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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH JEROME PACKNETT,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

FERNAND ALVAREZ; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 17198

D.C. No. 4:15

- cv

- 01229

- YGR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 12 , 2018 **

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Kenneth Jerome Packnett appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal

and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for

an abuse of discr etion the denial of an extension of time to file an opposition

. See

* 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

SEP 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 17198

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc. , 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010)

. We

affirm.

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

motion to extend the time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary

judgment because Packnett was warned that he would not be given any further

extensions, had over ten months to file an opposition, and had extensive access to

the prison law library during that perio d. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) (“When an act

may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend

the time

. . . . ”) ; Ahanchian , 624 F.3d at 1258

- 60 (discussing good cause

requirement for extensions of time)

.

In his opening brief, Packnett fail s to address the district court’s grant of

summary judgment for defendants

. Therefore , Packnett has waived any challenge

to the summary judgment

. See Smith v. Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.

1999) (arguments not raised b y party in opening brief are deemed waived).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Elegant Illusions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
Cardinal, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.



                                           James Cardinal
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           August 9, 2002
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

(4910-I3-PI ~.t

(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

Jet Series 900) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

700,701, & 702), CL-600-2Dl5 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Region

Ainvorthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2ClO (Regional Jet Series

14 CFR Part 39

UATE

... 7- I 10 [Docket No. FAA-Z009-1027; Directorate Identlher 2009-NM-143-AD; Amendme \mNGSYM l

ILPln J.OID-OLj -oL.\ .!I/V;tJ-IIY39-*****; AD  -** -**} rlj~

R1N 212o-AA64 ru

7.-- if 10

• Sl>lllOl

N/1-p/

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (I\D) for the products list.

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) An

originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe RO,!t[Nli SYMBOL

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

l~lTIIV.S""ln

Al'E

There have been several in-service cases reported of impact damage to the

blowout (decompression) panel protective cage assemblies installed in the

aft baggage cargo compartment. When damaged, these cages could

prevent proper operation of the blowout panels, with potential degradation

of smoke detection and fire extinguishing capabilities in the event of a

fire.

mtoG SYloIllOL

* * * * * * * NITIALOi"O

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these

products.
N 

Shawn Martin Finch, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Emmet G. Sullivan, 

Defendant. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FILED 

SEP -7 2011 

Clerk, U S DiSk:' 

Courts fo'r the D;;~~c~ Btankruptcy 

o COlumbIa 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 11 1 bO ~ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter is before the Court on review ofthe plaintiff's pro se complaint and 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will 

be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (requiring dismissal of a complaint upon 

a determination that the complaint, among other enumerated grounds, fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted). 

The plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident. In the complaint captioned "Action 

Involves Discrimination," the plaintiff sues United States District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of 

this Court for "dismissal of cases and denying a fair hearing." Complaint at 1. He seeks '"to have 

[d]ismissed cases reopened and trialed [sic]." Id. at 2. Judges are absolutely immune from 

lawsuits predicated, as here, on their official acts. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219,225 (1988); 

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,355-57 (1978); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. 

Cir. 1993). Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. kl5.!Hu- 'Ul1itei States District Judge 

Date: /er-i:;L 3 ,2011 

3
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certificationof Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuantto Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as Amended**

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended (18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted), Arthur O. Whipple,the Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Silicon StorageTechnology, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of hisknowledge:

1.               The Company’s QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, to which thisCertification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “Periodic Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

2.               The informationcontained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his handhereto as of the 4th day of August, 2006.

 
| /s/ Arthur O. Whipple                               |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                |
| Arthur O. Whipple                                   |
| Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer |

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, has beenprovided to Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. and will be retained by SiliconStorage Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to whichit relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission andis not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespectiveof any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 20

- 00373

- CV

Sarah Friend NEUTZE

, Appellant

v.

TEXAS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY and James ‘ Doug ’ Wasson, II,

Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court

, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- 02

- 30997

- CV

Honorable Camile Glasscock Dubose , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment is AFFIRMED

.

SIGNED July 21, 2021.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE 9-MONTH PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             832
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      910
<ALLOWANCES>                                       455
<INVENTORY>                                        667
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,275
<PP&E>                                          46,982
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,148
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            86
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,814
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,001
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,093
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,672
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,951
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   182
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 817
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,529)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,529)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,529)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.41)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of Itec Environmental Group,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gary M. De Laurentiis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Gary M. De Laurentiis
--------------------------
Gary M. De Laurentiis
Chief Executive Officer

August 18, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 37735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18047]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,548]


Plum Creek Marketing, Inc., Columbia Falls, MT; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 26, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Plum Creek 
Marketing, Inc., Columbia Falls, Montana.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of June, 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-18047 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search 
USGS

- mobile menu barsUSGS Publications Warehouse
    Contact
    Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
    FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- USGS Publications Warehouse
- Contact
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series

- USGS Publications 
  Warehouse
- Explore					    
  Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Documentation					    
  FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- Contact

### The Gulf Series in the subsurface in northern Florida and 
southern Georgia

#### Professional Paper 524-G

Tweet


#### Links

- Document: **Document**                                
  (pdf)
- Plates:
- **Plate 1**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 2**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 3**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 4**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 5**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 6**                                
    (pdf)
- **Plate 7**                                
    (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS

#### Abstract

#### Additional publication details

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it 
is recommended that you download the documents to your computer and open them 
with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your browser may not display or 
print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe 
Reader, free of charge. More information about viewing, downloading, and 
printing report files can be found here.

Accessibility
				    FOIA				    Privacy				    Policies and 
Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior				    | 				    
U.S. Geological 
Survey				    				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp524G 
                   				    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact Page				    				   Page Last Modified: February 02, 
2012 00:10:19
§ 1.6654-5 Payments of estimated tax. ( a ) *In general.* A payment of estimated tax by an individual shall be determined on Form 1040-ES. For the purpose of determining the estimated tax, the amount of gross income which the taxpayer can reasonably expect to receive or accrue, depending upon the method of accounting upon which taxable income is computed, and the amount of the estimated allowable deductions and credits to be taken into account in computing the amount of estimated tax, shall be determined upon the basis of the facts and circumstances existing at the time prescribed for determining the estimated tax, as well as those reasonably to be anticipated for the taxable year. If, therefore, the taxpayer is employed at the date prescribed for making an estimated tax payment at a given wage or salary, the taxpayer should presume, in the absence of circumstances indicating the contrary, for the purpose of the estimated tax payment that such employment will continue to the end of the taxable year at the wage or salary received by the taxpayer as of such date. In the case of income other than wages and salary, the regularity in the payment of income, such as dividends, interest, rents, royalties, and income arising from estates and trusts is a factor to be taken into consideration. Thus, if the taxpayer owns shares of stock in a corporation, and dividends have been paid regularly for several years upon the stock, the taxpayer should, in the absence of information indicating a change in the dividend policy, include the prospective dividends from the corporation for the taxable year as well as those actually received in such year prior to determining the estimated tax. In the case of a taxpayer engaged in business on his own account, there shall be made an estimate of gross income and deductions and credits in the light of the best available information affecting the trade, business, or profession.
( b ) *Computation of estimated tax.* In computing the estimated tax the taxpayer should take into account the taxes, credits, and other amounts listed in § 1.6654-1(a)(4).
[T.D. 9224, 70 FR 52301, Sept. 2, 2005]
| | Re: | Annual Statement of Compliance for J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2015- WPG
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 24, 2015 (the "Agreement"),
the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby
certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"):



(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and
of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and



(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells
Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.







February 27, 2017

































Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 12, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23-322 Lower Tribunal Nos. F07-32644, F07-43306, F04-14535

________________ 

### Tarresse Leonard, Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Miranda, Judge. Tarresse Leonard, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
|   |  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 operation of      the Company. |
|--------|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  |  December      2, 2009 |   | By:    |  /s/      Julie Smolyansky                                                                |   |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                        |   |   |  Julie      Smolyanky Chief      Executive Officer, President and Director |   |

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40282

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ABRAHAM VILLARREAL-OROZCO, also known as Abrahan Orozco-Villarreal

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-1371

Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Abraham Villarreal-Orozco appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence

for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Villarreal-Orozco contends thatthe district court misapplied the Guidelines and

committed reversible error when it characterized his prior Texas conviction for

possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance as a drug trafficking

offense for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). Because Villarreal-Orozco

preserved his argument in the district court, we review that court’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 15, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-40282

2

interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d

355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005). 

The record demonstrates that Villarreal-Orozco was previously convicted

of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance in violation of TEX.

HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(a). This court recently held that a

§ 481.112(a) conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled

substance is indistinguishable from the offense of possession with intent to

distribute and, thus, qualifies as a “controlled substance offense” for purposes

of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a). United States v. Ford, 509 F.3d 714, 717 (5th Cir. 2007).

Further, this court noted that the definitions of “drug trafficking offense” under

§ 2L1.2 and “controlled substance offense” under § 2K2.1 are effectively identical

for purposes of determining if a prior § 481.112(a) conviction for possession with

intentto deliver a controlled substance justifies a sentencing enhancement based

on either section. Id. at 717 n.2. Therefore, in light of Ford, the district court

did not err when it characterized Villarreal-Orozco’s prior Texas conviction for

possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance as a drug trafficking

offense for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). 

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Villarreal-Orozco

challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and

aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the

offense that must be found by a jury. This argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). United States v.

Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872

(2008).

AFFIRMED.