alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

219 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

 Thomas G. Bruton

 CLERK (312) 435-5691

June 4, 2012

To All Counsel of Record

 

RE: Nicholas v. Conseco Life Insurance Company 

Case No: 12 C 845

Dear Clerk:

Pursuant to the order entered by Judge Robert W. Gettleman on 5/17/12, the above record 

 

# was electronically transmitted to USDC for the Central District of California. . 

 

Please acknowledge receipt of any paper documents on the enclosed copy of this letter.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk 

By: /s/ Sheila Moore 

 Deputy Clerk

New Case No. ____________________________ Date _____________________
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RACHEL YOULD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

LINDA S. BARNARD, Ph.D., LMFT; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-16968 

D.C. No. 5:18-cv-01255-EJD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2019**

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Rachel Yould appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for 

reconsideration in her diversity action arising out of the services provided to Yould 

by defendants in connection with her criminal prosecution. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 

 

* 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 14 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-16968 

Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We 

affirm.

We have an independent obligation to determine the district court’s 

jurisdiction, see Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th 

Cir. 2011), and we conclude on the basis of clarifications provided by Yould in her 

objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, that the district 

court had subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)

(requirements for diversity jurisdiction). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Yould’s motion for 

reconsideration because Yould failed to establish any basis for such relief. See

Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., 5 F.3d at 1262-63 (grounds for reconsideration 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 

1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal under Rule 8, and recognizing that 

“[p]rolix, confusing complaints . . . impose unfair burdens on litigants and 

judges”).

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.
### SUBCHAPTER III—DAIRY PRODUCT MANDATORY REPORTING
| 1.   | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 9, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                               |                           |   |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: August 23, 2010   | /s/ William L. Bridgford  |   |
|                               | William L. Bridgford, Chairman |   |
|                               | (Principal Executive Officer)  |   |
|                               |                           |   |
Exhibit 32.1


     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of New Century Companies, Inc. (the Company), does
hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,
2004 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


April 15, 2005                  /s/ David Duquette
                                   ----------------------------------------
                                   Name:  David Duquette
                                   Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chief Financial Officer


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to New Century
Companies, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or
its Staff upon request.
No. 7951.

#### The State *v.*Bailey.

(Decided November 17, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Pickaway county.

*Mr. Irvin F. Snyder,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Chris. A. Weldon,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report of Tellabs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 29, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Wiggins, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Timothy J. Wiggins 
|Timothy J. Wiggins     
|Chief Financial Officer
|Date: February 26, 2007

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.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11** 
**- 2189** 

RANDELL E. BUCK ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
JOHN K. GREENLEE, Individually and in his official capacity as Justice of the Superior Court of Gaston County; PAULA BRI NKLEY, Individually and in her official capacity as Social Worker for Gaston County Department of Social Services; MELANIE J. RICHARDS, Individually and in her official capacity as MSW, Program Supervisor, Office of the Guardian Ad Litem, Judicial District 27A; PAMELA DAVIS, Individually and in her official capacity as Guardian Ad Litem, Judicial District 27A; KEITH MOON, Individually and in his official capacity as Director, Gaston County Department of Social Services; ROBERT BECKER, Individually and in hi s official capacity as Chairman of the Board, Gaston County Department of Social Services; SHERRY S. BRADSHER, Individually and in her official capacity as Director NC Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Social Services ,
Defendants

- A ppellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 3:10

- cv
- 00540

- RJC

- DSC )

Submitted : February 9 , 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Randell E. Buck, Appellant Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Gerald Kevin Robbins, Special Deputy Attorney s General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Martha Raymond Thom pson, STOTT, HOLLOWELL, PALMER & WINDHAM, Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Randell E. Buck appeals the district court ’ s order
dismissing his complaint. We have reviewe d the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Buck v. Greenlee , No. 3:10

- cv
00540

- RJC

- DSC (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2011) . We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ruby Pryor, Respondent, against Presbyterian Home for Aged Women et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The claimant worked as a waitress and one McCormack as a porter for the employer. McCormack asked the claimant while at-work to meet him for the purpose of having illicit relations and she refused, informing McCormack she did not want to be molested by him and that she would report him to their superior. Shortly thereafter on October 8, 1956 McCormack was discharged for drinking, causing trouble and using improper language but the discharge had no connection with his proposal to the claimant of which the employer was unaware. McCormack returned several days after being, discharged and told the claimant that if she *833told on him he would get even. On October 21, 1956 McCormack returned again and assaulted the claimant without saying a word or without provocation. The board has found that the assault arose out of and in the course of claimant’s employment. This assault did not arise from a dispute over work being performed nor was it the result of a personal quarrel carried into the employment from outside. No personal or private relationship existed nor was one entered into between the claimant and McCormack. Larson points out that in a situation such as this it is the very act of forestalling such a relationship that leads to the assault and that the relation is *“*exclusively an employment one.” (I Larson, Law of Workmen’s Compensation, § 11.22, p. 140.) The facts of the present case distinguish it from *Matter of Scholtzhauer*v. *O. é L. Lunch Go.*(233 N. Y. 12). The finding here that the assault arose out of and in the course of the employment is supported by substantial evidence. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present— Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
Appeal No. 73-324.

#### Suzanne Elaine Caron *v.*Robert Caron.

*Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum, Alfred Factor,*for appellant.

Motion of appellant that her appeal be sustained pro forma is denied. The matter is assigned to the continuous argument list for hearing on her brief.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133460 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan ANTHONY P. FORNARI, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133460 COA: 265813 Genesee CC: 04-078667-NI GREGORY LEE HOOVER, and MIDWEST FIBERGLASS POOL DISTRIBUTORS, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 8, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1022 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Prima Energy Corporation, a Delaware corporation, has one direct wholly owned
subsidiary, Prima Oil & Gas Company, a Colorado corporation.

Prima Oil & Gas Company has four significant wholly owned subsidiaries. These
are as follows:

         1. Action Oil Field Services, Inc., a Colorado corporation.

         2. Action Energy Services, a Wyoming corporation.

         3. Prima Natural Gas Marketing, Inc., a Colorado corporation.

         4. Arete Gathering Company, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability
            corporation.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Samuel Flasterstein et al., as Executors and Trustees of the Will of Anna Flasterstein, Deceased, Respondents. *955Lee M. T. Flasterstein, Appellant.

In a proceeding to compel an accounting- in the estate of Anna Flasterstein, deceased, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated April 6, 1960, which recalled a decision theretofore made on February 11, 1960, dismissing the petition, which adhered to and reaffirmed said decision, and which dismissed the petition. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.                    

*Date:*                         April 11-13, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         3:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate personnel qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.                    

*Place:*                         Porter Neuroscience Research Center, Building 35A, 35 Convent Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lorna W. Role, Ph.D., Scientific Director, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 35A Convent Drive, MSC 3716, Bethesda, MD 20892,                         *lorna.role@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 8, 2021.

Tyeshia M. Roberson,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-00653 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Bernard Bernstein, Deceased. Joan K. Bernstein, Appellant; Gerson J. Bernstein et al., as Executors of Bernard Bernstein, Deceased, Respondents.

In a proceeding to judicially settle the account of the executors of a decedent’s estate, the widow of one of the decedent’s legatees appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, dated January 2, 1963, which granted her motion to the extent of directing that, pursuant to section 263 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, the executor-accountants shall submit to examination as to all matters relating to their administration of the estate. The appellant contends, *inter alla,*that the Surrogate erred in that the order, as signed by him, is inconsistent with the decision of the predecessor Surrogate, granting her motion to examine the executors pursuant to other statutes (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 316; former Civ. Prac. Act, § 288). Order affirmed, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, for the entry of an order fixing the appropriate dates and place for the examination and fixing the date for the filing of objections to the account. Ho opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Walter Haeger, Respondent, v. Harold Slote et al., Appellants.

In an action by a real estate broker to recover the commission allegedly earned by him in producing a purchaser who entered into a written agreement with defendants for the purchase of their real property — such agreement being later cancelled by defendants, the defendants appeal: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 24, 1964, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action (CPLlR 3211, subd. [a], par. 7); (2) from an order of said court, entered March 25, 1964, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3212); and (3) from the judgment of said court, entered March 25,1964, in favor of the plaintiff pursuant to the order granting summary judgment. Order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss complaint affirmed, without costs. Order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and judgment entered thereon, reversed, without costs, and motion denied. In our opinion, this record raises issues of fact which should be resolved by a plenary trial. *Inter alia,*such issues are: (1) whether the parties agreed and understood, as claimed by the defendants, that plaintiff’s commission was to be payable only if and when the purchaser (one Weston) produced by the plaintiff, thereafter entered into a formal contract, prepared or approved by defendants’ attorneys, for the purchase of the defendants’ property; and (2) whether plaintiff, as agent for the defendants, breached his fiduciary duty to them and was guilty of fraud by misleading defendants into the belief that the written agreement, which was signed by them and by Weston (the proposed purchaser) and which bears in large bold print the caption “ Offer to Purchase,” was nothing more than Weston’s offer to buy their property or their grant to him of an option to buy — such option to be later exercised by the signing of a formal contract (see 1 Harper & James, Law of Torts, § 7.8, p. 561; 37 C. J. S., Fraud, § 10; *Curry*v. *MacKenzie,*239 N. Y. 267; *Marturano*v. *American Progressive Health Ins. Co.,*13 Misc 2d 65, 70). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### §1205. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–301, §24(a)(2), Sept. 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 657

Section, Pub. L. 85–316, §4, Sept. 11, 1957, 71 Stat. 639; Pub. L. 86–253, §2, Sept. 9, 1959, 73 Stat. 490; Pub. L. 86–648, §7, July 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 505, related to nonquota immigrant visas for eligible orphans.
#### 1323.404-70 DOC affirmative procurement program.

The Department of Commerce's affirmative procurement program is described in CAM 1323.70.
No. 8426.

#### Lewis, Auditor, *v.*State ex rel. Harris, Exrx.

(Decided February 2, 1904.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Messrs. Ampt, Ireton, Collins & Behoenle,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Dan Thew Wright,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed on authority of *Lewis,*Auditor, v. *Kramer,*69 Ohio St., 473.

Spear, Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.
### §137a. Repealed. May 24, 1934, ch. 344, §5, 48 Stat. 798

Section, act Sept. 22, 1922, ch. 411, §8, as added July 3, 1930, ch. 826, 46 Stat. 849, provided as follows:

"§137a. Married woman whose husband is native-born citizen and veteran of World War. Any woman eligible by race to citizenship who has married a citizen of the United States before July 3, 1930, whose husband shall have been a native-born citizen and a member of the military or naval forces of the United States during the World War, and separated therefrom under honorable conditions; if otherwise admissible, shall not be excluded from admission into the United States under section 136 of this title, unless she be excluded under the provisions of that section relating to—

"(a) Persons afflicted with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease, except tuberculosis in any form;

"(b) Polygamy;

"(c) Prostitutes, procurers, or other like immoral persons;

"(d) Persons convicted of crime: Provided, That no such wife shall be excluded because of offenses committed during legal infancy, while a minor under the age of twenty-one years, and for which the sentences imposed were less than three months, and which were committed more than five years previous to July 3, 1930;

"(e) Persons previously deported;

"(f) Contract laborers.

"After admission to the United States she shall be subject to all other provisions of [former] sections 9 and 10 and 367–370 of this title."

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

#### Savings Clause

Act May 24, 1934, ch. 344, §5, 48 Stat. 798, provided that the repeal of this section should not affect any right or privilege or terminate any citizenship acquired under the section before such repeal.