alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MASON v. NEW YORK CENT. R. CO.

Civ. No. 3886.

United States District Court W. D. New. York.

Jan. 20, 1949.

Glenn L. Buck, of Rochester, N. Y., for plaintiff.

Harris, Beach, Keating, Wilcox & Dale, of Rochester, N. Y., for defendant.

BURKE, District Judge.

This is a motion by defendant for summary judgment. The action is brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq. The answer puts in issue all the allegations of the complaint except that at the time and place alleged in the complaint the defendant owned and operated a railroad in interstate commerce. The papers in support of the motion deal only with the question whether the cause of action for injuries alleged to have occurred on October 16th, 1945 during the course of plaintiff’s employment by defendant was released under an alleged general release given in connection with the termination of a prior action in the state court, brought to recover damages for injuries growing out of the same occurrence. The defendant asks the court to disregard the plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition to the motion, under subdivision (e) of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., which deals with the form of affidavits. Although it may be conceded that the plaintiff’s affidavit does not conform with the requirements of subdivision (e), there emerges from the maze of plaintiff’s argument on the motion the somewhat unclear indication that he desires to raise the question that the release was invalid by reason of mutual mistake of fact and because of fraud in its procurement. Such a substantial question should not be resolved upon procedural grounds nor without affording the plaintiff full opportunity to demonstrate by evidence the basis of his contentions, if he be so advised. So that the is•sues may be clearly defined, the plaintiff shall serve a reply to defendant’s answer.

Motion denied.
#### Carol A. Tonzi, Appellant-Respondent, v Richard H. Nichols, Individually and Doing Business as Nichols Financial Services, Respondent-Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)

Submitted December 13, 2010;

decided January 11, 2011

Motion by Cornell Securities Law Clinic for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motions for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed, and for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein dismissed as academic.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          44,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  275,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    109,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               521,000
<PP&E>                                         496,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                 131,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,649,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          535,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           400
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,200)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,649,900
<SALES>                                      1,385,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,385,300
<CGS>                                        1,201,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,201,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               508,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              85,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (408,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (60,200)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (358,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (10,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (368,600)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (11.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (11.03)
        

</TABLE>
Sample Audit Checklist for CJIS Security Policy Area 7 

# QUESTION YES NO N/A STANDARD COMMENT 

Page 1 of 2 

5.7 Configuration Management 

1. Planned or unplanned changes to the hardware, 

software, and/or firmware components of the 

information system can have significant effects 

on the overall security of the system. The goal is 

to allow only qualified and authorized 

individuals access to information system 

components for purposes of initiating changes, 

including upgrades, and modifications. 

CSP 5.5, Access Control, describes agency1

requirements for control of privileges and 

restrictions. 

Based on inquiry and record examination, does 

the Tribe or TGRA configure the application, 

service, or information system to provide only 

essential capabilities and specifically prohibit 

and/or restrict the use of specified functions, 

ports, protocols, and/or services?

____ ____ ____ CSP 5.7.1.1 

2. Based on inquiry and record examination, does 

the Tribe or TGRA ensure that a complete 

topological drawing depicting the 

interconnectivity of the agency network, to 

criminal justice information, systems and 

services is maintained in a current status?2 

Based on inquiry and record examination, does 

the Tribe or TGRA network topological drawing 

include: 

1. All communications paths, circuits, and other 

components used for the interconnection, 

beginning with the agency-owned system(s) 

and traversing through all interconnected 

systems to the agency end-point? 

2. The logical location of all components (e.g., 

firewalls, routers, switches, hubs, servers, 

encryption devices, and computer 

workstations)? (Individual workstations 

(clients) do not have to be shown; the 

number of clients is sufficient). 

____ 

____ 

____ 

____ 

____ 

____ 

CSP 5.7.1.2(1) 

CSP 5.7.1.2(2) 

 

1

 Throughout this document, the term “agency” refers to tribal agencies. 2

 See CSP Appendix C for sample network diagrams. 
Sample Audit Checklist for CJIS Security Policy Area 7 

# QUESTION YES NO N/A STANDARD COMMENT 

Page 2 of 2 

3. “For Official Use Only” (FOUO) markings? 

4. The agency name and date (day, month, and 

year) the drawing was created or updated? 

____ 

____ 

____ 

____ 

____ 

____ 

CSP 5.7.1.2(3) 

CSP 5.7.1.2(4) 

3. The system configuration documentation often 

contains sensitive details (e.g. descriptions of 

applications, processes, procedures, data 

structures, authorization processes, data flow, 

etc.) 

Based on inquiry and record examination, does 

the Tribe or TGRA protect the system 

documentation from unauthorized access 

consistent with the provisions described in CSP 

5.5 Access Control? 

____ ____ ____ CSP 5.7.2
#### Debra H., Appellant, v Janice R., Respondent.

Submitted June 21, 2010;

decided July 1, 2010

*768Motion for reargument denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements [see 14 NY3d 576 (2010)].
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KATHY S. TALLEY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-35827

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-06133-MO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 7, 2010

Portland, Oregon

Before: TASHIMA, PAEZ and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Kathy Talley appeals the district court order affirming the decision to deny

her disability benefits. We conclude that the ALJ did not give sufficient reasons for

disregarding or discrediting evidence from Talley’s treating therapist, Pam Jones;

FILED

OCT 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

from Dr. Barbara Perry, an examining psychologist; and from Talley herself. We

therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings before the ALJ.

The ALJ’s decision did not account for or give a reason for discounting the

testimony of Talley’s treating therapist, Pam Jones. Testimony from a treating

therapist qualifies as an “other source” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(d). Such

testimony from an “other source” can only be discounted by providing specific

reasons, germane to the witness. Stout v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 454 F.3d 1050, 1053

(9th Cir. 2006); see SSR 06-03p at *3, *5. That error was not harmless because we

cannot conclude that “no reasonable ALJ, when fully crediting the testimony,

could have reached a different disability determination.” Stout, 454 F.3d at 1056.

The ALJ improperly discredited evidence from Dr. Barbara Perry, an

examining psychologist. The uncontradicted opinion of an examining doctor can

only be rejected for clear and convincing reasons. Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d

1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2006). The ALJ’s proffered reasons were unconvincing

because they did not account for evidence that suggested an opposite result. See

Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1456 (9th Cir. 1984). Moreover, the evidence

provided by Pam Jones, which was improperly disregarded, would, if credited,

contradict the ALJ’s offered reasons for discrediting the evidence of Dr. Perry and

generally support her conclusions. 
3

The ALJ did not provide sufficient reasons to discredit Talley’s testimony.

Where a claimant establishes that she suffers from impairments that might

reasonably be expected to cause some degree of her alleged symptoms, the ALJ

must present “specific, clear and convincing reasons” in order to reject her

subjective testimony about the extent of her symptoms. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d

1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996). The ALJ’s proffered reasons were not convincing, and

were taken selectively from the record while ignoring evidence that suggested an

opposite result. See Gallant, 753 F.2d at 1456. Additionally, the improperly

disregarded evidence provided by Pam Jones, if credited, would support Talley’s

testimony and undermine several of the ALJ’s reasons for discrediting it.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
#### EATON CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Department of Homeland Security, and Customs and Border Protection, Defendants-Appellants, and Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and International Trade Commission, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 2005-1565, 2006-1018.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 13, 2006.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the appellants’ unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss these appeals, from the judgment of the Court of International Trade in CIT case no. 05-00487,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2672 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2672

   To suspend temporarily the duty on copper oxychloride and copper 
                               hydroxide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on copper oxychloride and copper 
                               hydroxide.

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

SECTION 1. COPPER OXYCHLORIDE AND COPPER HYDROXIDE.

    (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:

``      9902.01.00       Copper oxychloride  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          (CAS No. 2042-59-                                                  31/2011.......
                          2) and copper
                          hydroxide (CAS
                          No. 1332-40-7)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3808.92.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-0856

_____________________________

RUSSELL DOMINICK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

J. Scott Duncan, Judge.

June 7, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and ROWE and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Stephen N. Bernstein, Gainesville, for Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### LUDGATE v. MILLER et al.

Civ. No. 8605.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Sept. 20, 1948.

Felix & Felix, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

J. B. H. Carter, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff’s objection is well taken, in view of the amendment to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 14(a), 28 U.S.C.A. The motion will be dismissed unless, within fifteen days, the defendant amends his third-party complaint by striking out the allegation of liability of Rose to the plaintiff and by stating whatever cause of action he, the defendant, may have against Rose.
EXHIBIT 13.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the filing of the Annual Report of EZchip Semiconductor Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eli Fruchter, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Date: March 25, 2010




By:
/s/ Eli Fruchter *Eli FruchterPrincipal Executive Officer


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12775]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer 
Assistance Center Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, July 28, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Smiley at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-
231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Committee will be held Tuesday, July 28, 2009, at 1 p.m. Central 
Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral 
comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited 
conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made 
with Ellen Smiley. For more information please contact Ms. Smiley at 1-
888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 
West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments to 
the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: May 27, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-12775 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
**Skill #5*Fire and Aviation Preparedness Review Guide***

**Hydraulic Knowledge Test**

**Skill #5*Fire and Aviation Preparedness Review Guide***

**Hydraulic Knowledge Test**

1. Give definitions for the following:

a. Friction Loss -

b. Head Pressure -

c. Nozzle Pressure -

d. Cavitation -

2. What is atmospheric pressure at sea level? _________

3. Parallel pumping is used to:

a. Increase pressure

b. Increase volume

c. All of the above

4. Series pumping is used to:

a. Increase pressure

b. Increase volume

c. None of the above

5. Stage pumping is used to:

a. Increase pressure

b. Increase volume

c. None of the above

6. Complete the following friction loss calculations.  Use the *Incident Response Pocket Guide* as a reference.  Show all work in the space provided.

a. You are pumping a 11⁄2-inch hose lay 500 feet long with a 3/8 inch tip. What is the PP? Compute and write your answer below.

b. You are pumping to a hose lay with the first lateral at 1500 feet. You have another 100 feet of 11⁄2-inch hose to another lateral. Both laterals have 3/8 inch tips. What is the PP?

c. You are pumping to a 11⁄2-inch hose lay with the first lateral at 900 feet. You have another 100 feet of 11⁄2-inch hose to another lateral. Both laterals have 3/8 inch tips and are 180 feet above the pump.

�

�

�

Revised 2008Skill 5-2

Skill 5-1Revised 2008
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 on Form 10-K of WNC California
Housing Tax Credits III, L.P. (the "Partnership") for the year ended March 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Melanie R. Wenk, Chief
Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify 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 Partnership.




/s/Melanie R. Wenk
------------------
Melanie R. Wenk
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
Date:  October 9, 2009
#### In the Matter of Tyrone Powell, Appellant, v Chairperson of New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

Submitted September 27, 2010;

decided December 16, 2010

*944Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
EXHIBIT 32
   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Infinity, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
   (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
    /s/ Stanton E. Ross
 Stanton E. Ross
 Chief Executive Officer
 November 15, 2004
   /s/ Jon D. Klugh
 Jon D. Klugh
 Chief Financial Officer
 November 15, 2004
   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Infinity, Inc. and will be retained by Infinity, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
   36
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,109
<SECURITIES>                                     4,877
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,272
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,528
<PP&E>                                           3,301
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,640
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,896
<OTHER-SE>                                    (33,626)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                         24,129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,129
<CGS>                                           10,632
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,632
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 137
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,281)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,281)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,281)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0581

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SCOTT W. ELLISON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 18, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

James Jeremiah Shea

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 10 2020

12/10/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0581