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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JANE DOE, elderly, disabled woman,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF

PORTLAND, a public municipal

corporation, DBA Home Forward; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-35246

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01974-SI

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 24, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Jane Doe appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her

action alleging various claims, including that defendants failed to accommodate

her disability in violation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act (“FHAA”). We

FILED

MAR 03 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Budnick v. Town of

Carefree, 518 F.3d 1109, 1113 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Doe’s FHAA and

Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) claims because Doe failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether her requested accommodations were reasonable, or

necessary for the equal use and enjoyment of her apartment. See id. at 1119

(elements of a failure-to-accommodate claim under the FHAA); Giebeler v. M&B

Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143, 1148-49, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (for purposes of the FHAA

and RA, an accommodation is reasonable “when it imposes no fundamental

alteration in the nature of the program or undue financial or administrative

burdens” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also 24 C.F.R. 

§§ 982.405(a), 982.551(d) (requiring that public housing agencies inspect units at

least annually and that Section 8 voucher recipients allow such inspections). We

reject as unsupported by the record Doe’s contention that defendants failed to

conduct an interactive process.

Contrary to Doe’s contention, the district court provided her a final warning

of her deadline to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

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

2 15-35246
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Doe’s request to supplement the record, set forth in her opening brief, is

denied.

AFFIRMED. 

3 15-35246
#### § 322.23 Documentation.

Each shipment of restricted organisms transiting the United States must be accompanied by a document issued by the appropriate regulatory authority of the national government of the region of origin stating that the shipment has been inspected and determined to meet the packaging requirements in § 322.24.
#### Lewis L. Bredin, Respondent, v. Sidney Buchman, Appellant.

Judgment and orders appealed from unanimously reversed and vacated, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff, plaintiff’s motion to strike answer denied, defendant’s motion to vacate judgment granted and 'defendant’s motion to modify order of Referee denied without prejudice to such directions in modification thereof as Referee may deem proper and advisable to be made during the taking of the deposition, all on condition, however, that defendant shall appear before Referee on date fixed by the Referee, on at least 10 days’ notice to defendant’s attorneys, and on further condition that defendant, within 20 days of entry of order hereon, file a surety company undertaking in sum of $10,000 to secure, to extent of such sum, payment of any recovery by plaintiff, to be applied first to payment of such costs and disbursements of action, including costs of reference and of appeals as may be recovered by plaintiff. Upon a failure to comply with the foregoing conditions, plaintiff may move at Special Term for judgment against defendant, with costs, and such judgment may be directed to be entered upon proper proof of plaintiff’s causes of action. Incidentally, we note that the present judgment, now reversed and vacated, insofar as it represents a recovery upon -the eighth cause of action, is not properly supported by proof of the items of plaintiff’s alleged payments, expense and loss. Although the defendant was entitled to move to review the order of the Referee fixing a date for the examination and providing for production of documents and although his motion for this purpose was timely made (see CPLR 3104), it appears that the course of conduct of the defendant and his attorneys from the inception of the disclosure proceedings has been calculated to and did tend to frustrate the completion of such proceedings. In fact, the record discloses a deplorable lack of co-operation between the attorneys and such technical maneuverings and dilatory tactics on the part of .the attorneys for both parties as will have a tendency to thwart the proper prosecution of this action. Certainly, the conduct of the defendant and his attorneys may not be condoned but in the interests of justice and on the basis -of the aforesaid conditions, the defendant should .be given a final opportunity to submit to a completion of his examination and to produce the relevant and material documents and records. (See CPLR 3126.) Concur— Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Markewich and Steuer, JJ.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of Post-Effective Amendment No.1 to the Registration Statement
on Form S-3 (No. 33-59360) and in the Registration Statement on From S-8 (Nos.
33-37408, 33-53122, 33-64678 and 33-64287) of L.A. Gear, Inc. of our report
dated January 22, 1996, appearing on page 23 of the Annual Report to
Shareholders which incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  We also
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial
Statements Schedules, which appears on page 35 of this Form 10-K



/s/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Los Angeles, California
February 28, 1996
No. 47,245

#### Jack Hall, *Appellant,*v. Daniel J. High and Willis Holland, Co-partners d/b/a D & W Warehousing, *Appellees.*

(520 P. 2d 1283)

Opinion filed April 6, 1974.

*D. J. Vsetecka,*of Corley and Smith, Chartered, of Garden City, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.

*J. Stephen Nyswonger,*of Braun and Nyswonger, of Garden City, argued the cause, and *Lelyn J. Braun,*of the same firm, was on the brief for the appellees.

*Per Curiam:*

The appellant was injured when he stepped on a broken brick and fell in a passageway, under the control of his landlords (appellees), which it was necessary for him to use to gain access and egress to and from premises he had rented.

The trial court submitted the issues to the jury, and judgment for the defendants resulted when the jury, answering a special question, found that the defendants did not “cause or knowingly permit conditions to exist on the access way to the plaintiff’s work shop that prevented the access way from being reasonably safe for the plaintiff’s use.”

Appellant complains that the evidence shows conclusively that the access way was not reasonably safe and that the appellees did knowingly permit the condition to exist; and that the trial court erred in submitting this issue to the jury. The flaw in appellant’s position on this point is that although the court indicated in the pre-trial order that this issue would be submitted to the jury by way of a special question, the appellant did not object to its submission in that manner and made no objection to the question after the evidence record was made and before the jury retired. In fact, the record shows that the objection is raised for the first time on this appeal.

The appellant cannot now complain after choosing by acquiescence to take his chances on this important issue with the jury and having it resolved against him. Our own decisions to this effect are so numerous as to make specific citations unnecessary.

However, we call attention to *Bott v. Wendler,*203 Kan. 212, 453 P. 2d 100, construing K. S. A. 60-249 *(a).*That section deals *490with special questions and expressly provides for waiver where a party fails to demand the submission of omitted issues of fact to the jury. There is a special reason for such an affirmative provision in the code, as shown by the opinion in that case. But the reasoning is equally applicable where issues are erroneously submitted, as appellant claims was the case here. The appellant waived his objection by not raising it in the trial court.

The appellant also objects to an instruction given by the trial judge. Here again there was no objection to the instruction. While, standing alone, the instruction may be subject to some criticism as to form, it is not of such character that error can be predicated upon it in the absence of objection in the court below. *Hagood v. Hall,*211 Kan. 46, 505 P. 2d 736. Furthermore, the other instructions are not shown in the printed record. Cf. *Curby v. Ulysses Irrigation Pipe Co., Inc.,*204 Kan. 456, 464 P. 2d 245, Syl. ¶ 2.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JAMAL CHE GLENN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:02-cv-00158-MP-WCS

HENRY D ALFORD,

TIMOTHY A COPELAND,

et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 97, Report and Recommendations of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that the plaintiff's motion to file a fifth amended complaint be

denied. The plaintiff responded at doc. 107. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the

case has progressed too far for the plaintiff to add the additional claims set out in the proposed

fifth amended complaint. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (doc. 97) is adopted and incorporated herein

2. The motion to amend (docs. 95,96) is denied.

3. The clerk is directed to remand this case to the Magistrate Judge for further

proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of August, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 5:02-cv-00158-RS-WCS Document 136 Filed 08/24/05 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00012-CR

Mark Thomas

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 367th District Court

of Denton County (F-2010-2706-E)

March 5, 2015

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth
May 9, 2013

EPA meeting with members of the Chemical Users Coalition (CUC) (Attendees list attached).

CUC made a presentation on a number of issues. See attached presentation. Part of the presentation 

was on the article exemption (see slide 7 of the presentation). This discussion on the article exemption

was in part general and in part in reference to several proposed SNURs . Mark Greenwood of CUC and 

Paul Malichky of PPG stated that risk should be a consideration in whether or not to lift the article 

exemption for these SNURs and for SNURs in general.

Jeff Morris, EPA asked if there should be a specific risk consideration any time the article exemption was 

lifted for a SNUR. Mr. Mahlichky said yes.

Jason Leuck of Lockheed Martin said that they don’t have the knowledge on what is in articles. They 

have over 30,000 products that they use.

Wendy Cleland-Hamnett of EPA asked whether the companies go back to their suppliers and request 

that the article not include a particular chemical. 

Charles Ingebretson of Boeing stated that many at EPA had the impression based on what Walmart has 

done that every company can tell its suppliers not to include a particular chemical in a product but that 

is not the case.

Summary prepared by Maria Doa, EPA.
#### § 29.14 Secretary.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, or any officer or employee of the Department to whom authority has heretofore been delegated, or to whom authority may hereafter be delegated, to act in his stead.
#### § 4280.402 [Reserved]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0197 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RICHARD DENVER HINMAN ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until January 13 , 2022 , to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 13 2021

12/13/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0197
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JOHN GALATOLO,

Petitioner,

v. CaseNo.5:00-cv-199-MCR-GRJ

MARK A. HENRY, WARDEN,

FCI MARIANNA,

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated March 23, 2018. ECF No. 37. The parties have been

afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code,

Section 636(b)(1). The Court has made a de novo determination of the timely filed

objections, ECF No. 38. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, the objections, and the

record, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation should be

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and
Page 2 of 2

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. Petitioner’s Motion Under Rule 60(b)(6) for Relief From This Court’s

Judgment Dismissing § 2241 Motion for Lack of Jurisdiction, ECF No. 36, is

DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of April 2018.

M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*Wednesday, October 21, 1998*

MERIT DOCKET

98-1695.

#### State v. Ratliff.

Clermont App. No. CA98-01-002. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that no conflict exists. This cause is therefore dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resniok, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7167

DEREK STANTON LA’MAR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate

Judge. (CA-04-368-2)

Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Stanton La’Mar, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Derek Stanton La’Mar seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’s order denying his request for DNA evidence and his motion

for appointment of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction

only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S.

541 (1949). The order La’Mar seeks to appeal is neither a final

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Baker, 7:20cv39

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 8

This Order addresses Plaintiff’s objections and counter-designations to 

Defendants’ affirmative deposition designations and Defendants’ objections to 

Plaintiff’s counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions:

1. Baker, Cindy (2020-09-30)

2. Dimoff, Brian (2020-10-03)

3. MacWilliams, Andrew (30b6) (2020-09-24)

4. Ohama, Dan (2020-11-17)

5. Toner, David (2020-10-01)

SO ORDERED, on this 10th day of June, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 164 Filed 06/10/21 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT March 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR FISCAL QUARTER ENDED March 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-MOS
<CASH>                            1,190,021
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                     1,382,457
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                         501,859
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  3,074,337
<PP&E>                            4,999,186
<DEPRECIATION>                    3,311,730
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   11,820,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             4,304,911
<BONDS>                           2,658,542
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                         140,128
<COMMON>                          1,342,077
<OTHER-SE>                        3,374,697
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     11,820,355
<SALES>                           2,510,921
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  2,510,921
<CGS>                             2,384,836
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     2,384,836   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  2,435,599
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  243,963
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (2,469,048)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (2,469,048)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     (2,469,048)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.19)
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

I, Kolja Rockov, certifythat:

1.             I have reviewed thisQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Linn Energy, LLC (the “registrant”);

2.             Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)                      Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)                     Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)                      Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)                      Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)                     Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: August 14,2007
| /s/ Kolja Rockov                                      |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Kolja Rockov                                          |
| Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 62 EM 2023 Respondent

V. ROBERT WASIUTA, Petitioner ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 4t" day of January, 2024, the Application for Extraordinary Relief is DENIED. Justice McCafferydid not participate in the consideration ordecision ofthis matter.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JESSIE COX/BENNETT

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20cv27-TKW-MJF 

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

/

OR D E R

This case is before the Court based upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 11). No objections to the Report and Recommendation 

were filed. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the case file, I 

agree with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case is due to be dismissed 

for failure to pay the filing fee, failure to comply with court orders, and (with respect 

to the habeas petition) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the file.

Case 5:20-cv-00027-TKW-MJF Document 12 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of August, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00027-TKW-MJF Document 12 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 2