alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ramon MARTINEZ, also known as Razor, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 11-2132.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 1, 2011.

Filed: Aug. 4, 2011.

Ramon Hernandez Martinez, Tucson, AZ, pro se.

Christopher C. Myers, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fargo, ND, for Appellee.

Before MELLOY, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal prisoner Ramon Martinez appeals following the pre-service dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action as barred by the statute of limitations. The matter is before this court on his request for a certificate of appealability. We grant Martinez’s request, vacate the dismissal, and remand this case to the district court.

While a district court may sua sponte consider the timeliness of a section 2255 motion, the statute-of-limitations defense remains a non-jurisdictional affirmative defense that the government may waive. *Cf. Day v. McDonough,*547 U.S. 198, 205, 209, 211 n. 11, 126 S.Ct. 1675, 164 L.Ed.2d 376 (2006) (because statute-of-limitations defense is not jurisdictional, courts are not obligated to consider time bar sua sponte; district courts are permitted to consider, sua sponte, timeliness of state prisoner’s habeas petition; should state intelligently choose to waive statute-of-limitations defense, district court would not be at liberty to disregard that choice). Upon careful consideration, we conclude that the district court should not have dismissed this action as untimely prior to service on the government and without giving Martinez an opportunity to present his position. *See id.*at 207 n. 6, 210, 126 S.Ct. 1675 (before acting on its own initiative, court must accord parties fair notice and opportunity to present their positions).

Accordingly, we grant Martinez a certificate of appealability, we vacate the dismissal, and we remand this case to the district court with instructions to proceed with service on the government. We express no opinion on whether Martinez is entitled to relief from the statute of limitations, on equitable tolling grounds or otherwise, should the government decide to assert the statute as a defense.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial 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 on Form 10-K of Verigy Ltd. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert J. Nikl, Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:



Date: December 19, 2008

/s/ ROBERT J. NIKL Robert J. NiklVice President and Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of NitroMed, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Joseph Grimm, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.


Dated: March 30, 2004              /s/ Joseph Grimm
                                   -------------------------------------------
                                   Joseph Grimm
                                   Senior Vice President, Business Development
                                   and Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
                                   Secretary
                                   (principal financial officer)
Exhibit 23.1.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-95249) pertaining to the TESSCO Technologies Incorporated Team Member Stock Purchase Plan and the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-87178, Form S-8 No. 333-118177 and Form S-8 No. 333-158758), pertaining to the TESSCO Technologies Incorporated Second Amended and Restated 1994 Stock and Incentive Plan and Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan, of our reports dated May 24, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of TESSCO Technologies Incorporated, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of TESSCO Technologies Incorporated, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 27, 2011.

















Baltimore, Maryland


May 24, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,914
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,964)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,137)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,137)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>LESS THAN .01 PER SHARE
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Parent

PVF Capital Corp.



                                         STATE OR OTHER
                                         JURISDICTION OF          PERCENTAGE
SUBSIDIARIES (1)                         INCORPORATION            OWNERSHIP
----------------                         -------------            ---------

Park View Federal Savings Bank                U.S.                   100%

PVF Service Corporation                       Ohio                   100%

PVF Mortgage Corp.                            Ohio                   100%

PVF Community Development Corp.               Ohio                   100%

Mid Pines Land Co.                            Ohio                   100%

PVF Holdings Inc.                             Ohio                   100%


------------
(1)  The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in
     the consolidated financial statements contained in the Annual Report to
     Stockholders attached hereto as Exhibit 13.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22809]



[[Page 48875]]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #15291 and #15292; TEXAS Disaster Number TX-
00488]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of Texas

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 4.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Texas (FEMA-
4332-DR), dated 09/04/2017.
    Incident: Hurricane Harvey.
    Incident Period: 08/23/2017 through 09/15/2017.

DATES: Issued on 10/11/2017.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/03/2017.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/04/2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of TEXAS, 
dated 09/04/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as 
adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Caldwell, Comal, Dewitt, Gonzales, Guadalupe, Jim 
Wells, Lavaca, Milam, Sabine, San Augustine

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2017-22809 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Honorable Richard E. Rudeloff Opinion No. wW-181. 

County Attorney, Bee County 

Beeville, Texas Re: Authority of Commissioners’ Court to purchase 

law library from legal 

representative of deDear Sir: ceased District Judge. 

Your opinion request of June 17, 1957, presents the 

question of whether the Commissioners I Court of Bee County has 

the authority to purchase the law library of the late W. G. 

Gayle, formerly Judge of the 36th Judicial District, from the 

legal representatfve of the late Judge Gayle. 

Section 1, Article 1702h, Revised Civil Statutes, 

provides that Commissioners ( Courts of all counties have the 

authority, by first entering an order, to establish and maintain a County Law Library. Section 2 provides that the Court 

may appropriate $10,000 or such part thereof as it may deem 

necessary, to properly establish such lfbrary. 

The legal representative of a deceased District Judge, 

considered only as a legal representatfve, is a stranger as regards the Commissioners’ Court. He is not an “officer of any 

“interested in the purchase of anything 

~~~“,~~‘of such counti”‘within the meaning of Article 373 

. . on 

Vernon’s Penal Code. This statute fully covers the self-dealing 

situation which would exfst if the legal representative were a 

member of the Commissioners’ Court. We assume that neither the 

legal representative nor any of the heirs or legatees of the 

deceased District Judge are county officers so as to come within 

the scope .of Article 373$ Vernon’s ?enal Code. 

If the Commissioners’ Court has established, on its 

own initiative , a County Law Library in accordance with the provisions of Article 1702h,.,Vernonss Revised Civfl Statutes, the 

Commissioners’ Court may purchase a law library from the legal 

representative of a deceased District Judge. 
Honorable Richard E. Rudeloff, page 2 W-181) 

Under certain assumptions, the Commlssloners'Court has the authority to purchase a law 

library from the legal representative of a deceased District Judge. 

Very truly yours, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

JRLtpf:wb Assfstant 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

H. Grady Chandler, Chairman 

Larry Jones 

Joe Rollins 

Milton Richardson 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Geoo P. Blackburn
#### Jordan Kaplan, Respondent, v New Floridian Diner et al., Appellants.

[667 NYS2d 65]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated June 17, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict finding them to be 100 percent at fault in the happening of the accident and awarding the plaintiff damages of $596,000, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is granted on both liability and damages, with costs to abide the event.

The plaintiff was injured when the ceiling of a diner in which he was eating fell on him. We find that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the jury’s verdict in the plaintiff’s favor on the theory of the case as presented to it. The plaintiff failed to show that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition of the ceiling. Ordinarily, in such circumstances reversal and dismissal of the complaint would be required. However, since the court erred in refusing the plaintiffs request to charge the jury as to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur *(see, Kambat v St. Francis Hosp.,*89 NY2d 489; *Dittiger v Isal Realty Corp.,*290 NY 492; *cf., Slater v Barnes,*241 NY 284; *see also, Shinshine Corp. v Kinney Sys.,*173 AD2d 293), the matter must be remitted for a new trial on that theory (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 70:377, at 393).

*549We note that a combined trial as to liability and damages is proper since the nature of the injury had an important bearing on the issue of liability (see, *Roman v McNulty,*99 AD2d 544), and the issues of damages and liability are so intertwined here as to be inseparable (see, *Adesso v Belting Assocs.,*128 AD2d 489). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3313 

To modify and waive certain requirements under title 23, United States 

Code, to assist States with a high unemployment rate in carrying out 

Federal-aid highway construction projects, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2009 

Mr. SCHAUER (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. PETERS, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. KILDEE, and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To modify and waive certain requirements under title 23, 

United States Code, to assist States with a high unemployment rate in carrying out Federal-aid highway construction projects, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FEDERAL SHARE PAYABLE. 

4 (a) INTERSTATE SYSTEM PROJECTS.—With respect 

5 to an eligible State during fiscal years 2011 and 2012, 

6 section 120(a) of title 23, United States Code, shall be 

7 applied by substituting ‘‘95 percent’’ for ‘‘90 percent’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3313 IH

1 (b) OTHER PROJECTS.—With respect to an eligible 

2 State during fiscal years 2011 and 2012, sections 

3 120(b)(1) and 120(b)(2) of title 23, United States Code, 

4 shall be applied by substituting ‘‘85 percent’’ for ‘‘80 per5 cent’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR NON-FEDERAL SHARE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—With respect to an eligible State 

8 during fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the requirement under 

9 section 120(j)(1)(A) that toll revenues, to be eligible for 

10 use as a credit, be generated and used by public, quasi11 public, and private agencies to build, improve, or maintain 

12 highways, bridges, or tunnels that serve the public purpose 

13 of interstate commerce shall not apply. 

14 (b) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.—With respect to an 

15 eligible State during fiscal years 2011 and 2012, require16 ments under section 120(j)(2), United States Code, shall 

17 not apply. 

18 (c) USE OF TOLLS PREVIOUSLY NOT ELIGIBLE.— 

19 With respect to an eligible State, tolls generated during 

20 fiscal years 2005 through 2010 and not eligible as a credit 

21 under section 120(j) of title 23, United States Code, dur22 ing such fiscal years due to a requirement under such sec23 tion shall be eligible for use as a credit under such section 

24 during fiscal year 2011 or fiscal year 2012. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3313 IH

1 SEC. 3. ELIGIBLE STATE DEFINED. 

2 In this Act, the term ‘‘eligible State’’ means a State 

3 with an unemployment rate, as determined by the Sec4 retary of Transportation, equal to or exceeding 11 percent 

5 at any time during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AN DR I AN S UT HE NO , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 72327 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 807- 364 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A ndr i a n S uthe no, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of I ndone s i a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve 

# FI LED JU N 23 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 72327 2 ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e , W a kka ry v. H older , 558 F . 3d 1049, 1056 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , a nd w e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. T he re cord do es no tcom pel the concl usi on thatS utheno es t abl i shed e x tr a o r d in a ryc ir c u m s tan c e s to e x c u s e h is u n tim e lya s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .4 ( a ) ( 5 ) ; D hi talv. Mukasey , 5 3 2 F .3 d1 0 4 4 , 1 0 5 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e d e n yth e p e t i t i o n a s t o h i s a s y l u m c l a i m. S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the B IA ’ s f i nd i ng thatS utheno ’ s e xp er i ence s i n In d o n esi a, i n cl u d i n g th e b o m b i n g o f h i s ch u rch , d i dn o tri se t o th e l ev el o f p ast p e r s e c u tio n , se e H

al i m v. H older , 5 9 0 F .3 d9 7 1 , 9 7 5 - 7 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . S ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e a ls o s up p o rts th e B I A ’s f in d in g th at S u th e n o f

a ile dto de m ons tr a t e ac l e a rpr obabi l i tyof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on be c aus e , e ve n a s am e m be rof ad is f a v o r e dg r o up , h e d idn o t e s tab lis h s u f f ic ie n t in d iv idu a liz e dr is k . Se e H ox ha v . A s h c r o ft , 3 1 9 F .3 d1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 4 -8 5 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). A cc o rd in g ly, S u th en o ’s w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al cl ai m fai l s. F i nal l y, subst ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the B IA ’ s deni alof C A T re l i ef because S utheno fa i l ed t o est abl i sh i ti s m ore l i kel y than n othe w i l l be t ortured up o n r e tu rn to I n d o n e s ia . See W a kka ry , 558 F . 3d a t1067- 68. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
[No. 64012-7-I.

Division One.

November 13, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Sergio Reyes-Brooks, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 06-1-10584-9, Catherine D. Shaffer, J., entered August 12, 2009. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Leach, C.J.,

concurred in by Dwyer and Lau, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFOMRATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FILER'S
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                  0001088464
<NAME>                 Planetgood Technologies, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                        857,863
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  21,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,641,835
<PP&E>                                        418,943
<DEPRECIATION>                                (39,037)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              3,197,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         458,697
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                   23,522,826
<OTHER-SE>                                  2,705,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                3,197,528
<SALES>                                         1,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,778
<CGS>                                             593
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            4,828,299
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,952
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,840,251)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,840,251)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,840,251)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)



</TABLE>