *see Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Florio, J.E, Miller, Garni and Belen, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 45 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 45

 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to lift the patient limitation 
 on prescribing drug addiction treatments by medical practitioners in 
                group practices, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2005

   Mr. Levin (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Biden) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to lift the patient limitation 
 on prescribing drug addiction treatments by medical practitioners in 
                group practices, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. MAINTENANCE OR DETOXIFICATION TREATMENT WITH CERTAIN 
              NARCOTIC DRUGS; ELIMINATION OF 30-PATIENT LIMIT FOR GROUP 
              PRACTICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 303(g)(2)(B) of the Controlled Substance 
Act (21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(B)) is amended by striking clause (iv).
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 303(g)(2)(B) of the Controlled 
Substance Act (21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(B)) is amended in clause (iii) by 
striking ``In any case'' and all that follows through ``the total'' and 
inserting ``The total''.
    (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jaswant SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-75013.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 18, 2006.

Jaswant Singh, Richmond Hill, NY, pro se.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Thankful T. Vanderstar, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Sam E. Taylor, Jr., Esq., Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Dallas, for Respondent.

Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*132MEMORANDUM **

Jaswant Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies within petitioner’s testimony regarding his membership in a political party, his lack of political knowledge, an inconsistency between his testimony and documentary evidence, and his failure to produce corroborating evidence. *See id.*at 1043-45.

Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioner also fails to establish a CAT claim because he did not show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he was returned to India. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           25638
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            1464
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      87235
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           32916
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             33292
<LOANS>                                         343989
<ALLOWANCE>                                       5175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  513980
<DEPOSITS>                                      453587
<SHORT-TERM>                                        50
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               8179
<LONG-TERM>                                       3116
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          4550
<OTHER-SE>                                       44498
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  513980
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   8059
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1854
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    74
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  9987
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                3946
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4055
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             5932
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      180
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   4758
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2651
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        2651
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1797
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.75
<LOANS-NON>                                        894
<LOANS-PAST>                                      1085
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  5062
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      113
<RECOVERIES>                                        46
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 5175
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              5175
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-19-0000405

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
JAIME A. GARCIA, Claimant-Appellant, v. AOAO ONE WATERFRONT TOWERS, Employer-Appellee, and DTRIC INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Insurance Carrier-Appellee,

and SPECIAL COMPENSATION FUND, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD

( CASE NO. AB 2015-269; DCD NO. 2-00-17979)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Hiraoka, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that:(1) On May 23, 2019, self-represented ClaimantAppellant Jaime A. Garcia (Garcia) filed a notice of appeal;

(2) On July 22, 2019, the circuit court clerk filed the record on appeal, and the appellate clerk notified the parties that the statement of jurisdiction and opening brief were due on or before August 1, 2019, and September 3, 2019, respectively;

(3) Garcia did not file either document or request an extension of time;

(4) On April 7, 2020, the appellate clerk notified Garcia that the time for filing the statement of jurisdiction and opening brief had expired, the matter would be called to the court's attention on April 17, 2020, for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of the appeal, under Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules 12.1(e) and 30, and Garcia may request relief from default by motion; and Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000405 29-APR-2020 10:05 AMN O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R 

### (5) Garcia took no further action in this appeal. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, April 29, 2020. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge

2
**Exhibit 10.17**

**Summary of 2012 AbitibiBowater Inc. Short-Term Incentive Plan**

*On February 22,2012, upon the recommendation of the human resources and compensation/nominating and governance committee, the board of directors of AbitibiBowater Inc., doing business as Resolute Forest Products (the “Company”), adopted the materialterms of the 2012 AbitibiBowater Inc. Short-Term Incentive Plan, or the “2012 STIP.” As of the date of the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the 2012 STIP has not been reduced to writing. The following is a summary of the expectedterms of the 2012 STIP, as previously disclosed in the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 28, 2012.*

The 2012 STIP provides that participating employees, including each of the Company’s named executive officers, are eligible to receive cash incentive awards expressed as a percentage of their basesalaries, based on certain quantitative Company performance goals over the 2012 annual period. In respect of the Company’s named executive officers, the target and maximum incentive awards are 100% and 150% of base salary, with no applicableminimum, and the applicable performance metrics may include: income from operations, reduction in selling, general and administrative expenses, profit per metric ton, frequency of safety incidents and severity of safety incidents. 

Awards, if granted, are expected to be made in the first quarter of 2013. The aggregate amount payable under the 2012 STIP for all eligible employees islimited to 7% of the Company’s 2012 free cash flow (defined as income from operations adjusted for cash interest, cash reorganization costs, depreciation, pension funding, cash taxes, working capital variation and maintenance capitalexpenditures). 

Employees remain eligible for pro rated awards if they voluntarily retire or are terminated other than for cause during theyear. Employees who voluntarily resign during the year or are terminated for cause will not be eligible. The Company may adjust financial and cost metrics, and may adjust any and all awards in its discretion. Awards are discretionary and subject tomodification until they are made, including increases, decreases, cancellations, deferrals and other conditions, even if performance levels have been met.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4104 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4104

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide credit rate 
  parity for all renewable resources under the electricity production 
                                credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 7, 2006

   Mr. Smith introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide credit rate 
  parity for all renewable resources under the electricity production 
                                credit.

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

SECTION 1. CREDIT RATE PARITY FOR ALL RENEWABLE RESOURCES UNDER 
              ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Section 45(b)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 (relating to credit rate) is amended by inserting ``and before 
2007'' after ``2003''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to electricity produced and sold after December 31, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
#### Suzanne M. Conning, Respondent, v Robert J. Dietrich, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[962 NYS2d 707]

*885In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Robert J. Dietrich appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated July 15, 2011, as denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion of the defendant Robert J. Dietrich which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him is granted.

On the morning of August 2, 2008, the plaintiff was riding her bicycle on Route 28 in Ulster County. Although she initially rode on the paved shoulder, the plaintiff began to ride in an unpaved, gravelly area adjacent to the paved shoulder, and thereafter experienced difficulty controlling her bicycle. The plaintiffs front tire shifted and caught the edge of the paved shoulder, at which point the plaintiff fell into the path of oncoming eastbound traffic. The defendant Robert J. Dietrich, who was driving in the eastbound lane, swerved in an effort to avoid striking the plaintiff, but the plaintiff nevertheless collided with the passenger side doors of Dietrich’s vehicle and allegedly sustained injuries. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against Dietrich, among others, alleging negligence. The Supreme Court denied that branch of Dietrich’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as against him.

The evidence submitted by Dietrich in support of his motion demonstrated, prima facie, that he was not speeding, that he did not cause the plaintiff to lose control of her bicycle and careen into the lane of moving traffic, and that the entire event unfolded in a matter of seconds. Under these circumstances, Dietrich established, prima facie, that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident *(see Kenney v County of Nassau,*93 AD3d 694, 696 [2012]; *Smit v Phillips,*74 AD3d 782, 783 [2010]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Mere speculation that Dietrich may have failed to take some measures to avoid the accident, or that he in some other way contributed to the occurrence of the accident, was insufficient to defeat his motion *(see Kenney v County of Nassau,*93 AD3d at 696; *Smit v Phillips,*74 AD3d at 783; *Cancellaro v Shults,*68 AD3d 1234, 1237 [2009]; *Trzepacz v Jara,*11 AD3d 531, 531 [2004]; *Dearden v Tompkins County,*6 AD3d 783, 785 [2004]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that *886branch of Dietrich’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

In light of our determination, we need not address Dietrich’s remaining contention.

Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.
#### Susan Larabee et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Governor of the State of New York, Defendant, and New York State Senate et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Submitted December 7, 2009;

decided December 15, 2009

Reported below, 65 AD3d 74.

Motion by Atlantic Legal Foundation et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
#### DDJ Management, LLC, et al., Appellants, v Rhone Group L.L.C. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted September 8, 2009;

decided October 27, 2009

Reported below, 60 AD3d 421.

Motion by Loan Syndications and Trading Association et al. for leave to file a memorandum of law amici curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the memorandum of law is accepted as filed, and for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted, three copies of the brief to be served and an original and 24 copies filed within 30 days.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or

Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(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 the Trust.



|                   |  |  |  |                                                         |  |                                            
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|                   |  |  |  | SOUTHWEST BANK, TRUSTEE FOR PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 10, 2016 |  |  |  | By:                                                     |  | /s/ RON E. HOOPER                          
|                   |  |  |  |                                                         |  | Ron E. Hooper,                             
|                   |  |  |  |                                                         |  | SVP Royalty Trust Management Southwest
Bank

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Permian Basin Royalty Trust and
will be retained by Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
April 11, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ASHTON PIERRE COYT-SOWELLS, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00986-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 93 (Friday, May 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22895-22896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11353]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


National Security Education Board Group of Advisors Meeting

AGENCY: Under Secretary of Defense Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of meeting; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On May 6, 2009, 74 FR 20930, the Department of Defense 
published a notice announcing a meeting of the National Security 
Education Board Group of Advisors on May 20-21, 2009. This notice is 
published to inform participants of the new meeting location. All other 
information remains unchanged.

ADDRESSES: Carnegie Mellon University, University Center, Rangos Hall 
No. 3, Building <greek-i>28, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kevin Gormley, Program Officer, 
National Security Education Program, 1101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1210, 
Rosslyn, P.O. Box 20010, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2248; (703) 696-
1991. Electronic mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d6a425f40414854466d43495803484958"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ebac849986878e9280ab858f9ec58e8f9e">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 22896]]


    Dated: May 11, 2009.
Morgan E. Frazier,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-11353 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 592 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 592

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1998 to 
extend certain contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and certain 
  irrigation water contractors in the States of Wyoming and Nebraska.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Glendo Unit of the Missouri River 
Basin Project Contract Extension Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. GLENDO UNIT OF THE MISSOURI RIVER BASIN CONTRACT EXTENSION.

    Section 2 of the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1998 
(112 Stat. 2816, 117 Stat. 1854) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``December 31, 2005'' 
        and inserting ``December 31, 2007''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking ``beyond December 31, 2005'' and 
                inserting ``beyond December 31, 2007''; and
                    (B) by striking ``before December 31, 2005'' and 
                inserting ``before December 31, 2007''.

            Passed the Senate November 16, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 592

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1998 to 
extend certain contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and certain 
  irrigation water contractors in the States of Wyoming and Nebraska.
```