alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jack R. WHITEHORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRASFIELD & BRASFIELD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-16426.

D.C. No. CV-01-00250-PMP (PAL).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, and denies Whitehorn’s request for orad argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jack R. Whitehorn appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action against a law firm and an attorney alleging fraud, defamation, libel, and invasion of privacy. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, *Sher v. Johnson,*911 F.2d 1357, 1360 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm.

Whitehorn contends that defendants established minimum contacts with the forum state by mailing him two letters and serving him with process at his Nevada residence. The district court properly dismissed Whitehorn’s action for lack of personal jurisdiction because defendants’ actions were insufficient to establish minimum contacts with the State of Nevada. *See id.*at 1362.

We have considered Whitehorn’s remaining contentions and conclude that they 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 may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.114 General provisions.

The consolidated regulations of the Commerce and Treasury Departments relating to the entry of instruments and apparatus for educational and scientific institutions are contained in 15 CFR part 301.

[T.D. 82-224, 47 FR 53727, Nov. 29, 1982]
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.252 Definitions. When used in §§ 10.251 through 10.257, the following terms have the meanings indicated: *ATPA.* “ATPA” means the Andean Trade Preference Act, 19 U.S.C. 3201-3206.
*ATPDEA beneficiary country.* “ATPDEA beneficiary country” means a “beneficiary country” as defined in § 10.202(a) for purposes of the ATPA which the President also has designated as a beneficiary country for purposes of preferential treatment of products under 19 U.S.C. 3203(b)(1) and (b)(4) and which has been the subject of a finding by the President or his designee, published in the Federal Register, that the beneficiary country has satisfied the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 3203(b)(5)(A)(ii).
*ATPDEA beneficiary country vessel.* “ATPDEA beneficiary country vessel” means a vessel: ( a ) Which is registered or recorded in an ATPDEA beneficiary country;
( b ) Which sails under the flag of an ATPDEA beneficiary country;
( c ) Which is at least 75 percent owned by nationals of an ATPDEA beneficiary country or by a company having its principal place of business in an ATPDEA beneficiary country, of which the manager or managers, chairman of the board of directors or of the supervisory board, and the majority of the members of those boards are nationals of an ATPDEA beneficiary country and of which, in the case of a company, at least 50 percent of the capital is owned by an ATPDEA beneficiary country or by public bodies or nationals of an ATPDEA beneficiary country;
( d ) Of which the master and officers are nationals of an ATPDEA beneficiary country; and
( e ) Of which at least 75 percent of the crew are nationals of an ATPDEA beneficiary country.
*HTSUS.* “HTSUS” means the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
*Preferential treatment.* “Preferential treatment” means entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, in the customs territory of the United States free of duty and free of any quantitative restrictions in the case of tuna described in § 10.253(a)(1) and free of duty in the case of any article described in § 10.253(a)(2).
*United States vessel.* “United States vessel” means either: a vessel having a certificate of documentation with a fishery endorsement under chapter 121 of title 46 of the United States Code; or a vessel that is documented under the laws of the United States and for which a license has been issued pursuant to section 9 of the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988.
[T.D. 03-16, 68 FR 14497, Mar. 25, 2003; 68 FR 67349, Dec. 1, 2003, as amended by CBP Dec. 06-21, 71 FR 44583, Aug. 7, 2006]
#### Lena Malinsky, Appellant, v. Morris Levine, Respondent.

Order vacating order of examination of judgment debtor, vacating third party order and denying a motion to direct a third party to pay over money, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Nolan, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [See 274 App. Div. 816.]
PUBLIC LAW 106–321—OCT. 19, 2000 114 STAT. 1287

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3030:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

June 6, considered and passed House.

Oct. 6, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–321

106th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 757 Warren

Road in Ithaca, New York, as the ‘‘Matthew F. McHugh Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

757 Warren Road in Ithaca, New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Matthew F. McHugh Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Matthew

F. McHugh Post Office’’.

Approved October 19, 2000.

Oct. 19, 2000

[H.R. 3030]
#### § 61.6 Maximum amounts of coverage available.

(a) Pursuant to section 1306 of the Act, the following are the limits of coverage available under the emergency program and under the regular program.

Table 1 to Paragraph (a)—Maximum Amounts of Coverage Available1

| Occupancy | Emergency Program | Regular Program |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Amount | Amount |
| **Building Coverage** | | |
| Single-Family Dwelling | \* $35,000 | $250,000. |
| Two-to-Four Family Building | \* 35,000 | $250,000. |
| Other Residential Building (including Multifamily Building) | \*\* 100,000 | $500,000. |
| Residential Condominium Building | N/A | $250,000 times the number of units in the building. |
| Non-Residential Building | 100,000 | $500,000. |
| **Contents Coverage** 2 | | |
| Residential Property3 | 10,000 | $100,000. |
| Non-Residential Property | 100,000 | $500,000. |
| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 This Table provides the maximum coverage amounts available under the Emergency Program and the Regular Program, and the columns cannot be aggregated to exceed the limits in the Regular Program, which are established by statute. The aggregate limits for building coverage are the maximum coverage amounts allowed by statute for each building included in the relevant Occupancy Category. | | |
| 2 The policy limits for contents coverage are not per building. Although a single insured may not have more than one policy covering contents in a building, several insureds may have separate policies of up to the policy limits. | | |
| 3 The Residential Property occupancy category includes the Single-Family Dwelling, Two-to-Four Family Building, Other Residential Building, and Condominium Building occupancies categories. | | |
| \* In Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, and U.S. Virgin Islands, the amount available is $50,000. | | |
| \*\* In Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, and U.S. Virgin Islands, the amount available is $150,000. | | |

(b) Coverage and benefits payable under the SFIP pursuant to [§ 61.3(b)](/on/2024-09-09/title-44/section-61.3#p-61.3(b)) and [(c)](/on/2024-09-09/title-44/section-61.3#p-61.3(c)) are included in, not in addition to, the coverage limits provided by the Act or stated in [paragraph (a)](/on/2024-09-09/title-44/section-61.6#p-61.6(a)) of this section.

[[85 FR 43958](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/85-FR-43958), July 20, 2020; [86 FR 10029](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/86-FR-10029), Feb. 18, 2021, as amended at [86 FR 62104](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/86-FR-62104), Nov. 9, 2021]
#### Carrie R. Hunter, Respondent, v. Grace S. Ramsay, Individually and as Administratrix of Malcom Ramsay, Deceased, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, made at Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Dutchess on the 26th day of March, 1915, as amended by an order entered in said office on the 31st day of March, 1915.

Per Curiam:

The case should be tried by a jury, provided the action is based upon a contract which entitles the plaintiff to recover one-half of the proceeds of sale of part of the land. In such ease, the allegations that the defendant caused the property tobe deeded to her by Malcom Ramsay by means of fraudulent representations and contrivances, introduces an immaterial and disturbing issue. If, however, the action is for the purpose of setting aside the conveyances to the defendant upon the ground that they were procured by the means stated, the trial should be by the court. If the plaintiff bases the action upon contract, the complaint should be made more definite and certain, as moved, except that it need not be stated when the proceeds of sale were received by defendant. The plaintiff may wish to amend her complaint and may do so. In that case the defendant may have the usual time to move or to plead. If the complaint shall not be amended the motion to strike out the allegations of fraud is granted as moved, as well as the motion to make the complaint more definite and certain as to the agreement, as above limited. Costs are not allowed to either party. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Thomas, J., not voting. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted, without costs.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.1022 Retail packaging materials and containers.

(a) *Effect on tariff shift rule.* Packaging materials and containers in which a good is packaged for retail sale, if classified with the good for which preferential tariff treatment under the UKFTA is claimed, will be disregarded in determining whether all non-originating materials used in the production of the good undergo the applicable change in tariff classification set out in General Note 33, HTSUS.

(b) *Effect on regional value content calculation.* If the good is subject to a regional value content requirement, the value of such packaging materials and containers will be taken into account as originating or non-originating materials, as the case may be, in calculating the regional value content of the good.

# Example 1.

Korean Producer A of good C imports 100 non-originating blister packages to be used as retail packaging for good C. As provided in § 10.1016(a)(1) of this subpart, the value of the blister packages is their adjusted value, which in this case is $10. Good C has a regional value content requirement. The United States importer of good C decides to use the build-down method, RVC = ((AV − VNM)/AV) × 100 (*see* § 10.1015(b) of this subpart), in determining whether good C satisfies the regional value content requirement. In applying this method, the non-originating blister packages are taken into account as non-originating. As such, their $10 adjusted value is included in the VNM, value of non-originating materials, of good C.

# Example 2.

Same facts as in Example 1, except that the blister packages are originating. In this case, the adjusted value of the originating blister packages would *not* be included as part of the VNM of good C under the build-down method. However, if the U.S. importer had used the build-up method, RVC = (VOM/AV) × 100 (*see* § 10.1015(c) of this subpart), the adjusted value of the blister packaging would be included as part of the VOM, value of originating materials.
### §531. Separability

If any provision of this chapter, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this chapter or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.

(Pub. L. 86–257, title VI, §611, Sept. 14, 1959, 73 Stat. 541.)
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.37 Extension of time for exportation.

The period of time during which merchandise entered under bond under chapter 98, subchapter XIII, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202), may remain in the customs territory of the United States, may be extended for not more than two further periods of 1 year each, or such shorter period as may be appropriate. Extensions may be granted by the Center director upon written application on CBP form 3173, which may be submitted to CBP, either at the port of entry or electronically provided the articles have not been exported or destroyed before the receipt of the application, and liquidated damages have not been assessed under the bond before receipt of the application. Any untimely request for an extension of time for exportation shall be referred to the Director, Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division, Office of International Trade, CBP Headquarters, for disposition. Any request for relief from a liquidated damage assessment in excess of a Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer's delegated authority shall be referred to the Director, Border Security and Trade Compliance Division, Office of International Trade, CBP Headquarters, for disposition. No extension of the period for which a carnet is valid shall be granted.

[T.D. 69-146, 34 FR 9799, June 25, 1969, as amended by T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41165, Oct. 19, 1984; T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51249, Dec. 21, 1988; T.D. 91-77, 56 FR 46114, Sept. 10, 1991; T.D. 99-27, 64 FR 13675, Mar. 22, 1999]
### SUBCHAPTER II—HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
### SUBCHAPTER II—THE SPEAKER
EXHIBIT 1 

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 42-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2020 Page 1 of 3
9/26/2020 Scanz on Twitter: "@StocksToTrade @timothysykes Congratulations on your attempted carbon-copy ripoff of #EquityFeed with your rinky...

https://twitter.com/GetScanz/status/699628213073530882 1/2

Scanz

@GetScanz

 Congratulations on

your attempted carbon-copy ripoff of #EquityFeed with

your rinky dink #STT. We're flattered

@StocksToTrade @timothysykes

8:15 AM · Feb 16, 2016 · Twitter Web Client

1 Like

Louie @_Louie__ · May 18, 2016

Replying to @GetScanz @EquityFeed and 2 others

as a former student of Sykes, they've been bragging to us students about

STT for 2 years.

Louie @_Louie__ · May 18, 2016

Replying to @GetScanz @EquityFeed and 2 others

it took them forever to copy EQ. I just sticked to EQ as its clearly SUPERIOR

than STT!

Tweet

Don’t miss what’s happening

People on Twitter are the first to know.

Log in Sign up

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 42-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2020 Page 2 of 3
9/26/2020 Scanz on Twitter: "@StocksToTrade @timothysykes Congratulations on your attempted carbon-copy ripoff of #EquityFeed with your rinky...

https://twitter.com/GetScanz/status/699628213073530882 2/2

Don’t miss what’s happening

People on Twitter are the first to know.

Log in Sign up

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 42-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2020 Page 3 of 3
###### Editorial Note on Part 121

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 121 appear at 72 FR 50039 and 50040, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 121.901 Can other Government agencies obtain SBA size determinations?

Upon request by another Government agency, SBA will provide a size determination, under SBA rules, standards and procedures, for its use in determining compliance with small business requirements of its statutes, regulations or programs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-14249-CIV-CANNON/Maynard

GARY M. SILVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the

Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (“Motion for Attorney’s Fees”) [ECF No. 23]. 

On July 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees [ECF No. 21]. On July 14, 

2021, the Court referred the Motion for Attorney’s Fees to Magistrate Judge Shaniek M. Maynard

for a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 22]. On October 12, 2021, Judge Maynard issued a

Report recommending that the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees be granted [ECF No. 23, pp. 10-11].

The Report and Recommendation states that the parties shall file any objections within 

fourteen days of the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation

[ECF No. 23, p. 3]. To date, neither party has filed an objection, and the time to do so has expired.

The Court has reviewed the record in this case and is otherwise fully advised in the 

premises. Upon review, the Court finds the Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and 

correct. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis in the Report and Recommendation and 

Case 2:20-cv-14249-AMC Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2021 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 20-14249-CIV-CANNON/Maynard

2

concludes that the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART for the reasons set forth therein.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 23] is ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff is awarded $6,800.00 in attorney fees and $600.00 in costs to be paid to 

Plaintiff’s counsel once the U.S. Department of the Treasury determines that 

Plaintiff owes no debt to the United States and subject to Plaintiff’s assignment of 

the award to his attorney.

DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Pierce, Florida this 4th day of November 2021.

 _________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 2:20-cv-14249-AMC Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2021 Page 2 of 2
### §997. Special subchapter C rules

For purposes of applying the provisions of subchapter C of chapter 1, any distribution in property to a corporation by a DISC or former DISC which is made out of previously taxed income or accumulated DISC income shall—

(1) be treated as a distribution in the same amount as if such distribution of property were made to an individual, and

(2) have a basis, in the hands of the recipient corporation, equal to the amount determined under paragraph (1).

(Added Pub. L. 92–178, title V, §501, Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 549.)
#### In the Matter of the Application of Sidney Saraby, Formerly Sidney Sarbofsky, for Admission to the Bar.

Application denied. Present — Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-12-00476-CR

____________________

SARAH ELIZABETH WEEKLY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court 

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 09-07377 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Sarah Elizabeth Weekly pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to forgery.

The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, placed her on unadjudicated 

community supervision for three years, and assessed a $500 fine. After the State 

filed a motion to revoke, the trial court found Weekly violated a term of the 

community supervision, adjudicated her guilt, and sentenced her to twenty months 

in state jail.
2

Weekly’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional 

evaluation of the record. Counsel concludes there are no arguable points of error.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). This Court granted an 

extension of time for appellant to file a pro se response. We received no response 

from the appellant. We have reviewed the appellate record and agree with 

counsel’s conclusion. It is unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to rebrief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991). The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

 ________________________________

 DAVID GAULTNEY

 Justice

Submitted on March 21, 2013

Opinion Delivered April 3, 2013

Do Not Publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Will E. Schoch, Appellant.

Judgments affirmed. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 107.503 Licensee's adoption of an approved valuation policy. ( a ) *Valuation guidelines.* You must prepare, document and report the valuations of your Loans and Investments in accordance with the Valuation Guidelines for SBICs issued by SBA. These guidelines may be obtained from the SBIC website.
( b ) *SBA approval of valuation policy.* You must have a written valuation policy approved by SBA for use in determining the value of your Loans and Investments. You must either: ( 1 ) Adopt without change the model valuation policy set forth in section III of the Valuation Guidelines for SBICs; or
( 2 ) Obtain SBA's prior written approval of an alternative valuation policy. If you are or applying to be a Non-leveraged Licensee, SBA will generally approve a valuation policy that meets GAAP.
( c ) *Responsibility for valuations.* Your board of directors or general partner(s) will be solely responsible for adopting your valuation policy and for using it to prepare valuations of your Loans and Investments for submission to SBA. If SBA reasonably believes that your valuations, individually or in the aggregate, are materially misstated, it reserves the right to require you to engage, at your expense, an independent third party, acceptable to SBA, to substantiate the valuations.
( d ) *Frequency of valuations.* ( 1 ) If you are a Leveraged Licensee, you must value your Loans and Investments at the end of each quarter of your fiscal year, and at the end of your fiscal year.
( 2 ) Otherwise, you must value your Loans and Investments only at your fiscal year end.
( 3 ) On a case-by-case basis, SBA may require you to perform valuations more frequently.
( 4 ) You must report material adverse changes in valuations at least quarterly, within 30 days following the close of the quarter.
( e ) *Review of valuations by independent public accountant.* ( 1 ) For valuations performed as of the end of your fiscal year, your independent public accountant must review your valuation procedures and the implementation of such procedures, including adequacy of documentation.
( 2 ) The independent public accountant's report on your audited annual financial statements (SBA Form 468) must include a statement that your valuations were prepared in accordance with your approved valuation policy established in accordance with section 310(d)(2) of the Act.
[61 FR 3189, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 5866, Feb. 5, 1998; 82 FR 39340, Aug. 18, 2017; 88 FR 46009, July 18, 2023; 89 FR 3547, Jan. 19, 2024]