alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

WEED-SCHERTZER, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

NUDELMAN, KLEMM & GOLUB,

 Defendant.

Civ. No. 10-6402 (WJM)

 

ORDER

A Report and Recommendation was filed on September 23, 2011

recommending that Plaintiffs’ motion for an award of attorney’s fees and costs be 

reduced. ECF No. 24; see also Weed-Schertzer v. Nudelman, Klemm & Golub, No. 

10-6402, 2011 WL 4436553 (D.N.J. Sept. 23, 2011). The parties were notified that 

they had fourteen (14) days to submit objections and responses to the Report and 

Recommendation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(2). No objection or 

response having been received by this Court, and the Court having reviewed the 

thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation de novo, and good cause 

appearing;

IT IS on this 13th day of October 2011, hereby,

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mark 

Falk is adopted as the Opinion of this Court; and it is further

Case 2:10-cv-06402-WJM-MF Document 25 Filed 10/13/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 282
2

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs is 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ counsel is awarded $4,742.50 in attorney’s fees 

and $350.00 in costs and expenses for a total award of $5,092.50.

 /s/ William J. Martini 

 WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

cc: The Hon. Mark Falk, U.S.M.J.

Case 2:10-cv-06402-WJM-MF Document 25 Filed 10/13/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 283
#### In the Matter of Darnell Whitley, Sr., Respondent, v Shiwana Whitley, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 626]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Cooney, J.), entered March 29, 2005, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for custody of the subject children, and awarded only biweekly supervised visitation to the mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility and character of the parties *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167 [1982]; *Maloney v Maloney,*208 AD2d 603 [1994]), and a determination on custody and visitation will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of McMillian v Rizzo,*31 AD3d 555 [2006]). Factors to be considered in determining a child’s best interest include: “the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child . . . the ability of each parent to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development. . . the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child . . . the relative fitness of the respective parents, and the length of time the present custody arrangement has been in effect” *(Matter of Walton v Walton,*306 AD2d 491, 492 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Sandman v Sandman,*64 AD2d 698 [1978]).

Here, the Family Court had the opportunity to observe the mother and the father testify and ultimately concluded that the *811father, unlike the mother, was credible. At the hearing, the father, who obtained temporary custody of the subject children after they were removed from the mother’s custody upon a finding of neglect, demonstrated his ability to provide for them both financially and emotionally. The Family Court also conducted in camera interviews with the subject children and took their preferences into consideration *(see Matter of O’Connor v Dyer,*18 AD3d 757 [2005]; *Sandman v Sandman, supra).*

Based on the totality of the circumstances *(see Eschbach v Eschbach, supra),*the Family Court’s determination had a sound and substantial basis in the record, and was in the best interests of the children. Thus, the Family Court properly awarded custody to the father *(see e.g. Kuncman v Kuncman,*188 AD2d 517 [1992]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.E, Goldstein, Luciano and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Susser Holdings Corporation (the Company) for the three months ended
March 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sam L. Susser, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |    |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: February 17, 2009 |  |   
|                        |  |   
|                        |  | By |  | /s/ Sam L. Susser                    
|                        |  |    |  | Sam L. Susser                        
|                        |  |    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q/A pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51094

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

DANIEL PEREZ MUNOZ,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 3:14-CR-997-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Munoz appeals the sentence for his conviction of being unlawfully 

in the United States following deportation after a felony conviction. He claims 

that the district court erred by imposing the 16-level enhancement under 

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on its determination that his 2006 

conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under N.M. STAT. ANN. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51094 Document: 00513123334 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2015
No. 14-51094

2

§§ 30-3-2(A) and 30-3-1(B) (West 1978) does not constitute a “crime of violence”

(“COV”) because it is neither an enumerated offense nor has as an element the 

use, attempted use, or threatened use of force.

This court reviews de novo the district court’s characterization of an 

offense as a COV. United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 

2005). Munoz’s conviction qualifies as a COV because apprehension-causing 

aggravated assault creates a sufficient threat of physical force to constitute a

COV. See United States v. Carrasco-Tercero, 745 F.3d 192, 195–99 (5th Cir. 

2014); United States v. Silva, 608 F.3d 663, 670–73 (10th Cir. 2010); United 

States v. Licon-Nunez, 230 F. App’x 448, 451–52 (5th Cir. 2007). Therefore, the 

district court did not err in applying the enhancement. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-51094 Document: 00513123334 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2015
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-0696V Filed: February 26, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

VALERIE MULHOLLAND,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Shealene Priscilla Wasserman, Muller Braz il, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On May 25, 2017, Valerie Mulholl and (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Inju ry Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on January 2, 2015 in her left shoulder, she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vacci ne administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processi ng Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On February 26, 2018, respondent filed hi s Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compen sation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent states t hat “petitioner’s me dical course is consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (‘SIRVA’) as defined

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).on the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no recent history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder, pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination, pain was limited to the shoulder where the vaccine was administered, and no other conditi on or abnormality, such as brachial neuritis, has been identified to explain petitio ner’s shoulder pain. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a); 42 C.F.R. 100.3(c)(10). Additionally, based on the medical records outlined above, petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months.” Id. at
6.

In view of respondent’s positio n and the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Quarterly Report of All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz, 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 results of operations of the Company.








/S/ Barry SchwartzBarry SchwartzChief Executive OfficerAugust 18, 2010
t·~38 74948 

JEREMIAH MICHAEL SCOTT ~\/IC' f"'r"\nnr:<'YTIC\~I.AI 

t• ! 

. (QD~ 

r- A r> II 1-ry . 

~ 

I .I 

~-----------~
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Corrado De Gasperis, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Novamerican Steel Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the condensed consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being            prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s registered public accounting firm and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: July 15, 2008

 

 

| /s/ Corrado De Gasperis         |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
| *Corrado De Gasperis*           |   |
| *Chief Executive Officer*       |   |
| *(Principal Executive Officer)* |   |

 

 

----
RCM 1.7

RCM 1.7 Annuity Beginning Date Revised Feb 18, 2014 Page 1 of 4

1.7.1 Introduction

RCM 1.7 is now obsolete to avoid duplicate procedure. The procedure is available in 

the following FOM sections.

1.7.2 ABD Defined

Refer to FOM-I-111.1

1.7.3 Designation of ABD

Refer to FOM-I-111.1 and FOM-I-111.5

1.7.4 How Designation of ABD Can Be Made

Refer to FOM-I-111.5

1.7.5 Designated ABD Is More Than 3 Months after Filing Date

Refer to FOM-I-111.5.2

1.7.6 Indefinite Postponement of ABD

Refer to FOM-I-111.5.2

1.7.7 Unintelligible Designation

Refer to FOM-I-111.5.3.

1.7.8 Changes in ABD

Refer to FOM-I-111.7.

1.7.10 Determining ABD for an Employee Or Spouse Application Filed 

9-1-83 Or Later Or For A Divorced Spouse

Refer to FOM-I-111.10-12

1.7.11 Retroactivity of Application

Refer to FOM-I-112.
RCM 1.7

RCM 1.7 Annuity Beginning Date Revised Feb 18, 2014 Page 2 of 4

1.7.12 Disability Waiting Period

Refer to FOM-I-310.15.1.

1.7.20 Service Continued Through the Designated ABD

Refer to FOM-I-111.6.1

1.7.21 Non-railroad Work Started After the Designated ABD

Refer to FOM-I-111.6.2

1.7.22 Effect of Cancellation Of Application

Refer to FOM-I-110.110

1.7.23 Applicant Dies Before Attaining Eligibility

Refer to FOM-I-110.20.6

1.7.24 Effect of Work on the ABD for a Disability Annuity

Refer to FOM-I-310.15.3.

1.7.30 Vacation Pay

Refer to FOM-I-330.80.

1.7.31 U.S. Civil Service Severance Pay

Refer to FOM 214.1

1.7.32 Government Annual Sick Leave Payments

Refer to FOM 214.1.

1.7.33 Separation, Displacement, Severance and Similar Payments

Refer to RCM 5.3.34.

1.7.34 Remuneration Paid For the Lost From Railroad

Refer to RCM 5.3.30.
RCM 1.7

RCM 1.7 Annuity Beginning Date Revised Feb 18, 2014 Page 3 of 4

1.7.35 Sick Pay

Refer to RCM 5.3.31.

Appendices

Appendix A - Determining the ABD in a 1937 Act Case

Refer to FOM-I-111.60.

Appendix B - Determining ABD for Employee or Spouse under the 1974 RR Act

for Applications Filed Before 9-1-1983

Refer to FOM-I-111.50.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7622

RONNIE L. SIMMONS, SR., and on behalf of all

prisoners confined at Deerfield Correctional

Center,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections; JAMES A. SMITH,

JR., Regional Administrator; H. R. POWELL,

Warden of Deerfield Correctional Center;

PATRICIA COPELAND, Assistant Warden of Treatment & Programs, Deerfield Correctional Center; S. D. MAYES, Chief of Security, Deerfield

Correctional Center; DENNIS BURGRESS, Operations Officer, Deerfield Correctional Center;

JOHN STEWART, Institutional Health & Safety

Inspector, Deerfield Correctional Center,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District

Judge. (CA-95-646-2)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Ronnie L. Simmons, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion for reconsideration of the assessed filing fee and granting

him additional time to pay the fee. We dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
#### Constantino CARRERA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert L. AYERS Jr., Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-99007.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 12, 2012.

Stephen B. Bedrick, Esquire, Law Office of Stephen B. Bedrick, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Clifford Edward Zall, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

D.C. No. 1:90-CV-00478-AWL

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15762]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,816]


Callaway Golf Ball Operations, Inc., 425 Meadow Street, Chicopee, 
MA; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 29, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Callaway Golf Ball 
Operations, Inc., Chicopee, Massachusetts.
    The subject worker group is covered by an earlier petition (TA-W-
70,744) filed on May 29, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of June 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15762 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Order entered July 20, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01445-CR

LAKEISHA SHANTA HILL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-63003-Q

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On June 30, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief had not been filed. On July 16, 2015, we received appellant’s brief, together with an 

extension motion. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the June 30, 

2015 order requiring findings.

We GRANT the July 16, 2015 motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed as of the date 

of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

The undersigned, Michael J. Threet, is the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Silver State Bancorp (the
Company).

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify that:



| | (A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |                      
|------------ |  | ---------------------
|May 15, 2008 |  | /s/ Michael J. Threet
|Dated        |  | Michael J. Threet