alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES v. CHARLES.

No. 2190.

District Court, W. D. New York.

June 15, 1939.

George L. Grobe, U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y. (Aubrey Lawrence and C. C. Daniels, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., of counsel), for complainant.

*122Nelson T. Barrett, of Buffalo, N. Y. (Henry S. Manley, of Albany, N. Y., of counsel), for defendant.

BURKE, District Judge.

This cause has been the subject of various motions. Upon motion of the defendant to dismiss the original bill herein on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, it was decided by this court that the complaint stated a cause of action cognizable in equity. 23 F.Supp. 346. Thereafter the defendant filed her answer. The complainant then moved for summary judgment which was denied. Thereafter the complainant moved for leave to amend the bill of compjiaint. This court granted leave to amend and pursuant thereto an amended complaint was filed and served to which the defendant has answered. The complainant now moves upon all the papers filed herein for summary judgment upon the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.

It is the contention of the plaintiff that Gertrude Blackchief filed with the Chief’s Council of the Tonowanda band of Indians, in accordance with the customs and usages of said tribe, a petition for the purpose of evicting Ira Charles and Hattie Charles, adverse claimants who claimed heirship which entitled them to the lands in question, and that in said petition Gertrude Blackchief requested the determination of the Chief’s Council in accordance with the laws and customs of the Tonowanda band. This is denied by the answer. The affidavit of Nick Bailey opposing the first motion of complainant for summary judgment shows that for about a century allotments of land have been made by the Chief’s Council to various members of the tribe and have ever since from time to time been made to various members, said allotments being recorded in the clerk’s book of records; such allotments gave to the allottees and their heirs the right of possession of the land; no such allotment, when once made, could be revoked by any person or body and even the Chief’s Council have no right to interfere with or take away such allotment from any Indian or his lawful heirs. By the pleadings amplified by the affidavits there is placed at issue the customs and usages of the Tonowanda band of Indians regarding the right to possession of real property upon the death of a decedent member of the tribe and also the jurisdiction of the Chief’s Council according to the customs and usages of the tribe to determine disputes relative to the possession of such real property. These are genuine issues regarding facts material to the dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| February  11      , 2010 | By:    | /s/ Wu, Man-Shing                                       |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |   | Wu,      Man-Shing                                           |
|                               |   | Chief      Executive OfficerPrincipal      Executive Officer |

----
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 18 U.S.C 1350, AS ADOPTED


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





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three
months ended June 30, 2008 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph A. Mills, Chief Executive Officer
of Eagle Rock Energy G&P, LLC, the general partner of Eagle Rock Energy GP,
L.P., the general partner of Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. (the
“Partnership”), hereby certify, 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
Partnership.





Date:
      August 8, 2008
            /s/   
      Joseph A. Mills
              Joseph
      A. Mills
              Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer of Eagle Rock
              Energy
      G&P, LLC, General Partner of Eagle Rock
              Energy
      GP, L.P., General Partner of Eagle Rock
              Energy
      Partners, L.P.
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 15 Filed 11/02/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 94
Case 3:11-cv-00976-MLC -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/22/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1
Case 3:11-cv-00976-MLC -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/22/11 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 2
Case 3:11-cv-00976-MLC -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/22/11 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 3
Case 3:11-cv-00976-MLC -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/22/11 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 4
Case 3:11-cv-00976-MLC -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/22/11 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 5
Case 3:11-cv-00976-MLC -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/22/11 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 6
Case 3:11-cv-00976-MLC -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/22/11 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 7
Case 3:11-cv-00976-MLC -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/22/11 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 8
Case 3:11-cv-00976-MLC -LHG Document 1 Filed 02/22/11 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 9
Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS   Document 18    Filed 09/11/10   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 165

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS   Document 18    Filed 09/11/10   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 166
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         170,645
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             720
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,433,621
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      2,181,624
<ALLOWANCE>                                     64,217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,498,774
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,212,309
<SHORT-TERM>                                   951,523
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            754,896
<LONG-TERM>                                    199,298
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,597
<OTHER-SE>                                     326,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,498,774
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                195,373
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               89,281
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                12,962
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               297,616
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             106,068
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             152,285
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          145,331
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   38,400
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,308
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                218,461
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 98,476
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      50,494
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,132
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,626
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.99
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.92
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,279
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,810
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 7,923
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                37,660
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   21,282
<RECOVERIES>                                     9,439
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               64,217
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            64,217
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
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 Form 10-K of DOR BioPharma, Inc. (the “Company”) for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.











March
      27, 2009
            
            /s/ Christopher J.
  SchaberChristopher
      J. Schaber, Ph.D.President
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36999

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DANIEL ALBERT GARZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 525

Filed: June 24, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

______________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Daniel Albert Garza pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-

2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Garza to a unified term of six years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of three years. The district court, however, retained jurisdiction and 

allowed Garza to participate in the rider program. Thereafter, the district court relinquished 

jurisdiction. Garza filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Garza appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 
2

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including the new information submitted with Garza’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Garza’s Rule 

35 motion is affirmed.
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 48-2 Filed 12/20/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1182
In connection with the Annual Report of One Price Clothing Stores, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the periods ending February 1, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned officer hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that (i) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered by the
Report.


                   /s/ H. Dane Reynolds
                   -------------------------------------------------------------
                   H. Dane Reynolds,
                   Chief Financial Officer

May 19, 2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRiCT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : I-Ion. Williwii 1-I, Walls

v. : Criminal No. 2:10cr876

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

‘I’ERIEK EDWARDS

This matter having been opened to the Court by Paul .1. Fishman, United States

Attorney tbr the District of New Jersey (Sharon Ashe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, appearing), and

defendant ‘I’eriek Edwards (Chester Keller, appearing), for an order granting a continuance of the

proceedings in the above-captioned matter lhr a period of sixty clays, from November 23, 2012

through January 22, 2013, to allow the parties to conduct plea negotiations and attempt to

finalize a plea agreement, and the defendants being aware that they have the right to have this

matter brought to trial within seventy (70) days olciate the defendants appeared before a judicial

officer of this court and that a continuance shall serve to delay a trial in this matter, and the

defendants through their attorneys having waived such rights and consented to the continuance;

and for good and sufficient cause shown.

IT IS THE FiNDING OF THIS COURT that this action should be continued for

the following reasons:

The defendants are involved in plea negotiations with the government,

which, if successful, would render trial of this matter unnecessary.

2, Defendants have consented to the aforementioned continuance.

Case 2:10-cr-00876-WHW Document 18 Filed 12/05/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 42
3. h,’ ‘‘:‘:‘flt tj ‘u;t;n1;:ice \\;1i iikc’i; e nsei \‘e jtIcliciaI r&2sources,

tic’ 1 ‘tt ‘tI Lc*fç’, Xc’cnn 310tch)7) the

lids ot pr;;’’ ‘ s’’. il :1 di’S ‘‘I h’’i1 . t\ ‘

h V i ilLi’,’ ‘Is it tiit’ H11 e

the deiencmnt in spe cR I’d

5. 1 his is the ciehl coniinunnc’c” order :nw’ht 1w the pa; ties.

\\tH”VH 1>E.i hut’ / ‘01’,

I. it< I 1 V ID it tile I Ut ‘c’JWt2 ii I’.’, t’ U’ Ic !1d renter are ennUnned br

the sixty (00) cIa’’ period horn NUv mhu’t .20 ,hrnwh Hewn ‘ 22. “013:

ii is rt. ik Ii WV DVI )j:p ) that He perod Lu ‘v’’eii Nnernher T ‘2012 thronch

.IIlrntdrV 22 201 “, shiM he e’\c’hAdahI’’ lit c Wfltltli’’ lIttle itnt I’ IOu’ Speet.R’ I flZtI Act ‘d 03 1.

HON. WIld \\! H \\‘\llS

iIuI!,,,’”ut;t’’.l); ‘tc!.l’cIs’.’

C hester Keller

Attcirnev 11w I erc’k I ‘,dcvaru Lu;

— . \t Y

Sharon Mba

Assistant (Jolted

A odrew üri’ey’

(:hiel: OCDB’CF and tsiarcot ies Division

Case 2:10-cr-00876-WHW Document 18 Filed 12/05/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 43
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARANJIT KAUR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71538

Agency No. A200-938-586

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

The 90-day stay of proceedings in this case expired on May 18, 2015. Thus,

respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.

Charanjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

FILED

JUL 28 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse

credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d

966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014). In doing so, we review the adverse credibility reasons

explicitly identified by the BIA, and look to the IJ’s decision as a guide to what lay

behind the BIA’s conclusions. See id. We grant the petition for review and

remand.

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Kaur was not credible based on an

inconsistency and an omission. Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s

adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistency regarding when

Congress party members last visited Kaur’s mother’s home in India to look for

Kaur. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1085-86 (9th Cir. 2011); Shrestha v.

Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (“trivial inconsistencies that under the

total circumstances have no bearing on a petitioner’s veracity should not form the

basis of an adverse credibility determination”). Substantial evidence also does not

support the BIA’s adverse credibility finding based on Kaur not mentioning at her

credible fear interview that she sustained scratches/slashes as a result of being

2 13-71538
beaten by members of the Congress party in addition to the bruises or injuries that

she did mention. See Lai, 773 F.3d at 971 (noting that “the mere omission of

details” does not necessarily undermine an applicant’s credibility).

Thus, we grant the petition for review, and remand Kaur’s asylum,

withholding of removal, and CAT claims to the agency, on an open record, for

further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S.

12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); see also Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089,

1095 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

3 13-71538
#### In the Matter of Joan Barnett, Respondent, v Frances Stephen Ruotolo, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 155]

A Support Magistrate is permitted to impute income in calculating a support obligation where he or she finds that a party’s account of their finances is not credible or suspect *(see DeVries v DeVries,*35 AD3d 794 [2006]; *Matter of Westenberger v Westenberger,*23 AD3d 571 [2005]; *Peri v Peri,*2 AD3d 425 [2003]; *Lilikakis v Lilikakis,*308 AD2d 435 [2003]). “However, in exercising the discretion to impute income to a party, a Support Magistrate is required to provide a clear record of the source from which the income is imputed and the reasons for such imputation” *(Matter of Kristy Helen T. v Richard F.G.,*17 AD3d 684, 685 [2005]).

Here, the father did not testify and chose to rely on the financial documentation he had submitted, which contained considerable discrepancies. The father’s financial documentation indicated that his monthly income was only approximately *641one third of his stated monthly expenses, and no evidence was submitted to show that these monthly expenses were not being paid in a timely manner. Accordingly, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imputing income based upon the father’s self-reported financial affidavit for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation (see *Matter of Strella v Ferro,*42 AD3d 544 [2007]; *Pulver v Pulver,*40 AD3d 1315 [2007]; *Askew v Askew,*268 AD2d 635 [2000]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
**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 Kinder Travel, Inc. (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Daniel
        L. Baxter, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
        ss.
        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.
  /s/ Daniel
                  L. BaxterDaniel
                  L. Baxter
                Principal
                  Financial Officer
                
                November
                  8, 2007
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sonus Networks, Inc. (the "Company") for the period
ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Richard N. Nottenburg, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



Date:
February 25, 2009

/s/ RICHARD N. NOTTENBURGRichard N. NottenburgPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---