alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NAVDEEP SINGH, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70349 Age n c y No. A099-482-951 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 21, 2015 * * B e fore : R EINHAR

DT, LEAVY, a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s. Navde e p Singh, a

native and c itiz e n

of India , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his m otion to re o pe n re m ova l proc e e d ings. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for 

# FIL ED SEP 25 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).a

buse o f disc re tion the B IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re o pe n. Bhasin v . Gonzale s , 423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th C ir. 2005). W e grant the pe t ition for re vie w a nd re m and. The B IA a

buse d its disc re tion in finding tha t Singh’ s fa the r’ s a ffidavit c onflic te d with thec ountry re port a nd in othe rwise disc re d iting thea ffidavit, a nd thus in c onc l uding Singh faile d to e sta blish tha t the gove rnm e nt is una

b le or unwilling to prote c t him an d fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t he c ould not sa fe l y re loc ate within India . Se e id. at 987 (“ fa c ts pre se nte d in a ffida vits supporting a

m otion to re ope n m ust be a c c e pte d a s true unle ss inhe re ntly unbe lie va

ble ” ). The B IA a lso a buse d its disc re tion in finding Singh did not m ake a prim a

fa c ie showing of a ne xus to a

prote c te d ground. Se e Maini v . IN S , 212 F.3d 1167, 1175-76 (9th C ir. 2000) (“pe rse c ution a im e d at sta m ping out a n inte rfa ith m arria ge is without que stion pe rse c ution on a c c ount of re ligion” ). Furthe r, in finding Singh did not e sta blish a m ate ria l c ha

nge in India , the B IA did not ha v e the be ne fit of this c ourt’ s de c ision in C

handra v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1034 (9th C ir. 2014). Thus, we grant the pe tition for re vie w a

nd re m and for furthe r proc e e d ings c onsiste nt with this disposition, inc luding a

de te rm ination of theim

pa c t, if a ny , of C handra . Se e IN

S v . Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D; RE M ANDE D .

1 3 - 7 0 3 4 9 2
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 633 

To prohibit certain assistance to the Palestinian Authority. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 3, 2015 

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

the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To prohibit certain assistance to the Palestinian Authority. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stand with Israel Act 

5 of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under sub8 section (b) and notwithstanding any other provision of 

9 law, no amounts may be obligated or expended to provide 

10 any direct United States assistance, loan guarantee, or 

11 debt relief to the Palestinian Authority, or any affiliated 

12 governing entity or leadership organization. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 633 IS

1 (b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition under subsection 

2 (a) shall have no effect for a fiscal year if the President 

3 certifies to Congress during that fiscal year that the Pales4 tinian Authority has— 

5 (1) formally recognized the right of Israel to 

6 exist as a Jewish state; 

7 (2) publicly recognized the state of Israel; 

8 (3) renounced terrorism; 

9 (4) purged all individuals with terrorist ties 

10 from security services; 

11 (5) terminated funding of anti-American and 

12 anti-Israel incitement; 

13 (6) publicly pledged to not engage in war with 

14 Israel; and 

15 (7) honored previous diplomatic agreements. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Virginia Camille KLIEWER, a minor by and through her parents and next friends, Terry KLIEWER and Jan Kliewer, Plaintiffs, v. Steven SOPATA, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the City of Aurora, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 92-B-959.

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

Sept. 3, 1992.

Daniel J. Caplis, Boulder, Colo., for plaintiffs.

Louis B. Bruno, Denver, Colo., Charles H. Richardson, Aurora, Colo., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BABCOCK, District Judge.

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings, contending that plaintiff’s state *1570law claims are barred by the statute of limitations, C.R.S. § 13-80-103(l)(c). The issue is adequately briefed and oral argument will not materially aid its resolution. Because plaintiff did not file this action within one year after her claim accrued, defendant’s motion is granted and the state law claims are dismissed.

Plaintiffs allege the following facts in their complaint. Defendant Steven Sopata was an Aurora police officer assigned to the K-9 division, and he was the handler of a dog known as Rick. Pursuant to the policy of the Aurora police department, Sopata was required to keep Rick at his residence when he was not on duty. On April 22, 1990, Rick broke out of Sopata’s backyard and attacked plaintiff. At the time of the attack, defendant was inside his house shaving. On April 21, 1992, plaintiffs filed this action alleging state law claims for negligence and negligence per se, as well as several claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

C.R.S. § 13-80-103(l)(c) provides that all actions against police officers must be brought within one year after the cause of action accrues. Although the present version of this statute does not so specify, it applies only to claims brought against police officers in their official capacity. *See, Cain v. Guzman,*761 P.2d 295, 296-97 (Colo.App.1988). Plaintiff argues that this limitation period does not apply because Sopata was admittedly “off duty” at the time of the attack. I disagree.

A police officer may be acting in an official capacity even when he is not on duty. Here, Sopata was required by departmental policy to keep Rick at his house. Even though Sopata was off duty, it was only because of his capacity as a police officer that Rick was at his house. Thus, plaintiffs’ state law claims are brought against Sopata in his capacity as a police officer rather than as an individual citizen, and their claims are time barred.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Defendant’s motion is GRANTED; and,

(2) Plaintiffs’ state law claims for negligence and negligence per se are DISMISSED.
Exhibit
          32.1
 
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
          PURSUANT TO
 18
          U.S.C.
          SECTION 1350,
 AND
          EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b)
 
 In
          connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of Express Scripts,
          Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006, I, George Paz,
          President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best
          of my
          knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
          Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) 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.
 
 
 
 BY: /s/
          George
          Paz
 George
          Paz
 President
          and
 Chief
          Executive Officer
 Express
          Scripts, Inc.
 
 Date: April
          26, 2006
 
 A
          signed
          original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
          to
          Express Scripts, Inc. and will be retained by Express Scripts, Inc. and
          furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
          request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          12,829
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              30
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     17,045
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,895
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,968
<LOANS>                                        158,657
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 208,233
<DEPOSITS>                                     183,409
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                898
<LONG-TERM>                                        548
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           345
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 208,233
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,086
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  623
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   320
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,029
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,471
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,537
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      137
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,315
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,315
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,612
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.59
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,151
<LOANS-PAST>                                       268
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,348
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       85
<RECOVERIES>                                        25
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,376
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,348
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            660
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of closed meeting of Art Advisory Panel.

# SUMMARY:

Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held in Washington, DC.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held September 14, 2017.

# ADDRESSES:

The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 999 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC 20003.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle A. Levitte, AP:SEPR:AAS, 290 Broadway, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10007 (212) 298-2222 (not a toll free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 999 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC 20003.

The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103.

A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in sections 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), of the Government in the Sunshine Act, and that the meeting will not be open to the public.

Donna Hansberry,

Chief, Appeals.

[FR Doc. 2017-17899 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 7, 2016

p1004

Order 

Clerk

October 7, 2016

153463 & (41)(42)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153463

COA: 324193

Oakland CC: 2013-248152-FC

ADAM DONALD LUTZ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to permit additional ground for appeal is 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the February 25, 2016 judgment of the 

Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court to determine 

whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence under the 

sentencing procedure described in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015). On 

remand, the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If 

the trial court determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the 

unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, 

however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence 

absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant. 

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to amend 

and clarify the record is DENIED.
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
  (1)
    
    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 or 78o(d));
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: June 8, 2010
    
    /s/ Joseph G. Mahler

Joseph G. MahlerSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,Treasurer and Corporate Secretary(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40148-40149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17954]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR17-22-000]


Sendero Carlsbad NGL, LLC; Notice of Request for Temporary Waiver

    Take notice that on August 17, 2017, pursuant to Rule 202 of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.202 (2017), Sendero Carlsbad NGL, LLC filed a 
petition for temporary waiver of the tariff filing and reporting 
requirements for liquids pipelines the Commission regulates under 
sections 6 and 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. app 6, 20 
(1988), and 18 CFR parts 341 and 357 of the Commission's regulations, 
as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and

[[Page 40149]]

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or 
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests 
must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to 
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public 
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the 
Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a 
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any 
FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e8aeadbaaba7868481868dbb9d9898879a9ca88e8d9a8bc68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="682e2d3a2b27060401060d3b1d1818071a1c280e0d1a0b460f071e">[email protected]</span></a>, or call 
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 15, 2017.

    Dated: August 18, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17954 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Larry Holmes, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[853 NYS2d 818]

Memorandum: The People appeal from an amended order granting that part of the omnibus motion of defendant seeking *1350to reduce the first count of the indictment against him, charging burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20). Contrary to the People’s contention, County Court properly reduced the first count of the indictment, although we note that, as the People candidly concede in the alternative, the court should have reduced that count to criminal trespass in the third degree (§ 140.10 [a]) rather than criminal trespass in the second degree (§ 140.15). The latter offense requires that the defendant illegally enter or remain in a dwelling, and a dwelling was not involved herein. The evidence before the grand jury, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Antonelli,*300 AD2d 312, 313 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 612 [2003], citing *People v Manini,*79 NY2d 561 [1992]), is legally insufficient to support the burglary charge because the indictment expressly set forth that defendant intended to commit a larceny, and the People failed to present evidence from which the grand jury could infer that he had that intent *(see generally People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375, 379 [1980]). Although “it is not necessary for the People in a burglary prosecution to demonstrate the exact crime which defendant intended to commit while unlawfully in the building . . . , the prosecution in this case expressly limited its theory to one of larceny, and, having done so, . . . the prosecution [is held] to this narrower theory alone” *(id.).*We therefore modify the amended order accordingly. Present— Martoche, J.P., Smith, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.
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 First Ipswich Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Russell G. Cole, 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.

      This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32),
this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of
the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B)
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.


/s/ Russell G. Cole
-------------------
Russell G. Cole
Chief Executive Officer

November 2, 2007