alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Corey N. Yamamura, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 245]

*1048Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 17, 2012, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

The Department of Labor issued a determination on April 21, 2005 finding claimant ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits between March 2004 and May 2004 on various grounds. Claimant was also charged with an overpayment totaling $9,240 and his right to receive future benefits was reduced for having made willful misrepresentations to obtain benefits. Claimant was thereafter criminally prosecuted for the portion of benefits he was determined to have collected while he was actually employed. The prosecution resulted in claimant pleading guilty in 2005 to attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, for which he was sentenced to one year in jail and ordered to pay $4,830 in restitution *(see People v Yamamura,*45 AD3d 1355 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 1040 [2008]). In 2010, claimant requested a hearing in order to challenge the remaining amount of overpayments assessed in the 2005 determination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that the request for a hearing was untimely and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. “Labor Law § 620 . . . provides that a claimant who is dissatisfied with an initial determination concerning unemployment insurance benefits has 30 days from the date of said determination in which to request a hearing, unless prevented from doing so by physical or mental incapacity” *(Matter of Alsina [Commissioner of Labor],*98 AD3d 1173, 1173 [2012] [citations omitted]; *see Matter of Randell [Commissioner of Labor],*105 AD3d 1243, 1243 [2013]). Here, claimant did not request a hearing until five years after the Department mailed the determination. Although claimant contends that he never received the determination in the mail, the record reflects that it was mailed to the address that claimant had provided to the Department two weeks prior to the mailing, and a Department representative testified that the mailing was not returned as undeliverable. To the extent that claimant argues it was sent to an address where he no longer resided, it was claimant’s responsibility to provide the Department with a change of address *(see Matter of Jefferson [City of New York*— Commissioner *of Labor],*16 AD3d 759, 760 [2005]). Moreover, claimant testified that it was possible that he had, in fact, received the determination in April 2005. Inasmuch as claimant made his request well beyond the 30-day time period and did not provide a reasonable excuse for failing to timely request a hearing, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision *(see Matter of Randell*
      *1049
      *[Commissioner of Labor],*105 AD3d at 1243-1244; *Matter of Desani [Commissioner of Labor],*78 AD3d 1403, 1403 [2010]).

Peters, EJ., Spain, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ, concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### HOWARD S. WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, Local Union No. 169, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 07-16446.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*554Submitted April 17, 2009.*

Filed April 30, 2009.

Mark R. Thierman, Esquire, Thierman Law Firm, Reno, NV, Thomas M. Triplett, Esquire, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, Bend, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael E. Langton, Esquire, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: T.G. NELSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KING,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Samuel P. King, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Plaintiff-Appellant Howard S. Wright Construction Company (Wright) appeals the district court’s dismissal of its action against the Laborer’s International Union of North America, Local Union No. 169 (Union). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.1

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not supply them here *555except as necessary to explain our decision. We review a district court’s legal conclusion that Plaintiffs repudiation of the agreement was not valid de novo. *Laborers Health and Welfare for Northern California v. Westlake Development,*53 F.3d 979 (9th Cir.1995).

The National Labor Relations Board held in *John Deklewa & Sons,*282 NLRB 1375 (1987), *enf.*843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir.1988), that an employer cannot repudiate a Section 8(f) prehire agreement midterm. Wright does not fit into the limited “single employee exception” to this rule, as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit, because Wright has conceded that it employed two laborers contemporaneously during the term of the contract. *Laborers Health*holds that in order to fit into the limited single employee exception, the employer must be “a ‘one-employee employer’ during the relevant time period.’ ” *Laborers Health,*53 F.3d at 982. The district court did not err in determining that Wright’s repudiation was not valid, and dismissing the case.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. The Union asserts in its brief that we should also review the trial court’s order denying confirmation and vacating the arbitration award. The Union failed to appeal this order; it also failed to appeal or cross-appeal from the final judgment which was entered in this case. An appellee who fails to file a cross-appeal cannot attack a judgment with a view towards enlarging its own rights. *Turpen v. City of Corvallis,*26 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 963, 115 S.Ct. 426, 130 L.Ed.2d 339 (1994).
EX-34.2
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG

Ernst & Young LLP
220 South Sixth Street, Ste 1400
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4509

Phone (612) 343-1000
www.ey.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
U.S. Bank National Association

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the
Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
SEC's Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform
(the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, except for
servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii),
1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(iv)-(xv), which the Company has determined
are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the
servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with
the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions
and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the
servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the
Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 12, 2008

A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 790 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 790

 To suspend temporarily the duty on electron guns for high definition 
                           cathode ray tubes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on electron guns for high definition 
                           cathode ray tubes.

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

SECTION 1. ELECTRON GUNS FOR HIGH DEFINITION CATHODE RAY TUBES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.85.23        Electron guns actually  Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           used for high                                                     31/2008          ''
                           definition cathode                                                                  .
                           ray tubes (CRT's)
                           (provided for in
                           subheading
                           8540.91.50)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Baldwin v. Wilkie

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 567

No. 562P06

Def’s (Jason Wilkie) PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA05-1503)

Denied 05/03/07

Hudson, J., Recused
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 791 

To suspend temporarily the duty on plasma flat panel screen assemblies 

for use in televisions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2005 

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

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on plasma flat panel screen 

assemblies for use in televisions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PLASMA FLAT PANEL SCREEN ASSEMBLIES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.85.44 Plasma flat panel 

screen assemblies for 

use in televisions (provided for in subheading 

8529.90.53) ................. Free No change No change On or before 12/ 

31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•S 791 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 

4 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### Randy Ratajczak, as Administrator of the Estate of Mary Ratajczak, Respondent, v Mahmood Yoonessi, M.D., et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Submitted May 17, 2010;

decided June 29, 2010

Motion for reargument etc. denied *[see*14 NY3d 795 (2010)]. Motion, insofar as it seeks disqualification of Chief Judge Lippman, dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals has *746no authority to entertain the motion made on nonstatutory grounds. The application seeking recusal is referred to the Chief Judge for his individual consideration and determination. Chief Judge Lippman denies the referred motion for recusal.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Reginald Earl RICE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-4975.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 8, 2009.

Decided: May 12, 2009.

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Green-ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Earl Rice appeals his conviction and life sentence for bank robbery by force or violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006). Rice contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a constitutionally deficient search warrant. We affirm.

We review the district court’s factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court’s legal determinations de novo. *United States v. Wilson,*484 F.3d 267, 280 (4th Cir.2007) *(citing Ornelas v. United States,*517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)). When a suppression motion has been denied, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. *United States v. Uzenski,*434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th Cir.2006).

In reviewing the propriety of issuing a search warrant, the relevant inquiry is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause to issue the warrant. *Illinois v. Gates,*462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). Although the search warrant at issue failed to specify the exact address of the premises to be searched, under the totality of the circumstances we find there were sufficient corroborating facts establishing probable cause supporting the issuance and execution of the search warrant. *See id.*at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *211materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND TRUST CORPUS OF SAN
JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST AS OF JUNE 30, 2000, AND THE RELATED CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF DISTRIBUTABLE INCOME AND CHANGES IN TRUST CORPUS FOR THE SIX-MONTH
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       7,705,657
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,705,657
<PP&E>                                     133,275,528
<DEPRECIATION>                              90,266,881
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,714,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,705,657
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,008,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,714,304
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,727,142
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               645,819
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             23,081,323
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         23,081,323
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                23,081,323
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 64 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 64

To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a decommissioning pilot 
   program to decommission and decontaminate the sodium-cooled fast 
 breeder experimental test-site reactor located in northwest Arkansas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2005

Mrs. Lincoln (for herself and Mr. Pryor) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a decommissioning pilot 
   program to decommission and decontaminate the sodium-cooled fast 
 breeder experimental test-site reactor located in northwest Arkansas.

    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 ``SEFOR Cleanup Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. DECOMMISSIONING PILOT PROGRAM.

    (a) Pilot Program.--The Secretary of Energy shall establish a 
decommissioning pilot program to decommission and decontaminate the 
sodium-cooled fast breeder experimental test-site reactor located in 
northwest Arkansas in accordance with the decommissioning activities 
contained in the August 31, 1998 Department of Energy report on the 
reactor.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
            (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out this section $16,000,000.
            (2) Limitation.--No funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund 
        established by section 302 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 
        1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222) may be used for the pilot program 
        established under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Niasia Wallace, Appellant.

[869 NYS2d 780]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, J.) rendered May 9, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of the victim’s alleged delay in accusing defendant of being one of her assailants. Concur— Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, Buckley, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as created by Section
            906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
            World Waste Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies
            that, based on his knowledge:

            (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: July 6, 2006                          /s/ David A. Rane
                                            -----------------
                                            Name:  David A. Rane
                                            Title:  Chief Financial Officer
#### State v. Branks

Case below: 184 N.C. App.-(19 June 2007)

No. 344P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-1394)

Denied 10/11/07