alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
let modalTabHandle;
let modalActiveElement;
let modalHiddenHandle;

// Opens the element with the id of modalID as modal.
function openModal(modalID) {
  let modal = document.getElementById(modalID);
  // Remember the active element before displaying the modal.
  modalActiveElement = document.activeElement;
  // Focus-trap the tab key
  modalTabHandle = ally.maintain.tabFocus({
    context: modal,
  });
  // Hide the rest of the document from screen readers.
  modalHiddenHandle = ally.maintain.hidden({
    filter: modal,
  });
  // Show the modal
  jQuery(`#${modalID}`).show();
}

// Closes the modal with the id modalID
function closeModal(modalID) {
  // Disengage focus-trap on the tab key.
  modalTabHandle.disengage();
  // Disengage hiding from screen readers.
  modalHiddenHandle.disengage();
  // Focus on the element that was active before showing the modal.
  modalActiveElement.focus();
  // Hide the modal
  jQuery(`#${modalID}`).hide();
}
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1181** 

EDWARD B. CHRISTIAN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. ED WRIGHT, Warden of L.V.C.C. , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Gerald Bruce Lee , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 01396

- GBL

- TRJ )

Submitted : March 27, 2014 Decided: April 2, 2014

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Edward B. Christian, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Edward B. Christian seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonab le jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on p rocedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Christian has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal co ntentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.10.1

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Reference is hereby made to the Employment Agreement dated August 4, 2003 (the "Employment Agreement") between The Sports Authority, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Thomas T. Hendrickson (the "Executive"). This Amendment to the Employment Agreement (this "Amendment") is dated as of November 18, 2005 and constitutes
an amendment to the Employment Agreement.

In
consideration of the mutual premises set forth in the Employment Agreement, the Executive and the Company hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement to include the following:

1.     The
first sentence of Section 3 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:



2.     Section 9(a)(2) of
the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:



---





Other
than as set forth in the above Sections 1 and 2 of this Amendment, all other terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. All
references to such Employment Agreement herein or in any other documents shall be deemed to include a reference to this Amendment. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined, shall have
the meanings set forth in the Employment Agreement.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Amendment to Employment Agreement have set forth their signatures.

| |  | THE SPORTS AUTHORITY, INC.             
| |  | ---------------------------------------
| |  | By:                                    
| |  | EXECUTIVE:                             
| |  | /s/THOMAS HENDRICKSONThomas Hendrickson

2

---



QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0480 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID JOEL EATON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 14, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 7 2022

01/07/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0480
SCHEDULE P 

(Form 8865)

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service

Acquisitions, Dispositions, and Changes of Interests 

in a Foreign Partnership 

(under section 6046A)

▶ Attach to Form 8865. See Instructions for Form 8865.

OMB No. 1545-1668

2011

Name of person filing Form 8865 Filer’s identifying number

Name of foreign partnership

Part I Acquisitions

(a) 

Name, address, and identifying number of 

person from whom your interest was acquired

(b) 

Date of acquisition

(c) 

FMV of 

interest acquired

(d) 

Basis in 

interest acquired

(e) 

% of interest 

before acquisition

(f) 

% of interest 

after acquisition

Part II Dispositions

(a) 

Name, address, and identifying number of 

person who acquired your interest

(b) 

Date of disposition

(c) 

FMV of 

interest disposed

(d) 

Basis in 

interest disposed

(e) 

% of interest 

before disposition

(f) 

% of interest 

after disposition

Part III Change in Proportional Interest

(a) 

Description of change

(b) 

Date of change

(c) 

FMV of 

interest

(d) 

Basis in 

interest

(e) 

% of interest 

before change

(f) 

% of interest 

after change

Part IV Supplemental Information Required To Be Reported (see instructions)

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 8865. Cat. No. 25943Q Schedule P (Form 8865) 2011
#### Salvador URIBE-ESPINOSA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72993.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 13, 2010.

Salvador Uribe-Espinosa, pro se.

Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial, Susan Houser, OIL, Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Salvador Uribe-Espinosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings and to reconsider its prior order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for *236abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and reconsider. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Uribe-Espinosa’s motion as untimely because it was filed nearly three years after the BIA’s May 3, 2005, final removal order, *see 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the entry of a final administrative order of removal); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of the entry of a final administrative order of removal), and Uribe-Espinosa does not contend he is entitled to equitable tolling, *see Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (deadline can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.85


Board of Directors and Management
Navarre Corporation

     As stated in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements of Navarre
Corporation and Subsidiaries (the "Company") for the year ended March 31,2005,
the Company changed its accounting policy for the depreciation of capital assets
acquired subsequent to March 31, 2004. Previously, the Company used an
accelerated method to depreciate certain asset classes. The Company's new policy
is to use the straight-line method for these assets. Management believes the
newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances because
the straight-line method of depreciation more closely approximates the expected
economic use of the capital assets since those assets are used uniformly over
their service period instead of being used more in the years immediately after
the asset is acquired. At your request, we have reviewed and discussed with
management the circumstances, business judgment, and planning that formed the
basis for making this change in accounting principle.

     It should be recognized that professional standards have not been
established for selecting among alternative principles that exist in this area
or for evaluating the preferability of alternative accounting principles.
Accordingly, we are furnishing this letter solely for purposes of the Company's
compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and
it should not be used or relied on for any other purpose.

     Based on our review and discussion, we concur with management's judgment
that the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances.
In formulating this position, we are relying on management's business planning
and judgment, which we do not find unreasonable.

Very truly yours,




/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
# FILED FEB I 2 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NANGY MAYER WHITTINGTON CLERK U.S. DISTR'/&T COURT' JOSEPH KINARD, Petitioner,
v. Civil Action No. 

# 09 0282 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on petitioner's application to proceed 

### informa pauperis and

### pro se petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus. Petitioner challenges his conviction in and the sentence imposedbythe Superior Court of the District ofColumbia. Challenges ofthis nature must be brought bymotion in the Superior Court under D.C. Code § 23-110. In relevant part D.C. Code § 23-110 provides: [An] application for a writ ofhabeas corpus in behalfofa prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section shall not be entertained by
... any Federal
.. , court if it appears '" that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless it also appears thattheremedybymotionis inadequate orineffectiveto test the legality ofhis detention. D.C. Code § 23-110(g). "Section 23-110 has been found to be adequate and effective because it is coextensive with habeas corpus." 

### Saleh v. 

### Braxton, 788 F. Supp. 1232 (D.D.C. 1992). It is settled that "aDistrict ofColumbia prisoner has no recourse to a federaljudicial forum unless the local remedy is 'inadequate or ineffective to test the legality ofhis detention'" 

### Byrd v. 

### Henderson, 119 F.3d 34,36-37 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (internal footnote omitted); 

### Garris v. 

### Lindsay,

1794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. Cir.), 

### cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993 (1986). A prisoner's lack ofsuccess in his previous attempts to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence bymeans ofa motion under D.C. Code § 23-11O(g) does not render this remedy inadequate or ineffective. 

### See Wilson
v. 

### Office of the Chairperson, 892 F. Supp. 277, 280 (D.D.C. 1995). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this date.

Date:

## ~'**~;}/ ~** **~**

2
## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00142

- CR

FREDDIE SCHMIDT APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------


### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

----------
Appellant Fr eddie Schmidt attempts to appeal from his conviction for

violation of civil commitment requirements for sexually violent predators. The

trial court ’ s certification of Appellant’s right to appeal states that this “is a plea

bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(a)(2). On April 9 , 2012, we notified Appellant that this appeal could be

dismissed unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Appel lant filed a pro se response

that does not present grounds for continuing the appeal and that contains a

request for appointed counsel on appeal

. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure are clear that in a plea

- bargain

case, an appellant may appeal only tho se matters that were raised by written

motion filed and ruled on before trial o r after getting the trial court’ s permission to

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Because the trial court’s certification

reflects that Appellant has no right of appeal, we deny Appellant’s request for

appointment of counsel as moot and dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdiction.

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )

DELIVERED: May 10, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>0000912084
<NAME>IRVINE APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC. - 1994 REVISED
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                                           3,468
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         800,775
<DEPRECIATION>                                 169,039
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 757,240
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        540,689
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           118
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,635
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   757,240
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,236
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,746
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,827
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,279
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,279
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,273
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41


</TABLE>
#### ERIBERTO DELEON *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

*Robert T. Rimmer,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Rocco A. Chiarenza,*special deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided June 2, 2010

The petitioner Eriberto Deleon’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 120 Conn. App. 903 (AC 29679), is denied.

McLACHLAN, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-11465on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 17, 2008, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc.(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph relating to the Company’s adoption of Financial Accounting StandardsBoard (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 48, *Accountingfor Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,*Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 158, *Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension andOther Postretirement Plans - an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88,106, and 132(R)* and SFASNo. 123(R),*Share-Based Payment*),and the effectiveness of Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc.’s internalcontrol over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2007.

 
| /s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |   |
| Boston,  Massachusetts              |   |
| March 17,  2008                |   |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0199

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LAVODRICK TERELLE HOGUES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 12, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 2 2022

09/02/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0199
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2171

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount of

bonds eligible for financial institution purchase under small issuer exception.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 19, 1993

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase

the amount of bonds eligible for financial institution

purchase under small issuer exception.

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

3 SECTION 1. CHANGES IN RULE RELATING TO TAX-EXEMPT

4 BONDS.

5 (a) EXCEPTION FROM PRO RATA ALLOCATION OF

6 INTEREST EXPENSE OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO

7 TAX-EXEMPT INTEREST FOR SMALL ISSUERS INCREASED

8 TO $25,000,000.—

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraphs (C) and (D)

10 of section 265(b)(3) of such Code are each amended
2

HR 2171 IH

1 by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ each place it appears and

2 inserting ‘‘$25,000,000’’.

3 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made

4 by paragraph (1) shall apply to obligations issued

5 after December 31, 1992.

Æ
# Success Stories

Policy Memo SNAP

- Prince William County Food Show During their annual food show, Prince William County Schools showed what’s possible when school nutrition professionals, parents, students, school meals partners, and the food industry work together. &nbsp;
- Farm to School Supports Small Farmers The USDA Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program supports small farmers and their families. Meet one of the Farm to School beneficiaries, Anna Nakamura Knight, a fifth-generation farmer.&nbsp;
- Partnership Creates Thriving Summer Meals Program for Hawaii Children During summer 2023, Vibrant Hawaii assisted the Hawaii Department of Education with providing meals in rural areas not served by a group meal site.
- Evans Early Childhood Center is a Model in Farm to Early Childhood Education Born out of both personal and community need in 2015, the Evans Early Childhood Center in Colorado is a pioneer in offering Farm to Early Childhood education and is teaching nutrition and outdoor education to children very early in their lives.
- Kentucky School District Increases Nutritious School Meal Choices Through Equipment Grant Funding In 2023, USDA awarded National School Lunch Equipment Assistance Grants to Graves County School District, which allowed them to upgrade kitchen ovens that had been in use for over 15 years.
- Growing Thriving Child Nutrition Programs in Rialto, California By growing school gardens, serving more local foods in school meals, offering all students breakfast and lunch at no cost, serving healthy summer meals, and more, RUSD is supporting a healthier future for their community.
- Kentucky School District Revolutionizes School Lunches with the Help of USDA Equipment Assistance Grants Individuals like Angela Adkins dedicate their careers to providing kids with delicious meals that give kids the nutrition they need to grow and thrive. Her team of school nutrition professionals dish up meals for over 1,700 students every day in Carroll County, Kentucky.
- Developing Healthy, Delicious, and Exciting Meals for Students Plant Powered Fridays, launched by Mayor Eric Adams, is the latest New York Citywide initiative giving more than one million students a new outlook on meals centering fruits and vegetables
- National Fair School Fare Every year, students in Houston County get excited for one of Georgia’s biggest annual events held right in their backyard – the Georgia National Fair.&nbsp;But when a school nutrition program chooses to celebrate the fair, of course, the focus is on the food and fun!
- Diversity Results in Delicious School Meals Roseville Area Schools in Minnesota leverages the diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds of their students to create meals from several countries and continents.&nbsp;The school nutrition team continues to learn how to maintain the integrity of dishes while meeting USDA guidelines for specific food groups. Feedback from students, families, and often local chefs informs this entire process.