alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2548

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, Local 333, AFL-CIO; DOUGLAS F. WAGNER, JR., individually and in the capacity of President of International Longshoremen’s Association; CLIFTON G. GROSS, individually and in the capacity of Vice President of International Longshoremen’s Association, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versusINTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, AFLCIO; RICHARD P. HUGHES, JR., individually and in the capacity of General International VicePresident, International Longshoremen’s Association; HORACE T. ALSTON, individually and in the capacity of International Vice President,International Longshoremen’s Association; INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, Local 2066, AFL-CIO, Defendants - Appellees. STEAMSHIP TRADE ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE, INC., Movant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-99- 2653-L)2 Submitted: April 28, 2000 Decided: June 6, 2000Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel A. Smith, Travis M. Mastroddi, KAHN, SMITH & COLLINS, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Ernest L. Mathews, Jr., Rania V. Sedhom, GLEASON & MATHEWS, P.C., New York, New York; James R. Rosenberg, ABATO, RUBENSTEIN & ABATO, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying its motion for preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. We findthat the district court did not clearly err in finding that Appellants would not likely suffer irreparable injury during the course of litigating this action. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S.61, 90 (1974). Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See International Longshoremen’s Ass’n, Loc. 333, AFL-CIO v. International Longshoremen’s Ass’n, AFL-CIO No. CA-99-2653 (D. Md. Nov. 2, 1999). We dispense withoral 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
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 11
                  HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Year ended April 30,                                    1997              1996             1995
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                            <C>                <C>                <C>      
NET INCOME (LOSS) - primary and fully diluted    $   (66,098,797)   $   (10,927,341)   $  1,946,188
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING
  Common stock                                        11,982,000          9,322,004       9,194,816
  Common stock equivalents                                     -             92,496         213,484
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMARY                                               11,982,000          9,414,500       9,408,300
  Additional common stock equivalents                          -                  -          12,516
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULLY DILUTED                                         11,982,000          9,414,500       9,420,816
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK
  Primary                                        $         (5.52)   $         (1.16)   $        .21
  Fully diluted                                  $         (5.52)   $         (1.16)   $        .21

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear by T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39094-39096, July 27, 2001; T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43479, Aug. 20, 2001; and T.D. TTB-91, 76 FR 5479, Feb. 1, 2011.

#### § 40.253 Destruction.

When a manufacturer of tobacco products desires to destroy tobacco products which have been entered in the factory record as manufactured or received, without salvaging the tobacco, he shall notify the appropriate TTB officer by letter, in duplicate, of the kind and quantity of tobacco products to be destroyed, the intended method of destruction, and the date on which he desires to destroy such products. The appropriate TTB officer may assign an appropriate TTB officer to supervise destruction of the tobacco products or he may authorize the manufacturer to destroy such products without supervision by so stating on a copy of the manufacturer's notice returned to the manufacturer. When so authorized by the appropriate TTB officer, the manufacturer shall destroy the tobacco products by burning completely or by rendering them unfit for consumption. Upon completion of the destruction, the manufacturer shall make an entry of such destruction in his factory record, and where destruction without supervision is authorized, shall record the date and method of destruction on the notice returned to him by the appropriate TTB officer, which notice the manufacturer shall retain. Where the manufacturer intends to file claim for credit, allowance, or refund of tax on such products he shall comply with the provisions of §§ 40.311 and 40.313.

(72 Stat. 1423, as amended; 26 U.S.C. 5741)

[T.D. 6871, 31 FR 37, Jan. 4, 1966. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-232, 51 FR 28082, Aug. 5, 1986; T.D. ATF-243, 51 FR 43194, Dec. 1, 1986]
### §6683. Recognition program established

#### (a) In general

The Secretary of Education shall establish a national recognition program to be known as the "Recognizing Inspiring School Employees Award Program" or the "award program". The purpose of the award program shall be to recognize and promote the commitment and excellence exhibited by classified school employees who provide exemplary service to students in prekindergarten through high school.

#### (b) Award

#### (1) In general

Prior to May 31 of each year (beginning with the second calendar year that begins after April 12, 2019), the Secretary shall select a classified school employee to receive the Recognizing Inspiring School Employees Award for the year.

#### (2) Non-monetary value

The award and recognition provided under this subpart shall have no monetary value.

#### (c) Selection process

#### (1) Nomination process

#### (A) In general

Not later than November 1 of each year (beginning with the first calendar year that begins after April 12, 2019), the Secretary shall solicit nominations of classified school employees from the occupational specialties described in section 6682(1) of this title from the Governor of each State.

#### (B) Nomination submissions

In order for individuals in a State to be eligible to receive recognition under this section, the Governor of the State shall consider nominations submitted by the following:

(i) Local educational agencies.

(ii) School administrators.

(iii) Professional associations.

(iv) Labor organizations.

(v) Educational service agencies.

(vi) Nonprofit entities.

(vii) Parents and students.

(viii) Any other group determined appropriate by the Secretary.

#### (2) Demonstration

Each Governor of a State who desires individuals in the State to receive recognition under this section shall submit the nominations described in paragraph (1) to the Secretary in such manner as may be required by the Secretary. Each such nomination shall contain, at a minimum, demonstrations of excellence in the following areas:

(A) Work performance.

(B) School and community involvement.

(C) Leadership and commitment.

(D) Local support.

(E) Enhancement of classified school employees' image in the community and schools.

#### (3) Selection

The Secretary shall develop uniform national guidelines for evaluating nominations submitted under paragraph (2) in order to select the most deserving nominees based on the demonstrations made in the areas described in such paragraph.

(Pub. L. 116–13, §4, Apr. 12, 2019, 133 Stat. 848.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Recognizing Achievement in Classified School Employees Act, and not as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 which comprises this chapter.
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear by T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39094-39096, July 27, 2001; T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43479, Aug. 20, 2001; and T.D. TTB-91, 76 FR 5479, Feb. 1, 2011.

#### § 40.101 Fiduciary successor.

If an administrator, executor, receiver, trustee, assignee, or other fiduciary, is to take over the business of a manufacturer of tobacco products, as a continuing operation, such fiduciary shall, before commencing operations, make application for permit and file bond as required by subpart E, of this part, furnish certified copies, in duplicate, of the order of the court, or other pertinent documents, showing his appointment and qualification as such fiduciary, and make a commencing inventory, in accordance with the provisions of § 40.201: *Provided,* That where a diagram has been furnished by the predecessor, in accordance with the provisions of § 40.69, the successor may adopt such diagram if it is currently complete and accurate. However, where a fiduciary intends only to liquidate the business, qualification as a manufacturer of tobacco products will not be required if he promptly files with the appropriate TTB officer a written statement to that effect, in duplicate, together with an extension of coverage of the predecessor's bond, executed by the fiduciary and the surety on such bond, in accordance with the provisions of § 40.137.

(72 Stat. 1421, 1422; 26 U.S.C. 5711, 5712, 5721)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD C. JONES,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

NICHOLS,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-56752

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01039-BTMBLM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 13, 2016** 

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

Edward C. Jones, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging 

federal claims arising from his loss of overnight family visits. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s

FILED

APR 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627

F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jones’s retaliation claim because Jones

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was engaged in protected conduct,

and that the revocation of his overnight family visiting privileges did not

reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408

F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the

prison context); see also Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal.

Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (in determining whether

the complaint states a claim for relief, this court “may consider facts contained in

documents attached to the complaint”).

The district court properly dismissed Jones’s due process claim because

Jones failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he had a constitutionally

protected liberty interest in overnight family visits. See Gerber v. Hickman, 291

F.3d 617, 621 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (“[I]t is well-settled that prisoners have no

constitutional right while incarcerated to contact visits or conjugal visits.”); see

also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) (a constitutionally protected

liberty interest arises only when a restraint imposes an “atypical and significant

hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”).

2 14-56752
We reject as unsupported Jones’s contentions that the district court erred in

not allowing Jones to amend his complaint to add the warden, and that he should

have been permitted to proceed with discovery.

AFFIRMED. 

3 14-56752
# CEDAR CITY
10 NORTH MAIN' CEDAR CITY, UTAH 84720 435-586-2950 • FAX: 435.58&4362 www,cedarcity,org Mayor Joe Burgess Council McmtJCrs Ronald R. Adame; Nina R. Barnes John Black Paul Cozzens Don Marchanr City Manager Rick B. Holman


### -,

12September 2013 Dennis 1.DeVany Office ofAviation Analysis US Department ofTransportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington DC, 20590 DearMr. DeVany, Re: Essential Air Service in Cedar City, Utah '~..,'


## '.

..~

..'-_.

_. -~~.i

Weappreciate the opportunity to comment onthe Skywest proposal that has been submitted for the Essential Air Service Grant forthe Cedar City Regional Airport. We arepleased to recommend that SkyWest Airlines receive the award for the next two year period. SkyWest has served this community for more than 40 years and over this time has earned a sterling reputation for reliable, quality performance. Over the past fourteen months, our enplanement numbers have increased year over year allowing us to become aClass I primary entitlement airport. Welook forward to having SkyWest for another two years,'

Joe Burgess Mayor

Administration 586.2953 Building and ZOning 865.4519 Economic Development 586.2770 City Engineer 586.2963 Parks & Recreation 865.9223 Public Works 586-2912
###### Editorial Note on Part 46

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 46 appear by T.D. ATF-457, 66 FR 32220, 32221, June 14, 2001.

#### § 46.117 Lost or destroyed stamps.

If a special tax stamp has been lost or destroyed, the taxpayer must immediately notify the TTB officer who issued the stamp. A “Certificate in Lieu of Lost or Destroyed Special Tax Stamp” will be issued to the taxpayer who submits an affidavit explaining to the satisfaction of the appropriate TTB officer that the stamp was lost or destroyed. The certificate must be kept available for inspection in the same manner as prescribed for a special tax stamp in § 46.116(c).
###### Editorial Note on Part 28

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear by T.D. ATF-477, 67 FR 18087 through 18090, Apr. 15, 2002.

#### § 28.157 Exportation by dealer in specially denatured spirits.

A dealer in specially denatured spirits who holds a permit under part 20 of this chapter may export specially denatured spirits in accordance with § 20.183 of this chapter.

[T.D. TTB-140, 81 FR 59464, Aug. 30, 2016]
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-614 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EMPLOYMENT 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CAPE VERDE 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Praia February 15 and 18, 2005 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
CAPE VERDE 

Employment 

 Agreement effected by exchange of notes 

 at Praia February 15 and 18, 2005; 

 Entered into force June 14, 2005.
#### Shiu Pal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-70801.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*856Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esq., Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Lyle Jentzer, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Shiu Pal Singh is a native and citizen of Fiji. Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We lack jurisdiction to review both the BIA’s determination that Singh is statutorily ineligible for asylum based on the one-year time bar, and the BIA’s determination that Singh did not establish extraordinary circumstances or changed circumstances to excuse the one-year time bar. *See Ramadan v. Gonzales,*427 F.3d 1218, 1221-22 (9th Cir.2005). •

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 over the remaining claims. *857Where, as here, the BIA conducted a de novo review of the record and made an independent determination of whether relief is appropriate, this court reviews the decision of the BIA. *See Molina-Morales v. INS,*237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir.2001). We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s decision to deny withholding of removal, *Hakeem v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001), and relief under CAT, *Zheng v. Ashcroft,*332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal because Singh did not establish that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted in Fiji. *See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir.2003); *see also Ramadan,*427 F.3d at 1222-23.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Singh did not establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured in Fiji. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741, 750 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CCFNB BANCORP, INC.
 PFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CCFNB Bancorp, Inc. for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this amended report.3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this amended report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d  15 (e) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):(c)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(d)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Virginia D. KocherVirginia D. KocherPrincipal Financial Officer 30
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY

 62,497

 62,630

 62,697

 62,714

 62,664

 62,743

 62,547

 62,329

 62,358

 62,409

 62,480

 62,567

 62,526

 62,514

 62,434

 62,501

 62,547

 62,514

 62,459

 62,396

 62,350

 62,392

 62,375

 62,367

 62,187

 62,179

 62,179

 62,175

 62,125

 61,909

 54,102

 55,007

 55,858

 56,586

 57,317

 57,705

 58,247

 58,750

 58,963

 59,188

 59,462

 59,640

 60,027

 60,158

 60,176

 60,337

 60,468

 60,594

 60,743

 60,881

 60,947

 60,893

 60,893

 60,893

 61,013

 60,941

 60,815

 60,714

 60,570

 60,694

STORAGE - A.F. 

 116,599

 117,637

 118,555

 119,300

 119,981

 120,448

 120,794

 121,079

 121,321

 121,597

 121,942

 122,207

 122,553

 122,672

 122,610

 122,838

 123,015

 123,108

 123,202

 123,277

 123,297

 123,285

 123,268

 123,260

 123,200

 123,120

 122,994

 122,889

 122,695

 122,603

650

595

635

609

477

632

543

498

620

543

647

565

600

768

833

461

509

691

577

472

415

500

548

439

533

502

527

507

367

370

1,103

1,118

1,098

985

820

867

717

642

742

682

821

699

774

828

802

576

598

738

624

510

425

494

539

435

503

462

463

454

269

324

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2007 FULL NATURAL FLOW AT NEW MELONES DAM RUN DATE: 09/25/2007

TOTALS +6,903 20,112

* October 1, 39,892

 442.3

 444.5

 446.7

 448.7

 450.3

 452.0

 453.4

 454.7

 456.2

 457.5

 459.2

 460.5

 462.1

 463.7

 465.3

 466.5

 467.6

 469.1

 470.3

 471.4

 472.2

 473.2

 474.2

 475.1

 476.1

 477.0

 477.9

 478.8

 479.4

 480.0

DONNELLS

RES

BEARDSLEY

RES

2006 TO DATE

NEW

MELONES

INFLOW

C.F.S

NATURAL

RIVER

C.F.S

ACCUM *

FULL

NATURAL

1000 A.F.

RESERVOIR

TOTAL

+899

+1,038

+918

+745

+681

+467

+346

+285

+242

+276

+345

+265

+346

+119

-62

+228

+177

+93

+94

+75

+20

-12

-17

-8

-60

-80

-126

-105

-194

-92

CHANGE

A.F. C.F.S.

+453

+523

+463

+376

+343

+235

+174

+144

+122

+139

+174

+134

+174

+60

-31

+115

+89

+47

+47

+38

+10

-6

-9

-4

-30

-40

-64

-53

-98

-46