alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Kathryn G. Walsh, Respondent, v Donald J. Desroches, Appellant. William Daniel Desroches, Nonparty Respondent.

[987 NYS2d 231]

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.H.O.), dated August 1, 2013, which, after a hearing, found that he had committed the family offense *814of reckless endangerment in the second degree and directed the issuance of an order of protection in favor of the subject child for a period of one year.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the order of protection is vacated.

In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing the allegations contained in the petition by a “fair preponderance of the evidence” (Family Ct Act § 832; *see Matter of Harry v Harry,*115 AD3d 858 [2014]; *Matter of Miloslau v Miloslau,*112 AD3d 632 [2013]; *Matter of Thomas v Thomas,*72 AD3d 834, 835 [2010]). The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see Matter of Harry v Harry,*115 AD3d at 858; *Matter of Winfield v Gammons,*105 AD3d 753, 754 [2013]). “ ‘Only competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted in a fact-finding hearing’ ” *(Matter of Jarrett v Jarrett,*102 AD3d 695, 695 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 834).

Here, the evidence presented in support of the petition, including the mother’s testimony regarding a telephone call she received from her friend and the police report, consisted primarily of inadmissible hearsay. The mother, therefore, failed to establish the allegations in the petition by competent evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 834; *Matter of Jarrett v Jarrett,*102 AD3d at 695; *Matter of Daoud v Daoud,*92 AD3d 878, 878-879 [2012]).

The remaining contentions of the nonparty respondent are either without merit or not properly before this Court (see *Matter of Chu Man Woo v Qiong Yun Xi,*106 AD3d 818, 819 [2013]; *Matter of Imani B.,*27 AD3d 645, 646 [2006]; *Hatton v Gassler,*219 AD2d 697 [1995]).

Accordingly, the order must be reversed, the petition denied, the proceeding dismissed, and the order of protection vacated.

Skelos, J.E, Dillon, Roman and Maltese, JJ., concur.
[No. 68254-7-I.

Division One.

November 13, 2012.]

#### *In the Matter of the Dependency of*T.M.L. Heather Lemieux, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Social and Health Services, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 11-7-00468-2, Bruce I. Weiss, J., entered January 6, 2012. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Dwyer, J.,

concurred in by Leach, C.J., and Spearman, J.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17

- 1916 Filed October 10, 2018

FORREST TRAUSCH , Plaintiff

- Appell ant ,
vs. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES , Defendant

- Appell ee

.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J. Shubatt , Judge.

Appeal from an order of the district court affirming agency action.
AFFIRMED.

Eric D. Puryear an d Eric S. Mail of Puryear Law P C , Davenport , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant Attorney General , for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.2

Mc DONALD, Judge. The Iowa Department of Human Services founded a report of child abuse, denial of critical care, against Forrest Trausch . Trausch sough t judicial review of the final agency decision , and the district court affirmed the agency ’ s decision. Trausch timely fi led this appeal. Trausch challenges the department’s factual findings and its application of fact to law. Our review is governed by the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, Iowa Code chapter 17A (2015)

. See Lakeside Casino v. Blue , 743 N.W.2d 169, 172 (Iow a 2007). The standard of review differs depending on the error alleged. See Jacobson Transp. Co. v. Harris , 778 N.W.2d 192, 196 (Iowa 2010). Factual challenges are reviewed for substantial evidence. See id. “ Evidence is substantial if a reasonable mind would find it adequate to reach a conclusion. ” Quaker Oats Co. v. Ciha , 552 N.W.2d 143, 150 (Iowa 1996). “ We are bound by [ factual ] findings

. . . sup ported by substantial evidence. ” Sunrise Retirement Cmty. v. Iowa Dep ’ t of Human Servs. , 833 N.W.2 d 216, 219 (Iowa 2013). When we review the
agency ’ s application of law, we will reverse only if the agency ’ s action is irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable. See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(i), ( m ). We begin and end our analysis with the following observation: “ The administrative process presupposes judgment calls are to be left to the agency. Nearly all disputes are won or lost there. ” Sellers v. Emp ’ t Appeal Bd. , 531 N.W.2d 645, 646 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (citations omitted). It is a rare case reversing final agency action on the ground the agency ’ s action is unsupported by substantial evidence or is irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable . After conducting review of the agency record, this case is not the rare case requiring reversal of an agency3

decision

. Trausch’s conduct caused the child harm within the meaning of the
relevant authorities. See Iowa Code § 232.68 ( 2 )(a) (4)(b); Taylor v. Iowa Dep ’ t of Human Servs. , 870 N.W.2d 262, 271 (Iow a Ct. App. 2015)

. We thus conclude t he
agency ’ s decision is supported by substantial evidence and its a pplication of fact to law is not irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable. The judgment of the district court is affirmed without further opinio n. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (b), (d), (e).
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        Consent of KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

                             ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Medirisk, Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-28541) on Form S-8 of Medirisk, Inc. of our reports dated February 6, 1998,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Medirisk, Inc. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and the related
financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the 1997 annual report on
Form 10-K of Medirisk, Inc.




                                             /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 27, 1998
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mauricio Alfredo PENA-MANZANAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10061.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Christina Marie Cabanillas, USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant>-Appellant.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mauricio Alfredo Pena-Manzanarez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 65-month sentence for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(ii), and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(ii)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pena-Manzanarez contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district court did *688not clearly err when it denied the request. *See United States v. Cantrell,*433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir.2006) (describing standard); *see also United States v. Lui,*941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir.1991).

Pena-Manzanarez further contends that the district court erred by refusing to grant an additional one-point downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b), despite the government’s decision not to move for the extra point. The district court did not clearly err. The government’s decision not to move for the third point was rational and not arbitrary, as the defendant did not waive his right to appeal. *See United States v. Johnson,*581 F.3d 994, 1002 (9th Cir.2009), *see also United States v. Medina-Beltran,*542 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32

          CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
                   OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted), Thomas E. Wharton Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of
iSECUREtrac Corp. (the "Company"), and David G. Vana, the Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that:

      1.    The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
            June 30, 2005, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32
            (the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
            Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
            1934, as amended; and

      2.    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the
            end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of
            operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic
            Report.

Dated:  August 10, 2005


/s/   Thomas E. Wharton Jr.                      /s/   David G. Vana
---------------------------                      ----------------------------
       Thomas E. Wharton Jr.                            David G. Vana
       Chief Executive Officer                          Chief Financial Officer


                                                                         Page 24
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48124-48125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22300]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Public Availability of the National Science Foundation Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2016 Service Contract Inventory and Associated Documents

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of public availability of FY 2016 service contract 
inventories and associated documents.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, the National Science 
Foundation is publishing this notice to advise the public of the 
availability of NSF's FY 2016 service contract inventory data. This 
inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 
that were made in FY 2016. The information is organized by function to 
show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. 
The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on 
November 5, 2010, and December 19, 2011, by the Office of Management 
and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The FY 2016 
government-wide service contract inventory is available at https://www.acquisition.gov/service-contract-inventory/. NSF's FY 2016 service 
contract inventory data is included in the government-wide inventory 
posted on https://www.acquisition.gov and the government-wide inventory 
can be filtered to display the inventory data for NSF. The National 
Science Foundation has posted its FY 2015 NSF Inventory Analysis 
including FY 2016 Analysis

[[Page 48125]]

Plan on the National Science Foundation homepage at the following link: 
https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf17133.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the service 
contract inventory should be directed to Richard Pihl in the BFA/DACS 
at 703-292-7395 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7604061f1e1a3618051058111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fb898b929397bb95889dd59c948d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 11, 2017.
Suzanne Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2017-22300 Filed 10-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 Inova Technology, Inc. (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2008, (the “Report”), as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Adam Radly,
        Chief
        Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
        as
        adopted pursuant to Sec.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
        of my
        knowledge, 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/
        Adam Radly
 
 Adam
        Radly
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 *December
        15, 2008*
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

130851 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 130851 COA: 258261 Wayne CC: 04-005067 CARLOS DEMARCO FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 16, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wa yne Circuit Court for resentencing. The Court of Appeals dete rmined that the defendant’s sentencing guidelines were misscored and that the app licable guidelines range was lower than the one within which the defendant was origina lly sentenced. Under these circumstances, resentencing is required. People v Francisco , 474 Mich 82 (2006). On remand, the court shall sentence defendant within the appropriate sentencing guidelines range, or articulate on the record a substantial and compelling reason for departing from the sentencing guidelines range in accordance with People v Babcock , 469 Mich 247 (2003).

t0821 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 29, 2006

Clerk
EXHIBIT 21.1

MATTSON TECHNOLOGY, INC.
                                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



Mattson International, Inc.

Mattson Technology LLC

Mattson Wet Products, Inc.

Mattson Thermal Products, Inc.

STEAG CVD Systems, Ltd.

Mattson Technology Center KK

Mattson International Korea Co.

Mattson Technology of Singapore Pte. Ltd.

Mattson International Inc. (Taiwan Branch)

Mattson Technology Holding GmbH

Mattson International GmbH

Mattson Thermal Products, GmbH

Mattson International France SARL

Mattson Technology UK Ltd.

Mattson Technology Srl

STEAG Electronic Systems SE Asia Pte. Ltd.

STEAG Electronic Systems UK Ltd.

Mattson Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Mattson Technology Cayman Holdings, Ltd.

Mattson Technology Canada Inc.

Mattson Technology Israel Ltd.

---
(June 17, 2008)

#### Madeline Agricola, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Respondents, Bay Crane Service, Inc., Defendant and *628Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, and Maspeth Supply Company, LLC, Respondent-Appellant. Northeast Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[860 NYS2d 194]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated March 7, 2007, as granted that branch of the third-party defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and denied that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment on so much of the third-party complaint as sought a defense and indemnification from the third-party defendant, and the defendant Maspeth Supply Company, LLC, cross-appeals from stated portions of the same order.

Ordered that the cross appeal by the defendant Maspeth Supply Company, LLC, is dismissed as abandoned *(see*22 NYCRR 670.8 [e] [1]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendant third-party plaintiff; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the third-party defendant payable by the defendant third-party plaintiff.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she tripped over a pothole. She commenced this action seeking damages for personal injuries against, among others, Bay Crane Service, Inc. (hereinafter Bay Crane). Bay Crane then initiated a third-party action seeking, among other things, a defense and indemnification from Northeast Services, Inc. (hereinafter Northeast). Bay Crane had rented a crane to Northeast that had been used in the general vicinity of where the pothole was located, although not on the same street.

The rental agreement between Bay Crane and Northeast included an indemnification clause. The plain terms of the indemnification clause provide that Northeast would be required to defend and indemnify Bay Crane for any claims “occasioned by the operation, handling or transportation of this equipment during the rental period.”

*629The Supreme Court properly determined that the indemnification clause did not require Northeast to provide a defense and indemnification under the circumstances presented here *(see Sievert v Morlef Holding Co.,*241 AD2d 445 [1997]). The record showed, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs injuries were not occasioned by Northeast’s use of this equipment, and as such, the indemnification clause was never triggered *(see Luby v Rotterdam Sq., L.P.,*47 AD3d 1053 [2008]; *Fuller-Mosley v Union Theol. Seminary,*47 AD3d 487 [2008]; *Loiek v 1133 Fifth Ave. Corp.,*46 AD3d 766 [2007]). Mastro, J.P, Skelos, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                     As Adopted Pursuant to
                     Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Mattson Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David Dutton,
as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §. 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) 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.

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



|Date: May 3, 2006 | /s/ David Dutton
                     David DuttonChief Executive Officer
|----------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with 

the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA15-343

Filed: 20 October 2015

Guilford County, Nos. 14CRS066022, 14CRS024198

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

JIMMY LEE SULLIVAN

Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 22 August 2014 by Judge R. 

Stuart Albright in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals

12 October 2015.

Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Susannah 

P. Holloway, for the State.

Brock & Meece, P.A., by C. Scott Holmes, for the Defendant.

DILLON, Judge.

A jury found Defendant guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon and assault 

with a deadly weapon. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to attaining habitual 

felon status. The trial court arrested judgment on the assault with a deadly weapon 

conviction and sentenced Defendant as an habitual felon to 127 to 165 months of 

imprisonment for the robbery with a dangerous weapon conviction. Defendant gave 

oral notice of appeal.
STATE V. SULLIVAN

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

Counsel appointed to represent Defendant directs this Court’s attention to 

possible issues on appeal, but acknowledges the issues are not sufficient to merit a 

meaningful argument for relief on appeal. Counsel asks that this Court conduct its 

own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also shown to the 

satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 

S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising Defendant of his right to file written arguments with 

this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so.

Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this 

Court, and a reasonable time in which he could have done so has passed. In 

accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the record to determine whether any 

issues of arguable merit appear therein. We have been unable to find any possible 

prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is without merit.

NO ERROR.

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge HUNTER, JR., concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).
**Exhibit 32**Certification of the Principal Executive OfficersPursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)We, Morris H. Wheeler, the President and Chief Executive Officer and Robert W. Pawlak, the ChiefFinancial Officer of Cohesant Technologies Inc. (the “Company”), certify that to the best of ourknowledge, based upon a review of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year endedNovember 30, 2005 (the “Report”):(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company./s/ Morris H. Wheeler