alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LYNNARD A. SMITH,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

STEVEN G. DAVIS; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-15545

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-04089-JSW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. 

Lynnard A. Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.

FILED

JAN 12 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-15545

§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We vacate and remand.

The district court concluded that Smith’s June 5, 2005 grievance could not

serve to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to his First Amendment

retaliation claim because Smith did not properly present his retaliation claim until

October 20, 2005, four months after his grievance was filed. However, it appears

that the handwritten pages signed June 5, 2005, appended to the grievance form

and complaining that Davis’s conduct was a “direct reprisal” against him, predated

the October 20, 2005 allegations. Thus, we are in doubt as to exhaustion.

Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings to allow the district

court to reexamine whether Smith properly exhausted his retaliation claim.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
#### § 1299.1 Use of immigration forms.

In addition to forms prepared by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, immigration judges, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and administrative law judges use forms listed under 8 CFR chapter I, part 299.
_____________________________________

Page _135_____ is not included in this copy.

Pages through __ are not included in this copy.

_______________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of
information: _____ Identity of product inert ingredients.

_____ Identity of product impurities.

_____ Description of the product manufacturing process.

_____ Description of quality control procedures.

____ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

__X__ The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending registration action.

_____ FIFRA registration data.

____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) ____ &____.

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

_____ Proprietary information pertaining to the chemical composition of an inert ingredient provided by the source of the ingredient.

_____ Attorney-Client Privilege.

____ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the
Agency.

____ Internal Deliberative Information.

______ Blank page

* The information not included is generally considered confidential by product registrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who prepared the response to your request.

_________________________________________________________________
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 quarterly Report of Nuance
Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Karen Blasing, 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:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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: November 8, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Karen Blasing                                       
|                       |  |     |  | Karen Blasing Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 17407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7327]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Proposed subsequent arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of section 
131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Department is 
providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under Article X 
paragraph 3 of the Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of 
the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of 
Korea Concerning Civil Uses of Atomic Energy and the Agreement for 
Cooperation Between the United States of America and the Argentine 
Republic Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.

DATES: This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than 
April 13, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sean Oehlbert, Office of 
Nonproliferation and International Security, National Nuclear Security 
Administration, Department of Energy. Telephone: 202-586-3806 or e-
mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8eddebefe0a0c1ebe6e2ecebfcfacee0e0fdefa0eae1eba0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89daece8e7a7c6ece1e5ebecfbfdc9e7e7fae8a7ede6eca7eee6ff">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This subsequent arrangement concerns the 
retransfer of 9.2 kilograms of U.S.-origin atomized low-enriched 
uranium-8wt. % molybdenum powder, 19.734 percent enrichment, from Korea 
Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) in Daejeon, South Korea to 
Comisi[oacute]n Nacional de Energ[iacute]a At[oacute]mica (CNEA) in 
Buenos Aires, Argentina. The material, which is currently located at 
and prepared by KAERI, will be used for qualification testing of plate-
type nuclear fuel as part of a Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test 
Reactors (RERTR) program by CNEA. The material was originally obtained 
by KAERI from U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security 
Administration Y-12 National Security Complex pursuant to export 
license XSNM3613.
    In accordance with section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement 
concerning the retransfer of nuclear material of United States origin 
will not be inimical to the common defense and security.

    Dated: March 8, 2011.

    For the Department of Energy.
Anne M. Harrington,
Deputy Administrator, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 2011-7327 Filed 3-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

Perez, Idalia

From: Kevin Orellana <korellana@aqmd.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:06 PM

To: Perez, Idalia

Cc: Gary Quinn

Subject: RE: question about boilers in SC

Hi Idalia, 

I looked through the data and here are my results, based on Active permits: 

How many boilers > 5MMBtu in AQMD are subject to 1146? 1074 

How many boilers > 5MMBtu in AQMD are in RECLAIM? 230 (Non-Refinery)

TOTAL: 1304 

Let me know if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin Orellana 

Air Quality Specialist 

Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 

(909)396-3492
Summary Compensation Sheet for Stephen H. Kay



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Summary Sheet 
 Compensation For Stephen H. Kay 
 Summary of compensation amounts 
 On October 16,
2007, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. (the “Company”) approved the following compensation amounts for Stephen H. Kay, the Company’s Executive Vice President, General Counsel
and Secretary, effective September 1, 2007. 
  

	1.	Base Salary – $725,000 per year 

  

	2.	Bonus – Eligible to participate in the Company’s Annual Bonus Plan 

  

	3.	Car allowance – $800 per month 

 Mr. Kay remains eligible to
participate in and shall receive all benefits under welfare benefit plans, practices, policies and programs provided by the Company (including, without limitation, 401(k), medical, prescription, dental, short and long-term disability, salary
continuance, employee life, group life, accidental death and travel accident insurance plans and programs), to the extent applicable generally to other peer executives of the Company.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 2 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 2

 Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is 
                               assembled.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2019

Mr. McConnell submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is 
                               assembled.

    Resolved, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives 
that a quorum of the Senate is assembled and that the Senate is ready 
to proceed to business.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.14

     Agreement between 724 Solutions Inc. and Sonoma Mountain Ventures

Sonoma currently provides, upon the Registrant's request, strategic planning
advice in connection with the Registrant's customer services. The consulting
arrangement is for a two year term ending in August 2001. This agreement is
terminable at will by the Company. The Registrant has orally agreed that
Sonoma will receive a monthly fee of approximately $34,000. The Registrant
has also issued to Sonoma options to purchase an aggregate of 48,000 of the
Registrant's common shares at $1.71 per share. These options have vested at
the rate of 2,000 shares per month since September 1999, and terminate in
August 2009.

The Registrant has not yet entered into a written agreement with Sonoma,
expects to do so before the end of the first quarter of 2000.
- Newsroom        - Press Releases
      - Public Statements
      - Speeches
      - Testimony
      - Spotlight Topics
      - Media Gallery
      - Upcoming Events
      - Webcasts
      - What's New
      - SEC Videos
      - Reports and Publications
      - RSS Feeds
      - Social Media 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

**TIME AND DATE:**  Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Fixed Income Market Structure Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on June 1, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. (ET).

**PLACE:**  The meeting will be conducted by remote means. Members of the public may watch the webcast of the meeting on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

**STATUS:**  The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and will be open to the public via webcast.  The Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.

**MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:**  On May 8, 2020, the Commission issued notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 34-88842), indicating that the meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. 

The agenda for the meeting will include panel discussions and potential recommendations from the subcommittees, including potential recommendations concerning internal fund crosses and credit ratings, as well as a panel discussing the role of bond pricing services.

**CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:**  For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated:  May 21, 2020

Vanessa A. CountrymanSecretary
#### Peter Rooney v. Catharine Farrell et al.

Filed October 1, 1901.

No. 9,454.

Error Proceeding Will Be Dismissed When Judgment Is Not Certified. A petition in error will be dismissed when the final judgment assailed is not authenticated by the certificate of the court below.

Error from the district court for Dakota county. Tried below before Evans, J.

*Dismissed.*

*Barnes & Tyler,*for plaintiff in error.

*William P. Warner*and *M. G. Jay, contra.*

Norval, C. J.

There is attached to this transcript the certificate of the clerk of the district court stating “that the foregoing *612is a true and perfect transcript of the petition, answer, reply, instructions given and excepted to in said action, the verdict, motion for a new trial and motion to retax costs in said action, together with the appeal bond, as the same are on file and of record in my office.” The transcript is not otherwise authenticated. It will be observed that the certificate of the clerk of the trial court makes no mention of, or in any manner authenticates, the final judgment in the cause. It follows that this court is without jurisdiction. *Littell v. Cross,*58 Nebr., 594; *Melcher v. Haley,*58 Nebr., 729. The petition in error is

Dismissed.

Sullivan, J., absent, not voting.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred WASHINGTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4417.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 12, 2001.

Decided Jan. 24, 2002.

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Alfred Washington, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order imposing a twenty-four month imprisonment term upon his conviction for possession of a firearm while subject to a domestic restraining order, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(8), 924(a)(2) (West 1994 & Supp.2001). Washington’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the length of Washington’s sentence, but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Washington filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging the length of his sentence and contending that counsel’s representation was inadequate.

The district court fully complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Washington’s guilty plea, and nothing in the record calls into question the voluntariness of the plea. In addition, Washington’s sentence was within the applicable guidelines range, so it is not reviewable. *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 2K2.1 (2000); *United States v. Porter,*909 F.2d 789, 794-95 (4th Cir.1990). Finally, because the record does not conclusively establish that counsel was ineffective, this claim is not properly raised on direct appeal. *United States v. DeFusco,*949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir.1991). Our review of the record and appellate briefs in accordance with *Anders*reveals no other potentially meritorious issues. Accordingly, we affirm Washington’s convictions and sentence.

We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and require that counsel inform Washington, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Washington requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Washington.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Aristo Atheras v. Ery Kehaya.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
#### § 274a.11 [Reserved]
#### § 299.5 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32.1

                      CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of
GreenWorks Corporation (the "Company"), certifies that:

1.	The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
period  ended March 31, 2005 (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.

By: /S/ KEVIN KREISLER
-----------------------
KEVIN KREISLER
Chief Executive Officer

Date:  May 16, 2005


By: /S/ JAMES GRAINER
-----------------------
JAMES GRAINER
Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 16, 2005


This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for
any other purpose.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60447

Summary Calendar

 

MATTIE B. POLK; TERRENCE POLK; MERLINDA POLK,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

ANTHONY FARESE, Attorney at Law; MARY JANE LEMON,

Special Assistant Attorney General, State of Mississippi;

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:96-CV-131 SAA

- - - - - - - - - -

May 13, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mattie B. Polk and her son and daughter-in-law Terrence and

Merlinda Polk (“the Polks”) appeal the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of the defendants in their civil rights

action, filed pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Polks

sued private attorney Anthony Farese, Assistant Attorney General

Mary Jane Lemon, and the State of Mississippi, alleging that the

defendants had violated their constitutional rights in taking
No. 97-60447

-2-

various property in a civil forfeiture proceeding. 

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de

novo. Guillory v. Domtar Industries, Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1326

(5th Cir. 1996). For the same reasons given by the magistrate

judge, the defendant Lemon is entitled summary judgment based

upon absolute prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity. See

Polk v. Farese, No. 3:96-CV-131-A (N.D. Miss. June 10, 1997);

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976); Alexander v.

Ieyoub, No. 92-4278 (5th Cir. July 2, 1993) (slip op.); Harlow v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982).

Also for the reasons given by the magistrate judge, private

attorney Farese is entitled to summary judgment because the Polks

failed to demonstrate that he acted under “color of state law.” 

See Polk, supra; Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 28 F.3d

521, 525 (5th Cir. 1994).

The magistrate judge correctly determined that the State of

Mississippi was entitled to absolute immunity under the Eleventh

Amendment. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf &

Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993).

The magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in

declining to enter a default judgment against defendants Lemon

and the State. See Ganther v. Ingle, 75 F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir.

1996).

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 1244
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1244 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and 68 FR 10357, Mar. 5, 2003.

§ 1244.13 Termination of temporary treatment benefits. ( a ) Temporary treatment benefits terminate upon a final determination with respect to the alien's eligibility for Temporary Protected Status.
( b ) Temporary treatment benefits terminate, in any case, sixty (60) days after the date that notice is published of the termination of a foreign state's designation under section 244(b)(3) of the Act.
[56 FR 619, Jan. 7, 1991. Redesignated at 62 FR 10367, 10382, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 63596, Nov. 16, 1998]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1241

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1241 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and 68 FR 10357, Mar. 5, 2003.

#### § 1241.7 Self-removal.

Any alien who has departed from the United States while an order of deportation or removal is outstanding shall be considered to have been deported, excluded and deported, or removed, except that an alien who departed before the expiration of the voluntary departure period granted in connection with an alternate order of deportation or removal shall not be considered to be so deported or removed.

[67 FR 39260, June 7, 2002, as amended at 70 FR 674, Jan. 5, 2005]
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1366/2005

of 19 August 2005         

suspending the buying-in of butter in certain Member States

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 of 16 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in butter and cream (2), and in particular Article 2 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Buying-in of butter as provided for in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 is hereby suspended in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, France, Ireland, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Article 2

Regulation (EC) No 1338/2005 is hereby repealed.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 August 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 August 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 333, 24.12.1999, p. 11. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2250/2004 (OJ L 381, 28.12.2004, p. 25).

(3)OJ L 211, 13.8.2005, p. 16.

----