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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS
 2 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 dismissal 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 matter, 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 on 
 3 20-35321 

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

AFFIRMED.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as ofDecember 1, 2012, by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities,Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,Certificate Administrator, Tax Administrator and Custodian, Midland LoanServices, a division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer,Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor and U.S. Bank NationalAssociation, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates WFRBS 2012-C10 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms usedherein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.            A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018.

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President

WellsFargo Bank 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7343

DARRELL L. GOSS, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

and 

SASHA GASKINS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SHONTATE MORLEY; MARY BRUMEUCCHI; CHRISTINE LONG; S.C. 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BRYAN P. STIRLING, 

Defendants - Appellees, 

and 

PATTY BRITT-POOSER, 

Defendant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:19-cv-02469-BHH) 

Submitted: July 29, 2022 Decided: August 9, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7343 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/09/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Darrell L. Goss, Appellant Pro Se. Gordon Wade Cooper, BUYCK LAW FIRM, LLC, 

Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7343 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/09/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM: 

Darrell L. Goss appeals the district court’s order adopting in part and modifying in 

part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to 

Defendants in his civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Goss v. Morley, 

No. 2:19-cv-02469-BHH (D.S.C. Sept. 9, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7343 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/09/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 83 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 83 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 83 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 83-2 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 83-2 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
222 So.2d 880

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Alice Mayer KATZ.

No. 49855.

June *5,*1969.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writ of certiorari.

Writs refused. The judgment is correct.

McCALEB and SANDERS, JJ., are of the opinion that the writ should be granted;
2832.1110 Solicitation provision and contract

clauses.

When the clause at FAR 52.232-34, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) - Other than

System for Award Management, is required, the contracting officer may insert in paragraph (b)(1) of

the clause a particular time after award, such as a fixed number of days, or an event such as the

submission of the first request for payment, to establish the point at which contractors' EFT

information shall be provided.

Parent topic: Subpart 2832.11 - Electronic Funds Transfer
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of this annual report on Form 10-K of The ExOne Company (the Company) for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012, with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 29, 2013



/s/ S. Kent RockwellS. Kent RockwellChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


March 29, 2013



/s/ John IrvinJohn IrvinChief Executive Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OCT 0 9 2014 

Re: Completeness Determination for SNAP Submission for FEA-11 00 

Dear [

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Thank you for submission to the Envirorunental Protection Agency. The EPA 

established the Significant New Alternatives Policy program to implement section 612 of the 

Clean Air Act. Your submission and the most recent additional information received on February 

4, 2014, have been reviewed for completeness. We have found the information to be complete. 

Here is a summary of information concerning your submission: 

Substitute name: FEA-11 00 

Sector: Foam Blowing 

End-uses: 

• Rigid polyurethane appliance foam 

• Rigid polyurethane spray, commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels 

• Flexible polyurethane 

• Integral skin polyurethane 

• Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other 

• Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 

• Phenolic insulation board and bunstock 

Date most recent information received: February 4, 2014 

Status of submission: Complete 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recyc led/Recyc lable • Pnnted w1th Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
Based on review of the most recent information, your SNAP submission has been found 

complete. Pending SNAP's decision concerning the substitute 's acceptability, you may sell and 

import FEA-11 00 in the end-uses listed above contingent upon meeting the requirements of 

EPA's New Chemicals Program under the Toxic Substances Control Act. If you have any 

questions about your submission, please contact me at vondemhagen.rebecca@epa.gov or by 

phone at 202-343-9445. 

Sincerely, 

·~~ 

Rebecca von dem Hagen 

Alternatives and Emissions Reduction Branch 

Stratospheric Protection Division
Subpart 305.3 - Synopses of Contract Awards

Parent topic: PART 305 - PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

305.303 Announcement of contract awards.

(a) Public announcement. The contracting officer shall report awards, not exempt under Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 5.303, to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation

(Congressional Liaison Office.)
§ 205.199B Remedial order. ( a ) After considering all information received during the proceeding, the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals or his designee may issue a final Remedial Order. The Remedial Order may adopt the findings and conclusions contained in the Proposed Remedial Order or may modify or rescind any such finding or conclusion to conform the Order to the evidence or on the basis of a determination that the finding or conclusion is erroneous in fact or law or is arbitrary or capricious. In the alternative, the Office of Hearings and Appeals may determine that no Remedial Order should be issued or may remand all or a portion of the Proposed Remedial Order to the issuing DOE office for further consideration or modification. Every determination made pursuant to this section shall state the relevant facts and legal bases supporting the determination.
( b ) The DOE shall serve a copy of any determination issued pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section upon the person to whom it is directed, any person who was served with a copy of the Proposed Remedial Order, the DOE office that issued the Proposed Remedial Order, the DOE Assistant General Counsel for Administrative Litigation and any other person on the official service list. Appropriate deletions may be made in the determinations to ensure that confidentiality of information protected from disclosure under 18 U.S.C. 1905 and 5 U.S.C. 552. A copy of the determination with appropriate deletions to protect confidential and proprietary data shall be placed in the Office of Hearings and Appeals Public Docket Room.
2402.101 Definitions.

Accounting Office means the Office of Accounting Operations within the Office of the Chief Financial

Officer and includes that Office's field components.

Chief Procurement Officer means the HUD official having authority for all of the Department's

procurement activities.

Contracting activity means the Office of the Chief Procurement

Department means the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which may also be

designated as HUD.

Head of the contracting activity (HCA) means the Chief Procurement Officer. As permitted by the

FAR and the HUD Acquisition Regulation, the Chief Procurement Officer, acting within his or her

authority as the Senior Procurement Executive, may delegate HCA authority for specific actions or

classes of actions down to, but not below, the level of the Assistant Chief Procurement Officers.

Delegated HCA authority may not be further redelegated.

Legal counsel means HUD's Office of General Counsel and its field-based components.

Primary Organization Heads are those officials of the Department who are responsible for the major

organizational components of HUD and who report directly to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary.

The Primary Organization Heads of HUD include the Assistant Secretaries and equivalent

Departmental management (e.g., President, GNMA, Inspector General, General Counsel, Chief

Procurement Officer, etc.).

Secretary means the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or his or her

designee.

Senior Procurement Executive means the Chief Procurement Officer.

Parent topic: Subpart 2402.1 - Definitions
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CR. NO. 2:06cr200-WHA

)

HECTOR R. SILVA and )

ROSA E. RINCON )

MOTION TO STRIKE FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

Comes now the United States of America, by and through Leura

G. Canary, United States Attorney, Middle District of Alabama, and

John T. Harmon, Assistant United States Attorney, and hereby moves

the Court to strike the forfeiture allegation from the indictment

returned August 15, 2006.

The 1999 Ford F150 Pickup Truck, VIN: 1FTRX18L5XKA74813 seized

on July 13, 2006, from defendants was disposed of through

administrative forfeiture proceedings on November 3, 2006.

A proposed Order is filed herewith.

Respectfully submitted this 27 day of December, 2006. th

FOR THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 LEURA G. CANARY

/s/John T. Harmon 

John T. Harmon

Assistant United States Attorney

Bar Number: 7068-II58J

Office of the United States Attorney

Middle District of Alabama

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Telephone:(334) 223-7280

Facsimile:(334) 223-7560

E-mail: John.Harmon@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 95 Filed 12/27/2006 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 27, 2006, I electronically

filed the foregoing Motion to Strike Forfeiture Allegation with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send

notification of such filing to the following: Christopher A.

Snyder, Terry F. Moorer, Jay Lewis and Matthew P. Teague.

/s/John T. Harmon 

John T. Harmon

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 95 Filed 12/27/2006 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CR. NO. 2:06cr200-WHA

)

HECTOR R. SILVA and )

ROSA E. RINCON )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Motion to Strike heretofore filed in

the above-styled cause, and for good cause shown, the Court is of

the opinion that the Motion should be and the same is hereby

GRANTED. It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the

Court that the Forfeiture Allegation is hereby stricken.

DONE this ____ day of _______________, 200___.

______________________________

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 95-2 Filed 12/27/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v ) CR. NO. 1:06-CR-00201-WHA

)

OSCAR MARTINEZ-RAMIREZ )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the to withdraw as counsel filed by the defendant, it is

ORDERED that a hearing be and is hereby set on September 19, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.

in Courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama. 

The United States Marshal or the person having custody of the defendant shall produce

the defendant for the hearing.

Done this 14 day of September, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 20 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 26 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 26 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 2 of 2
Subpart 2042.570 - Differing Professional

Views (DPV)

Parent topic: PART 2042 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

2042.570-1 Policy.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) policy is to support the contractor's expression of

professional health and safety-related concerns associated with the contractor's work for the NRC

that may differ from a prevailing NRC staff view, disagree with an NRC decision or policy position,

or take issue with proposed or established agency practices. An occasion may arise when an NRC

contractor, contractor's personnel, or subcontractor personnel believes that a conscientious

expression of a competent judgement is required to document these concerns on matters directly

associated with its performance of the contract. The procedure described in 2052.242-71,

Procedures for Resolving NRC Contractor Differing Professional Views, provides for the expression

and resolution of DPVs of health and safety-related concerns associated with the mission of the

agency by NRC contractors, contractor personnel, or subcontractor personnel on matters directly

associated with its performance of the contract. The contractor shall provide a copy of the NRC DPV

procedure to all of its employees performing under this contract and to all subcontractors who shall,

in turn, provide a copy of the procedure to its employees. The prime contractor or subcontractor

shall submit all DPV's received but need not endorse them.

2042.570-2 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2052.242-70, Resolving NRC Contractor

Differing Professional Views, in the body of cost reimbursement solicitations and contracts for

professional services, as appropriate. This clause may not be altered by the contracting officer.

(b) The contracting officer shall include the clause at 2052.242-71, Procedures for Resolving NRC

Contractor Differing Professional Views, as an attachment to cost reimbursement solicitations and

contracts for professional services, as appropriate. This clause may not be altered by the contracting

officer.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10706

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Juan Merced Garcia, Jr., 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:20-CR-53-1

Before Southwick, Oldham and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Juan Merced Garcia, Jr., has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 29, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10706 Document: 00516257799 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2022
No. 21-10706

2

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-10706 Document: 00516257799 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2022
Case 2:06-mj-00086-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00086-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00086-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00086-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00086-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00086-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00086-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 7 of 7
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 258 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                           May 5, 2005.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1268) making 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and 
Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other 
purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
    Sec. 2. The Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized, on 
behalf of the Committee, to file a supplemental report to accompany H.R. 748.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 99 Filed 03/22/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 99 Filed 03/22/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 99 Filed 03/22/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 99 Filed 03/22/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 99 Filed 03/22/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 99 Filed 03/22/2007 Page 6 of 6
§ 1002.22 Use of distinguishing flag. ( a ) DOE distinguishing flags may be used only: ( 1 ) In the offices of the Secretarial officers, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and heads of field locations designated below: Power Administrations. Regional Offices. Operations Offices. Certain Field Offices and other locations as designated by the Director of Administration.
( 2 ) At official DOE ceremonies.
( 3 ) In Department auditoriums, official presentation rooms, hearing rooms, lobbies, public document rooms, and in non-DOE facilities in connection with events or displays sponsored by DOE, and public appearances of DOE officials.
( 4 ) On or in front of DOE installation buildings.
( 5 ) Other such purposes as determined by the Director of Administration.