alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Paul WILLIAMS; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Michael RAMSEY; et al., Defendants—Appellees, and Robert J. Beeler; et al., Defendants.

No. 04-16658.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 19, 2006.

Filed May 30, 2006.

*531Drexel Andrew Bradshaw, Esq., Bradshaw *&*Associates, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Terence John Cassidy, Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: RYMER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and WARE,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable James Ware, United States, District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Paul Williams and Daylyn Presley appeal the district court’s summary judgment on qualified immunity in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm for reasons stated in greater detail by the district court.

In sum, to survive summary judgment, Williams and Presley had to show that “without the dishonestly included or omitted information, the magistrate would not have issued the warrant.” *Hervey v. Estes,*65 F.3d 784, 789 (9th Cir. 1995), *as amended.*They faded to do so, because even absent the allegedly false information in the April 10, 2001 affidavit there was probable cause to suspect that *532the searches would uncover evidence of illegal activity. Williams and Presley’s attempts to undermine those parts of the affidavit derived from the Steven Clark interview and from the March 8, 2001 affidavit are unavailing. Clark was the club manager and the police later substantially corroborated information attributable to him. *See United States v. Bishop,*264 F.3d 919, 925 (9th Cir.2001) (noting that veracity “may be demonstrated through independent police corroboration of the information provided by an informant”). Similarly, the confidential informant referenced in the March affidavit spoke from first-hand experience, and his statements were substantially corroborated both by the police and by other informants. *See United States v. Landis,*726 F.2d 540, 543 (9th Cir.1984) (“Interlocking tips from different confidential informants enhance the credibility of each.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery of the confidential informant’s identity due to the tardiness of the request. In any event, the March affidavit contained considerable additional evidence, apart from statements attributed to the confidential informant, to support a finding of probable cause.

As the April affidavit established probable cause to conduct the searches at issue in this case even without the allegedly false information in that affidavit, the officers are entitled qualified immunity.

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.
#### § 234.62 Effect of conviction of a felony on entitlement.

A person who has been convicted of a felony or an act in the nature of a felony of intentionally causing the employee's death shall not be entitled to any benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act. If a charge of felony is pending against an applicant for a lump-sum payment, the Board will make no payment until the applicant submits proof that the charge has been withdrawn, that no further action will be taken on the charge, or that he or she has been cleared of the charge.
#### § 5.148 Agave spirits.

(a) *The class agave spirits.* “Agave spirits” are distilled from a fermented mash, of which at least 51 percent is derived from plant species in the genus Agave and up to 49 percent is derived from other sugars. Agave spirits must be distilled at less than 95 percent alcohol by volume (190° proof) and bottled at or above 40 percent alcohol by volume (80° proof). Agave spirits may be stored in wood barrels. Agave spirits may contain added flavoring or coloring materials as authorized by § 5.155. This class also includes mixtures of agave spirits. Agave spirits that meet the standard of identity for “Tequila” or “Mezcal” may be designated as “agave spirits,” or as “Tequila” or “Mezcal”, as applicable.

(b) *Types.* Paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section describe the types of agave spirits and the rules for each type.

| Type | Standards |
| --- | --- |
| (1) Tequila | An agave spirit that is a distinctive product of Mexico. Tequila must be made in Mexico, in compliance with the laws and regulations of Mexico governing the manufacture of Tequila for consumption in that country. |
| (2) Mezcal | An agave spirit that is a distinctive product of Mexico. Mezcal must be made in Mexico, in compliance with the laws and regulations of Mexico governing the manufacture of Mezcal for consumption in that country. |
### **CHAPTER 26—FOOD SAFETY**

Sec.
2101.
Findings.
2102.
Ensuring the safety of pet food.
2103.
Ensuring efficient and effective communications during a recall.
2104.
State and Federal cooperation.
2105.
Enhanced aquaculture and seafood inspection.
2106.
Consultation regarding genetically engineered seafood products.
2107.
Sense of Congress.
2108.
Annual report to Congress.
2109.
Publication of annual reports.
2110.
Rule of construction.
#### § 222.21 When marriage is terminated by final divorce.

A final divorce, often referred to as an absolute divorce, completely dissolves the marriage relationship and restores the parties to the status of single persons. A legal separation, qualified or preliminary divorce, divorce from bed and board, interlocutory decree of divorce, or similar court order is not considered a final divorce for family relationship and benefit entitlement purposes.
§ 355.24 Protective order. ( a ) A party or a prospective witness or deponent may file a motion for a protective order with respect to discovery sought by an opposing party or with respect to the hearing, seeking to limit the availability or disclosure of evidence.
( b ) In issuing a protective order, the ALJ may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: ( 1 ) That the discovery not be had;
( 2 ) That the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
( 3 ) That the discovery may be had only through a method of discovery other than that requested;
( 4 ) That certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of discovery be limited to certain matters;
( 5 ) That discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the ALJ;
( 6 ) That the contents of discovery or evidence be sealed;
( 7 ) That a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the ALJ;
( 8 ) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, commercial information, or facts pertaining to any criminal investigation, proceeding, or other administrative investigation not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; or
( 9 ) That the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the ALJ.
#### § 1002.194 Can the application of the escalator principle result in adverse consequences when the employee is reemployed?

Yes. The Act does not prohibit lawful adverse job consequences that result from the employee's restoration on the seniority ladder. Depending on the circumstances, the escalator principle may cause an employee to be reemployed in a higher or lower position, laid off, or even terminated. For example, if an employee's seniority or job classification would have resulted in the employee being laid off during the period of service, and the layoff continued after the date of reemployment, reemployment would reinstate the employee to layoff status. Similarly, the status of the reemployment position requires the employer to assess what would have happened to such factors as the employee's opportunities for advancement, working conditions, job location, shift assignment, rank, responsibility, and geographical location, if he or she had remained continuously employed. The reemployment position may involve transfer to another shift or location, more or less strenuous working conditions, or changed opportunities for advancement, depending upon the application of the escalator principle.
§ 9.211 Swan Creek. ( a ) *Name.* The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Swan Creek”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Swan Creek” is a term of viticultural significance.
( b ) *Approved Maps.* The appropriate maps for determining the boundaries of the Swan Creek viticultural area are three United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:100,000 scale topographic maps. They are titled: ( 1 ) Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 1984, photoinspected 1982;
( 2 ) Boone, North Carolina-Tennessee, 1985; and
( 3 ) Salisbury, North Carolina, 1985, photoinspected 1983.
( c ) *Boundary.* The Swan Creek viticultural area is located in Wilkes, Yadkin, and Iredell Counties, North Carolina. The boundary of the Swan Creek viticultural area is as described below: ( 1 ) The beginning point is on the Winston-Salem, North Carolina map at the intersection of the Yadkin River and U.S. Highway 21, along the Surry-Yadkin county line, between Elkin and Jonesville;
( 2 ) From the beginning point, proceed 24.6 miles generally south on U.S. Highway 21, crossing onto the Salisbury, North Carolina map, to the intersection of U.S. Highway 21 with Rocky Creek at Turnersburg; then
( 3 ) Proceed 12.3 miles generally north and west along Rocky Creek, returning to the Winston-Salem map, to the intersection of Rocky Creek with State Highway 115 at New Hope in the southwest corner of the map; then
( 4 ) Proceed 15.5 miles generally northwest along State Highway 115, crossing onto the Boone, North Carolina-Tennessee map, to the intersection of State Highway 115 and the Yadkin River, at North Wilkesboro; and
( 5 ) Proceed 16.7 miles generally east-northeast along the Yadkin River, crossing onto the Winston-Salem map, and return to the beginning point.
[T.D. TTB-69, 73 FR 22276, Apr. 25, 2008]
§ 401.110 Disclosure of personal information in nonprogram records without the consent of the subject of the record. The disclosures listed in this section may be made from our nonprogram records, e.g., administrative and personnel records, without your consent. Such disclosures are those: ( a ) To officers and employees of SSA who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties. The SSA official who is responsible for the record may upon request of any officer or employee, or on his own initiative, determine what constitutes legitimate need.
( b ) Required to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and 20 CFR part 402.
( c ) For a routine use as defined in § 401.25 of this part. Routine uses will be listed in any notice of a system of records. SSA publishes notices of systems of records, including all pertinent routine uses, in the Federal Register.
( d ) To the Bureau of the Census for purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of Title 13 U.S.C.
( e ) To a recipient who has provided us with advance written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record; *Provided,* that, the record is transferred in a form that does not identify the subject individual.
( f ) To the National Archives of the United States as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the United States Government, or for evaluation by the Administrator of General Services or his designee to determine whether the record has such value.
( g ) To another government agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of such government agency or instrumentality has submitted a written request to us, specifying the record desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought.
( h ) To an individual pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual if a notice of the disclosure is transmitted to the last known address of the subject individual.
( i ) To either House of Congress, or to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee of any such joint committee.
( j ) To the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized representatives, in the course of the performance of duties of the Government Accountability Office.
( k ) Pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
[62 FR 4143, Jan. 29, 1997, as amended at 72 FR 20940, Apr. 27, 2007]
§ 10.609 How does OWCP decide whether new evidence requires modification of the prior decision? When application for reconsideration is granted, OWCP will review the decision for which reconsideration is sought on the merits and determine whether the new evidence or argument requires modification of the prior decision. ( a ) After OWCP decides to grant reconsideration, but before undertaking the review, OWCP will send a copy of the reconsideration application to the employer, which will have 20 days from the date sent to comment or submit relevant documents. OWCP will provide any such comments to the employee, who will have 20 days from the date the comments are sent to him or her within which to comment. If no comments are received from the employer, OWCP will proceed with the merit review of the case. Where a reconsideration request pertains only to a medical issue (such as disability or a schedule award) not requiring comment from the employing agency, the employing agency will be notified that a request for reconsideration has been received, but OWCP is not required to wait 20 days for comment before reaching a determination, except when that claimant is deployed in an area of armed conflict.
( b ) A claims examiner who did not participate in making the contested decision will conduct the merit review of the claim. When all evidence has been reviewed, OWCP will issue a new merit decision, based on all the evidence in the record. A copy of the decision will be provided to the agency.
( c ) An employee dissatisfied with this new merit decision may again request reconsideration under this subpart or appeal to the ECAB. An employee may not request a hearing on this decision.
**Exhibit12.3**

#### **PACCARand Subsidiaries**

 

**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

 

**PURSUANT TO SEC REPORTINGREQUIREMENTS**

(Millions of Dollars)

 
| ** **                                        | ** ** | **Three Months Ended** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                        | ** ** | **March 31**           | ** ** |
| ** **                                        | ** ** | **2005**               | ** ** | **2004** | ** ** |
| ** **                                        | ** ** | ** **             | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** |
| FIXED CHARGES                                     |       |                   |       |   |   |
| Interest expense - PACCAR and Subsidiaries (1)    | ** ** | **$**                  | **40.7**   |   | $ | 32.3 |   |
| Portion of rentals deemed interest                | ** ** | **3.6**                |       | 3.2 |   |
|                                              |       |                   |       |   |   |
| TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                               | ** ** | **$**                  | **44.3**   |   | $ | 35.5 |   |
|                                              |       |                   |       |   |   |
| EARNINGS                                          |       |                   |       |   |   |
| Income before taxes - PACCAR and Subsidiaries (2) | ** ** | **$**                  | **416.1**  |   | $ | 278.6 |   |
| Fixed charges                                     | ** ** | **44.3**               |       | 35.5 |   |
|                                              | ** ** | ** **             |       |   |   |
| EARNINGS AS DEFINED                               | ** ** | **$**                  | **460.4**  |   | $ | 314.1 |   |
|                                              |       |                   |       |   |   |
| RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                | ** ** | **10.39X**             |       | 8.85 | X |

 

----

(1) Exclusiveof interest, if any, paid to PACCAR.

 

(2) Includesbefore-tax earnings of wholly-owned subsidiaries.

 

----
#### Emerson O. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frederick C. SAKE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-16681

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 28, 2006.

Emerson O. Davis, Atlanta, GA, pro se.

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Emerson Davis, a federal prison inmate, appeals the decision of the district court denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to vacate the court’s dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against attorney Frederick Sake on the ground that Sake breached his contract with Davis in conducting Davis’s defense in a criminal case. The complaint stated that Davis brought the same claim against Sake in state court, and that state court entered judgment dismissing the claim.

The *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine requires that we affirm the district court’s decision. That doctrine holds that a federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to either review a state court decision or to hear a claim that is “inextricably intertwined” with a state court’s final decision. *See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,*263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149,150, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); *D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 476-82, 103 S.Ct. 1303,1311-15, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). Because the state court had rejected the breach of contract claim Davis plead in his complaint, the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine barred the district court from entertaining that claim.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  25,025
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,262
<INVENTORY>                                    65,131
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               91,341
<PP&E>                                         36,841
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,177
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          30,858
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       100
<OTHER-SE>                                     19,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,465
<SALES>                                        58,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               58,743
<CGS>                                          50,527
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  50,527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (126)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   24
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (150)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (150)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.02)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 3160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-940]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated April 20, 2010 and published in the Federal 
Register on April 26, 2010, (75 FR 21661), Stepan Company, Natural 
Products Department, 100 W. Hunter Avenue, Maywood, New Jersey 07607, 
made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of 
controlled substances:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cocaine (9041).............................  II
Benzoylecgonine (9180).....................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for distribution to its customers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Stepan Company to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled 
substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has 
investigated Stepan Company to ensure that the company's registration 
is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included 
inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, 
verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and 
a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant 
to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above 
named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the 
basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: December 20, 2010.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-940 Filed 1-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-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

DAY HIGH

 12,482

 16,687

 11,888

 9,274

 7,906

 5,138

 5,629

 3,750

 2,792

 2,214

 3,686

 8,464

 9,005

 12,321

 11,882

 14,073

 15,911

 11,043

 5,977

 3,584

 1,825

 495

 281

 264

 229

 224

 226

 227

 225

 1,218

 2,880

 1,926

 1,209

 923

 734

 512

 428

 446

 413

 407

 472

 635

 658

 1,063

 2,472

 3,052

 1,401

 663

 510

 362

 275

 233

 207

 191

 173

 177

 170

 173

 6,173

 8,269

 7,159

 5,324

 4,238

 2,780

 2,164

 1,593

 1,247

 1,065

 1,618

 2,536

 3,422

 4,609

 5,745

 7,486

 8,990

 6,677

 3,422

 1,708

 707

 332

 257

 237

 212

 197

 195

 193

 188

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 10, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO TOP IN SUISUN BAY