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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TANIELA F. KIVALU, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY; 

TRUSTEE BOARD MEMBERS OF 

NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY; 

MICHAEL CAHILL; SAM BARSTOSKY; 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; 

UNITED STATES CREDIT BUREAUS; 

UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as Others, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-16811 

D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00379-SPL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Taniela F. Kivalu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 30 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-16811 

dismissing his action alleging federal disability discrimination claims. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 

2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kivalu’s action because Kivalu failed 

to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed 

liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible 

claim for relief).

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

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

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

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
      32




CERTIFICATIONS
      UNDER SECTION 906




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Asianada, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
      does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
      Annual Report for the year ended June 30, 2008 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.





Dated:
                October 1, 2008
            /s/
                Robert EllinRobert
                EllinPrincipal
                Executive Officer




Dated:
                October 1, 2008
            /s/
                Charles BentzCharles
                BentzPrincipal
                Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
50.205-4 Authorization of awards made

presuming SAFETY Act designation or

certification after contract award.

(a) When necessary to award a contract prior to DHS issuing SAFETY Act protections, contracting

officers may award contracts presuming that DHS will issue a SAFETY Act designation/certification

to the contractor after contract award only if-

(1) The criteria of 50.205-3(a) are met;

(2) The chief of the contracting office (or other official designated in agency procedures) approves

the action; and

(3) The contracting officer advises DHS of the timelines for potential award and consults DHS as to

when DHS could reasonably complete evaluations of offerors’ applications for SAFETY Act

designations or certifications.

(b) Contracting officers shall not authorize offers presuming that SAFETY Act certification will be

obtained (as opposed to a SAFETY Act designation), unless a block certification applies to the class

of technology to be acquired under the solicitation.

Parent topic: 50.205 Procedures.
52.219-33 Nonmanufacturer Rule.

As prescribed in 19.507(h), insert the following clause:

Nonmanufacturer Rule (Sep 2021)

(a) Definitions. As used in this clause—

Manufacturer means the concern that transforms raw materials, miscellaneous parts, or components

into the end item. Concerns that only minimally alter the item being procured do not qualify as

manufacturers of the end item. Concerns that add substances, parts, or components to an existing

end item to modify its performance will not be considered the end item manufacturer, where those

identical modifications can be performed by and are available from the manufacturer of the existing

end item.

Nonmanufacturer means a concern, including a supplier, that provides an end item it did not

manufacture, process, or produce.

(b) Applicability.

(1) This clause does not apply to contracts awarded pursuant to the unrestricted portion of a partial

set-aside or to a contractor that is the manufacturer of the product or end item.

(2) This clause applies to—

(i)Contracts that have been awarded pursuant to a set-aside, in total or in part, for any of the small

business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3);

(ii)Contracts that have been awarded on a sole-source basis in accordance with subparts 19.8, 19.13,

19.14, and 19.15;

(iii)Orders expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold and that are—

(A)Set aside for small business under multiple-award contracts, as described in 8.405-5 and

16.505(b)(2)(i)(F); or

(B)Issued directly to a small business concern under multiple-award contracts as described in

19.504(c)(1)(ii);

(iv)Orders, regardless of dollar value, that are—

(A)Set aside in accordance with subparts 19.8, 19.13, 19.14, and 19.15 under multiple-award

contracts as described in 8.405-5 and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F); or

(B)Issued directly to concerns that qualify for the programs described in subparts 19.8, 19.13, 19.14,

and 19.15 under multiple-award contracts as described in 19.504(c)(1)(ii); and

(v)Contracts using the HUBZone price evaluation preference to award to a HUBZone concern unless

the Contractor waived the evaluation preference.

(c) Requirements.
(1)The Contractor shall—

(i)Provide an end item that a small business has manufactured, processed, or produced in the United

States or its outlying areas; for kit assemblers who are nonmanufacturers, see paragraph (c)(2) of

this clause instead;

(ii)Be primarily engaged in the retail or wholesale trade and normally sell the type of item being

supplied; and

(iii)Take ownership or possession of the item(s) with its personnel, equipment, or facilities in a

manner consistent with industry practice; for example, providing storage, transportation, or

delivery.

(2)When the end item being acquired is a kit of supplies, at least 50 percent of the total cost of the

components of the kit shall be manufactured, processed, or produced in the United States or its

outlying areas by small business concerns.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.219 [Reserved]
§ 504.2 Fees for deposit and requisition of microbial cultures. ( a ) Depositors of microbial cultures must pay a one-time $670 user fee for each culture deposited on or after December 1, 2015.
( b ) For cultures deposited on or after December 1, 2015, requestors must pay a $40 user fee for each culture distributed.
[80 FR 74966, Dec. 1, 2015]
34.202 Integrated Baseline Reviews.

(a) When an EVMS is required, the Government will conduct an Integrated Baseline Review (IBR).

(b) The purpose of the IBR is to verify the technical content and the realism of the related

performance budgets, resources, and schedules. It should provide a mutual understanding of the

inherent risks in offerors’/ contractors’ performance plans and the underlying management control

systems, and it should formulate a plan to handle these risks.

(c) The IBR is a joint assessment by the offeror or contractor, and the Government, of the-

(1) Ability of the project’s technical plan to achieve the objectives of the scope of work;

(2) Adequacy of the time allocated for performing the defined tasks to successfully achieve the

project schedule objectives;

(3) Ability of the Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) to successfully execute the project and

attain cost objectives, recognizing the relationship between budget resources, funding, schedule,

and scope of work;

(4) Availability of personnel, facilities, and equipment when required, to perform the defined tasks

needed to execute the program successfully; and

(5) The degree to which the management process provides effective and integrated

technical/schedule/cost planning and baseline control.

(d) The timing and conduct of the IBR shall be in accordance with agency procedures. If a pre-award

IBR will be conducted, the solicitation must include the procedures for conducting the IBR and

address whether offerors will be reimbursed for the associated costs. If permitted, reimbursement of

offerors’ pre-award IBR costs is governed by the provisions of FAR part 31.

Parent topic: Subpart 34.2 - Earned Value Management System
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No.: 4:01cr47 – SPM 

WILLIE JAMES FRANCIS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

C0RRECTED1

 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis (doc. 258) to appeal of the order denying his 3582(c) motion to

reduce his sentence under Amendment 750 (see docs. 242 and 248). The

standard for appealing in forma pauperis requires that the appeal be taken in

good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Good faith in this context is measured by an

objective standard. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). 

Defendant’s appeal is not taken in objective good faith because Defendant was

subject to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence and his sentencing range is

not reduced by Amendment 750. Accordingly, it is

1

 This order has been corrected in the “ORDERED AND ADJUDGED”

section to show the correct document number for the motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. The previous order identified the document as (doc. 248), but the

correct identification is (doc. 258).

Case 4:01-cr-00047-MCR-AK Document 261 Filed 03/08/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (doc. 258) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of March, 2012.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

Case No.: 4:01cr47 – SPM 

Case 4:01-cr-00047-MCR-AK Document 261 Filed 03/08/12 Page 2 of 2
4828
      Loop
      Central Drive


Houston
      TX 77081


Telephone
      713-966-8966


Fax
      713-218-4595


www.littonloan.com


**SERVICER
      COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**





Ownit
      Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-6








The
      undersigned officer of Litton Loan Servicing LP provides the Annual Statement
      as
      to Compliance as required by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above
      referenced security and certifies that (i) a review of the activities of the
      Servicer during such preceding calendar year (or such shorter period in the
      case
      of the first such report) and of performance under this Agreement has been
      made
      under my supervision, and (ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such
      review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement
      in
      all material respects for 2006, except as disclosed below:





*Reconciliations
      for Asset-Backed Securities Related Bank Account -
      1122(d)(2)(vii)(D)*





Our
      investor bank account reconciliations included certain reconciling items that
      were not resolved within 90 calendar days of their original identification
      on
      eleven of sixty-three investor bank account reconciliations selected for
      testing. The sum of the reconciling items for those eleven reconciliations
      was
      $216,950.





*Adjustments
      to Interest Rates for Pool Assets With Variable Rates -
      1122(d)(4)(ix)*





Our
      testing of sixty-five adjustable rate mortgages revealed two instances where
      certain adjustable rate mortgages for which the interest rate reset in the
      servicing system did not agree to interest rates in the appropriate source
      index
      per the borrower’s note documents. These were the result of incorrect
      information transferring from the prior servicer. Additionally, the same
      sixty-five mortgages selected for testing included one instance where the
      adjustable rate mortgage payment change date in the servicing system did not
      agree to the loan documents.








Date:  February
      27, 2007








*/s/
      Elizabeth Folk*


__________________________________


Elizabeth
      Folk


Senior
      Vice President and


Chief
      Financial Officer


Litton
      Loan Servicing LP








Inv
        498 -
        Servicer Compliance Statement
52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent	Rates for Federal Hires.       As prescribed	in 22.1006(b), insert	the following clause:          Statement of Equivalent Rates for	Federal Hires (May 2014)          In compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards statute	and the regulations of the Secretary of Labor ( 29	CFR Part 4), this clause identifies the classes of service	employees expected to be employed under the contract and states	the wages and fringe benefits payable to each if they were employed	by the contracting agency subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.5341 or 5 332.          This Statement is for Information Only: It	is not a Wage Determination          Employee	Class                      Monetary	Wage-Fringe Benefits_____________                      _________________________________________                      _________________________________________                      _________________________________________                      _________________________________________                      _________________________________________                      _________________________________________                      ____________________________(End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.222 [Reserved]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20-cr-97/TKW

MARSHALL ANDY POPPLE, III

__________________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 

Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of the 

Defendant, MARSHALL ANDY POPPLE, III, to Count One of the indictment is 

hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as 

directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 2022.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00097-TKW Document 23 Filed 02/22/22 Page 1 of 1
Start: 10:39 AM

Stop: 10:50 AM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CRIMINAL MINUTES 

Case No: 1:98cr14; MATTHEW SCOTT Date: 3/26/10

 

PROCEEDINGS: REVOCATION HEARING 

PRESENT: Honorable Maurice M. Paul , Judge

 Blair Patton Christine Bordenave Greg McMahon 

 Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Government’s attorney

 Gloria Fletcher Glenn McInnes 

 Defendant’s Attorney U.S. Probation Officer

 

 X Defendant admits to the violation re [543] PETITION AND ORDER Re Supervised Release

Violation as to MATTHEW SCOTT

 The court find the defendant has violated his supervised release but continues the defendant on

supervised release under same terms and conditions.

Initials of Deputy Clerk bkp
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA OF

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WAYNE BLACK, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) CASE NO. 1:03-cv-734-MEF

) WO

LAMAR GLOVER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

O R D E R

After an independent review of the file, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE

of the court that:

1. The plaintiff's objection (Doc. #16) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge (Doc. #15) filed on February 1, 2006 is OVERRULED;

2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 15) entered on January 18,

2006 is ADOPTED;

3. The plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against the defendants in their official

capacities are DISMISSED as the defendants are entitled to absolute immunity from these

claims.

4. The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to the fabricated

citation and medical treatment claims.

5. The motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff's claim that

defendants Glover and Bowers acted with deliberate indifference to his safety in failing to

Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 17 Filed 02/15/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

protect him from the use of excessive force is DENIED.

6. Defendant Turner is DISMISSED as a party to this cause of action.

7. The plaintiff's claim that defendant Glover and Bowers acted with deliberate

indifference to his safety in failing to protect him from the use of excessive force will be set

for trial.

DONE this 15th day of February, 2006.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 17 Filed 02/15/2006 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cr-00059-MP-AK

SUSAN DYE MUMMAU,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 200, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, which recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Doc. 183, be denied. 

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on Wednesday, August 1, 2007. 

The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and have been afforded an opportunity to

file objections. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), this Court must

make a de novo review of those portions to which an objection has been made. In this instance,

however, no objections have been filed.

Under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, Defendant Mummau was sentenced to

twenty-four months incarceration. In her motion to vacate, Defendant states that because the

Supreme Court declared the mandatory nature of the Guidelines unconstitutional, United States

v. Booker, 542 U.S. 124, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), she should be resentenced. 

The Eleventh Circuit has held that “Booker’s constitutional rule falls squarely under the category

of new rules of criminal procedure that do not apply retroactively to § 2255 cases on collateral

review.” Varela v. United States, 400 F.3d 864, 868 (11th Cir. 2005). Also, as the Magistrate

points out, because the Eleventh Circuit could not foresee the applicability of Blakely to the

Sentencing Guidelines, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for lack of similar foresight. 

Case 1:03-cr-00059-MP-AK Document 203 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:03-cr-00059-MP-AK

Therefore, having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the lack of objections

thereto, I have determined that it should be adopted. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. Defendant Mummau’s Motion to Vacate is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of September, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cr-00059-MP-AK Document 203 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 2
§ 5001.501 General. The lender is responsible for servicing the entire loan and taking all servicing actions that a reasonably prudent lender would perform in servicing its own portfolio of loans that are not guaranteed. The lender must certify that it will service the guaranteed loan in accordance with this part, its loan servicing policies and procedures, and the lender's agreement. Where a lender's loan servicing policies and procedures address a corresponding requirement in this part or in the lender's agreement, the lender must comply the corresponding requirement in this part, unless otherwise approved by the Agency. ( a ) A lender's servicing responsibilities include, but are not limited to, ( 1 ) Periodic borrower visits;
( 2 ) Distribution of guaranteed loan funds;
( 3 ) Collecting payments on guaranteed loans;
( 4 ) Ensuring compliance with the covenants and provisions in the loan agreement, security instruments, and other supplemental agreements relating to the guaranteed loan;
( 5 ) Obtaining and analyzing financial statements;
( 6 ) Ensuring payment of taxes and insurance premiums;
( 7 ) Maintaining liens and lien priority on collateral;
( 8 ) Keeping an inventory of all collateral items, and reconciling the inventory of all collateral sold during guaranteed loan servicing, including liquidation;
( 9 ) Obtaining Agency approvals or concurrence as required; and
( 10 ) Cooperating fully with all oversight and monitoring efforts of the Agency or its representatives as specified in § 5001.502.
( b ) The lender must remain mortgagee and secured party of record, notwithstanding the fact that another party may hold a portion of the loan.
( c ) The lender must ensure that the borrower has obtained and will maintain all necessary insurance coverage appropriate to the proposed project.
( d ) If the Agency determines that the lender is not in compliance with its servicing responsibilities, the Agency reserves the right to take any action the Agency determines necessary to protect the Agency's interests with respect to the guaranteed loan. If the Agency exercises this right, the lender must cooperate with the Agency to rectify the situation.
#### DEAN, Respondent, v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 7, 1914.)

Action by Jay Dean against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. Held; first, that the statements and conduct of the defendant’s foreman toward the plaintiff after his injury, were improperly received; second, that the verdict rendered was excessive, and that the conduct of the plaintiff’s counsel upon the trial was grossly improper and tended to create passion and prejudice in the minds of the jurors and to increase the amount of their verdict.
50.205-3 Authorization of offers contingent

upon SAFETY Act designation or certification

before contract award.

(a) Contracting officers may authorize such contingent offers, only if-

(1) DHS has issued-

(i) For offers contingent upon SAFETY Act designation, a pre-qualification designation notice or a

block designation; or

(ii) For offers contingent upon SAFETY Act certification, a block certification;

(2) To the contracting officer’s knowledge, the Government has not provided advance notice so that

potential offerors could have obtained SAFETY Act designations/ certifications for their offered

technologies before release of any solicitation; and

(3) Market research shows that there will be insufficient competition without SAFETY Act

protections or the subject technology would be sold to the Government only with SAFETY Act

protections.

(b) Contracting officers shall not authorize offers contingent upon obtaining a SAFETY Act

certification (as opposed to a SAFETY Act designation), unless a block certification applies to the

class of technology to be acquired under the solicitation.

Parent topic: 50.205 Procedures.