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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LINDA ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CITY OF RICHLAND, Code Enforcement Board of Richland Police Department; CITY
OF RICHLAND CITY COUNCIL; THOMPSON, Mayor, City of Richland; REENTS, Manager, City of Richland;
LINDSEY BLANCHARD; CERISE PECK;
MIKE HARRISON,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 35321

D.C. No. 4:19

- cv

- 05263

- TOR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2022 * *

Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Linda Alexander 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

AUG 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 35321

dismissing her action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismiss al under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. United States , 330 F.3d 1186, 1187

(9th Cir. 2003) . We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Alexander’s action because Alexander

failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matt er, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted))

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Alexander’s

motions for an extension of unspecified deadlines, a jury trial , and the appointment

of counsel. See Palmer v. Valdez , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth

standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel ); S. Cal. Edison

Co. v. Lynch , 307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “district courts

have inherent power to control their dockets” and this court “will reverse a district

court ’ s litigation management decisions only if it abused its discretion” (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as without merit Alexander’s contention that the district court was

biased against her

.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on3 20

- 35321

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

AFFIRMED.
MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2007-1585.

#### State v. Foster.

Hamilton App. No. C-060720. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2007-0595 and 2006-0651, *State v. Cabrales,*Hamilton App. No. C-050682, 2007-Ohio-857, and briefing schedule stayed.

Lanzinger, J., not participating.
*Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. 

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 93-8239.

Milton O'BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY OF MIDLAND, Defendant-Appellee.

Dec. 22, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD, Circuit Judge, and PARKER,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Milton O'Bryant appealsthe summary judgment dismissal of his claims based on a conclusion

by the district court that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is not retroactive.

O'Bryant's complaint is based on actions allegedly taken by the defendant City of Midland in

July 1990 and in July 1991 as a result of a disabling injury O'Bryant sustained in October 1989.

Congress specifically made the ADA effective with respect to state and local governments as of

January 26, 1992. The statute becomes effective as to private employers, depending on the number

of employees, either on July 26, 1992, orJuly 26, 1994. O'Bryant's complaint was filed on September

28, 1992.

Persuaded that Congress did not intend retroactivity for the ADA and perceiving no basisfor

concluding otherwise, we hold that the ADA is not to be given retroactive effect and, accordingly,

AFFIRM.
|        |                                                                     |                                                               |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                | 780 Township Line Road • Yardley, PA 19067

609-883-3900 |
|   | Robert J. Lux

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer |

 

Re: Servicer Compliance Statement

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Cenlar FSB, as servicer (“the Servicer”) pursuant to applicable servicing agreements governing the securities listed in Exhibit A, does certify that:

1.	A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period of 1/1/2022 to 12/31/2022 (the “Reporting Period”) and of the Servicer’s performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision; and

2.	To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

The undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 3rd day of March 2023.

 

/s/ Robert J. Lux

Robert J. Lux

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer

----

 

 

 

Exhibit A – Securities Covered in Cenlar’s Servicer Compliance Statement

 

 

|          |                                      |             |                                    |                        |
|----------|--------------------------------------|-------------|------------------------------------|------------------------|
| Investor | Servicer                             | Security    | * Period Subserviced by Cenlar FSB | Security Administrator |
| RW0      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2012-6 | 1/1 thru 12/31/22                  | Citibank               |
| RW2      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-2 | 1/1 thru 12/31/22                  | Citibank               |
| RW3      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-3 | 1/1 thru 12/31/22                  | Citibank               |
| RW4      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-4 | 1/1 thru 12/31/22                  | Citibank               |
| RW5      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-5 | 1/1 thru 12/31/22                  | Citibank               |
| RW6      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-6 | 1/1 thru 12/31/22                  | Citibank               |
| RW7      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-7 | 1/1 thru 12/31/22                  | Citibank               |
| RW8      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-8 | 1/1 thru 5/31/22                   | Citibank               |
| Y06      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2012-5 | 1/1 thru 02/28/22                  | Citibank               |

 

----
I N THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT N OT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

A T HOME AUTO GLASS, LLC A/A/O ARGENIS DURAN , A ppellant ,
v. Cas e No

. 5D 21

- 2053 LT Cas e No. 2021- SC- 000972

M ENDOTA INSURANCE COMPANY , A ppellee

. ________________________________/ O pinion filed August 26, 2022 Nonfinal Appeal from the County Court for Seminole County , James J. De K leva , Judge. Chad A. Barr, of Chad Bar r Law, Altamonte Springs, for Appellant. Matthew C. Scarborough and Amy Lee, of Scarborough Attorneys at Law, Tampa, for Appellee.

PE R CURIAM

. A t Home Auto Glass, LLC a/a/o Argenis Duran appeals the trial court ’ s nonfinal order granting Appellee, Mendota Insurance Company’s , motion to2 transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statu t es (2020). Based on our recent decision in At Home Auto Glass, LLC v. Mendota Insurance , 47 Fla. L. Weekl y D1706 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug

. 12, 2022), which involved the same parties and is indistinguishable in all material respects from the instant case, we reverse the order transferring venue and remand this case for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED. L AMBERT, C.J., EVANDER and EDWARDS , JJ., concur.
647.305-71 Shipping instructions.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 652.247–71, Shipping Instructions, in solicitations

and contracts with a source in the United States if overseas shipment of supplies is required.

Parent topic: Subpart 647.3—Transportation in Supply Contracts
§ 993.65 Disposition of reserve prunes. ( a ) *Committee's right of disposition.* The committee shall have the power and authority to sell or dispose of any and all reserve prunes ( 1 ) to meet demand either ( i ) as domestic trade demand, or
( ii ) as foreign trade demand, or
( 2 ) for use in any outlet, defined in rules and procedures, established by the Secretary after recommendation of the committee, noncompetitive with normal outlets for salable prunes.
( b ) *Methods of disposition.* The committee may, for any of the purposes of § 993.65(a), offer to sell and sell reserve prunes to handlers for disposition or sale by them in specified outlets. Sale of reserve prunes by the committee to any handler for resale in such outlets or for resale to other persons for sale in such outlets shall be governed by the provisions of a sales agreement, executed by the handler with the committee. The committee may refuse to sell reserve prunes to any handler if the handler violates the terms and conditions of the agreement or other provisions of this part. The committee may sell reserve prunes into any outlet in which direct selling is determined to be more appropriate.
( c ) *Offers to sell reserve prunes.* No offer to sell reserve prunes either to handlers or to other persons shall be made by the committee until 5 days (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) have elapsed from the time it files with the Secretary complete information as to the terms and conditions of the proposed offer including the basis for determining the handlers' shares: *Provided,* That at any time prior to the expiration of the 5-day period the offer may be made upon the committee receiving from the Secretary notice that he does not disapprove it.
( d ) *Transfer of shares.* No handler may transfer a reserve obligation. However, any handler who is authorized by the committee to dispose of reserve prunes may arrange with another handler to dispose of his share of reserve prunes through such other handler. In that event, credit for the reserve disposition shall go to the handler whose reserve prunes are used.
( e ) *Distribution of proceeds.* Expenses incurred by the committee for the receiving, handling, holding, or disposing of any quantity of reserve prunes shall be charged against the proceeds of sales of such prunes. Net proceeds from the disposition of reserve prunes shall be distributed by the committee either directly, or through handlers as agents of the committee, under safeguards to be established by the committee, to persons in proportion to their contributions thereto, or to their successors in interest, with appropriate grade and size differentials as established by the committee. Progress payments may be made by the committee as sufficient funds accumulate. Distribution of the proceeds in connection with the reserve prunes contributed by a cooperative marketing association shall be made to such association, if it so requests.
[30 FR 9800, Aug. 6, 1965]
Subpart 605.2—Synopses of Proposed

Contract Actions

Parent topic: PART 605—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

605.202 Exceptions.

605.202-70 Foreign acquisitions.

(a) Policy. In accordance with a Determination and Findings issued by the Assistant Secretary of

State for Administration, the requirement for advance notices in the Governmentwide point of entry

(GPE) for the Department's foreign acquisitions awarded by overseas contracting activities is

waived. GPE notices may be published for any acquisition where the contracting officer decides that

publication would be in the Department's best interests.

(b) Procedures. Contracting officers at overseas contracting activities are not required to prepare an

individual determination and findings to document their decision to waive the GPE notice

requirements.

(c) Competition requirements. Nothing in this section waives the requirement to obtain competition

as required by FAR part 6 and DOSAR (48 CFR) part 606. Competition, including the use of written

solicitation, shall be obtained in all cases to the extent feasible. If there are known U.S. firms or

firms with U.S. affiliations in local residence capable of supplying the required supplies or services,

the contracting activity shall ensure that those firms are included in the source list for the

acquisition.

(d) Policy exclusions. GPE waiver authority does not apply to local guard service contracts exceeding

$250,000, or any contracts exceeding $5 million. Local guard service contracts that exceed $250,000

and other contracts that exceed $5 million shall be published in the GPE. Option year prices shall be

included when computing the applicability of this threshold.

605.207 Preparation and transmittal of synopses.

(a)

(1) Contracting officers at overseas posts shall submit notices of proposed contract actions to A/OPE

for electronic transmittal to the GPE. Alternately, posts may obtain a user ID and password that

allows direct registration and issuance of the notice in the GPE. Posts should contact A/OPE for

assistance in obtaining the ID and password if they choose to directly input the notice information.

605.207-70 Acquisitions available from only one responsible
source.

In addition to the information required at FAR 5.207, each notice of a proposed acquisition from only

one responsible source shall include descriptions of the specific qualifications or capabilities

required to perform the work and the information a potential source must submit.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S DECEMBER 31, 1997, FORM 10-Q AND THRIFT FINANCIAL REPORT IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          37,844
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,983
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    271,328
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        903,546
<ALLOWANCE>                                     12,360
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,275,398
<DEPOSITS>                                     938,635
<SHORT-TERM>                                   198,857
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,915
<LONG-TERM>                                     27,188
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,782
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,021
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  96,803
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 20,882
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,459
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                25,341
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              10,584
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,752
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,589
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,398
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,249
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,096
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,096
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,624
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.72
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,314
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                11,903
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,273
<RECOVERIES>                                       332
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               12,360
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,343
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,017
        

</TABLE>
P.1 

OAR Box 1875 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

11) ll-E-29 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/1/200811:12:44 AM Sheet 11 of 86 
P.2 

A-90-19 

ll-E-29 

• t U S r, , 

15SB. 

'•• ooo"-" 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ....... 

Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711 ; 7? ~\y % \\ v 

January 14, 1992 ; i UEC \ 8 «H 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Trip to Dow Chemical (HON and 

FROM: 

TO: 

Bruce C. Jordan, Dir 

Emission Standards D 

The Files 

On December 16, 1991 Bill Rosenberg and I visited the Dow 

Chemical Plant at Midland, Michigan. The purpose of the meeting 

was to see first hand the operations of a major chemical company 

and to understand the task faced by the chemical industry in 

complying with environmental regulations. 

The meeting consisted of a discussion of Dow representatives 

of the program underway to improve environmental performance. A 

tour of the environmental control technology research lab was 

provided. Also, a drive through of a major chemical plant was 

provided in order to physically observe various operations. 

cc: Early Reduction Docket 

HON Docket
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to this park navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to this park information section
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Kings Mountain
National Military ParkSouth Carolina
§ 1005.12 How may a state simplify, consolidate, or substitute federally required state plans? ( a ) As used in this section: ( 1 ) *Simplify* means that a state may develop its own format, choose its own submission date, and select the planning period for a state plan.
( 2 ) *Consolidate* means that a state may meet statutory and regulatory requirements by combining two or more plans into one document and that the state can select the format, submission date, and planning period for the consolidated plan.
( 3 ) *Substitute* means that a state may use a plan or other document that it has developed for its own purposes to meet Federal requirements.
( b ) If not inconsistent with law, a state may decide to try to simplify consolidate, or substitute federally required state plans without prior approval by the Secretary.
( c ) The Secretary reviews each state plan that a state has simplified, consolidated, or substituted and accepts the plan only if its contents meet federal requirements.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., P.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SKILSTAF, INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

3:06-cv-00711-MHT

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., P.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SKILSTAF, INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

3:06-cv-00728-MHT

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and upon

consideration of Defendant’s January 11, 2007 Unopposed Motion for

Protective Order and for Leave to File Administrative Record under Seal, it

is ORDERED that the motion is granted. The Court grants leave to the

parties to file excerpts from the ERISA administrative record under seal

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
without redacting sensitive information and without filing a redacted version

of the same materials. Such documents filed under seal shall remain sealed

unless the Court subsequently orders them to be unsealed. This order does

not rule on what should or should not be considered by the Court in deciding

the underlying ERISA claims.

DONE this 11th day of January, 2007.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson

Myron H. Thompson

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
Department of the Treasury — Internal Revenue Service Escrow or Docket number

Form 10492

(Rev. January 2005) Notice of Federal Taxes Due

To (Name of Escrow Holder, Agent of Taxpayer, or Fiduciary) Amount due

$

Address (Number, Street, P.O. Box, City, State, ZIP code)

You are hereby notified that there is now due, owing, and unpaid from —

Name of taxpayer

Address (Number, Street, P.O. Box, City, State, ZIP code)

to the United States of America, the sum of

for Internal Revenue taxes secured by a lien pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 6321 and 6322, or the

Estate Tax Lien arising under IRC Section 6324, from the date of each assessment.

Accrued

Interest

Kind of Tax

and Period

Assessment

Date

Unpaid Assessed

Balance

Accrued Late

Payment Penalty TOTAL

Date after which additional

interest will be charged Dated at this day

u

Date after which applicable late

payment penalty will be charged of , 20

If a Notice of Federal Tax Lien(s) has been recorded, a Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien will be filed immediately only

if payment is made in cash or by either a certified, cashier's, or treasurers check. The check must be drawn on any bank or trust

company incorporated under the laws of the United States, or of any state or possession of the United States. Payment also can

be made by a United States postal, bank, express, or telegraph money order. If you pay by personal check, issuance of the

certificate of release will be delayed until the bank honors the check.

Caution to Fiduciaries: For personal liability for failure to honor priority of debts due the United States, see sections 3466 and

3467 of the revised statutes (31 U.S.C. 191, 192).

Please make payment payable to the United States Treasury and send it to the Internal Revenue Service at the address below.

By (Name) Title ID number Telephone number

Address (Number, Street, P.O. Box, City, State, ZIP code) Signature

Catalog No. 65710D www.irs.gov Form 10492 (Rev. 1-2005)

Taxpayer

EIN or SSN

u .

( )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

MARIE TOOLE and )

CHRIS TOOLE, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv652-MHT

) 

MATTHEW CHUPP, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED as follows:

(1) The motion to dismiss (doc. no. 20) is granted.

(2) The wantoness claim against Matthew Chupp is

dismissed.

(3) The wantoness and negligent entrustment claims

against defendant Don Bramlett are dismissed.

(4) Defendant Bramlett is dismissed from this cause

completely.

The court assumes that defendants have no objection

Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 23 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
to the allowance of the motion; however, if they do, they

must file the objection within seven days from the date

of this order.

DONE, this the 11th day of January, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 23 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 2 of 2