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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EZ MAILING SERVICES, INC., a New

Jersey corporation, AKA EZ Worldwide

Express,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ORACLE TRANSPORTATION

SOLUTIONS, INC., a California

Corporation,

 Defendant,

 And

GENCO TRANSPORTATION

MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Wisconsin

limited liability company,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-55798

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-09313-CBMJEM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 11, 2016

FILED

APR 05 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

EZ Mailing Services, Inc. (“EZ Mailing”) appeals the district court’s grant

of summary judgment in favor of Genco Transportation (“Genco”) for breach of

oral contract. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

EZ Mailing failed to present evidence that it entered into an oral agreement

with Genco that required Genco to (1) locate a competent carrier, and (2) ensure

that the carrier maintained sufficient and applicable cargo insurance. The evidence

that EZ Mailing submitted does not prove that such an oral agreement existed. 

First, the April 2011 emails between EZ Mailing and Genco do not indicate that an

oral agreement of any sort was formed between EZ Mailing and Genco. Next, the

Load Confirmation and Master Transportation Service Agreement are proof of a

contract between Genco and Oracle Transportation Solutions, Inc., not between EZ

Mailing and Genco. The statement from Vijay Aggarwal’s declaration is too

vague to indicate that Genco consented to locating a qualified carrier, or that the

carrier would have adequate cargo insurance. Similarly, Sandra Lopez’s

deposition alludes only to an oral contract about cargo insurance in the amount of

$100,000, and not to the specific requirements of finding a competent carrier with

sufficient cargo insurance. 

2
For these reasons, the district court properly granted Genco’s motion for

summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

3
#### § 1006.620 Do Federal agencies coordinate suspension and debarment actions?

Yes, when more than one Federal agency has an interest in a suspension or debarment, the agencies may consider designating one agency as the lead agency for making the decision. Agencies are encouraged to establish methods and procedures for coordinating their suspension and debarment actions.
#### § 30.11 Applicability of state law.

Pursuant to section 12(e)(2) of the Act, the provisions of any state law, including any rule or regulation thereunder, may be applicable to any person required to be registered under this part who solicits foreign futures and foreign options customers and who shall fail or refuse to obtain such registration, unless such person is exempt from such registration in accordance with the provisions of § 30.4, § 30.5 or § 30.10 of this part.
FILED

May 27, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

JUNE 1997 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9610-CR-00369

Appellee, )

) BRADLEY COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. MAYO L. MASHBURN,

DONALD RAY SHIRLEY, ) JUDGE

)

Appellant. ) (Aggravated Robbery)

CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s modification of the defendant’s

sentence for the robbery at the Take Two Video store. Because I believe the enhancing

factors support the maximum prison term for this robbery, I would affirm its sentence in

this regard. I concur in all other aspects of the majority’s opinion.

_______________________________

JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
#### In the Matter of Orlando Rios, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[819 NYS2d 622]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

While in the main exercise yard, petitioner was observed acting in a suspicious manner and, consequently, searches of his person and cell were ordered. Two substances suspected to be narcotics were found hidden in his cell. The substances tested positive for heroin and cocaine and, as a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the possession of drugs. At the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charges and a penalty was imposed. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination.

*633Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the hearing testimony and the contraband test documentation established both an unbroken chain of custody and an adherence to proper procedure *(see*7 NYCRR 1010.4; *Matter of Otero v Selsky,*9 AD3d 631, 632 [2004] ). Such documentation and testimony also provide substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt *(see Matter of Steward v Goord,*24 AD3d 1075 [2005]; *Matter of Christian v Goord,*20 AD3d 862, 863 [2005]; *Matter of Otero v Selsky, supra*at 632). Petitioner’s contention that he was impermissibly denied the right to observe his cell search is without merit inasmuch as petitioner was not removed from his cell prior to the search. Thus, his presence during the search was not required *(see Matter of Caserta v Travis,*20 AD3d 798, 799 [2005] ; *Matter of Campoverde v Selsky,*9 AD3d 722, 723 [2004]; *Matter of Lopez v Selsky,*300 AD2d 975 [2002], *lv denied*100 NY2d 509 [2003]). Finally, the Hearing Officer properly denied petitioner’s request to call certain witnesses since those witnesses had no personal knowledge of the incident. Their testimony, therefore, would have been irrelevant *(see Matter of Trammell v Selsky,*10 AD3d 787, 788-789 [2004]; *Matter of Green v McGinnis,*281 AD2d 671 [2001]).

To the extent that petitioner’s remaining contentions have been preserved, they have been reviewed and determined to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
### Summary of Analy tical Results 662 - January

2012 **Sample ID** 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB **Date** 1/2/12 1/9/12 1/17/12 1/23/12 1/30/12 **Top (ft)** 0 0 0 0 0 **Total (T)/ Bottom (ft)**  0 0 0 0 0 **An aly**  **te units** **Diss. (D) Duplicate #**  1 1 1 1 1 PFOA ug/L T 3.03 3.91 6.78 4.52 5.88

The NJDEP lab certification number for Critical Path Services LLC is PA072. Samples were analyzed by Critical Path Services LLC. Reported results PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic Acid ug/L = micrograms per Liter
represent a single analysis, except for the sample collected on 1/2/12. collected on 1/2/12 represents the average of lab duplicate results. Acceptable precision was obtained and the reported result for the sample

< and ND = Non detect at stated reporting limit Page 1 of 1 090000648104790a.xls:Sheet1 6/14/2012 3:42 PM
### §291n. Repealed. Pub. L. 90–174, §3(b)(1), Dec. 5, 1967, 81 Stat. 535

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VI, §644, formerly §624, as added Aug. 18, 1964, Pub. L. 88–443, §3(a), 78 Stat. 459, and renumbered §644, June 30, 1970, Pub. L. 91–296, title II, §201, 84 Stat. 344, provided for research, experiments and demonstrations in utilization of medical facilities, authorization, grants-in-aid, amounts, payment, conditions, authorization of appropriations, and right of recovery of United States Government. See section 242b of this title.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in a prior section 291n, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VI, §636, as added Oct. 25, 1949, ch. 722, §5, 63 Stat. 900; amended Oct. 6, 1961, Pub. L. 87–395, §4, 75 Stat. 825, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 88–443.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective with respect to appropriations for fiscal year ending after June 30, 1967, see section 3(b) of Pub. L. 90–174, set out as an Effective Date of 1967 Amendment note under section 246 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Rice, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 922]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *(see People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38 [1979]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Penny M. Wolfgang, J.— Attempted Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance, 3rd *1250Degree). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Kehoe, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
§ 1503.2 Description. The official seal of the African Development Foundation is described as follows: ( a ) Forming an outer circle is a ring of type in dark blue capital letters spelling the words “AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION—UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;”
( b ) Within that circle is an inner circle with the stylized letters ADF in dark blue superimposed on a light grey background.
( c ) The official seal of the African Development Foundation when reproduced in black and white and when embossed, is as it appears below.
No. 89-870.

#### Kiesel Co., Inc. *v.*Householder, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF T/F PURIFINER,  INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1997,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
        

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS             
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         1,140,086 
<SECURITIES>                                           0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                    213,722
<ALLOWANCES>                                      43,167
<INVENTORY>                                      530,559
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,920,172 
<PP&E>                                           534,320
<DEPRECIATION>                                   184,902
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,652,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,514,742     
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0 
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           5,205     
<OTHER-SE>                                      (230,561)   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,652,954
<SALES>                                        1,160,211
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,160,211
<CGS>                                            758,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    758,131
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,788,443                                      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                96,366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,482,729)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2,482,729) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,482,729)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.48)  

        

</TABLE>
Filed 12/6/21 P. v. Stegall CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KEVIN PATRICK STEGALL,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B312474

(Super. Ct. No. 2020030207)

(Ventura County)

Kevin Patrick Stegall (“appellant”) appeals following a 

guilty plea to carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 

21310) 1, and committing vandalism of over $ 400 (§ 594, subd. 

(b)(1)) after it was determined he scratched an “X” into the door 

of one vehicle and punctured the tire of another vehicle parked in 

a car dealership parking lot. Appellant requested and obtained a 

certificate of probable cause. 

On March 16, 2021, appellant was sentenced to 16 months,

split between county jail and mandatory supervision. Seven days 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

later, he was taken into custody for violating mandatory 

supervision. Appellant admitted the violation, and the court 

formally revoked and reinstated appellant’s mandatory 

supervision with additional conditions. 

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. 

After counsel examined the record, she filed an opening brief that 

raises no arguable issues. On September 14, 2021, we attempted 

to notify appellant by mail that he had 30 days within which to 

personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to 

consider. That notice was returned as undeliverable. We are

unable to locate appellant because he has been transient since he 

was released from custody. 

Although appellant did not submit a supplemental letter on 

appeal, his request for a certificate of probable cause challenged 

whether the evidence at the preliminary hearing established that 

the knife appellant carried was concealed. 

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that 

appellant’s attorney fully complied with her responsibilities and 

that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436, 443.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J. PERREN, J.
Patricia M. Murphy, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Suzan E. Hier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant. 

No appearance for Respondent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q 
AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,005,515
<SECURITIES>                                    29,900
<RECEIVABLES>                                  130,120
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,900
<INVENTORY>                                     43,942
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,708,159
<PP&E>                                         112,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                 207,174
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,455,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,980,856
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  8,157,176
<COMMON>                                       227,514
<OTHER-SE>                                  (8,925,272)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,455,109
<SALES>                                        526,157
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               526,157
<CGS>                                          374,286
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,452,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              97,978
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,213,365)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,213,365)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,213,365)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.23)
        

</TABLE>
§ 1424.4 Content of petition; service. ( a ) A petition for review shall be dated and shall contain the following: ( 1 ) A statement setting forth the matter proposed to be bargained as submitted to the Department;
( 2 ) A copy of all pertinent material, including the Department's allegation in writing that the matter, as proposed, is not within the duty to bargain in good faith, and other relevant documentary material; and
( 3 ) Notification by the petitioning labor organization whether the negotiability issue is also involved in an unfair labor parctice charge filed by such labor organization under part 1423 of this subchapter and pending before the General Counsel.
( b ) A copy of the petition including all attachments thereto shall be served on the Secretary and on the principal Department bargaining representative at the negotiations.
Exhibit 32.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JEFFERY M. JACKSON

On this day, Sabre Holdings Corporation (the "Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2003 (the "Report").

This
written statement accompanied the Report.

I,
Jeffery M. Jackson, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that:



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

|/s/JEFFERY M. JACKSONJeffery M. Jackson
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                                   SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Texas Petrochemicals LP (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


May 15, 2003                            /s/ Carl S. Stutts
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Carl S. Stutts
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Texas Petrochemicals LP and will be retained by Texas Petrochemicals
LP and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 70751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26839]



[[Page 70751]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Publication of the Tier 2 Tax Rates

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Publication of the tier 2 tax rates for calendar year 2005 as 
required by section 3241(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 
3241). Tier 2 taxes on railroad employees, employers, and employee 
representatives (a group unique to the railroad industry) fund a 
private pension benefit of the railroad retirement system.

DATES: The tier 2 tax rates for calendar year 2005 apply to 
compensation paid in calendar year 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Owens, CC:TEGE:EOEG:ET1, 
Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20224, Telephone Number (202) 622-6040 (not a toll-free number).
    Tier 2 Tax Rates: The tier 2 tax rate for 2005 under Sec.  3201(b) 
on employees is 4.4 percent of compensation. The tier 2 tax rate for 
2005 under Sec.  3221(b) on employers is 12.6 percent of compensation. 
The tier 2 tax rate for 2005 under Sec.  3211(b) on employee 
representatives is 12.6 percent of compensation.

    Dated: December 1, 2004.
Nancy Marks,
Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government 
Entities).
[FR Doc. 04-26839 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.12g-1 Registration of securities; exemption from section 12(g). An issuer is not required to register a class of equity securities pursuant to section 12(g)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78 l (g)(1)) if on the last day of its most recent fiscal year: ( a ) The issuer had total assets not exceeding $10 million; or
( b ) ( 1 ) The class of equity securities was held of record by fewer than 2,000 persons and fewer than 500 of those persons were not accredited investors (as such term is defined in § 230.501(a) of this chapter, determined as of such day rather than at the time of the sale of the securities); or
( 2 ) The class of equity securities was held of record by fewer than 2,000 persons in the case of a bank; a savings and loan holding company, as such term is defined in section 10 of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461); or a bank holding company, as such term is defined in section 2 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841).
81 FR 28705, May 10, 2016, as amended at 81 FR 95458, Dec. 28, 2016]
###### Editorial Note on Part 260

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 260 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 260.7a-15 Scope of §§ 260.7a-15 to 260.7a-37.

The rules contained in §§ 260.7a-15 to 260.7a-37 shall govern applications for exemption filed pursuant to section 304(c) or 304(d) of the Act, applications for qualification of indentures filed pursuant to section 307, statements of eligibility and qualifications of trustees filed pursuant to section 305, 307, or 310(a) of the Act, applications for the stay of the trustee's duty to resign filed pursuant to section 310(b) of the Act, and reports filed pursuant to section 314(a) of the Act.

[56 FR 22320, May 15, 1991]