alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC., 

Plaintiff

R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant

v.

ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, PHILIP 

MORRIS USA, INC., 

Defendants

PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A., 

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant

______________________

2023-1892

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:20-cv-00393-LMBWEF, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

Case: 23-1892 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2024
RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. V. ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES 

LLC

2

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

February 5, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 5, 2024

Case: 23-1892 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2024
#### § 1006.810 When does a debarment take effect?

A debarment is not effective until the debarring official issues a decision. The debarring official does not issue a decision until the respondent has had an opportunity to contest the proposed debarment.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WOODIE LEO WILLIAMS, Jr., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CHARLES L. RYAN, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-17274

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04456-JAT-MTM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 21, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Woodie Leo Williams, Jr. appeals pro se from the 

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging 

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 30 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-17274

Cir. 2004), and we affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Nicole 

Schaffer was deliberately indifferent to the wound on his leg. See id. at 1057-60 (a 

prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and 

disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere 

difference in medical opinion are insufficient); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 

745-46 (9th Cir. 2002) (a delay in medical treatment does not constitute deliberate 

indifference unless the delay led to significant injury).

We reject as without merit Williams’s contention that defendant’s answering 

brief was untimely. 

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
----

----

|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of and for the period(s) covered in the  Report. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      March 24, 2009 |   |   |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|

|   | By:    | /s/      Colleen A. Zuhl     |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|   |   | Colleen      A. Zuhl         |
|   |   | Chief      Financial Officer |

----

----
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

~aomthl in alo 8?- 

Jlproruont ,&o11 'dw ul7 one of the 8?Oremmlu1mtonao or the 

In eotlaostlon 

im dirt+ed ta 

80 hwo ouofully rod the Artialea roiemd to ia 

the oteutoo. ?I107 gliro rcrtor oontrol mnd'irprorameat dir 

trlatm rlmemt ploaury parorm- Uqueotioambl~. moh a distriof 
nonorable C. 8. Clark - page 2 

orgalxed and ore8ted under the provldoaa oi maid atatute8 

would h8re and does hare 8uthorit7 to oonstruot and PrIntala 

]ereem and flood control projeotm , and pnrohrse the neoesa8r7 

rightbof-r87 therefor If the7 did not h8ro these rl&htm, 

the dlatriota aould not, of oourme , awry out the purposes 

l nd o b jeo tfor m which a r ea ted. 

In 8nmwer to 7our seoond question, Artlole T860-4, 

to rhiah ~du refer, prorldoa mpeolflo8117 thC’8 dlmtrlot orpinlzed under the prorlmloa8 of'a8ld Ch8pterk87 lnolude the 

area of on7 oount7 or oountioa, or 8x17 portion thereof, l l l 

pmvlded th8t no dlmtrlat prowlded for in thlm Aot mh811 e+ 

bnao tottltety dtuated In man tbm one aewxty uoept by 8 

mrJorit7 tote of tbe property tu-paying rotor8 tedding ritbin the bttitety in .oaah oounty moaght ta be embreoed within 

mid dlmtrict*’ 

Ot oourme, 8 w8ter-oontrol and hproremnt dimttlot 

ateated would be ableat to 8ad lidfed by the rlghto of 8a7 

and all other dlsttlotm or rgonoioo tb8t h8d been otg8nlred 

or oreetedr and which emblroed the 18ndr or 8x17 portion theteof, nmued In the 18st Qlsttiof olu8t8d. In othot worda, the 

Juaiot distrlot ore8ted would not be 8uthorlsed to outkll, 

or in 8n7 ~87 laterfore wltb prior dlmtrlotm th8f b8d been 

ore8ted uader and In virtue of eld l t8tutem. 

Fet7 tml7 7eur8 

ATlWNBT OENBRAL OF TBXAS
§ 31.10 Repurchase and resale of leverage contracts by leverage transaction merchants. ( a ) No leverage transaction merchant shall offer to sell or sell a long leverage contract involving a leverage commodity to any leverage customer at any time when such leverage transaction merchant is not offering to repurchase from any of its leverage customers any long leverage contract, and is not offering to resell to any of its leverage customers any short leverage contract, involving the same leverage commodity previously sold or purchased by the leverage transaction merchant to or from a leverage customer.
( b ) No leverage transaction merchant shall offer to purchase or purchase a short leverage contract involving a leverage commodity from any leverage customer at any time when such leverage transaction merchant is not offering to resell to any of its leverage customers any short leverage contract, and is not offering to repurchase from any of its leverage customers any long leverage contract, involving the same leverage commodity previously purchased or sold by the leverage transaction merchant from or to a leverage customer.
[50 FR 36414, Sept. 6, 1985]
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Lester Martin, Deceased. Jonah J. Goldstein, as Executor of Lester Martin, Deceased, Appellant; Sylvia Martin, Individually and as Executrix of Lester Martin, Deceased, Respondent.

In a proceeding by decedent’s widow, as a legatee and as a coexecutrix, to remove from office her three coexecutors, Arnold L. Ginsburg, Jane Martin Ginsburg and Jonah J. Goldstein, and for other relief, in which the widow in her supplemental petition alleged, *inter alia,*six grounds for their removal and an additional ground of dishonesty (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 99, subd. 2) for said Goldstein’s removal, he appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated March 15,1962, as denied his motion to dismiss the cause of action (contained in paragraphs 82 and 83 of the petition) seeking his removal for dishonesty, on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a ground for his removal. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements to all parties filing briefs payable out of the estate; and appellant’s motion to dismiss granted. The dishonesty contemplated by the statute is dishonesty in money matters from which a reasonable apprehension may be entertained that the funds of the estate would not be safe in the hands of the executor *(Matter of Flood,*236 N. Y. 408, 411). None of the allegations contained in paragraphs 82 and 83 of the supplemental petition shows that appellant has been dishonest in his handling of money matters, or that he *808is not to be trusted in money matters, or that there is any reasonable apprehension that the funds of the estate would not be safe in his hands *(Matter of Cohen,*254 App. Div. 571, affd. 278 N. Y. 584). Hence, the motion to dismiss should be granted. Beldock, P. J., Hill and Babin, JJ., concur; Christ and Hopkins, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.
9/18/2015 Re: Sanitized Meeting Notes on ZVI Technology ­ Anna Dimling

https://outlook.office365.com/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkAGQ2YTkzN2VmLWIyZWMtNDNhZi1hZTczLWEyM2VlM2NmYzhhOAB... 1/2

Re: Sanitized Meeting Notes on ZVI Technology

Anna:

We did notice one error: for FGD systems at power plants, to adjust pH ‐‐ we use Hydrochloric acid, not carbon dioxide.

So I show that correction on the attached document.

Note 1: on some early small systems at mining operations we did use CO2, but not at power plants.

Note 2: Your original version did say "carbon dioxide" but we missed that mistake when it was in the middle of the sentence. Sorry

about that. Once you started the sentence with "Carbon dioxide" it became obvious and hence the need to correct.

Also, I have re‐worded the first sentence of that same paragraph to better explain ZVI, nitrate and the concept of the simple bio

system.

With these changes, we agree the document can become public.

As an optional change: at the second power plant, we did propose a simple bio system, but it was not really needed and never

implemented, so it became irrelevant. That sentence ﴾which I highlighted in yellow﴿ can probably be deleted for clarity.

I am available this afternoon to discuss.

Regards,

Mark

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Anna Dimling <Anna.Dimling@erg.com> wrote:

Mark,

Attached is the version of the meeting notes with all CBI removed, per our discussion earlier. Please

confirm that you agree with this version being available to the public.

Mark Kropilak <mark.kropilak@gmail.com>

Fri 9/18/2015 8:19 AM

Inbox

To:Anna Dimling <Anna.Dimling@erg.com>;

Cc:mark@libertyhydro.com <mark@libertyhydro.com>; Jordan, Ronald <Jordan.Ronald@epa.gov>; alicea.jezebele@epa.gov

<alicea.jezebele@epa.gov>; Deborah Bartram <Deborah.Bartram@erg.com>;

 1 attachment ﴾200 KB﴿

SE05694_LibertyHydro_EPA Meeting Notes_09232014_Sanitized ﴾1﴿.docx;
9/18/2015 Re: Sanitized Meeting Notes on ZVI Technology ­ Anna Dimling

https://outlook.office365.com/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkAGQ2YTkzN2VmLWIyZWMtNDNhZi1hZTczLWEyM2VlM2NmYzhhOAB... 2/2

Thanks,

Anna

Anna Dimling

Chemical Engineer

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200

Chantilly, VA 20152­1102

(703) 633­1692

anna.dimling@erg.com

‐‐

Mark J. Kropilak

CEO

Liberty Hydro, Inc.

610 710 5381

Liberty Hydro is a provider of water treatment solutions for industries and power

plants needing to remove selenium, mercury and toxic metals from their discharge

waters.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

April 21, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00005

- CV

IPSECURE, INC. , and Jesse A. Rodriguez

,

Appellants

v.

James E. CARRALES

, Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 02257 Honorable Peter Sakai, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellee ’ s motion to substitute and designation of lead counsel is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Jus tice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 21st day of April, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Cl erk of Court
RENEWAL OF LEASE CONTRACT








ADDITIONAL SPACE MODIFICATION TO LEASE CONTRACT AND EXTENSION OF PRIMARY LEASE AGREEMENT




This additional space modification and extension agreement made hereto by and between MONTEREY & GREAT PACIFIC CORPORATION hereinafter called Lessor, and Vincera, Inc., formerly know as Smarte Solutions, Inc. and MoveMoney.com, Inc., hereinafter called Lessee.




WITNESSETH:

Whereas, Lessor and Lessee heretofore entered into and Lease RENEWAL Contract, dated July 1, 2000, covering approximately 3,320 square feet of rentable space on the third floor of the Congress Square II office building, Austin, Travis County, Texas.




Whereas, Lessor and Lessee heretofore agreed to extend that lease agreement until June 30, 2006, and now agree to extend further that renewal agreement until January 31, 2008.  The additional nineteen months added to the renewal term includes increasing the space by approximately 2322 rentable square feet in the adjacent space currently known as suite #300 of the Congress Square II office building, Austin, Travis County, Texas.

I




This extension and expansion of the current leased space will constitute a total of approximately 5642 rentable square feet at a new rate of $7525.00 per month beginning February 1, 2006 and continuing thereafter until January 31, 2008.   




II

Lessor will modify the new space to create a direct access from the existing suite #350 and close off the current hallway to incorporate the space as defined by the attached exhibit “A”.   Further interior improvements will be completed as per agreement between Lessor and Lessee.  Lessor will provide for a first right of refusal on any adjacent space as it becomes available.  Lessee will have 20 days to accept any adjacent space.  Lessee shall be offered the right to renew the lease for an additional two years at the same rate and terms.

III




Except as modified by this Addition of the Lease Contract, the Original Lease and all Renewals remain unchanged and continues unabated in full force and effect.




Executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall have the force and effect of an original as of this 25 day of January, 2006




LESSOR

LESSEE




MONTEREY & GREAT PACIFIC

Vincera, Inc.

CORPORATION




By:  /s/ William R. Dawson

By: /s/ David R. Malmstedt

        William R. Dawson

       David R. Malmstedt
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4062 

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

1444 Main Street in Ramona, California, as the ‘‘Nelson ‘Mac’ 

MacWilliams Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2012 

Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. COSTA, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. 

BILBRAY, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. HERGER, Mr. DENHAM, Mr. 

MCNERNEY, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. 

GARAMENDI, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Ms. LEE of California, 

Mr. NUNES, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. STARK, Ms. RICHARDSON, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. HONDA, Mr. BACA, Mr. 

CARDOZA, Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. 

ESHOO, Mr. FILNER, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. THOMPSON

of California, Mr. WAXMAN, Ms. HAHN, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. 

ROHRABACHER, Ms. WATERS, Ms. BASS of California, Mrs. BONO MACK, 

Ms. CHU, Ms. MATSUI, and Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1444 Main Street in Ramona, California, as 

the ‘‘Nelson ‘Mac’ MacWilliams Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4062 IH

1 SECTION 1. NELSON ‘‘MAC’’ MACWILLIAMS POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 1444 Main Street in Ramona, 

5 California, as the ‘‘Nelson ‘Mac’ MacWilliams Post Office 

6 Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Nelson ‘Mac’ 

11 MacWilliams Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 76 FR 60371, Sept. 29, 2011.

#### § 200.302 Definitions.

In addition to the definitions contained in 5 U.S.C. 552a(a), the following definitions apply in this subpart:

*Commission* means the Securities and Exchange Commission.

*Inquiry* means a request described in Privacy Act section (f)(1).

*Privacy Act* means the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a).

*Request for access* to a record means a request made under Privacy Act section (d)(1).

*Request for amendment or correction* of a record means a request made under Privacy Act section (d)(2).

*Request for an accounting* means a request made under Privacy Act section (c)(3).

*Requester* means an individual who makes an inquiry, a request for access, a request for amendment or correction, or a request for an accounting.
### §§14043d–3, 14043d–4. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–4, title IV, §402(b)(1), Mar. 7, 2013, 127 Stat. 95

Section 14043d–3, Pub. L. 103–322, title IV, §41304, as added Pub. L. 109–162, title IV, §401, Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3020, authorized grants for the development of curricula and pilot programs for home visitation projects.

Section 14043d–4, Pub. L. 103–322, title IV, §41305, as added Pub. L. 109–162, title IV, §401, Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3021, authorized grants for engaging men and youth in preventing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal not effective until the beginning of the fiscal year following Mar. 7, 2013, see section 4 of Pub. L. 113–4, set out as an Effective Date of 2013 Amendment note under section 2261 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.
#### Herbert S. Sisson, as State Commissioner of Excise of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Theodore Koslosky and Others, Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Power of Attorney


Know all by these presents, that the undersigned (the "Reporting Person")
hereby constitutes and appoints each of Melanie A. DeMorrow, Assistant Vice
President-Shareholder Relations; Richard M. Lavers, Secretary; Joseph P.
Tomczak, Executive Vice President & C.F.O.; Kathy Samovitz, Associate
Counsel; and Jessica L. Long, Assistant Secretary,  signing singly, as the
Reporting Person's true and lawful attorney-in-fact, to:

(1) execute for and on behalf of the Reporting Person, in the Reporting
Person's capacity as an officer or trustee of Coachmen Industries, Inc.
(the "Company"), Forms 3, 4, and 5 and such other similar forms as may be
required for filing in accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and the rules
thereunder;

(2) do and perform all acts for and on behalf of the Reporting Person
which may be necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such forms
and timely file such forms with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission and any stock exchange or similar authority or other federal
agency; and

(3) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the
foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit
to, and in the best interest of, or legally required by, the Reporting
Person.

The Reporting Person hereby grants to each such attorney-in-fact full power and
authority to do and perform any and every act and thing whatsoever requisite,
necessary, or proper to be done in the exercise of any of the rights and powers
herein granted, as fully to all intents and purposes as the Reporting Person
might or could do if personally present, with full power of substitution or
revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact, or
such attorney-in-facts substitute or substitutes, shall lawfully do or cause to
be done by the virtue of this Power of Attorney and the rights and powers
herein granted.  The Reporting Person acknowledges that the foregoing
attorneys-in fact, in serving in such capacity at the request of the Reporting
Person, are not assuming, nor is the company assuming, any of the Reporting
Persons responsibilities to comply with any of the above specified laws or
regulations.

This Power of Attorney shall remain in full force and effect until the
Reporting Person is no longer required to file such forms with respect to the
Reporting Person's holdings of and transactions in securities issued by the
Company, unless earlier revoked by the Reporting Person in a signed writing
delivered to the Secretary of  the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Reporting Person has caused this Power of Attorney to
be executed as of this 10th day of June, 2004.



						s/Colleen Ann Zuhl
### §18996. Cybersecurity workforce data initiative

The Director, acting through the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics established in section 1862p of this title and in coordination with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and other appropriate Federal statistical agencies, shall establish a cybersecurity workforce data initiative that—

(1) assesses the feasibility of providing nationally representative estimates and statistical information on the cybersecurity workforce;

(2) utilizes the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Cybersecurity Workforce Framework (NIST Special Publication 800–181), or other frameworks, as appropriate, to enable a consistent measurement of the cybersecurity workforce;

(3) utilizes and complements existing data on employer requirements and unfilled positions in the cybersecurity workforce;

(4) consults key stakeholders and the broader community of practice in cybersecurity workforce development to determine data requirements needed to strengthen the cybersecurity workforce;

(5) evaluates existing Federal survey data for information pertinent to developing national estimates of the cybersecurity workforce;

(6) evaluates administrative data and other supplementary data sources, as available, to describe and measure the cybersecurity workforce; and

(7) collects statistical data, to the greatest extent practicable, on credential attainment and employment outcomes information for the cybersecurity workforce.

(Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title III, §10317, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1531.)