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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GENE HAZZARD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MAYOR LIBBY SCHAAF; CITY OF 

OAKLAND, a municipal corporation; 

MIALISA BONTA, former CEO of Oakland 

Promise; DAVID SILVER, Educational 

Director in Mayor Schaaf's Office; 

BARBARA PARKER, City Attorney; 

COURTNEY RUBY, City Auditor; ED 

REISKIN, City Administrator; ANDY 

FREMDER, co-founder of East Bay College 

Fund; ROB BONTA, former 18th Assembly 

District Representative; SABRINA 

LANDRETH, former City Administrator, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 23-15097 

D.C. No. 4:22-cv-02921-JSW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 12, 2023**

* 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

DEC 18 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-15097 

Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Gene Hazzard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision 

on whether to permit oral argument. Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County 

Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on Hazzard’s requests 

for judicial notice and defendants’ motion to dismiss without oral argument. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (stating that “the court may provide for submitting and 

determining motions on briefs[] without oral hearings”); N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-1(b) 

(stating that “a motion may be determined without oral argument”); Morrow v.

Topping, 437 F.2d 1155, 1156 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that district courts may 

rule on motions without oral argument). Although Hazzard cites Federal Rule of 

Evidence 201(e), he provides no law to support his contention that this rule 

requires oral argument.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental 

jurisdiction over Hazzard’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The 

district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state-law] 

claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original 
3 23-15097 

jurisdiction . . . .”); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth 

standard of review).

We reject as unsupported by the record Hazzard’s contentions that the 

district court failed to consider the record or failed to address the relevant 

allegations raised in the operative complaint. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or 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.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 17 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JIMMIE ODELL BRUNER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

RON CHAMPION; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

OKLAHOMA,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 97-7071

(D.C. No. 95-CV-293-S)

(E. D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, BARRETT, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Petitioner Jimmie Odell Bruner appeals the district court’s decision to

dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district

court neither issued nor denied petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) and Tenth

Circuit protocol, we assume that the district court denied petitioner a certificate of

appealability. Petitioner requests this court issue a certificate of appealability and

reverse the district court’s dismissal of his § 2254 petition.

After a mistrial, petitioner was retried and convicted of first degree rape,

first degree burglary, and robbery by force and fear. Petitioner’s conviction and

sentence were affirmed on appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. 

Petitioner filed his § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The district court adopted

the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed the

petition.

In order to obtain a certificate of appealability, petitioner must make

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we conclude

that petitioner has failed to make the requisite showing.
-3-

Petitioner’s “Motion for Order Requiring Answer Brief” is DENIED. 

We DENY petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS

his appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
Class G Airspace to 1200'AGL Olney-Noble (OL Y) Class E , 700' AGL- FLT L VL Radio: CTAF 123.0 Effingham Co Memorial (1 H2)



### ~ **;::;i2:::;:::~::::;:~**

**,~ ~~~**  **Ciass** E, 700' AGL - FL T LVL

**~** Radio: CTAF 122.8 Red Hills MOA: Restricted : 6000' MSL-FLT LVL Radio: Indianapol is CNTR 132.2 (_
INL CAPABILITY 

Computer-Aided Decision Support 

s part of its informed decision making and analysis capability, INL Systems 

Engineering provides electronic meeting support using structured group intelligence 

technology to help teams achieve remarkable group collaboration and enhance 

organizational brainstorming and decision-making. The electronic decision analysis 

capability, produced and marketed by GroupSystems, Inc, is hosted on a stand-alone or web-based 

server and accessed through satellite computer terminals. 

► Improved Meeting Efficiency – When used in close support of one of the INL's trained 

facilitators, GroupSystems technology can improve the content and product of a meeting 

by allowing meeting participants to simultaneously input ideas and comments into a 

shared database, sort and categorize those ideas into common areas of emphasis, rate the 

relative importance or value of those ideas through multi-voting and other analysis 

capabilities, and further develop those ideas into a viable path forward. The electronic 

meeting technology also encourages equal participation and focuses the meeting on the 

subject matter content, not participant personalities, through the use of anonymous 

participation. Research shows that electronic meetings help organizations think better, 

create better, and decide better by engaging and empowering organizational resources 

through the use of “Group Intelligence” technology. Using the INL’s GroupSystems 

capability, meeting objectives can be reached in about half the time by parallel and 

simultaneous communication, and with richer and more detailed content than can be 

achieved through traditional meeting methods. 

► GroupSystems Capabilities – The INL’s electronic meeting system has the capability for 

brainstorming, categorizing, organizing, and commenting on ideas to various levels of 

detail, and creating detailed document outlines. It also has an extensive capability for idea 

reduction, selection, or alternative analysis using several “voting” methods, including rank 

order; 4-, 5-, and 10-point scaling; multiple selection ranking; and agree / disagree 

statements. Reduction / selection results are immediately available for discussion by 

participants, thus allowing for real-time 

clarification and correction of results. The 

system can also be used to create customized 

surveys to assess participant attitudes and 

accumulate detailed information prior to or 

during a meeting. 

► Proven Applications – The 

INL’s electronic meeting 

system has been used 

successfully to support 

mission development and 

requirements identification, 

research gap analysis, 

project alternative analysis, 

brainstorming of innovative 

problem solutions, and 

document review and 

revision. 

Technical

Contacts 

Ron Klingler 

(208) 526-0183 

ron.klingler@inl.gov 

Lori Braase 

(208) 526-7763 

lori.braase@inl.gov 

Robert Caliva 

(208) 526-4653 

robert.caliva@inl.gov 

John Collins 

(208) 526-3372 

john.collins@inl.gov

Web Page 

http://www.inl.gov/syseng 

A
###### Editorial Note on Part 842

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

#### § 842.80 Scope of this subpart.

This subpart describes how to assert, administer, and collect claims for damage to or loss or destruction of government property and lost wages of Air Force servicemembers through negligent or wrongful acts. It does not cover admiralty, hospital recovery, or nonappropriated fund claims.

[81 FR 83696, Nov. 22, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     ARTICLE 5 FOR THIRD QUARTER 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000032621 
<NAME>                        EMERSON RADIO CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-02-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1 
<CASH>                                              6,624
<SECURITIES>                                        1,040
<RECEIVABLES>                                      13,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                        5,862
<INVENTORY>                                        11,472
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   35,612
<PP&E>                                              4,269
<DEPRECIATION>                                      3,069
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     59,324
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              27,073
<BONDS>                                            20,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                         3,343
<COMMON>                                              513
<OTHER-SE>                                          7,479
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       59,324
<SALES>                                            45,762
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   46,762
<CGS>                                              42,273
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      42,273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    3,655
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     (159)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    551
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       605
<INCOME-TAX>                                           22
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   583
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                          583
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .01
        

</TABLE>
Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION**

# THE SECRETARY

# MEMORANDUM

TO:          The Chief Financial Officer   

             Federal Student Aid

THROUGH:The Chief Operating Officer    ◄▬▬▬

Federal Student Aid

FROM:    The Secretary

SUBJECT:  Delegation of Authority to Approve Transactions Regarding Purchases of Federal Family Education Loans by the Department

## I. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

Under the authority vested in me by Section 412 of the Department of Education Organization Act, Public Law 96-88, 20 U.S.C. §3472, as amended, and in accordance with Sections 141-143 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), I hereby delegate to you, to your successor in function, and to anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the authority provided under Section 459A of the HEA or other applicable law to approve  agreements and modifications of agreements with lenders to purchase Federal Family Education Loan Program loans, and to execute documents pertinent to these transactions.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority delegated herein are included in the scope of this delegation.

## II. RESERVATIONS

The authority to determine the need for loan capital or to establish the terms and conditions governing the purchase of loans is reserved.  

## III. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated.

## IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal Delegations Control Officer and supersedes all previous redelegations of these authorities.

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date of certification.

___________/s/_______________ 

 Arne Duncan

OGC Clearance and Date:  /s/ Tracey Sasser, 9/28/2010

Certified Date:  10/7/2010 

Departmental Delegations Control Officer:  /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number:  EA/EN/72
**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION**

# THE SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM

TO:Assistant Secretary for Communications and Outreach

FROM:The Secretary

SUBJECT:Delegation of Authority

I.DELEGATION

By the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. § 3472, I hereby delegate to you, your successor in function, and anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the following administrative authorities as delegated to all Principal Officers for their respective areas of responsibility, to be exercised with respect to the area of responsibility of the Office of Communications and Outreach.  Copies of these delegations are accessible on ConnectED at:  http://connected1.ed.gov/po/om/executive/doa/main.html

Certification DateAuthority Delegated

A.9/4/1992Authority under 34 CFR Part 8 regarding demands for testimony

B.11/7/1995Authority under 20 U.S.C. §3481 to accept gifts of travel from ED employees

C.7/31/1996Authority under 5 U.S.C. §3595(b) (3) (B) to file written objections to OPM regarding SES qualifications

D.  9/29/1997Authority to suspend or remove/terminate employees for reasons of suitability under   5 CFR Parts 315 and 731

E.7/22/1998Authority to assert a deliberative process privilege as a basis for withholding documents or testimony

F.12/3/1998Authority to certify fund availability

G.2/18/1999Authority under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, P.L. 92-463, to close advisory committee meetings or portions thereof to the public

H.11/23/1999Authority under 5 CFR Part 6301 and Executive Orders 12674 and 12731 to make determinations with respect to requests for approval of outside activities

I.4/7/2000Authority to approve and sign certain Federal Register documents

J.7/30/2002Authority under 5 U.S.C. §2903 to administer oaths of office to members of advisory and other committees

K.5/25/2004Authority to certify true copies of ED records in accordance with 20 U.S.C. §3485

L.8/3/2005Authority to approve travel within the Continental US and non-foreign travel areas

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authorities delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II.RESERVATIONS

Unless otherwise noted, the reservations contained in the actual delegation documents remain in effect.

III. REDELEGATIONS

The authority for redelegations and the restrictions on redelegations in the actual delegation documents remain in effect.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal Delegations Control Officer.

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date of certification.

__________/s/__________  

     Margaret Spellings

OGC Clearance and Date:  /s/ David Berthiaume, 10/12/2005

Certified Date:  10/17/2005

Departmental Delegations Control Officer:  /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number:  EA/EO/2
#### Estela B. Sanguinetti v. Alberto A. Sanguinetti.

Motion for an order striking appeals from the February 1961 Term Calendar of this court denied with leave to respondent to serve and file her respondent’s points on or before February 14, 1961, at 12 o’clock noon. Reply points, if any, are to be served and filed on or before February 17, 1961 at 12 o’clock noon. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
### Part B—Integrated Management Systems
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 1 8

- 13515 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:18

- cr - 00042

- SPC

- CM

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus LUIS ROBERT MA RTINEZ , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

____________________ (April 22, 2019) B efore NEWSOM , BRANCH and JULIE CARNES , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM : The Government ’ s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’ s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

- 51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence

- appeal waiver will be enforced

Case: 18-13515 Date Filed: 04/22/2019 Page: 1 of 22 if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. DiFalco , 837 F.3d 1207, 1213, 1220

- 21 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding the district court’s explanation sufficient where it explained the appeal rights the defendant would ordinarily have, the appeal rights being waived, and the exceptions to the waiver during the plea colloquy ). Case: 18-13515 Date Filed: 04/22/2019 Page: 2 of 2
#### ROCHESTER & P. COAL & IRON CO. v. FLINT, EDDY & CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Trial—Documents—Construction—Question for Jury.

Where parol evidence was introduced without objection to explain the terms of a letter, and such evidence was conflicting, the construction of the letter was for the jury.

Appeal from City Court of New York, General Term.

Action by the Rochester & Pittsburg Coal & Iron Company against Flint, Eddy & Co. From a judgment of the General Term of the New York City Court reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff, it appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

I. Sidney Carrere, for appellant.

Ivins, Kidder & Melcher, for respondent.

*270PER CURIAM.

The only question in this case is whether the firm of C. Aires & Co., to whom a cargo of coal was sent to be sold, were the agents of the plaintiff or the agents of the defendant. The conversations and transactions between the parties leading up to the consignment of the cargo of coal in question culminated and were embodied in a letter sent by defendant to plaintiff on February 9, 1897. Ordinarily, the construction of that letter would be a question of law for the court, but witnesses for the parties herein, without objection or exception, testified to the meaning of the statements contained in that letter, and gave contradictory evidence regarding its construction. It thus became a question of fact for the jury to determine the meaning of its terms, which they did, construing the same in favor of the plaintiff’s contention. Had the parol evidence introduced regarding the terms of said letter been properly objected to, we should have been inclined to adopt the view of the General Term of the City Court as to the legal construction to be given to the terms of the letter; but the parties having, upon conflicting parol testimony, submitted the interpretation of the written contract to the decision of the jury, their judgment should not be disturbed, inasmuch as no exception was taken to any testimony which requires a reversal.

Judgment of the General Term of the City Court reversed, and judgment of the Trial Term affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                     JUN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<CASH>                                           2,304
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,272
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0 
<PP&E>                                         510,492
<DEPRECIATION>                                 222,790
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 417,059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0 
<BONDS>                                             0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                        10,449
<OTHER-SE>                                          0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   417,059
<SALES>                                         18,890
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,594
<CGS>                                           19,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  116,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,467
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,161
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,306
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,306
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
        

</TABLE>
§ 516.51 Response to subpoenas, orders, or requests for witnesses. ( a ) *Referral to a deciding official.* Requests, subpoenas, or orders for official information, interviews or testimony of present or former DA personnel in litigation or potential litigation in which the United States has an interest, including requests from DOJ, will be resolved by the SJA or legal adviser pursuant to the principles of this subpart. Litigation Division will be consulted on issues that cannot be resolved by the SJA or legal adviser.
( b ) *Reassignment of witnesses.* When requested by the U.S. Attorney, the SJA or legal adviser will ensure that no witnesses are reassigned from the judicial district without advising the DOJ attorney. If a witness is vital to the government's case and trial is imminent, the SJA or legal adviser should make informal arrangements to retain the witness in the command until trial. If this is not feasible, or if a satisfactory arrangement cannot be reached with the DOJ attorney, the SJA or legal adviser should notify Litigation Division.