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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN GONZALEZ, Sr.; et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.

CITY OF MAYWOOD; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55358

D.C. No. 

2:07-cv-03469-ODW-SH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 5, 2016

Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Seventeen individuals (collectively, “Gonzalez”) in eight consolidated

lawsuits appeal the district court’s reduction of attorneys’ fees. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate the award. 

FILED

DEC 16 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The district court abused its discretion in determining that Gonzalez’s

attorneys “performed once and billed eight times in many circumstances,” because

this finding is “without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the

record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 

The City of Maywood has not identified any instances of octuple billing, and we

have found none. Nor was the district court entitled to base its finding of octuple

billing on ambiguous language in Gonzalez’s 2014 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees,

given that Gonzalez’s Motion for Reconsideration clarified any ambiguity. The

district court therefore erred in reducing the attorneys’ requested hours and fees by

87.5 percent. Even if we have the authority to uphold a district court’s fee award

on different grounds, cf. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983), we

decline to do so in this case because a district court is in the best position to make

the factual determinations required to determine the proper award of attorneys’

fees in the first instance.

This is the second time we have vacated Judge Wright’s determination of the

amount of Gonzalez’s attorneys’ fees award. See Gonzalez v. City of Maywood,

729 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2013). Based on our review of the record, we conclude

that Judge Wright is unable to put out of his mind his previously expressed view

that Gonzalez’s attorneys are not entitled to fees above the amount granted to

2
Gonzalez in damages, and therefore reassignment is advisable to preserve “the

appearance of justice and the orderly administration of this court’s appellate

docket.” United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 785 F.2d 777, 780–81 (9th

Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Accordingly, we instruct the Chief Judge for the Central

District of California to reassign this case to a different district judge. See id. at

779.1 

VACATED, REMANDED, AND REASSIGNED. 

1The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

3
#### § 6.92 Newspaper cuts.

Newspaper cuts, mats, or engraved blocks for use in retailers' advertisements may be given or sold by an industry member to a retailer selling the industry member's products.

[T.D. ATF-364, 60 FR 20423, Apr. 26, 1995]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000789791
<NAME> 86C.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         205,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  265,255
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               470,462
<PP&E>                                      14,551,413
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,828,428
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,193,447
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,535
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,088,912
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,193,447
<SALES>                                      1,750,717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,523,325
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,380,816
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,142,509
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,142,509
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,142,509
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    58.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 1002.236 How is the employee's rate of pay determined when he or she returns from a period of service? The employee's rate of pay is determined by applying the same escalator principles that are used to determine the reemployment position, as follows: ( a ) If the employee is reemployed in the escalator position, the employer must compensate him or her at the rate of pay associated with the escalator position. The rate of pay must be determined by taking into account any pay increases, differentials, step increases, merit increases, or periodic increases that the employee would have attained with reasonable certainty had he or she remained continuously employed during the period of service. In addition, when considering whether merit or performance increases would have been attained with reasonable certainty, an employer may examine the returning employee's own work history, his or her history of merit increases, and the work and pay history of employees in the same or similar position. For example, if the employee missed a merit pay increase while performing service, but qualified for previous merit pay increases, then the rate of pay should include the merit pay increase that was missed. If the merit pay increase that the employee missed during service is based on a skills test or examination, then the employer should give the employee a reasonable amount of time to adjust to the reemployment position and then give him or her the skills test or examination. No fixed amount of time for permitting adjustment to reemployment will be deemed reasonable in all cases. However, in determining a reasonable amount of time to permit an employee to adjust to reemployment before scheduling a makeup test or examination, an employer may take into account a variety of factors, including but not limited to the length of time the returning employee was absent from work, the level of difficulty of the test itself, the typical time necessary to prepare or study for the test, the duties and responsibilities of the reemployment position and the promotional position, and the nature and responsibilities of the service member while serving in the uniformed service. The escalator principle also applies in the event a pay reduction occurred in the reemployment position during the period of service. Any pay adjustment must be made effective as of the date it would have occurred had the employee's employment not been interrupted by uniformed service.
( b ) If the employee is reemployed in the pre-service position or another position, the employer must compensate him or her at the rate of pay associated with the position in which he or she is reemployed. As with the escalator position, the rate of pay must be determined by taking into account any pay increases, differentials, step increases, merit increases, or periodic increases that the employee would have attained with reasonable certainty had he or she remained continuously employed during the period of service.
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.

§ 70.243 Exempt amount. Amount payable to the taxpayer as wages, salary, or other income for each payroll period described in § 70.244 of this part are exempt from levy as follows: ( a ) If the payroll period is weekly, an amount equal to: ( 1 ) The sum of: ( i ) The standard deduction, and
( ii ) The aggregate amount of the deductions for personal exemption allowed the taxpayer under 26 U.S.C. 151 in the taxable year in which such levy occurs, divided by
( 2 ) 52.
( b ) If the payroll period is not weekly, the amount exempt from levy shall be an amount which as nearly as possible will result in the same total exemption from levy for such individual over a period of time as such individual would have under paragraph (a) of this section if (during such period of time) the individual were paid or received such wages, salary or other income on a regular weekly basis.
(26 U.S.C. 6334)
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.

§ 70.184 Disposition of perishable goods. ( a ) *Appraisal of certain seized property.* If the appropriate TTB officer determines that any property seized by levy is liable to perish or become greatly reduced in price or value by keeping, or that such property cannot be kept without great expense, the appropriate TTB officer shall appraise the value of such property and return it to the owner if the owner complies with the conditions prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section or, if the owner does not comply with such conditions, dispose of the property in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *Return to owner.* If the owner of the property can be readily found, the appropriate TTB officer shall give the owner written notice of the appropriate TTB officer's determination of the appraised value of the property. However, if the appropriate TTB officer determines that the circumstances require immediate action, the appropriate TTB officer may give the owner an oral notice of the determination of the appraised value of the property, which notice shall be confirmed in writing prior to sale. The property shall be returned to the owner if, within the time specified in the notice, the owner: ( 1 ) Pays to the appropriate TTB officer an amount equal to the appraised value, or
( 2 ) Gives an acceptable bond as prescribed by 26 U.S.C. 7101 and § 70.281 of this part. Such bond shall be in an amount not less than the appraised value of the property and shall be conditioned upon the payment of such amount at such time as the appropriate TTB officer determines to be appropriate in the circumstances.
( c ) *Immediate sale.* If the owner does not pay the amount of the appraised value of the seized property within the time specified in the notice, or furnish bond as provided in paragraph (b) of this section within such time, the appropriate TTB officer shall as soon as practicable make public sale of the property in accordance with the following terms and conditions: ( 1 ) *Notice of sale.* If the owner can readily be found, a notice shall be given to the owner. A notice of sale also shall be posted in two public places in the county which the property is to be sold. The notice shall specify the time and place of sale, the property to be sold, and the manner and conditions of sale. The appropriate TTB officer may give such other notice and in such other manner as the appropriate TTB officer deems advisable under the circumstances.
( 2 ) *Sale.* The property shall be sold at public auction to the higher bidder.
( 3 ) *Terms.* The purchase price shall be paid in full upon acceptance of the highest bid. The payment shall be made by cash, or by a certified, cashier's or treasurer's check drawn on any bank or trust company incorporated under the laws of the United States or under the laws of any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or by a U.S. postal, bank, express, or telegraph money order.
(26 U.S.C. 6336)
#### § 10.121 What happens if OWCP needs more evidence from the claimant?

If the claimant submits factual evidence, medical evidence, or both, but OWCP determines that this evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof, OWCP will inform the claimant of the additional evidence needed. The claimant will be allowed at least 60 days to submit the evidence required. OWCP is not required to notify the claimant a second time if the evidence submitted in response to OWCP's first request for additional evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof.

[88 FR 975, Jan. 6, 2023]
###### 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.

#### § 70.141 Lien for taxes.

If any person liable to pay any tax under provisions of 26 U.S.C. enforced and administered by the Bureau neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, tangible or intangible, belonging to such person. The lien attaches to all property and rights to property belonging to such person at any time during the period of the lien, including any property or rights to property acquired by such person after the lien arises. Solely for purposes of this section and §§ 70.161 and 70.162 of this part, any interest in restricted land held in trust by the United States for an individual noncompetent Indian (and not for a tribe) shall not be deemed to be property, or a right to property, belonging to such Indian.

(26 U.S.C. 6321)
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.

§ 44.92 Investigation of applicant. ( a ) *Investigation.* The appropriate TTB officer shall promptly cause such inquiry or investigation to be made, as may be necessary, to verify the information furnished in connection with an application for permit and to ascertain whether the applicant is eligible for a permit. Any of the following conditions may be grounds for denial of a permit: ( 1 ) The premises on which it is proposed to conduct the business are not adequate to protect the revenue; or
( 2 ) The applicant (including, in the case of a corporation, any officer, director, or principal stockholder and, in the case of a partnership, a partner)— ( i ) Is, by reason of his business experience, financial standing, or trade connections or by reason of previous or current legal proceedings involving a felony violation of any other provision of Federal criminal law relating to tobacco products, processed tobacco, cigarette paper, or cigarette tubes, not likely to maintain operations in compliance with this chapter;
( ii ) Has been convicted of a felony violation of any provision of Federal or State criminal law relating to tobacco products, processed tobacco, cigarette paper, or cigarette tubes; or
( iii ) Has failed to disclose any material information required or made any material false statement in the application therefor.
( b ) *TTB action.* An appropriate TTB officer who has reason to believe that the applicant is not entitled to a permit shall promptly give the applicant notice of the contemplated disapproval of his application and opportunity for hearing thereon in accordance with part 71 of this chapter, which part (including the provisions relating to the recommended decision and to appeals) is made applicable to such proceedings. If, after such notice and opportunity for hearing, the appropriate TTB officer finds that the applicant is not entitled to a permit, he shall, by order stating the findings on which his decision is based, deny the permit.
(72 Stat. 1421; 26 U.S.C. 5712)
[T.D. TTB-75, 74 FR 14485, Mar. 31, 2009, as amended by T.D. TTB-85, 75 FR 42607, July 22, 2010]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases                               ( print page 19780)                            Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK Genetics Repository Contract Technical Application Review.                    

*Date:*                         May 4, 2011.                    

*Time:*                         9 a.m. to 12 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call.)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Xiaodu Guo, MD, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 761, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-4719,                         *guox@extra.niddk.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 4, 2011.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-8435 Filed 4-7-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
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 ELEV

 799.13

 798.92

 798.53

 798.12

 797.79

 797.69

 797.40

 797.58

 797.72

 797.76

 797.81

 797.94

 797.95

 797.79

 797.83

 797.76

 797.74

 797.77

 797.72

 797.74

 797.81

 797.73

 797.84

 798.01

 798.19

 798.30

 798.26

 798.22

 798.25

 798.29

 270.0

 269.3

 268.0

 266.7

 265.6

 265.3

 264.4

 265.0

 265.4

 265.6

 265.7

 266.1

 266.2

 265.6

 265.8

 265.6

 265.5

 265.6

 265.4

 265.5

 265.7

 265.5

 265.8

 266.3

 266.9

 267.3

 267.2

 267.0

 267.1

 267.3

STORAGE

-1.5

-0.7

-1.3

-1.3

-1.1

-0.3

-0.9

+0.6

+0.4

+0.1

+0.2

+0.4

+0.0

-0.5

+0.1

-0.2

-0.1

+0.1

-0.2

+0.1

+0.2

-0.3

+0.4

+0.5

+0.6

+0.4

-0.1

-0.1

+0.1

+0.1

CHANGE

338

730

444

406

364

485

346

539

465

345

329

453

338

394

480

368

355

357

220

362

308

259

375

390

310

273

255

231

268

275

INFLOW

 603

 635

 629

 629

 547

 407

 570

 6

 6

 32

 7

 7

 84

 411

 176

 247

 146

 120

 114

 143

 9

 199

 9

 9

 12

 86

 314

 289

 208

 201

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 454

 436

 436

 436

 338

 232

 232

 232

 232

 232

 232

 232

 232

 232

 232

 232

 232

 185

 181

 181

 181

 181

 181

 98

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 32

 1

 12

 5

 12

 7

 11

 11

 2

 17

 9

 5

 6

 9

 7

 2

 9

 4

 5

 6

 6

 8

 8

 9

 6

 9

 6

 7

 12

 9

C.F.S.

 .31

 .01

 .12

 .05

 .12

 .07

 .11

 .11

 .02

 .16

 .09

 .05

 .06

 .09

 .07

 .02

 .09

 .04

 .05

 .06

 .06

 .08

 .08

 .09

 .06

 .09

 .06

 .07

 .12

 .09

INCHES

 .00

 .79

 .64

 .03

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 1.07

 .37

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .48

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .52

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2015 NEW MELONES LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: December 9, 2015

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -4.3 11,062 6,855 0 6,072 252 2.50 3.91

ACRE-FEET -4,300 21,941 13,597 0 12,044 500

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 13,597

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 12,044

 25,641

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 3.91

JULY 1, 2015 5.18

 271.4

Table 13