alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Magdy A. SABRY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. DESERT PALACE, INCORPORATED, dba Caesars Palace, Defendant—Appellee, and Marshall Enzer, et al., Defendants.

No. 01-15525.

D.C. No. CV-96-01153-PMP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 14, 2002.

Decided May 22, 2002.

Before HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Jane A. Restani, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Magdy Sabry appeals a jury verdict in favor of Desert Palace, Inc., rendered after a trial to determine Desert Palace’s liability for racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. He argues that two instructions proffered to the jury, defining “supervisor” for the purpose of imputing liability to Desert Palace under Title VII, are wrong as a matter of law. We review *de novo*jury instructions challenged as misstatements of the law. *See Voohries-Larson v. Cessna Aircraft, Co.,*241 F.3d 707, 713 (9th Cir.2001). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, and affirm the jury’s verdict.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them in detail except as necessary.

Sabry argues that the district court erroneously instructed the jury that the power to recommend disciplinary or other such adverse employment action is insufficient to establish supervisory authority as a matter of law. However, the record does not indicate that Sabry’s counsel requested an alternative jury instruction or alternative language to the instruction the district court announced it would give. Thus, to the extent Sabry argues that the “conduit supervisor” definition should have been reflected in the jury instructions, that argument is waived. *See United States v. Alcan Electrical and Engineering, Inc.,*197 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir.1999) (arguments raised by appellant on appeal for the first time in reply brief are waived and the Court need not consider them).

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.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of OMNI Energy Services Corp. on Forms S-8 (No. 333-110198, No.
333-49409, No. 333-80973, No. 333-35816 and No. 333-69436), pertaining to the
incentive plans of OMNI Energy Services Corp., of our report dated April 4,
2005, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10K of OMNI Energy Services Corp.
for the year ended December 31, 2004.


/s/  Pannell Kerr Forster of Texas, P.C.


Houston, Texas
April 4, 2005
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41621

Conference Calendar

 

GERMAN RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RAMONIA COLLINS, Correctional Officer III; SHIRLENE HASTY,

Sergeant; CYNTHIA CHOAT, Counselor Substitute I; CLIFTON

MATTOX, Disciplinary Captain,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:02-CV-92

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

German Rodriguez, Texas prisoner # 748574, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as

frivolous. He argues that his allegations established an Eighth

Amendment violation and that, even absent physical injury, he is

entitled to nominal and punitive damages, as well as declaratory

and injunctive relief. He further asserts that the demotion in

his time-earning status implicated due process protections.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-41621

-2-

Rodriguez’s allegations established that Officer Collins and

Sergeant Hasty would not allow him to use the restroom for

several minutes. As the district court determined, Rodriguez’s

allegations do not demonstrate that the defendants deprived him

“of the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities.” 

Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). Although Rodriguez also

asserts that the defendants’ actions interfered with his medical

treatment, he fails to explain how not allowing him to go to the

restroom interfered with his taking blood pressure medicine. 

Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing Rodriguez’s Eighth Amendment claim as frivolous. See

Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470, 472 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Likewise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing Rodriguez’s due process claim, as this court has

specifically held that a demotion in time-earning status does not

trigger due process protections. Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953,

959 (5th Cir. 2000). Rodriguez’s argument that he is entitled to

nominal and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and

injunctive relief, need not be addressed, as that argument

relates to the district court’s alternative basis for dismissing

Rodriguez’s Eighth Amendment claim.

The district court’s dismissal of the complaint as frivolous

counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). 
No. 03-41621

-3-

Rodriguez is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not proceed in forma pauperis in

any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or

detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. Id. 

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### Ray Bernfeld, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Louis Bernfeld, Deceased, Respondent, v. Edith Sisenstein, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.
<Page>



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Public
Accountants" incorporated by reference into this Post-Effective Amendment No. 23
to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 33-19421) of Fortis Benefits
Insurance Company and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report
dated February 17, 2000, with respect to the financial statements of
Fortis Benefits Insurance Company included in the Prospectus and Statement of
Additional Information of Post-Effective Amendment No. 22 to the Registration
Statement (Form N-4 No. 33-19421) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Minneapolis, Minnesota                                  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
December 27, 2002
§ 301.9 Application selection criteria. ( a ) EDA will review completed application materials for compliance with the requirements set forth in PWEDA, this chapter, the applicable FFO, and other applicable Federal statutes and regulations. From those applications that meet EDA's technical and legal requirements, EDA will select applications based on the: ( 1 ) Availability of funds;
( 2 ) Competitiveness of the applications in accord with the criteria set forth in § 301.8; and
( 3 ) Funding priority considerations identified in the applicable FFO.
( b ) EDA will endeavor to notify applicants as soon as practicable regarding whether their applications are selected for funding.
[79 FR 76127, Dec. 19, 2014]
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 01-030 March 15, 2001

NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE MEDICAL USES OF ISOTOPES

TO MEET IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, ON APRIL 18

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes

has scheduled a meeting in Rockville, Maryland, on April 18.

The committee advises the NRC on policy and technical issues that arise in regulating the

medical uses of radioactive material for diagnosis and therapy.

The meeting, which will be open to the public, will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two

White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The committee will discuss the rulemaking status of the regulation on “Medical Use of

Byproduct Material,” and its implementation issues. These include boards requesting certifying

authority for certain training and experience qualifications under the rule, and licensing issues for

brachytherapy -- the placement of temporary or permanent radioactive sources within blood vessels to

prevent or reduce their blockage after other cardiovascular treatments.

Those seeking further information on the meeting or wishing to provide a written statement,

should contact Angela Williamson at 301-415-5030, or e-mail arw@nrc.gov . Seating for the public

will be on a first-come, first-served basis.

###
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### §§ 10.19-10.20 [Reserved]
#### § 12.27 Importation or exportation of wild animals or birds, or the dead bodies thereof illegally captured or killed, etc.

Customs officers shall perform all duties required of them under statutory provisions that prohibit or restrict the importation or exportation of wild animals or birds, or the dead bodies thereof, or the eggs of such birds, killed, captured, taken, transported, etc., contrary to law. Such laws and statutory provisions include 18 U.S.C. 43, 44, 3054, 3112.

[T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51253, Dec. 21, 1988]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-30 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, February 22, 1999)

NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS

TO MEET IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

(ACRS) has scheduled a technical meeting March 10-13 in Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will be held in conference room T-2B3 of the

NRC’s Two White Flint Building at 11545 Rockville Pike.

Here is the complete meeting schedule:

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10

8:30 - 8:45 a.m. -- Opening remarks by the ACRS Chairman;

8:45 - 10:15 a.m. -- Status of the proposed final revision to 10 CFR 50.59 (changes, tests, and

experiments);

10:30 a.m. - noon -- Westinghouse best-estimate large-break loss-of-coolant-accident

methodology;

1:00 - 4:15 p.m. -- Phase 1 standard for probabilistic risk assessment quality;

4:30 - 7:15 p.m. -- Preparation of ACRS Reports.

THURSDAY, MARCH 11

8:30 - 8:35 a.m. -- Opening remarks by ACRS Chairman;

8:35 - 10:00 a.m. -- Event reporting requirements rule;

10:15 - 11:45 a.m. -- Reevaluation of the generic safety issue process;

1:00 - 2:30 p.m. -- Fuel burnup extension licensing framework/NRC participation in the CABRI

reactor fuels research program;

2:45 - 7:00 p.m. -- Preparation of ACRS reports.
FRIDAY, MARCH 12

8:30 - 8:35 a.m. -- Opening remarks by ACRS Chairman;

8:35 - 10:00 a.m. -- Guidance for implementing the revised enforcement policy;

10:15 - 11:45 a.m. -- Safety evaluation report on the topical report regarding tritium production

core;

11:45 a.m. - noon -- Reconciliation of ACRS comments and recommendations;

1:00 - 1:30 p.m. -- Report of the planning and procedures subcommittee;

1:30 - 2:00 p.m. -- Future ACRS activities;

2:00 - 7:00 p.m. -- Preparation of ACRS reports.

SATURDAY, MARCH 13

8:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. -- Preparation of ACRS reports;

3:00 - 3:30 p.m. -- Miscellaneous.

Although meetings of the ACRS are open, they are not part of the agency’s public

hearing process. The ACRS, an advisory group to the Commission, conducts independent,

highly technical reviews of safety considerations related to nuclear facilities. While anyone may

attend, the committee will consider only oral or written statements arranged in advance and

limited to specific matters set forth in a Notice of Meeting published in an upcoming edition of

the Federal Register. ACRS meeting agendas, transcripts and letter reports are available on

the internet, at http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW

The meeting may include closed sessions, if required, to discuss proprietary or

personnel information.

###
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle, IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. III-01-038 July 10, 2001

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630)829-9663/e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov

Pam Alloway-Mueller (630)829-9662/e-mail: pla@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY TO DISCUSS SAFETY

PERFORMANCE AT THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with Nuclear Management Company officials

July 16 to discuss the NRCís annual assessment of safety performance at the Monticello Nuclear

Power Plant in Monticello, Minnesota.

The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. CDT and will be held at the Monticello Community Center,

505 Walnut Street, in Monticello. The public is invited to observe the meeting. NRC officials will be

available after the meeting to answer questions.

The annual assessment, referred to as the End-of-Cycle assessment, evaluates safety

performance at the Monticello plant from April 2000 through March 2001, and informs plant officials

of the NRCís plans for future inspections at the facility.

The Monticello assessment letter and inspection are available at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr

or from the Region III Public Affairs Office. Current performance information for the plant is

available at http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html.

# # #
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-23228-UU

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TEXAS DE BRAZIL (HOLDING) CORP.,

Defendant. 

 /

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With 

Prejudice. D.E. 12. The Court having considered the pertinent portions of the record and being 

otherwise fully advised on the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this case is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all parties and all claims. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Miami, Florida, this _8th_ day of October, 2020.

__________________________________

URSULA UNGARO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished:

All counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-23228-UU Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2020 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-23080-UNGARO/O’SULLIVAN

INTERNATIONAL MARKETS LIVE, INC.,

d/b/a iMARKETSLIVE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT HUSS, 

Defendant.

/

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File

under Seal (DE# 72, 11/6/20). Having reviewed the unopposed motion which fails to

certify compliance with the pre-filing conference requirement of Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) of

this Court, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File under

Seal (DE# 72, 11/6/20) is STRICKEN from the record.

DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 13th day of

November, 2020.

 

JOHN J. O’SULLIVAN

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-23080-UU Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 1 of 1
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 1113 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2009 - SW - 053 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Ma nager**  **Date**
### §1614. Annual audits and reports by Comptroller General

#### (a) Audit

On an annual basis, the Comptroller General shall audit the extent of compliance or noncompliance with the requirements of this chapter by lobbyists, lobbying firms, and registrants through a random sampling of publicly available lobbying registrations and reports filed under this chapter during each calendar year.

#### (b) Reports to Congress

#### (1) Annual reports

Not later than April 1 of each year, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Congress a report on the review required by subsection (a) for the preceding calendar year. The report shall include the Comptroller General's assessment of the matters required to be emphasized by that subsection and any recommendations of the Comptroller General to—

(A) improve the compliance by lobbyists, lobbying firms, and registrants with the requirements of this chapter; and

(B) provide the Department of Justice with the resources and authorities needed for the effective enforcement of this chapter.

#### (2) Assessment of compliance

The annual report under paragraph (1) shall include an assessment of compliance by registrants with the requirements of section 1603(b)(3) of this title.

#### (c) Access to information

The Comptroller General may, in carrying out this section, request information from and access to any relevant documents from any person registered under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1603(a) of this title and each employee who is listed as a lobbyist under section 1603(b)(6) of this title or section 1604(b)(2)(C) of this title if the material requested relates to the purposes of this section. The Comptroller General may request such person to submit in writing such information as the Comptroller General may prescribe. The Comptroller General may notify the Congress in writing if a person from whom information has been requested under this subsection refuses to comply with the request within 45 days after the request is made.

(Pub. L. 104–65, §26, as added Pub. L. 110–81, title II, §213(a), Sept. 14, 2007, 121 Stat. 750.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b)(1), was in the original "this Act" meaning Pub. L. 104–65, Dec. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 691, known as the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1601 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 110–81, title II, §213(b), Sept. 14, 2007, 121 Stat. 750, provided that: "The initial audit under subsection (a) of section 26 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 [2 U.S.C. 1614(a)] (as added by subsection (a) of this section) shall be made with respect to lobbying registrations and reports filed during the first calendar quarter of 2008, and the initial report under subsection (b) of such section shall be filed, with respect to those registrations and reports, not later than 6 months after the end of that calendar quarter."
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -- REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-00-14 February 16, 2000

CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610)337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan (610)337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC MONITORING “ALERT” AT INDIAN POINT 2

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is monitoring closely activities at the Indian Point 2

nuclear power plant in Buchanan, N.Y., following the declaration of an “Alert” at the plant at 7:29 p.m.

(2/15/00). The plant is operated by Consolidated Edison Company of New York.

Operators manually shut down the reactor and declared an “Alert” following indications of a

steam generator tube leak.

An “Alert” is the second lowest emergency action level in the NRC required emergency

response plan for nuclear power plants. Operators have stabilized the plant and are in control of all

systems. Following procedures, operators successfully isolated the affected steam generator.

Radiological monitoring by the company to this point indicates there have been no measurable releases

of radioactivity from the plant.

In response to the “Alert,” the NRC has staffed its incident response center in the Region I

office in King of Prussia, Pa., and is following developments from its operations center in Rockville,

Md.. The NRC Resident Inspectors have responded to the plant, where they are monitoring

Consolidated Edison’s response to this event.

Indian Point 3, which is operated by the New York Power Authority, is not affected.

#
### §2104. Reviews of State court decisions

A review by the Supreme Court of a judgment or decree of a State court shall be conducted in the same manner and under the same regulations, and shall have the same effect, as if the judgment or decree reviewed had been rendered in a court of the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 962; Pub. L. 100–352, §5(d)(1), June 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 663.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §871 (R.S., §1003).

Words "An appeal to" were substituted for "writs of error from", in view of the abolition of the writ of error.

Changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–352 substituted "Reviews of State court decisions" for "Appeals from State courts" in section catchline and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "An appeal to the Supreme Court from a State court shall be taken in the same manner and under the same regulations, and shall have the same effect, as if the judgment or decree appealed from had been rendered in a court of the United States."

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

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–352 effective ninety days after June 27, 1988, except that such amendment not to apply to cases pending in Supreme Court on such effective date or affect right to review or manner of reviewing judgment or decree of court which was entered before such effective date, see section 7 of Pub. L. 100–352, set out as a note under section 1254 of this title.