alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Agency technical experts review 

each and every call, letter, and 

online report of an alleged safety 

problem filed with NHTSA.

NHTSA Consumer Vehicle Complaint Process

Consumer Submits 

Complaint

Vehicle Owner’s Questionnaire 

(VOQ) submitted via website, 

telephone or mail

All Complaints Posted 

On NHTSA Website

www.nhtsa.gov/recalls 

NHTSA Analyzes Safety Issue

Technical analysis conducted to assess 

potential safety risk to determine severity of 

safety hazard, likelihood of occurence, and 

population size of affected vehicles

Decision Made 

On Next Steps

NHTSA Screens Complaint for 

Safety Issues

Every complaint reviewed, and may be 

selected for further follow-up with consumer, 

and/or advanced for further analysis

Open formal investigation 

and/or monitor 

manufacturer recalls

Continue to monitor 

and reassess safety 

issue as necessary

14015a-030719-v9a
#### Emilia DUARTE, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hector BARDALES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-56651.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 2, 2009.*

Filed May 29, 2009.

Beverly Baker-Kelly, Esquire, Law Offices, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Victor Mordey, Esquire, Law Offices of Victor Mordey, Chula Vista, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: BRIGHT **, PREGERSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Hector Bardales, Defendant-Appellant, a resident of California, appeals an order of the district court dismissing this action without granting attorney fees to Bardales. Emilia Duarte, Plaintiff-Appellee, a resident of Mexico, moved for dismissal of this action1 under provisions of Federal Rule *636of Procedure 41. On review, we determine that the order of the district court dismissing the action without allowing attorney fees did not amount to an abuse of discretion.2

Accordingly, we AFFIRM.3

***

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

1

. *See*prior opinion, *Duarte v. Bardales,*526 F.3d 563 (9th Cir.2008).

2

. Bardales moves that we take judicial notice of an order from the California Court of Appeals staying proceedings pending resolution of the litigation in federal court and a statement from the pro bono attorney for Emilia Duarte submitted to the California Court of Appeals. We grant the motion but note that the exhibits attached to the motion are irrelevant on the present appeal.

3

. Appellant Bardales requests that the opinion of this court be published. That request is denied.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. CHARLE S M OO RE , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 10197 D . C . N o . 2 : 1 1 -cr-0 0 0 8 1 -K JD ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da K e ntJ . D a w s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , T R O T T , a n dW . F L E T C H E R , C ir c u it J u d g e s . C ha r l e s M oor e appe a l s f r om the 21- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng the r e voc a t i on of

hi s s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291, a n d w e a f

f i rm. 

# FI LED NO V 19 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 10197 2 M oor e c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d byba s i ng i t s s e nt e nc i ng de c i s i on on the se ri ou snes s of hi s und er l yi ng offe nse. T he re cord show s thatthe di stri ct c ourtt ook pr ope ra c c ountof the s e r i ous ne s s of

M oor e ’ s c onduc ta nd di d not im p o s e s e n te n c e p r im a r ilyo n th is b a s is . Se e U ni te d State s v . Si m tob , 485 F . 3d 1058, 1062- 63 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . M or e ove r , i n l i ghtof the t ot a l i tyof

the c ir c u m s ta n c e s a n d th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( e ) s e n te n c in g f a c to r s , th e s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . Se e U n ite d S ta tes v . Ca r ty , 52 0 F . 3d 98 4, 99 3 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). AF F I RME D.
<PAGE>

                CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8) pertaining to the 1990 Stock Option Plan, the 1992 Director Option 
Plan and the 1993 Employee Stock Bonus Plan of Boomtown, Inc. and the 
Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the Boomtown, Inc. 401 (k) Plan 
of our report dated November 15, 1996, with respect to the consolidated 
financial statements and schedule of Boomtown, Inc. included in its annual 
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 1996.

Reno, Nevada
December 20, 1996
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Brun, Appellant.

Submitted July 26, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

*787Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Norman Trabulus, Esq., 345 7th Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10001 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-46346 of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-4 and in Registration
Statements Nos. 33-75444, 33-75442, 333-16719 and 333-57171 of Sterling
Bancshares, Inc. on Forms S-8 and in Registration Statement No. 333-55724 of
Sterling Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated March 23, 2001,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 2000.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
-------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Houston, Texas
March 23, 2001


                                       1
[921 NE2d 598, 893 NYS2d 831]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon Ramos, Appellant.

Decided December 15, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Legal Aid Society, Criminal Appeals Bureau,*New York City *(William B. Carney*and *Steven Banks*of counsel), for appellant.

*Ramon Ramos,*appellant pro se.

*Richard A. Brown, District Attorney,*Kew Gardens *(Rebecca Height*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The prosecution was not barred by the five-year statute of limitations pursuant to CPL 30.10 (2) (b). Although the indictment was nearly 10 years after the incident, defendant’s *882whereabouts were “continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable,” despite the reasonable diligence of the detectives assigned to the case, until his DNA profile from the rape kit taken from the victim was matched to DNA evidence taken from defendant pursuant to a subsequent incarceration (CPL 30.10 [4] [a] [ii]; *see also*Executive Law § 995 [7]; § 995-c [3]; *People v Seda,*93 NY2d 307, 311 [1999]; *People v Brown,*13 NY3d 332 [2009]).

Defendant’s contentions that the extension of the statute of limitations in this case constituted an ex post facto law and that his sentencing as a persistent felony offender violated his right to due process of law are not preserved for review. Defendant’s remaining arguments lack merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20892

tasha.morrison@nih.gov

## Media Resources

High Resolution Image

## Summary

Tasha A. Morrison, Ph.D., M.P.H., received her bachelor’s degree in biology from Temple University in 2005. Her interest in basic science research led her to start a summer internship in the laboratory of Dr. Elizabeth Henske at the Fox Chase Cancer Center. It transitioned into a post-baccalaureate position funded by the NIH/NIDDK to study molecular mechanisms of renal malignancy in tuberous sclerosis.  In 2008, Dr. Morrison moved with Dr. Henske to Brigham and Women’s Hospital as a research assistant and changed her focus to the role of estrogen in the malignancy of lymphangioleiomyomatosis. While at Brigham, she received a master’s degree in public health at Boston University.  In 2012, Dr. Morrison started a molecular and translational medicine doctoral program at Boston University School of Medicine. She characterized a novel long non-coding RNA and determined its role in regulating hemoglobin expression in red blood cells. This research was partially funded by an F31 predoctoral fellowship grant awarded by the NIH/NHLBI.  After successfully defending her doctoral thesis in 2017, Dr. Morrison joined the laboratory of Dr. John O’Shea as a postdoctoral fellow at the NIAMS. Her research focuses on the role of genes found within super-enhancers specific to natural killer (NK) cells. In 2020, Dr. Morrison was selected to join the Independent Research Scholar Program. She holds a junior faculty position at the NIAMS and leads the Lymphocyte Signaling Unit.

## Research Statement

Dr. Morrison’s research goal is to uncover novel molecular mechanisms that regulate the development and function of immune cells. Her current focus is to understand how newly recognized genes, including long non-coding RNAs, regulate the differentiation, activation, and response of natural killer (NK) cells to determine their impact on the innate immune response. Currently, Dr. Morrison is uncovering the importance of glycosphingolipids to signaling cascades required for the development and function of NK cells.

## Scientific Publications

###             Evolving Views of Long Noncoding RNAs and Epigenomic Control of Lymphocyte State and Memory.        

14(1).

## Education

**Boston University, Boston, MA**Ph.D., Molecular and Translational Medicine, 2017

**Boston University, Boston, MA**M.P.H., International Health, 2013

**Temple University, Philadelphia, PA**B.A., Biology, 2005

June 2023

Back to Top
#### R.J. KEYSTONE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON; Gary L. Bass; James Sisk; Michael J. Combs, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 06-6197.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 20, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 7, 2006.

R.J. Keystone, Appellant Pro se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*243PER CURIAM:

R.J. Keystone seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Keystone has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         109,304
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             600
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                59,777
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     90,336
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         151,121
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           154,521
<LOANS>                                        946,815
<ALLOWANCE>                                   (10,170)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,416,312
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,251,685
<SHORT-TERM>                                    13,428
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,754
<LONG-TERM>                                        186
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           28,750
<PREFERRED>                                        137
<COMMON>                                        23,876
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,416,312
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 82,910
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               15,141
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 4,980
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               103,031
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              28,874
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,681
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           73,350
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    5,892
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 62,344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,695
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      25,695
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,304
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.01
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,048
<LOANS-PAST>                                       621
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   312
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 19,700
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 7,882
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,170
<RECOVERIES>                                       566
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,170
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,512
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          4,658
        
 

</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 248 

To prohibit the use of certain interrogation techniques and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 14, 2009 

Mr. BOND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Select Committee on Intelligence 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of certain interrogation techniques and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Limitations on Interro5 gation Techniques Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF CERTAIN INTERRO7 GATION TECHNIQUES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—No individual in the custody or 

9 under the effective control of personnel of an element of 

10 the intelligence community or instrumentality of an ele11 ment of the intelligence community, regardless of nationVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:54 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S248.IS S248

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 248 IS

1 ality or physical location of the individual or personnel, 

2 shall be subject to the following interrogation techniques— 

3 (1) forcing the individual to be naked, perform 

4 sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; 

5 (2) placing hoods or sacks over the head of the 

6 individual or using duct tape over the individual’s 

7 eyes; 

8 (3) applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or 

9 similar forms of physical pain; 

10 (4) using the technique known as 

11 waterboarding; 

12 (5) using military working dogs; 

13 (6) inducing hypothermia or heat injury; 

14 (7) conducting mock executions; or 

15 (8) depriving the individual of adequate food, 

16 water or medical care. 

17 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

18 (1) INSTRUMENTALITY.—The term ‘‘instrumen19 tality’’, with respect to an element of the intelligence 

20 community, means a contractor or subcontractor at 

21 any tier of the element of the intelligence commu22 nity. 

23 (2) INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.—The term 

24 ‘‘intelligence community’’ has the meaning given 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•S 248 IS

1 that term in section 3(4) of the National Security 

2 Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)). 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

August 19, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00292

- CR

Neil Howard MCGINNIS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court

, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6777 Honorable Kir sten Cohoon , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On August 10, 2020, we advised the court reporter that the records were late. On August 17, 2020, court reporter Connie Calvert advised this court that counsel has not asked her to

prepare the reporter’s records

.
W e ORDER Appellant to provide written proof to this court wi thin TEN DAYS of the date of this order that (1) Appellant has delivered a written request to prepare the reporter’s
record s to court reporter Connie Calvert that designates any exhibits to be included, see T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 34.6(b), and (2) either the arran gements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee, or Appellant is entitled to free reporter’s record s , see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.2.

If Appellant fails to respond as ordered , Appellant’s brief s will be due within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, and the court will only consider those issues or points raised in Appellant’s brief

s that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of August, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS. 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of World Waste Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John Pimentel, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

     (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.


March 31, 2008                                    /s/ John Pimentel
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  John Pimentel
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Antoine Pinkney, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Kate Paek, J.), rendered January 29, 2016, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal trespass in the third degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Kate Paek, J.), rendered January 29, 2016, reversed, and the accusatory instrument dismissed.</p><p>The accusatory instrument charging defendant with criminal trespass in the third degree (<i>see </i>Penal Law ยง 140.10[a]) was facially insufficient, since it failed to allege facts establishing that the building at issue was "fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders" (Penal Law ยง 140.10[a]); <a href="../2005/2005_04479.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Moore</i>, 5 NY3d 725</a>, 727 [2005]). The unadorned description of the area in which defendant is said to have trespassed as a building enclosed with "walls, a roof, and doorway" in a manner "designed to exclude intruders" served merely to track the general language of the statute, without adding "facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge" (CPL 100.15.[3]; <i>see People v Alejandro</i>, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]; <a href="../2009/2009_50395.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v O'Connor</i>, 22 Misc 3d 140</a>[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50395[U] [App Term, 2nd Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists, 2009]; <a href="../2007/2007_51000.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Courtney</i>, 15 Misc 3d 140</a>[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51000[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2007], <i>lv denied</i> 9 NY3d 922 [2007]).</p><p>All concur. </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT</p><br><br>Clerk of the Court<p>Decision Date: June 11, 2020</p><br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>