alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|         |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| • | the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2020 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|         |                                                                                                                                                      |
|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| • | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
| Dated: | August 3, 2020 | By   | /s/ Albert J. Miralles |   |
|   |   |   | Albert J. Miralles |   |
|   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer  |   |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERTO CHAIDEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

SUSAN HUBBARD, Director; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-15885 

D.C. No. 4:17-cv-01032-JSW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Roberto Chaidez appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional 

violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse 

of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with court orders. Ferdik v. 

 

* 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

NOV 30 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15885 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Chaidez’s action 

because Chaidez failed to file an amended complaint that complied with the district 

court’s instructions to give a short and clear description of the wrongful conduct 

and each defendant’s involvement. See id. at 1260-61 (setting forth factors for 

determining whether a pro se action should be dismissed for failure to comply with 

the district court’s orders; where the district court does not make explicit findings 

concerning these factors, we “review the record independently to determine if [it] 

has abused its discretion”).

We reject as without merit Chaidez’s contentions that the district court 

lacked authority to screen his complaint and erred by imposing a page limit on 

Chaidez’s second amended complaint.

We reject as unsupported by the record Chaidez’s contention concerning 

bias of the district court.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

June 14, 2001 Session

TRAVIS MILTON WATT v. LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY

INSURANCE CO., ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Madison County

No. 53638 Joe C. Morris, Chancellor

No. W2000-00104-SC-R3-CV - Filed December 20, 2001

JANICE M. HOLDER, J., concurring and dissenting.

I concur in the majority’s holding that Watt is entitled to receive permanent and total

disability benefits. I write separately, however, to express my disagreement with the allocation of

liability between the employer and the Second Injury Fund, consistent with my concurring and

dissenting opinion in Bomely v. Mid-America Corp., 970 S.W.2d 929 (Tenn. 1998).

The clear purpose of the Second Injury Fund is to encourage employers to hire handicapped

workers. Bomely, 970 S.W.2d at 937 (Holder, J., concurring and dissenting) (citing E.I. du Pont de

Nemours & Co. v. Friar, 218 Tenn. 554, 560, 404 S.W.2d 518, 521 (1966)). This result is achieved

by limiting an employer’s liability for a subsequent injury causing permanent and total disability to

such compensation as would have been payable for the subsequent injury without consideration of

any previous injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-208(a)(1). The remainder of any compensation due

for the subsequent injury is then paid out of the Second Injury Fund. Id.

In this case, Lumbermens should be held responsible solely for the benefits it would have

paid to Watt for the loss of his leg. Lumbermens’ liability would then be limited to 200 weeks of

compensation. The outcome of the majority’s allocation of liability for benefits is to expose the

employer and its insurance company to greater liability than is contemplated under the Second Injury

Fund legislation. I reiterate my position in Bomely that the majority’s analysis will deter employers

from hiring handicapped workers. Because this result is contrary to the legislature’s intent in

creating the Second Injury Fund, I must respectfully dissent to that section of the majority opinion

allocating fifty percent of the liability for Watt’s permanent and total disability benefits to

Lumbermens.

___________________________________ 

JANICE M. HOLDER, JUSTICE
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIELLE POLLAR, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

NO: C-08-4196 BZ (MEJ)

ORDER VACATING 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this case has been taken off calendar for a Settlement

Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on January 15, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.,

This matter shall be placed on a wait list for the first available date. The parties shall immediately

notify the Court if this matter settles or is dismissed. 

Please contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Brenda Tolbert, at (415) 522-4708 with any

questions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2010

 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04196-BZ Document 60 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27796]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 04-3616; MM Docket No. 02-212; RM-10516, RM-10618]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Crystal Beach, TX, Lumberton, TX, 
Vinton, LA and Winnie, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a Petition for Reconsideration filed by 
Charles Crawford directed to the Report and Order in this proceeding. 
See 69 FR 29241, May 21, 2004. With this action, the proceeding is 
terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Media Bureau, (202) 418-
2177.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Memorandum Opinion 
and Order in MM Docket No.02-212 adopted November 24, 2004, and 
released November 26, 2004. The full text of this decision is available 
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center at Portals ll, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. The 
Commission will not send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), 
because the petition was reconsideration was denied.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 04-27796 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Janus Hotels and Resorts, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
A. Tonges, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.





/s/ Richard A. Tonges

Richard A. Tonges
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2002
### §3797ee. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797ee was editorially reclassified as section 10691 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arthur Tortorello, Also Known as Arthur Todd, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered July 22, 1976, convicting the defendant of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, and resentencing him to a one-year prison term to run consecutively with a five-year Federal sentence the defendant is presently serving, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the defendant’s motion to suppress the bond seized at the time of his arrest granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. Federal agents with a warrant to arrest another person on charges of possession of stolen bonds, found him in the defendant’s office, and having been told by the defendant’s attorney that they had no permission nor right to search the defendant’s office or effects, nonetheless did so and found the document in question. Even in 1967 when the search was conducted, there was no legal basis for doing this. (See *United States v Rabinowitz,*339 US 56; see, also, *Chimel v California,*395 US 752, as limited by *Williams v United States,*401 US 646.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.
### §§4711 to 4713. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 4711, Pub. L. 91–648, title I, §101, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1910, declared the purpose of this subchapter to provide intergovernmental cooperation in the development of policies and standards for the administration of programs authorized by this Act.

Section 4712, Pub. L. 91–648, title I, §102, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1910, which provided for the establishment of an Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Personnel Policy by the President, membership, duties, compensation and travel expenses of the council and termination of the council by the President at any time after the expiration of three years following its establishment, was omitted in view of the revocation of Ex. Ord. No. 11607, July 20, 1971, 36 F.R. 13317, which established the Council, by Ex. Ord. No. 11792, June 25, 1974, 39 F.R. 23191.

Section 4713, Pub. L. 91–648, title I, §103, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1910, which provided that the Council report to the President and Congress, from time to time, its recommendations and findings, was omitted in view of the abolishment of the Council.
|  1.   | I am the President, chief executive officer and chief financial officer of Rotate Black, Inc. |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  2.   | Attached to this certification is Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, a periodic report (the “periodic report”) filed by the issuer with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), which contains financial statements. |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|        ●       | The periodic report containing the financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|        ●      | The information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer for the periods presented. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:    November 18, 2010 | /s/ John Paulsen                                             |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                           | John Paulsen                                                 |   |
|                                           | Chairman, CEO and CFO                                        |   |
|                                           | (Principal Executive Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer) |   |
#### § 239.3 The Guarantee.

Subject to the terms and conditions set out in this part, the United States of America, acting through USAID, guarantees to Noteholders the Borrower's repayment of 100 percent of principal and interest due on Eligible Notes. Under the Guarantee, USAID agrees to pay to any Noteholder compensation in United States Dollars equal to such Noteholder's Loss of Investment under its Eligible Note; provided, however, that no such payment shall be made to any Noteholder for any such loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which such Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became such Noteholder. The Guarantee shall apply to each Eligible Note registered on the Note Register required to be maintained by the Fiscal Agent.
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge 

Eloy Padilla-Saldana 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 

--1A1MINIMMIENEVEM I FRIMT-gf.M*117:
### §300s–5. Availability of technical and other nonfinancial assistance to eligible applicants

The Secretary shall provide (either through the Department of Health and Human Services or by contract) all necessary technical and other nonfinancial assistance to any public or other entity which is eligible to apply for assistance under this subchapter to assist such entity in developing applications to be submitted to the Secretary under section 300s–1 or 300t–12 of this title. The Secretary shall make every effort to inform eligible applicants of the availability of assistance under this subchapter.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XVI, §1626, formerly §1635, as added Pub. L. 93–641, §4, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2273; renumbered §1626 and amended Pub. L. 96–79, title II, §§202(b), 203(f), Oct. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 632, 635; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1979—Pub. L. 96–79, §203(f), substituted "other entity" for "other nonprofit entity" and "section 300s–1 or 300t–12 of this title" for "section 300o–3 of this title."

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

#### Change of Name

"Department of Health and Human Services" substituted in text for "Department of Health, Education, and Welfare" pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.

#### Effective Date of 1979 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–79 effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 204 of Pub. L. 96–79, set out as a note under section 300q of this title.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

January 25, 2013

d0122

Order 

January 25, 2013

144603(69)

ANDREW LUCIO,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 144603

COA: 299786 

Wayne CC: 09-003014-NI

GREAT LAKES CASUALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff-Appellee, 

and

AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION,

a/k/a AAA,

Defendant/Cross-Defendant- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 

19, 2012 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.
### §3796d. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796d was editorially reclassified as section 10301 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4071 

To amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that the provisions 

relating to countervailing duties apply to nonmarket economy countries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2012 

Ms. BALDWIN (for herself and Mr. RIBBLE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide 

that the provisions relating to countervailing duties apply 

to nonmarket economy countries. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘China Hurts Economic 

5 Advancement Through Subsidies Act’’ or ‘‘CHEATS 

6 Act’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4071 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES TO 

2 NONMARKET ECONOMIES AND STRENGTH3 ENING APPLICATION OF THE LAW. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 701(a)(1) of the Tariff 

5 Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671(a)(1)) is amended by insert6 ing ‘‘(including a nonmarket economy country)’’ after 

7 ‘‘country’’ each place it appears. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 subsection (a) apply to petitions filed under section 702 

10 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671a) on or after 

11 October 1, 2006. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge

for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

 2The Honorable Paul Benson, United States District Judge for

the District of North Dakota.

___________

No. 96-1875

___________

Raymond P. Zajac, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

AgriBank, formerly known as *

The Federal Land Bank of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Saint Paul, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 9, 1995

 Filed: December 13, 1996 ___________

Before BOWMAN and LAY, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,1 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Zajac appeals from the order of the District Court2

granting summary judgment in favor of AgriBank on his claims of

abuse of process, trespass, and forcible ejection from real

property.

We have reviewed carefully the record and the parties'

submissions and have concluded that the District Court was clearly

correct for the reasons stated in the court's opinion.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 13.3 [Reserved]
§ 33.5 Guaranty agreements. ( a ) *Period in effect.* Agreements are effective for a Fiscal Year beginning October 1 and ending on the next September 30. Applications submitted after October 1 are effective from the date the application and fee are mailed (determined by the postmark) through September 30.
( b ) *Guaranty agreement transfer.* A guaranty agreement may, with the Secretary's prior consent, be transferred when a vessel which is the subject of a guaranty agreement is transferred to a new owner if the transfer occurs during the agreement period.
( c ) *Guaranty agreement renewal.* A guaranty agreement may be renewed for the next agreement year by submitting an application form with the appropriate fee for the next year in accordance with the Secretary's annually published requirements regarding fees. Renewals are subject to the Secretary's approval.
( d ) *Provisions of the agreement.* The agreement will provide for reimbursement for certain losses caused by foreign countries' seizure and detention of U.S. fishing vessels on the basis of claims to jurisdiction which are not recognized by the United States. Recent amendments to the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. (1801 *et seq.*) assert U.S. jurisdiction over highly migratory species of tuna in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Accordingly, as a matter of international law, the United States now recognizes other coastal states' claims to jurisdiction over tuna in their EEZ'S. This change directly affect certification of claims filed under the Fishermen's Protective Act. Participants are advised that this means that the Department will no longer certify for payment claims resulting from the seizure of a U.S. vessel while such vessel was fishing for tuna within the exclusive economic zone of another country in violation of that country's laws. Claims for detentions or seizures based on other claims to jurisdiction not recognized by the United States, or on the basis of claims to jurisdiction recognized by the United States but exercised in a manner inconsistent with international law as recognized by the United states, may still be certified by the Department.
### §3758. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §509, formerly §508, as added Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, §1111(a)(2)(C), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3101; amended Pub. L. 110–294, §1, July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2971; renumbered §509, Pub. L. 117–325, §2(c)(1), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4444, which authorized appropriations for fiscal years 2006 through 2012, was omitted as obsolete.

#### Prior Provisions

For prior sections 3758 and 3759 of this title, see notes set out preceding section 3750 of this title.