alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BORO HALL CORPORATION v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al.

Civil Action No. 5592.

District Court, E. D. New York.

March 19, 1948.

Harry J. McDermott, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiff, for the motion.

George A. Brooks, of New York City (Edward B. Wallace, of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.

KENNEDY, District Judge.

Originally the plaintiff’s claim was asserted in two counts, the first of which may be roughly described as a claim of breach of contract, and the second as a claim for relief on the basis of estoppel. The complaint was dismissed on motion. Boro Hall Corporation v. General Motors Corporation., D. C. E.D.N.Y. 1946, 68 F.Supp. 589. On appeal the dismissal of the “equitable” cause of action was affirmed, but the “law” count was remanded for trial. 2 Cir., 1947, 164 F.2d 770.

Now the plaintiff, having failed to make timely demand for a jury trial, urges that, as matter of discretion (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 39, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c), an order should be made directing that a jury determine the issue raised by the first count.

I have examined with care the opinion of the Circuit Court. The liability of the defendants will turn upon what the parties meant by their contract. The proof to be offered will merely be in aid of an interpretation of the dealings between the parties. It is clear to me that, in the interest of *104everybody, a question of that sort ought to be tried not to a jury but to the court. To mention only one phase of the matter, trial to a judge will make necessary specific findings of fact'which can be the subject of a proper review, whereas a general verdict of a jury on a question of this nature would not lend itself to proper analysis.

Should the plaintiff prevail, it can then renew its application under Rule 39 for a jury trial on the issue of damage, if it be so advised. I have no opinion about the suitability of trial to a jury of the damage question. But I am convinced that there is no appeal to discretion under Rule 39 when a suitor asks that a jury be impaneled to determine what a contract means.

Motion denied as indicated.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Fresh Choice, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ended December 28, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David E. Pertl,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), that:

(1)     The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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 18, 2004

| | /s/ David E.
  Pertl                                                   | 
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |                                                                        | 
| | David E.
  Pertl
  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
  Officer | 

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

---

---
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report dated March 31, 1999 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-90798, File
No. 333-36086, File No. 333-55008 and File No. 333-55006), on Form S-3 (File No.
333-39939), and on Form S-2 (File No. 333-66867).
 
                                          ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 
San Jose, California
April 1, 1999
Consultation Agenda

Northern Hotel

19 North Broadway

Billings, MT 59101

April 20, 2017

1:00 - 5:00 pm

I. Welcome and Opening prayer/Blessing.

II. Introduction of Commission and brief statements.

III. Introduction of NIGC Staff and Tribal leadership and representatives.

IV. Discuss format for the consultation

o Questions/comments will be taken after each topic presentation.

V. Opening statements/comments for those who cannot stay for the entire consultation.

VI. Housekeeping items

o Scheduled to go from 1:00 to 5:00 pm – however may end early if all topics 

covered and there is no tribal comments

o Meeting will be transcribed, when speaking please state name/organization and 

designees from your tribal governments – not open to the public or media.

VII. Topic order

1. Rural Outreach

2. Developing a Strong Tribal Workforce through Training

3. Management Contract Regulations and Procedures

4. Technical Standards for Mobile Gaming Devices

5. Fees

6. Proposed draft voluntary guidance for non-binding Class III minimum internal 

control standards (MICS) as follow up from Tribal comments from the 2015-16 

consultation.

VIII. Time period for written comments has not yet been finalized, but will likely end on or 

about July 1, 2017, at least 30 business days after the Northwest area consultation.

Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                          CREDENCE SYSTEMS CORPORATION

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

The following are wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiaries of Credence
Systems Corporation:

          Credence Systems KK, a Japanese company;

          Credence Systems International, Inc., a Barbados corporation;

          Fluence Technology, Inc. (formerly Test Systems Strategies, Inc.),
          a Delaware corporation;

          Credence International Limited, Inc., a Delaware corporation;

          Credence Systems Korea, a South Korea company (a wholly owned
          subsidiary of Credence International Limited, Inc.);

          Credence Systems Armenia L.L.C., an Armenian limited liability
          company; and

          Innotech-Credence Corporation, a Japanese company (a joint venture
          with Innotech Corporation, majority owned by the Company).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6184

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MOHAMMED KWANING, a/k/a Kofi,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00600-GLR-2)

Submitted: June 26, 2020 Decided: July 14, 2020

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mohammed Kwaning, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mohammed Kwaning appeals the district court’s order denying his post-judgment 

motion to correct the record pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 10(e). Kwaning filed his motion 

after we affirmed his conviction and sentence. See United States v. Kwaning, 786 F. App’x 

388 (4th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1231 (2020). The district court denied the 

motion for reasons stated in the Government’s opposition thereto. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See 

United States v. Kwaning, No. 1:14-cr-00600-GLR-2 (D. Md. Dec. 20, 2019). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of CHS
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A-1 for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John D. Johnson, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 result of operations of the Company.



| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| | /s/ JOHN D. JOHNSON                      
| |                                          
| | John D. Johnson                          
| | President and Chief Executive
    Officer

February 13, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                       58,401,934
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                               641,889,536
<ALLOWANCES>                                 23,061,610
<INVENTORY>                                 514,391,984
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1,230,218,174
<PP&E>                                    1,670,377,218
<DEPRECIATION>                              741,380,272
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            2,620,290,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       979,080,106
<BONDS>                                     482,248,322
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                1,067,883,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              2,620,290,808
<SALES>                                   1,755,731,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          1,783,410,865
<CGS>                                     1,725,866,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 82,416
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            9,549,782
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              10,314,723
<INCOME-TAX>                                  2,000,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           8,314,723
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                  8,314,723
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM THOMAS BAUBERGER

No. 172A06

(Filed 15 December 2006)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 176 N.C. App.-, 626 S.E.2d 700 (2006), finding no error in judgments entered on 15 August 2003 and an order denying defendant’s Motion for Appropriate Relief entered on 4 February 2004, all entered by Judge John O. Craig, III, in Superior Court, Forsyth County, following jury verdicts finding defendant guilty of second-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. Heard in the Supreme Court 22 November 2006.

*Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Isaac T Avery, III, Special Counsel, for the State.*

*Kathryn L. VandenBerg for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

Justice WAINWRIGHT took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. *See State v. Harrison,*360 N.C. 394, 627 S.E.2d 461 (2006); *Crawford v. Commercial Union Midwest Ins. Co.,*
      *106356 N.C. 609, 572 S.E.2d 781 (2002); *Robinson v. Byrd,*356 N.C. 608, 572 S.E.2d 781 (2002).

AFFIRMED.
# PiekUtup Pickering , J.

Saitta Parra guirre however, failed to address appellant's argument on rehearing that NRS 205.511 provides a private cause of action for the statutory violations alleged in appellant's complaint.

Having considered the rehearing petition and answer thereto, we grant the petition, as the April 11 order of affirmance overlooked a controlling statute. NRAP 40(c)(2)(B). Accordingly, we hereby vacate our April 11, 2014, order of affirmance and reverse the district court's dismissal order and remand this matter to the district court.' In so doing, we note that because this matter was dismissed at the pleading stage, in reviewing the dismissal, we are required to recognize the allegations in appellant's complaint as true. 

### Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008). Accordingly, this order should not be construed as precluding the parties from presenting evidence that either establishes or negates the merits of the underlying claims and seeking appropriate relief in the district court.

It is so 

### ORDERED. 2

J.

'We note, however, that we properly concluded that appellant was not entitled to a default judgment against respondent, and that these issues should not be reconsidered on remand.

2 Appellant's June 4, 2014, motion to file a reply to respondent's answer is denied.

SUPREME COURT

OF 2 NEVADA
(0) 1947 A 

### e

### cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge Russell Demetras & O'Neill Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF 

### 3 NEVADA (0) 1947A 4M14
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                                        

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Post Effective Amendment
Number 19 to Registration Statement Number 2-8439 on Form S-3 dated November 10,
1983, Post Effective Amendment Number 1 to Registration Statement Number 33-
18316 on Form S-8 dated December 14, 1987, Registration Statement Number 33-
65165 on Form S-3 dated February 2, 1996 and the Related Prospectuses of our
report to the consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Atlas Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1998.



HORWATH GELFOND HOCHSTADT PANGBURN & CO.


Denver, Colorado
April 13, 1999


                                      73
MAILING ADRESS: NIGC/DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop #1621 Washington, DC 20040 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 

202.632.7066

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK; Oklahoma City, OK; Rapid City, SD

WWW.NIGC.GOV

Re: CHRI MOU for TGRA signature

Dear Tribal Gaming Regulator:

Enclosed please find a copy of the final Criminal History Record Information Memorandum of 

Understanding (CHRI MOU). After three rounds of tribal comments, the CHRI MOU is now 

final. Please sign it and submit it by September 9, 2021 to attention Beverly Carter at 

Fingerprint_Admin@nigc.gov.

Procedural background

Comments and suggestions were requested from Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authorities 

(TGRAs) on three drafts of the MOU to ensure that it causes minimal disruption and expense to 

tribes. The three drafts were distributed by letter to TGRAs on November 13, 2020, February 18, 

2021 and June 14, 2021, respectively. Detailed descriptions of the changes made to the drafts in 

response to tribal comments are found on NIGC’s CJIS Resource Materials webpage in the 

NIGC Correspondence section: https://www.nigc.gov/compliance/CJIS-Training-Materials. 

The last comment period closed on June 30, 2021. Three tribes provided input on the final MOU 

draft. For the most part, they suggested minor clarifying changes, which were accepted. A 

redline/strikeout version of this draft is available at the webpage mentioned above, showing the 

exact changes. In sum, the majority of tribal comments submitted throughout this process were 

incorporated into the MOU.

Final MOU, signature required

The final MOU is enclosed here for signature by an authorized TGRA or tribal official. By 

September 9, 2021, please email a signed copy of the MOU to attention 

Fingerprint_Admin@nigc.gov. Please note that if your tribe and/or TGRA signed a prior MOU 

with the NIGC for purposes of CHRI dissemination —including the 2017 “Memorandum of 

Understanding regarding the dissemination of Criminal History Record Information by the 

National Indian Gaming Commission”— such MOU is terminated as of September 10, 2021. 

Therefore, the NIGC will no longer accept fingerprints under prior MOUs.
MAILING ADRESS: NIGC/DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop #1621 Washington, DC 20040 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 

202.632.7066

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK; Oklahoma City, OK; Rapid City, SD

WWW.NIGC.GOV

Should you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact me at 

Jun_Kim@nigc.gov or Beverly Carter at Beverly_Carter@nigc.gov. 

Sincerely,

Jun M. Kim

Chief Information Officer

CJIS Systems Officer

Attachments
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Affirmative Action Plan FY 2022

###### Share

Print FriendlyEmailTwitterFacebook

Affirmative Action Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and Retention of Persons with Disabilities.

MD715 AAP Report FY22.pdf(pdf - 58.99 KB)

## Latest Updates

            - Latest Funding Opportunities
            - Latest Blogs
            - Latest Impacts

funding opportunityNew Beginning for Tribal Students Program

funding opportunityResearch Facilities Act Program

funding opportunityAgriculture and Food Research Initiative - Education and Workforce Development

## Latest Updates

            - Latest Funding Opportunities
            - Latest Blogs
            - Latest Impacts

postProtecting Our Water

postNumber of AFRI FY 2024 Commodity Board Co-Funding Topics Breaks Record; Expands Focus on Nutrition 

postTropical Birds Could Tolerate Warming Better Than Expected 

## Latest Updates

            - Latest Funding Opportunities
            - Latest Blogs
            - Latest Impacts

postTropical Birds Could Tolerate Warming Better Than Expected 

postCultivating the Future: Agricultural Innovations for Climate Resilience

postNevada Researcher Aims to Improve Sorghum Hybrids for Dairy Cattle Feed
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darryl L. MOFFETT, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-7556.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 6, 2009.

Decided: May 26, 2009.

*226Darryl L. Moffett, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darryl L. Moffett appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Moffett argues that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence under Amendment 706 of the Guidelines, *see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*(“USSG”) § 2Dl.l(c) (2008); USSG App. C, Amend. 706. We have reviewed the record and find the district court properly exercised its discretion after considering the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.*
#### In the Matter of Amodea D. and Another, Infants. Genesee County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Jason D., Appellant.

[978 NYS2d 513]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, J.), entered June 19, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondent had neglected the subject children.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act, respondent father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition adjudging that he neglected the subject children. Contrary to the father’s contention, Family Court’s finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]; *Matter of Jayden B. [Erica R.],*91 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2012]). The testimony presented at the fact-finding hearing established that one child witnessed, and the other was in proximity to, a physical altercation between the parties wherein the father kicked the mother in the face and placed his hands around her neck to prevent her from breathing. The child who witnessed the altercation told a caseworker for petitioner later that day that she was “very sad and scared” upon seeing the mother’s bloodied face after the altercation, and both children indicated *1368to the caseworker that they were afraid of the father. We conclude that the children’s proximity to the altercation, “together with the evidence of a pattern of ongoing domestic violence in the home, placed [the children] in imminent risk of emotional harm” *(Jayden B.,*91 AD3d at 1345). We reject the father’s further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, which is “impermissibly based on speculation, i.e., that favorable evidence could and should have been offered on his behalf’ *(Matter of Devonte M.T. [Leroy T.],*79 AD3d 1818, 1819 [2010]). Indeed, “ ‘[i]t is not the role of this Court to second-guess the attorney’s tactics or trial strategy’ ” *(Matter of Derrick C.,*52 AD3d 1325, 1326 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 705 [2008]). Present — Smith, J.E, Fahey, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
J. The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). Accordingly, we approve attorney Kirk Reynolds's resignation. SCR 98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted.

It is so ORDERED. •-&4 3 ; , C.J. Hardesty PPa nIrra ngu aiii rrrre r. J. Douglas

Gibbons J.

cc: David A. Clark, Bar Counsel Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Kirk Reynolds Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court 2