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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

ROBERT WAYNE AHN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

BENJAMIN GRIEGO, incorrectly named

as Ben Gregio; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-16601

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01672-PGR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Robert Wayne Ahn, an Hawaii state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of

FILED

JUL 12 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-16601

the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ahn’s claim that

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety, because Ahn failed to raise a

genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded

an excessive risk to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)

(“a prison official cannot be found liable [for deliberate indifference] . . . unless the

official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”). To

the extent that Ahn alleges that defendant Poehlman used excessive force against

him, the district court properly granted summary judgment because Ahn failed to

raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the alleged force was applied

maliciously or sadistically to cause harm. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7

(1992) (explaining that “the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied

in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and

sadistically to cause harm”).

We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.

Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
Page 2- Honorable Susan Castillo 

June 29, 2011

Honorable Susan Castillo

State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Oregon Department of Education

255 Capitol Street, NE

c/o Public Services Building

Salem, Oregon  97310-0203

Dear Superintendent Castillo:

Thank you for your June 24, 2011 letter (supplemented by additional information provided by your staff on June 24, 2011 and on June 27, 2011).  Your letter was in response to my April 7, 2011 letter, which denied the State’s request for a waiver of the requirement in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (in 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(18)(A) and 34 CFR §300.163(a)) to maintain State financial support for special education and related services for State fiscal year (SFY) 2011 (school year 2010 – 2011).  

In its submissions, the State provided revised data and information regarding the amount of State financial support made available for special education and related services in SFYs 2010 and 2011 – the State reported that it made available $351,663,393 in SFY 2010 and $351,717,563 in SFY 2011.  The Department carefully reviewed your State’s submissions and accepts this data.  Your office also provided information that, on June 27, 2011, in order to meet the maintenance of effort requirement, the State made available $13,800,000 (which is included in the $351,717,563 made available for SFY 2011) in State financial support for special education and related services for FY 2011, and that your office posted on its website the manner in which the State distributed this amount within the State.

Accordingly, based on the data and information provided by the State, the Department believes that this matter is resolved, and therefore, the Department will not reduce the State’s section 611 allocation for its Federal FY (FFY) 2011 grant (funds that become available July 1, 2011 for distribution to States).  We commend the State for taking prompt and effective action to resolve this serious matter.  

In light of the Oregon State Advisory Council for Special Education’s duties under 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(21)(D), particularly its duty under 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(21)(D)(i) to “advise the State educational agency of unmet needs within the State in the education of children with disabilities,” we are providing it with a copy of this letter.

We appreciate your commitment to serving children with disabilities and look forward to our continued collaboration on their behalf.  

Sincerely, 

/s/ Alexa Posny, Ph.D.

Alexa Posny, Ph.D.

cc:  Oregon State Advisory Council for Special Education
122 STAT. 2426 PUBLIC LAW 110–257—JULY 1, 2008 

Public Law 110–257 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To remove the African National Congress from treatment as a terrorist organization 

for certain acts or events, provide relief for certain members of the African 

National Congress regarding admissibility, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS FROM 

TREATMENT AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATION FOR CERTAIN ACTS OR EVENTS. 

Section 691(b) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, 

and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (division J of Public 

Law 110–161; 121 Stat. 2365) is amended by inserting ‘‘the African 

National Congress (ANC),’’ after ‘‘the Karenni National Progressive 

Party,’’. 

SEC. 2. RELIEF FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE AFRICAN NATIONAL 

CONGRESS REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY. 

(a) EXEMPTION AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation 

with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may determine, in such Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, that 

paragraphs (2)(A)(i)(I), (2)(B), and (3)(B) (other than clause (i)(II)) 

of section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)) shall not apply to an alien with respect to activities undertaken in association with the African National Congress in opposition to apartheid rule in South Africa. 

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress that 

the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security 

should immediately exercise in appropriate instances the authority 

in subsection (a) to exempt the anti-apartheid activities of aliens 

who are current or former officials of the Government of the 

Republic of South Africa. 

SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN AFFECTED INDIVIDUALS FROM CERTAIN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DATABASES. 

The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of National Intelligence, 

shall take all necessary steps to ensure that databases used to 

determine admissibility to the United States are updated so that 

8 USC 1182 note. 

8 USC 1182 note. 

July 1, 2008 

[H.R. 5690] 


etreine on CSHP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS
PUBLIC LAW 110–257—JULY 1, 2008 122 STAT. 2427 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5690: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110–620, Pt. 1 (Comm. on the Judiciary). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

May 6, 8, considered and passed House. 

June 26, considered and passed Senate, amended. House concurred in Senate 

amendment. 

Æ 

they are consistent with the exemptions provided under section 

2. 

Approved July 1, 2008. 


etreine on CSHP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 917 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to designate May 1 as ‘‘Silver 

Star Service Banner Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 24, 2017 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself and Mrs. MCCASKILL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to designate May 

1 as ‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’. 

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 ‘‘Silver Star Service 

5 Banner Day Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) Congress has always honored the sacrifices 

9 made by the wounded and ill members of the Armed 

10 Forces. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 917 IS

1 (2) The Silver Star Service Banner has come to 

2 represent the members of the Armed Forces and vet3 erans who were wounded or became ill in combat in 

4 the wars fought by the United States. 

5 (3) The Silver Star Families of America was 

6 formed to help the people of the United States re7 member the sacrifices made by the wounded and ill 

8 members of the Armed Forces by designing and 

9 manufacturing Silver Star Service Banners and Sil10 ver Star Flags for that purpose. 

11 (4) The sole mission of the Silver Star Families 

12 of America is to evoke memories of the sacrifices 

13 made by members of the Armed Forces and veterans 

14 on behalf of the United States through the presence 

15 of a Silver Star Service Banner in a window or a 

16 Silver Star Flag flying. 

17 (5) The sacrifices made by members of the 

18 Armed Forces and veterans on behalf of the United 

19 States should never be forgotten. 

20 (6) May 1 is an appropriate date to designate 

21 as ‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’. 

22 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 36, United 

24 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol25 lowing: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 917 IS

1 ‘‘§ 146. Silver Star Service Banner Day 

2 ‘‘(a) DESIGNATION.—May 1 is Silver Star Service 

3 Banner Day. 

4 ‘‘(b) PROCLAMATION.—The President is requested to 

5 issue each year a proclamation calling on the people of 

6 the United States to observe Silver Star Service Banner 

7 Day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activi8 ties.’’. 

9 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

10 The table of sections for chapter 1 of title 36, United 

11 States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relat12 ing to section 145 the following: 

‘‘146. Silver Star Service Banner Day.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### 2131.205-71 Reinsurer administrative expense costs.

A charge of $500 per policy year per reinsurer of the FEGLI Program as set forth in the contract is an allowable cost when documented through an internal accounting entry of the contractor and actually paid. This amount is deemed to be sufficient to reimburse reinsurers for the minor administrative expenses incurred in reinsuring the FEGLI Program.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS AMENDED SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FAIR GROUNDS CORPORATION AS AT AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
JANUARY 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        173
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,847
<PP&E>                                          52,076
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,401
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,220
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,525
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,088
<SALES>                                         12,056
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,161
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,766
<INCOME-TAX>                                       653
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    123
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,235
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.64


</TABLE>
#### 1602.170-21 PSHB plan.

*PSHB plan* means a health benefits plan offered under the PSHB Program.

[88 FR 20408, Apr. 6, 2023]
#### 1852.227-72 Designation of New Technology Representative and Patent Representative.

As prescribed in 1827.303(d)(3), insert the following clause:

# Designation of New Technology Representative and Patent Representative (APR 2015)

(a) For purposes of administration of the clause of this contract entitled “New Technology—Other than a Small Business Firm or Nonprofit Organization” or “Patent Rights—Ownership by the Contractor,” whichever is included, the installation New Technology and Patent Representatives identified at *http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/portals/pl/new_tech_pocs.html* are hereby designated by the Contracting Officer to administer such clause for the appropriate installation:

(b) Disclosures of reportable items and of subject inventions, interim new technology summary reports, final new technology summary reports, utilization reports, and other reports required by the applicable “New Technology” or “Patent Rights—Ownership by the Contractor” clause, as well as any correspondence with respect to such matters, shall be directed to the New Technology Representative unless transmitted in response to correspondence or request from the Patent Representative. Inquiries or requests regarding disposition of rights, election of rights, or related matters shall be directed to the Patent Representative. This clause shall be included in any subcontract hereunder requiring a “New Technology—Other than a Small Business Firm or Nonprofit Organization” clause or “Patent Rights—Ownership by the Contractor” clause, unless otherwise authorized or directed by the Contracting Officer. The respective responsibilities and authorities of the aforementioned representatives are set forth in 1827.305-270 of the NASA FAR Supplement.

(End of clause

[80 FR 12951, Mar. 12, 2015, as amended at 80 FR 50212, Aug. 19, 2015]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 16, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00834

- CV

C. S. B., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES KELLY AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgme nt signed by the tr i a l court on November 27, 2018. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. Because

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
19.602-4 Awarding the contract. ( a ) If new information causes the contracting officer to determine that the concern referred to the SBA is actually responsible to perform the contract, and award has not already been made under paragraph (c) below, the contracting officer shall reverse the determination of nonresponsibility, notify the SBA of this action, withdraw the referral, and proceed to award the contract.
( b ) The contracting officer shall award the contract to the concern in question if the SBA issues a COC after receiving the referral. An SBA-certified concern shall not be required to meet any other requirements of responsibility. SBA COC's are conclusive with respect to all elements of responsibility of prospective small business contractors. Where SBA issues a COC, the contracting officer may decide not to award to that offeror for reasons unrelated to responsibility.
( c ) The contracting officer shall proceed with the acquisition and award the contract to another appropriately selected and responsible offeror if the SBA has not issued a COC within 15 business days (or a longer period of time agreed to with the SBA) after receiving the referral.
[48 FR 42240, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 85 FR 11764, Feb. 27, 2020]
#### 1815.602 Policy.

Renewal proposals, (*i.e.,* those for the extension or augmentation of current contracts) are subject to the same FAR and NFS regulations, including the requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act, as are proposals for new contracts.

[81 FR 41238, June 24, 2016]
Exhibit 32.1

 

Certification of the President and Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I, Bowen S. Diehl, President and Chief Executive Officer of Capital Southwest Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:

|  | 1. |  | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2017, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018 (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |
|--|----|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|                         |   |                                  |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
| Date:  February 6, 2018 | By:    | /s/ Bowen S. Diehl                    |
|                         |   | Bowen S. Diehl                        |
|                         |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: INNOVATIO IP VENTURES, LLC,

PATENT LITIGATION MDL No. 2303

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO−1)

On December 28, 2011, the Panel transferred 3 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1407. See _F.Supp.2d_ (J.P.M.L. 2011). Since that time, no additional action(s) have been

transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. With the consent of that court, all such actions have

been assigned to the Honorable James F Holderman, Jr.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are

common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and assigned to

Judge Holderman.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the

Northern District of Illinois for the reasons stated in the order of December 28, 2011, and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James F Holderman, Jr.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be

stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the

Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

 Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

A TRUE COPY-ATTEST

THOMAS G. BRUTON, CLERK

 -

By: s/ DOROTHY KELLER-FLOWER

DEPUTY CLERK

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

 -

January 25, 2012
IN RE: INNOVATIO IP VENTURES, LLC,

PATENT LITIGATION MDL No. 2303

SCHEDULE CTO−1 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

DELAWARE

DE 1 11−00920 SonicWALL Inc. v. Innovatio IP Ventures LLC

DE 1 11−01139 Netgear Inc. v. Innovatio IP Ventures LLC

WISCONSIN WESTERN

WIW 3 11−00643 Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC v. Best Western

Arrowhead Lodge &Suites et al

WIW 3 11−00644 Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC v. Madison Marriott West

et al
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 986 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 986

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit hospitals in 
all-urban States to be considered Medicare dependent hospitals, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 2017

   Mr. Menendez (for himself, Mr. Booker, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Coons) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit hospitals in 
all-urban States to be considered Medicare dependent hospitals, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness for Our Hospitals Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING HOSPITALS IN ALL-URBAN STATES TO BE CONSIDERED 
              MEDICARE DEPENDENT HOSPITALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5)(G)(iv)(I) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(G)(iv)(I)) is amended to read as 
follows:
                                    ``(I) that--
                                            ``(aa) is located in a 
                                        rural area; or
                                            ``(bb) for discharges 
                                        occurring on or after January 
                                        1, 2011, is located in a State 
                                        with no rural area (as defined 
                                        in paragraph (2)(D)) and 
                                        satisfies any of the criteria 
                                        in subclause (I), (II), (III), 
                                        or (IV) of paragraph 
                                        (8)(E)(ii),''.
    (b) Process for Recalculating Payments.--Not later than 120 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services shall establish and implement a process under which 
the Secretary shall reimburse hospitals impacted by the amendment made 
by subsection (a) for any underpayments under title XVIII of the Social 
Security Act that are a result of the implementation of such amendment.
                                 <all>
```