alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Smith University - 10-6-08
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. CLARK, Officer, Metropolitan Police; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 17243

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv
- 00414

- APG

- PAL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. James Williams appeals pro se from the district court’ s judgment dismissing
his action alleging various federal and state law claims . We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s

dismissal as a sanc tion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) , Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv. ,

* 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). 

# F ILED

OCT 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 17243

833 F.2d 128, 1 30 (9th Cir. 1987) , and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Williams’ s

action because Williams failed to comply with court orders, including fil ing a pre
trial order, despite being ordered twice to do so

. See id. at 1 30

- 32 (discussing the

five factors the district court must weigh before dismissing a case for failure to
comply with a court order )

.
Becau se we affirm the district court’ s dismissal of Williams’s action for
failure to comply with court orders, we do not consider Williams’s c hallenges to

the district court’ s interlocutory orders. See Al

- Torki v. Kaempen , 78 F.3d 1381,
1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[I]nterlocutory orders, generall y appealable after final
judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the
failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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).

AFFIRMED.
May 28, 2015

Mr. Gerald Scott 110 Oak Valley Drive Nashville, TN 37210

Dear Mr. Scott:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 23, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1165), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin Santiago, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on January 10, 1975, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw is granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on appeal. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Lane, Markewich, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 332 

Commemorating the christening of the USNS Hershel ‘‘Woody’’ Williams. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2017 

Mr. MANCHIN (for himself and Mrs. CAPITO) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the christening of the USNS Hershel 

‘‘Woody’’ Williams. 

Whereas Chief Warrant Officer 4 Hershel Woodrow ‘‘Woody’’ 

Williams of Fairmont, West Virginia, served in the Marine Corps for 17 years; 

Whereas Hershel Woodrow ‘‘Woody’’ Williams served valiantly as a demolition sergeant with the 21st Marines, 3d 

Marine Division, against enemy Japanese forces at the 

Battle of Iwo Jima; 

Whereas on October 5, 1945, Hershel Woodrow ‘‘Woody’’ 

Williams received the Medal of Honor from President 

Harry S. Truman for ‘‘valiant devotion to duty’’ at Iwo 

Jima on February 23, 1945; 


daltland on DSK30NT082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 332 ATS 

Whereas Hershel Woodrow ‘‘Woody’’ Williams is the sole surviving Marine veteran of World War II to wear the Medal 

of Honor; 

Whereas on January 14, 2016, during a ceremony in 

Charleston, West Virginia, Secretary of the Navy Ray 

Mabus announced that the Expeditionary Sea Base Ship 

T–ESB 4—the second of its kind—would be named 

United States Naval Ship (referred to in this preamble 

as ‘‘USNS’’) Hershel ‘‘Woody’’ Williams; 

Whereas on August 19, 2017, the United States Navy 

launched the USNS Hershel ‘‘Woody’’ Williams; and 

Whereas on October 21, 2017, the USNS Hershel ‘‘Woody’’ 

Williams was christened in San Diego, California: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate commemorates the chris2 tening of the United States Naval Ship Hershel ‘‘Woody’’ 

3 Williams and its mission to support mine counter4 measures, counter-piracy operations, maritime security, 

5 and humanitarian and crisis response operations. 

Æ 


daltland on DSK30NT082PROD with BILLS
# C_2016459EN.01003101.xml

| 9.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/31

---

Corrigendum to Call for proposals — ‘Support for information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP)’ for 2017

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 401 of 29 October 2016
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 401 of 29 October 2016

(2016/C 459/13)

On page 18, Section 9, ‘Award Criteria’, first paragraph:

for:

for:

‘The different communication tools and activities included in the information measure should be interconnected, clear in their conceptual approach and in the results to be achieved. They should also have a significant impact that can be measured through relevant indicators referred to in Section 11.4.’,

read:

read:

‘The different communication tools and activities included in the information measure should be interconnected, clear in their conceptual approach and in the results to be achieved.’;

on page 20, point 11.1(e), fourth paragraph:

for:

for:

‘In the event of procurement exceeding EUR 70 000’,

read:

read:

‘In the event of procurement exceeding EUR 60 000’.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  UT
<SUBSIDIARY>
<NUMBER> 005
<NAME>  SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                              PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                                1,851,155
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                                  7,125
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     162,430
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                                    32,741
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                              35,189
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           2,088,640
<COMMON>                                                   135,660
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                                  245,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                        334,569
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                             715,229
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       28,306
<PREFERRED>                                                111,103
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                       540,843
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                               0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                        0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                                  145
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                                    1,200
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                                  6,680
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                             2,334
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                             682,800
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                            2,088,640
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                                  430,607
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                        16,837
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                                 349,339
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                                 366,176
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                                     64,431
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                             557
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                              64,988
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    25,067
<NET-INCOME>                                                39,921
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                                  1,333
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                               40,768
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                                    28,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                                   19,621
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                                     103,334
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0.00
        




</TABLE>
#### Gillick W. Perry, an Infant, by Lillian O’Grady, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v. Marano Tauro, Defendant, and Corino Tauro, *804Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, medical expenses and loss of services, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 13, 1961 after a jury trial, upon a verdict in favor of the defendant Corino Tauro, dismissing the complaint and awarding to said defendant $161 costs and disbursements *“*against the plaintiffs.” Judgment modified on the law and the facts by striking therefrom the provision awarding “ judgment against the plaintiffs” for $161 costs and disbursements; and by substituting therefor a provision awarding judgment for such costs and disbursements against plaintiff Gillick Williams Perry only. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. Early in the trial, the caption of the action was amended so as to make Gillick Williams Perry the only plaintiff, he having arrived at his majority, and the cause of action by his mother and guardian ad litem, Lillian O’Grady, for medical expenses and loss of services was in effect treated as discontinued and was not submitted to the jury. Under such circumstances, it was error to enter judgment against both plaintiffs on the verdict in favor of defendant. On the merits, however, we are of the opinion that, contrary to plaintiffs’ sole contention, reversible error was not committed by the Trial Justice in his charge with respect to contributory negligence. (Eor companion appeal, see *Perry*v. *Tauro,*21 A D 2d 804.) Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Flood of September 2008 in Northwestern Indiana (http://pubs.usgs.gov/ofr/2010/1098/) Appendix 2

Approximate flood-peak extents and depths, flood of September 2008, for Deep River near Hobart, Indiana. 

Aerial photograph courtesy of Indiana University, Indiana Spatial Data Portal, 2008 National Agriculture 

Imagery Program, accessed June 2, 2009, at http://www.indiana.edu/~gisdata/statewide/08naip.html.

I 80 E I 80 W

US HWY 6

I 65 N I 65 S

STATE HWY 51

STATE

HWY 130

0 0.5 1 Mile

E

X

P

L

A

N

ATIO

N

Limit of studyDirection of flowMajor road

Flo

o

d

D

e

pth

17.4 feet (deep)0.1 foot (shallow)

Approximate flood-peak extents and depths, flood of September 2008, for Deep River near Hobart, Indiana. Aerial

photograph courtesy of Indiana University, Indiana Spatial Data Portal, 2008 National Agriculture Imagery Program,

accessed June 2, 2009, at http://www.indiana.edu/~gisdata/statewide/08naip.html
EXHBIT 10.2

               SHANDONG CHAOYING CULTURE & ENTERTAINMENT CO., LTD

                            EQUITY TRANSFER AGREEMENT

Party A: Shaanxi Chaoying Personal Care Group Co., Inc.

Party B: Shaanxi Chaoying Biotechnology Co., Ltd

In witness whereof, Party A and Party B shall, with reference to the equity
transfer, hereby voluntarily signed and concluded this Agreement in accordance
with the following terms and conditions:

1. As consented by all shareholders, Party A transfers RMB 15 million
   (accounting for 83.33%) equity to Party B.

2. Party A and B agreed the transfer fee is RMB 15 million which will be paid by
   cash on July 28, 2007.

3. After the transfer, Party B shall undertake all rights and obligations in
   Shandong Chaoying Culture & Entertainment Co., Ltd and shall abide by and
   practice related by-laws.

4. This Agreement shall be in triplicate, one for each Party, one for register
   authority.

5. This Agreement shall come into effect as of the day and year when it is
   reported and filed to the administration department for industry and
   commerce.

Party A (seal): Shaanxi Chaoying Beauty & Cosmetics Group Co., Inc.
Date: July 26, 2007


Party B (seal): Shaanxi Chaoying Biotechnology Co., Ltd
Date: July 26, 2007
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION www.edgaradvantage.com


QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
 


EXHIBIT
10.21




  BONUS PLAN FOR OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES  


    The
corporate bonus plan is designed to provide annual financial incentives to eligible officers and employees of the Company for the attainment of certain financial objectives, which
may be different from individual to individual. For each plan period, the financial objectives of the Company are established and individual objectives for each eligible officer and employee are
recommended by the Chief Executive Officer and approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. Depending on the extent to which such objectives are achieved, a percentage of each
eligible officer's and employee's base salary will be paid as a bonus. The bonus percentage of base salary may range from 0% to 60% for the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer and from
0% to 50% for the Executive Vice Presidents and the Director and Vice President — Market Development.










QuickLinks


BONUS PLAN FOR OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
212.205 Offers. ( c ) When using competitive procedures, if only one offer is received, the contracting officer shall follow the procedures at 215.371.
[77 FR 39138, June 29, 2012]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20607

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WENDELL ALBOYD CORNETT

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CR-265

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wendell Alboyd Cornett, federal prisoner # 04675-081, requests leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district court denied Cornett’s

motion seeking a modification of his sentence, which was imposed in 1995, and

it also denied his motion to proceed IFP on appeal. In order to obtain leave to

proceed IFP, Cornett must show that he is a pauper, and he must raise a

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 24, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-20607

2

nonfrivolous issue. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th

Cir. 1986).

Cornett argues that his sentence was imposed in violation of his

constitutional rights because it was increased based on facts not admitted by

him or found by the jury. He contends that the district court improperly applied

the Sentencing Guidelines and sentenced him beyond the maximum range

permitted under the Guidelines. Cornett asserts that he is actually innocent of

the sentence imposed, and he contends that the district court had authority to

correct his sentence under FED. R. CRIM. P. 35, 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291.

Because the law has no provision for a motion such as Cornett’s, his appeal

is “from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion.” United States v.

Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Cornett’s appeal is without arguable

merit and is thus frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). Accordingly, Cornett’s request for leave to proceed IFP is denied, and the

appeal is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Fourth Department,

October, 1963

(October 1, 1963)

#### In the Matter of George A. Patterson, Respondent, v. James R. Lawley et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Erie, et al., Respondents, and William F. Lyman, Appellant.

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: The petitioner has made a prima facie showing that he is entitled to some relief. However, an inspection and recanvass of the void, protested, and wholly blank ballots in all of the districts of all of the wards will afford petitioner complete protection under the facts presented. We therefore disapprove that portion of the order which directs that all of the ballots contained in the ballot boxes in the 3rd, 6th and 9th election districts of the 10th ward be reeanvassed. All concur, except Williams, P. J., and Henry, J., who dissent and vote to reverse and dismiss the petition on the ground that there was no sufficient or proper showing to entitle petitioner to any relief whatsoever. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term directing *849a repauvass of all of the protested, wholly blank and void ballots (Election Law, § 330, subd. 4) and a recanvass of the ballots counted in 3 of 56 election districts (Election Law, § 330, subd. 5). Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Noonan, JJ.
#### 252.225-7057 Preaward Disclosure of Employment of Individuals Who Work in the People's Republic of China.

As prescribed in 225.7021-4(a), use the following provision:

# Preaward Disclosure of Employment of Individuals Who Work in the People's Republic of China (Aug 2022)

(a) *Definitions.* As used in this provision—

*Covered contract* and *covered entity* have the meaning given in the clause 252.225-7058, Postaward Disclosure of Employment of Individuals Who Work in the People's Republic of China.

(b) *Prohibition on award.* In accordance with section 855 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (Pub. L. 117-81, 10 U.S.C. 4651 note prec.), DoD may not award a contract to the Offeror if it is a covered entity and proposes to employ one or more individuals who will perform work in the People's Republic of China on a covered contract, unless the Offeror has disclosed its use of workforce and facilities in the People's Republic of China.

(c) *Preaward disclosure requirement.* At the time of submission of an offer for a covered contract, an Offeror that is a covered entity shall provide disclosures to include—

(1) The proposed use of workforce on a covered contract or subcontract, if the Offeror employs one or more individuals who perform work in the People's Republic of China;

(2) The total number of such individuals who will perform work in the People's Republic of China; and

(3) A description of the physical presence, including street address or addresses, in the People's Republic of China, where work on the covered contract will be performed.

(End of provision)

[87 FR 52342, Aug. 25, 2022]
Organizations and individuals may create a link from their web page to the OCR home page (www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/index.html) without prior approval.

Links from OCR web pages to sites outside of the ED domain ("external sites") are selected based on the criteria listed below. In general, links are kept to a minimum based on: (1) design and resource limitations; and (2) ED policy regarding the creation of links.

Links from the OCR web site are limited to:

- resources on web sites maintained by the U.S. Department of Education;
- resources at other Federal government agencies; and
- resources contained on web sites of entities that are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education or other Federal government agencies.

Inclusion of a link is not an endorsement of the views expressed, the products or services offered, nor of the organizations sponsoring the web sites.
Appropriations

| Fiscal Year              | Amount |
|--------------------------|--------|
| $81,952,000              |
| $81,952,000              |
| $90,000,000              |
| $91,898,750              |
| $91,356,796              |
| $90,626,144              |
| $89,719,740              |
| $89,719,740              |
| $88,152,592              |
| $90,653,000              |
| $90,653,000              |
| $88,465,714              |
| $88,299,000              |
| $83,700,000              |
| $83,700,000              |
| $83,700,000              |
| $83,700,000              |
| $83,700,000    (Request) |
|                     |
Exhibit 32.1

       Form of Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                 of Title 18 of the United States Code


I, Joseph F. Kruy, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of
Cambex Corporation, certify that

(i) This quarterly report on Form 10QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September
30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and

(ii) The information contained in this quarterly report on Form 10QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Cambex Corporation.


Dated: November 14, 2003     /s/ Joseph F. Kruy
                             Joseph F. Kruy
                             President and Treasurer
                             [principal executive officer and
                              principal financial officer]


This certification accompanies this quarterly report pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.