alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARVIN FLEMING,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-15148

D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00461-OWWWMW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2010** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Marvin Fleming, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference

to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

FILED

DEC 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-15148

review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren

v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Fleming failed to state a claim for

deliberate indifference with regard to the treatment he received for his eye injury. 

See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison defendant

acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive

risk to inmate health and safety). Inadequate treatment due to malpractice, or even

gross negligence, does not amount to a constitutional violation. See id. at 1060. 

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

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

Fleming’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
##### 



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

I, Robert E. Schulze, President of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:



|(1) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
January 23,
2004 (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: March 8, 2004 |  | /s/ RAYMOND F. LANCY

Raymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
### §7257. Authority to assist in establishment and maintenance of one or more export trading companies

The Secretary of Agriculture shall, consistent with the obligations of the United States as a member of the World Trade Organization, provide such advice and assistance to the United States dairy industry as may be necessary to enable that industry to establish and maintain one or more export trading companies under the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) for the purpose of facilitating the international market development for and exportation of dairy products produced in the United States.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §149, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 921.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Export Trading Company Act of 1982, referred to in text, is title I of Pub. L. 97–290, Oct. 8, 1982, 96 Stat. 1233, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§4001 et seq.) of chapter 66 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4001 of Title 15 and Tables.
#### 1322.404-6 Modification of wage determination.

The designee authorized to request an extension beyond 90 days after bid opening from the Department of Labor Administrator, Wage and Hour Division is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
#### POLLACK, Respondent, v. RUTH, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 13, 1903.)

Action by David Pollack against Abraham Ruth.

No opinion. Motion denied, upon payment of $10 costs, and appellant allowed, upon payment of an additional $10 costs, to move for leave to open default in the court below.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 57555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22703]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 10 (a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we announce an Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting on ``AHRQ 
RFA-HS14-009, ``Evaluating AHRQ Initiative to Accelerate the 
Dissemination and Implementation of PCOR Finding in Primary Care 
(R01).'' As with other SEP meetings, this meeting will commence in open 
session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting.

DATES: October 2, 2014 (Open on October 2 from 9:30 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. 
and closed for the remainder of the meeting.

ADDRESSES: Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, 9751 
Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of 
members, agenda or minutes of the public portions of this meeting 
should contact: Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, 
Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, 
AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 2038, Rockville, Maryland 20850, 
Telephone: (301) 427-1554.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as priorities 
dictate.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of 
experts in fields related to health care research who are invited by 
the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be 
available, to conduct on an as needed basis, scientific reviews of 
applications for AHRQ support. Individual members of the Panel do not 
attend regularly scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or 
an extended period of time. Rather, they are asked to participate in 
particular review meetings which require their expertise.
    Each SEP meeting will commence in open session before closing to 
the public for the duration of the meeting in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).
    Grant applications for the AHRQ RFA-HS14-009, ``Evaluating AHRQ 
Initiative to Accelerate the Dissemination and Implementation of PCOR 
Finding in Primary Care (R01)'' are to be reviewed and discussed at 
this meeting. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material, and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Dated: September 16, 2014.
Richard Kronick,
AHRQ Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-22703 Filed 9-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
```
EXHIBIT C

Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 42-9 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:308
Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 42-9 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:309
Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 42-9 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:310
Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 42-9 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:311
Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 42-9 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:312
Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 42-9 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:313
Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 42-9 Filed: 07/16/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:314
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Heuberto Perez Zayas, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County, rendered November 27, 1961 after a jury trial, convicting him of assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Julius Ciehala, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Richmond County, rendered July 11, 1952, after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree, and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a fourth felony offender, to a *1053term of 30 years to life. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### HAIGHT v. LE FONCIER DE FRANCE ET DES COLONIES.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Summons—Papers Authorizing Order op Publication.

An action- against a foreign corporation to recover damages for breach of a contract made without the state being authorized by Code Civ. Proc. § 1780, only when plaintiff is a resident of the state, and an order for publication of summons being required by section 439 to be founded on papers showing a sufficient cause of action, such an order made on papers not showing that plaintiff is a resident will be vacated.

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Action by Charles H. Haight against Le Fonder De France et Des Colonies. From an order denying a motion to vacate an order of publication, defendant appeals. Reversed.

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

Willoughby L. Webb, for appellant.

Peter A. Hargous, for respondent.

MacLEAN, J.

Upon a motion to vacate an order of publication herein, and to set aside all proceedings thereunder, it appeared from the verified complaint that the action was brought to recover damages from a foreign corporation defendant for the breach of a contract made in France, and to be performed in North America, by a firm of two persons, of whom the plaintiff was the successor; but there is nothing to show that the plaintiff was a resident of the state—a jurisdictional allegation necessary to the maintenance of the action (section 1780, Code Civ. Proc.), and, which omitted, no sufficient cause of action was shown, upon which to found the order (section 439, Id.). For reason of public policy, our courts are not to be *136vexed with litigations between nonresident parties over controversies arising outside of our territorial limits, and, the attention of the court having been called to the absence of the jurisdictional allegation, it should have vacated the order. It might ex mero motu at any time refuse to proceed further, and dismiss the action. Robinson v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 112 N. Y. 315, 19 N. E. 625, 2 L. R. A. 636.

Order appealed from reversed, and the defendant’s motion granted, with costs. All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter Edwards, Appellant.

— Motion granted to appeal on original papers, typewritten briefs, and Maynard Schaus, Esq., of Buffalo, assigned as attorney to conduct appeal.
#### Rafek Kawar, Respondent, v. Earl S. Martin et al., Defendants, and Fred H. Sommers, Appellant.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: Upon the facts here presented, it was not requisite to the maintenance of an action against the appellant Sommers to allege in the complaint due service of a notice as required by section 52 of the County Law and section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. (Appeal from part of order of Onondaga Special Term denying motion by defendant Sommers for a dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky, and Henry, JJ. [25 Misc 2d 3.]
**EXHIBIT      10.30**

----

----

**SECOND      AMENDMENT TO SECURITY AGREEMENT**

**SECOND      AMENDMENT TO SECURITY AGREEMENT **
*Second      Amendment*
*Secured      Parties*
*Debtor*

**WHEREAS,      **
*February      Notes*

**WHEREAS,**
*Security      Agreement*

**WHEREAS,      **
*October      Secured Parties*
*October      Notes*

**WHEREAS,**
*First      Amendment*

**WHEREAS**
*December      Secured Parties*
*December      Notes*
*December      Purchase Agreement*
*December      Financing*

**WHEREAS**
* *

**WHEREAS,      **

----

**NOW,      THEREFORE**

**Note**
**Notes**

**December      Notes**

**December      Purchase Agreement**

**Purchase      Agreement**

----

*[Signature      pages follow.]*

----

**IN      WITNESS WHEREOF,**

**ACCESS      PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**

----

**OMNIBUS      SIGNATURE PAGE TO**

**ACCESS      PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**

**SECOND      AMENDMENT TO SECURITY AGREEMENT **

|  Print                Name:  |  SCO                Capital Partners LLC |
|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                   |                                          |
|  By:                         |  /s/                Steven H. Rouhandeh  |
|  Name:                            |  Steven                H. Rouhandeh      |
|  Title:                           |  Chairman                                |

----

**OMNIBUS      SIGNATURE PAGE TO**

**ACCESS      PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**

**SECOND      AMENDMENT TO SECURITY AGREEMENT **

|  Print Name:  |  Lake End Capital LLC              |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                    |                                    |
|  By:          |  /s/ Jeffrey              B. Davis |
|  Name:             |  Jeffrey B.              Davis     |
|  Title:            |  Chairman                          |

----

**OMNIBUS      SIGNATURE PAGE TO**

**ACCESS      PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**

**SECOND      AMENDMENT TO SECURITY AGREEMENT **

|  Print Name:  |  Beach Capital LLC                    |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                    |                                       |
|  By:          |  /s/ Steven              H. Rouhandeh |
|  Name:             |  Steven H.              Rouhandeh     |
|  Title:            |  Chairman                             |

----
EXHIBIT 99

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 Quixote Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's knowledge:



|Date: |  | May 9, 2003 | /s/LESLIE J. JEZUITLeslie J. Jezuit, Chief Executive Officer
|----- |  | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | May 9, 2003 | /s/DANIEL P. GOREYDaniel P. Gorey, Chief Financial Officer  

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure.

20

---

QuickLinks
#### Arthur Schoen v. Loomis J. Grossman.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before August 14, 1962, with notice of argument for the September 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 10.42**

**FIRST AMENDMENT**

**TO**

**ANDREW CORPORATION**

**MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM**

WHEREAS, Andrew Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Andrew Corporation Management Incentive Program (the “Program”); and

WHEREAS, it is now deemed desirable to amend the Program to increase the number of shares authorized for issuance under the Program;

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of the amending authority reserved to the Board of Directors pursuant to Section 8 of theProgram, the Program is hereby amended by deleting the first sentence of Section 4.1 of the Program and substituting the following therefor: 

“Subject to Section 4.2, the shares of Common Stock that may be issued or transferred under the Program shall not exceed 8,000,000.” 

*         *         * 

I,James F. Petelle, as Vice President and Secretary of Andrew Corporation, hereby certify that the foregoing amendment is consistent with resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors on November 14, 2002 and approved by the Company’sstockholders on February 11, 2003 and that such resolutions have not been changed or rescinded since such date. 

Dated this 12 day ofMay, 2003.
15.204-5 Part IV—Representations and Instructions. The contracting officer shall prepare the representations and instructions as follows: ( a ) *Section K, Representations, certifications, and other statements of offerors.* Include in this section those solicitation provisions that require representations, certifications, or the submission of other information by offerors.
( b ) *Section L, Instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors or respondents.* Insert in this section solicitation provisions and other information and instructions not required elsewhere to guide offerors or respondents in preparing proposals or responses to requests for information. Prospective offerors or respondents may be instructed to submit proposals or information in a specific format or severable parts to facilitate evaluation. The instructions may specify further organization of proposal or response parts, such as— ( 1 ) Administrative;
( 2 ) Management;
( 3 ) Technical;
( 4 ) Past performance; and
( 5 ) Certified cost or pricing data (see Table 15-2 of 15.408) or data other than certified cost or pricing data.
( c ) *Section M, Evaluation factors for award.* Identify all significant factors and any significant subfactors that will be considered in awarding the contract and their relative importance (see 15.304(d)). The contracting officer shall insert one of the phrases in 15.304(e).
[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 75 FR 53142, Aug. 30, 2010]
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 10.104

                        Russ Berrie and Company, Inc.
                               111 Bauer Drive
                              Oakland, NJ  07436
                        (201) 337-9000  (800) 631-8465


                                                 March 22, 2006

Mr. John D. Wille
c/o Russ Berrie and Company, Inc.
111 Bauer Drive
Oakland, NJ  07436

Dear John:

     This letter serves to confirm that in the event that your employment with
Russ Berrie and Company, Inc. (the "Company") is terminated by the Company
without cause, then notwithstanding any provision of the Company's Severance
Policy for Domestic Vice Presidents (and Above) (the "Policy") to the contrary,
you are entitled to all of the benefits of the Policy for a period of twelve
(12) months, except for the reimbursement of automobile expenses, which shall
continue as provided in the Policy; provided, however, that in the event that
you obtain gainful employment at any time during months seven (7) through
twelve (12) of such severance period, then the severance benefits will be
terminated upon the commencement of such employment.

     The terms of the preceding paragraph may not be amended or modified by the
Company without your written consent.  Nothing in the preceding paragraph shall
be construed to reduce any benefits to which you would otherwise be entitled
under any benefit program of the Company.

                                                Very truly yours,

                                                /s/ Andrew R. Gatto
                                                -------------------
                                                Andrew R. Gatto
                                                President and CEO

ACCEPTED AND AGREED

/s/ John D. Wille
-----------------
John D. Wille

Date:  3/23/06
### §7971. Storage facility loans

#### (a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision of law and as soon as practicable after May 13, 2002, the Commodity Credit Corporation shall amend part 1436 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, to establish a sugar storage facility loan program to provide financing for processors of domestically-produced sugarcane and sugar beets to construct or upgrade storage and handling facilities for raw sugars and refined sugars.

#### (b) Eligible processors

A storage facility loan described in subsection (a) shall be made available to any processor of domestically produced sugarcane or sugar beets that (as determined by the Secretary)—

(1) has a satisfactory credit history;

(2) has a need for increased storage capacity, taking into account the effects of marketing allotments; and

(3) demonstrates an ability to repay the loan.

#### (c) Term of loans

A storage facility loan described in subsection (a) shall—

(1) have a minimum term of 7 years;

(2) not include any penalty for prepayment; and

(3) be in such amounts and on such other terms and conditions (including terms and conditions relating to downpayments, collateral, and eligible facilities) as are normal, customary, and appropriate for the size and commercial nature of the borrower.

(Pub. L. 107–171, title I, §1402, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 187; Pub. L. 110–234, title I, §1404, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 989; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title I, §1404, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1718.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 made identical amendments to this section. The amendments by Pub. L. 110–234 were repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### Amendments

2008—Subsec. (c)(2), (3). Pub. L. 110–246, §1404, added par. (2), redesignated former par. (2) as (3), and, in par. (3), inserted "other" after "on such".

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

#### Effective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.