alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORMAN DOUGLAS DIAMOND,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 15

- 56100

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv
- 09196

- GHK

AGR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. King, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2017 **

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Norman Douglas Diamond appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his damages action under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 arising from various
interactions with defendant involving his federal income taxes. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 56100

subject matter jurisdiction. Harger v. Dep’t of Labor , 569 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir.
2009). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Diamond’s action without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdict ion because Diamond failed to show his claims fell

within a waiver of sovereign immunity. See Holloman v. Watt , 708 F.2d 1399,
1401 (9th Cir. 1983) (waiver of sovereign immunity “must be unequivocally
expressed,” and “[t]he party who sues the United State s bears the burden of
pointing to such an unequivocal waiver of immunity” (citation and inter nal
quotation marks omitted)); Miller v. United States , 66 F.3d 220, 222

- 23 (9th Cir.
1995) (waive r of sovereign immunity under § 7433 permitting taxpayers to sue for
misconduct in collection of taxes does not extend to improper determination or
assessment of taxpayer’s liabilities); see also Shwarz v. U nited S tates , 234 F.3d

428, 433 (9th Cir. 2000) (“ Section 7433 creates a private right of action only for
tax collection activity that violates some provision of the Revenue Code or the
regulations promulgated thereunder.”).
We reject as meritless Diamond’s contentions that he was improperly denied
discovery and injunctive relief.

W e do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued3 15

- 56100

in the opening brief, or arguments, allegations, or evidence raised for the first time
on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Kirshner

v. Uniden Corp. of Am. , 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988).
Diamond’s motions for leave to file supplemental briefs (Docket Entry Nos.

39, 41) are granted. The Clerk shall file the supplemental briefs (Docket Entry

No s . 40 , 42 )

. All other pending motions and requests (Docket Entry Nos. 2, 6) are denied.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Presidential Realty
Corporation (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Jeffrey F. Joseph, Chief Executive 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 the best of my knowledge: (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 the results of operations of the
  Company.  Presidential
  Realty CorporationBy:
  /s/ Jeffrey
  F. JosephJeffrey F.
  JosephChief
  Executive Officer Date: November
8, 2006
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Archives /
              - 2012 Compendium Statistics /
              - 2012 Population and Prevalence /
              - 2012 1.3 Civilians Living in the Community for the U.S. by Disability Status

## Table 1.3 Civilians Living in the Community for the United States and States, by Disability Status: 2011

Based on data from the American Community Survey (ACS), in 2011, there were 310,241,024 individuals living in the community, 37,954,360 of which were individuals with disabilities—a prevalence rate of 12.2 percent. The state with the largest number of individuals with disabilities was California, with 3,749,792 individuals with disabilities, while the state with the smallest number of individuals with disabilities was Wyoming, with 63,853 individuals with disabilities. West Virginia had the highest prevalence rate, 18.9 percent, while Utah had the lowest prevalence rate, 8.8 percent.

----

Source:U.S. Census Bureau2011 American Community SurveyAmerican FactFinder, Table B18101http://factfinder2.census.gov(accessed 24 September, 2012)Based on a sample and subject to sampling variability.

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
###### Editorial Note on Part 555

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 555 appear by T.D. ATF-487, 68 FR 3748, Jan. 24, 2003.

#### § 555.186 Seizure or forfeiture.

Any plastic explosive that does not contain a detection agent in violation of 18 U.S.C. 842(l)-(n) is subject to seizure and forfeiture, and all provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1595a, relating to seizure, forfeiture, and disposition of merchandise introduced or attempted to be introduced into the U.S. contrary to law, shall extend to seizures and forfeitures under this subpart. See § 72.27 of this chapter for regulations on summary destruction of plastic explosives that do not contain a detection agent.

[T.D. ATF-387, 62 FR 8378, Feb. 25, 1997]
Editorial Note on Part 70
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear by T.D. ATF-450, 66 FR 29022-29030, May 29, 2001.

§ 70.224 Collection after assessment. ( a ) *Length of period* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* In any case in which a tax has been assessed within the statutory period of limitation properly applicable thereto, a proceeding in court to collect such tax may be begun, or levy for the collection of such tax may be made, within 10 years after the assessment thereof.
( 2 ) *Extension by agreement.* ( i ) The 10-year period of limitation on collection after assessment of any tax may, prior to the expiration thereof, be extended for any period of time agreed upon in writing by the taxpayer and the appropriate TTB officer. Whenever necessary to protect the revenue, such officer may also execute a written agreement with the taxpayer to extend the period of limitation. The extension becomes effective upon execution of the agreement by both the taxpayer and such officer.
( ii ) The period of limitation on collection after assessment of any tax (including any extension of such period) may be extended after the expiration thereof if there has been a levy on any part of the taxpayer's property prior to such expiration and if the extension is agreed upon in writing prior to a release of the levy under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6343. An extension under this paragraph has the same effect as an agreement made prior to the expiration of the period of limitation on collection after assessment, and during the period of the extension collection may be enforced as to all property or rights to property owned by the taxpayer whether or not seized under the levy which was released.
( iii ) Any period agreed upon under the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be extended by subsequent agreements in writing made before the expiration of the period previously agreed upon.
( 3 ) If a timely proceeding in court for the collection of a tax is commenced, the period during which such tax may be collected by levy shall be extended and shall not expire until the liability for the tax (or a judgment against the taxpayer arising from such liability) is satisfied or becomes unenforceable.
( b ) *Date when levy is considered made.* The date on which a levy on property or rights to property is made is the date on which the notice of seizure provided in 26 U.S.C. 6335(a) is given.
(26 U.S.C. 6502)
[T.D. ATF-301, 55 FR 47641, Nov. 14, 1990, as amended by T.D. ATF-450, 66 FR 29028, May 29, 2001]
###### Editorial Note on Part 44

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 44 appear by T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43480, Aug. 20, 2001, and T.D. ATF-480, 67 FR 30801-30803, May 8, 2002.

#### § 44.243 Bond required.

Where the customs warehouse proprietor desires to withdraw cigars from his warehouse, without payment of tax, under this subpart, he shall, prior to making the first withdrawal, file a bond, Form 2104 (5200.15), conditioned upon compliance with the provisions of 26 U.S.C. chapter 52, and regulations thereunder, including, but not limited to, the timely payment of taxes imposed by such chapter, for which he may be responsible to the United States, and penalties and interest in connection therewith. The provisions of §§ 44.121 and 44.122 are applicable to the bond required under this section.

[25 FR 4725, May 28, 1960. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-48, 44 FR 55856, Sept. 28, 1979; T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39093, July 27, 2001; T.D. ATF-480, 67 FR 30803, May 8, 2002]
(No. 7105

#### James J. Travers, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 17, 1973.*

James J. Travers, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
###### Editorial Note on Part 447

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 447 appear by T.D. ATF-487, 68 FR 3748, Jan. 24, 2003.

#### § 447.46 Articles in transit.

Articles subject to the import permit procedures of this subpart which enter the United States for temporary deposit pending removal therefrom and such articles which are temporarily taken out of the United States for return thereto shall be regarded as in transit and will be considered neither imported nor exported under this part. Such transactions are subject to the Intransit or Temporary Export License procedures of the Department of State (see 22 CFR Part 123).

[T.D. ATF-8, 39 FR 3251, Jan. 25, 1974, as amended by T.D. ATF-215, 50 FR 42161, Oct. 18, 1985]
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Accelera Solutions, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62896

)

Under Contract No. 47QTCA

- 19

- D

- 00L2

T.O. W52P1J

- 19

- F

- 3389 )

)

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Ronald S. Perlman, Esq.

Hillary J. Freund, Esq.

Holland & Knight LL P

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

Army Chief Trial Attorney

Dana J. Chase, Esq.

Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: September 29 , 2021

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62896

, Appeal of Accelera Solutions,

Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: September 29, 2021 RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
#### CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., Long Island Lighting Company, Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc., San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, International Paper Company, Weyerhauser Company, and Meadwestvaco Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Samuel W. BODMAN, Secretary of Energy and George B. Breznay, Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-1509.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 27, 2006.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. et al.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal, from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in district court case no. 04-CV-382,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
### §869b. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–648, title IV, §403, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1925

Section, Pub. L. 89–10, title V, §553, formerly §507, Apr. 11, 1965, 79 Stat. 51, amended Pub. L. 89–750, title I, §153, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1204; renumbered and amended Pub. L. 91–230, title I, §143(a)(3), Apr. 13, 1970, 84 Stat. 142, relating to interchange of personnel of Office of Education with States, provided in subsec. (a), definitions; subsec. (b), authorization for interchange and period of assignment; subsec. (c), Federal personnel assigned to States, compensation, continuation of Federal employment benefits, and disability; subsec. (d), reimbursement by States for services of assigned Federal personnel; subsec. (e), travel expenses of assigned Federal personnel; subsec. (f), State personnel assigned duty with Office of Education; subsec. (g), conflict of interest, disability of State personnel assigned with Office of Education; subsec. (h), travel expenses of assigned personnel; and subsec. (i), assignments of personnel subject to regulations of Commissioner.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective sixty days after Jan. 5, 1971, see section 404 of Pub. L. 91–648, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3371 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 52601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20652]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8436]

U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private 
International Law (ACPIL): Public Meeting on Arbitration; Correction

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of State published a document in the Federal 
Register on August 19, 2013 concerning a U.S. Department of State 
Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL) Public Meeting 
on Arbitration, to take place on September 4, 2013. The document cited 
incorrect Web site addresses and an incorrect email address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tricia Smeltzer, phone: (202) 776 8423

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 19, 2013, in FR Volume 78, page 
50480, in the third paragraph of the second column, the Web site 
address given should read: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/commission/working_groups/2Arbitration.html. In the first paragraph of 
the third column, the email address that individuals should write to 
for pre-clearance purposes should read: pil@state.gov. In the second 
paragraph of the third column, the Web site address given for the 
Security Records System of Records Notice should read: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/103419.pdf.

    Dated: August 19, 2013.
Michael S. Coffee,
Acting Assistant Legal Adviser, Private International Law, Officer of 
the Legal Adviser.
[FR Doc. 2013-20652 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
```
#### Cyrus Yoo KIM, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING; Fred E. Stephens, Agency Director, Defendants — Appellees.

No. 05-35818.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 22, 2006.

Cyrus Yoo Kim, Federal Way, WA, pro se.

Masako Kanazawa, Esq., AGWA — Office of the Washington Attorney General, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Cyrus Yoo Kim appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 *775U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants violated his civil rights by suspending his driver’s license due to his failure to obtain insurance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Montana v. Goldin (In re Pegasus Gold Corp.),*394 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Kim’s claims against the Washington State Department of Licensing and its director were barred by sovereign immunity. *See id.*at 1195 (state agencies are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity); *see also Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman,*465 U.S. 89, 101, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars a suit against state officials when the state is the real, substantial party in interest.”) (internal quotations omitted).

The remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED

**

 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.
### §§241cc to 241ff. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–297, title V, §5352(1), Apr. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 414

Section 241cc, act Sept. 30, 1950, ch. 1124, title III, §304, as added June 23, 1972, Pub. L. 92–318, title IV, §411(a), 86 Stat. 335; amended Nov. 1, 1978, Pub. L. 95–561, title XI, §1142(b), 92 Stat. 2329; Oct. 19, 1984, Pub. L. 98–511, title V, §513(a)(8), 98 Stat. 2400; Oct. 27, 1986, Pub. L. 99–570, title IV, §4133(b)(1), 100 Stat. 3207–133, set forth uses of Federal funds.

Section 241dd, act Sept. 30, 1950, ch. 1124, title III, §305, as added June 23, 1972, Pub. L. 92–318, title IV, §411(a), 86 Stat. 336; amended Nov. 1, 1978, Pub. L. 95–561, title XI, §1144, 92 Stat. 2329; Oct. 19, 1984, Pub. L. 98–511, title V, §513(a)(4), (8), 98 Stat. 2399, 2400, related to conditions for approval of grants.

Section 241ee, act Sept. 30, 1950, ch. 1124, title III, §306, as added June 23, 1972, Pub. L. 92–318, title IV, §411(a), 86 Stat. 337; amended Nov. 1, 1978, Pub. L. 95–561, title XI, §1150(f), 92 Stat. 2333; Aug. 22, 1984, Pub. L. 98–396, title I, 98 Stat. 1390; Oct. 19, 1984, Pub. L. 98–511, title V, §513(a)(8), 98 Stat. 2400, related to payments to local educational agencies.

Section 241ff, act Sept. 30, 1950, ch. 1124, title III, §307, as added June 23, 1972, Pub. L. 92–318, title IV, §411(a), 86 Stat. 337; amended Nov. 1, 1978, Pub. L. 95–561, title XI, §1145, 92 Stat. 2330; Oct. 19, 1984, Pub. L. 98–511, title V, §513(a)(5), 98 Stat. 2399, related to authorization of appropriations and adjustments.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 1988, see section 6303 of Pub. L. 100–297, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 1071 of this title.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 5, 2014

Order 

August 5, 2014

149166(68)

ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

G & K MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., d/b/a

OMNI CONTINUING CARE, and CIENA

HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants.

SC: 149166

COA: 308200

Wayne CC: 09-023611-CD

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellants for this Court to 

accept their late reply to plaintiff-appellee’s answer is GRANTED. The reply submitted 

on July 22, 2014, is accepted for filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from The Park
Group, Ltd. financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,386
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,386
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,327
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,369
<OTHER-SE>                                    (21,319)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,063
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,063)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,063)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,063)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
#### § 10.15 May compensation rights be waived?

No employer or other person may require an employee or other claimant to enter into any agreement, either before or after an injury or death, to waive his or her right to claim compensation under the FECA. No waiver of compensation rights shall be valid.