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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YI TAI SHAO, AKA Linda Yi Tai Shao,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

M c MANIS FAULKNER, LLP; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 14

- 17063

D.C. No. 5:14

- cv

- 01137

- LHK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016 **

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN , Circuit Judges.

Yi Tai Shao , AKA Linda Yi Tai Shao, appeals pro se from the district

court ’ s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action alleging discrimination

and state law claims in connection with a retainer agreement between Shao and

defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. We review de novo the

* 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

NOV 7 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 17063

district court ’ s dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations. Lukovsky v. City

& County of San Francisco

, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008)

. We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shao’s § 1981 discrimina tion claim as

time

- barred because Shao failed to file her action w ithin the applicable statute of

limitations. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two

- year statute of limitations for

personal injury actions); Lukovsky

, 535 F.3d at 1048 & n.2 ( recognizing that

actions cognizable under the pre

- 1990 version of § 1981 remain subject to forum

state’s limitations period for personal injury torts )

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Shao’ s motion to

disqualify the district court judge and the entire Northern District of California

.

See United States v. Johnson , 6 10 F.3d 1138, 1147

- 48 (9th Cir. 2010 ) (setting forth

standard of review and standard for recusal ).

We do not consider arguments or facts that were not presented t o the district

court. See Smith v. Marsh

, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999)

.

Shao’s contentions that the district court failed to rule on a motion to strike

and failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 are unpersuasive

.

Shao’s request for judicial notice, filed on October 8, 2015, is denied.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated March 12, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2059 contained in Amendment
No. 2 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-251347) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


March 12, 2021
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 170 (Thursday, September 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 45606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21294]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 170 / Thursday, September 3, 2009 / 
Notices

[[Page 45606]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Farm Service Agency


Information Collection; Request for Aerial Photography; 
Correction

AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: We are making a correction to the notice that requested a 
revision of a currently approved information collection associated with 
Request for Aerial Photography. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register on April 1, 2009 (74 FR 14769-14770). The original notice 
inadvertently only included the burden for one of the two forms in the 
information collection request. This corrects that oversight.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Ann Ball, Regulatory Review 
Group, (202) 720-4283, or e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ce1edfef5ede2e2a2eeede0e0ccfbe8efa2f9ffe8eda2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e885899a91898686c68a898484a89f8c8bc69d9b8c89c68f879e">[email protected]</span></a>.

Correction

    In the Federal Register notice published on April 1, 2009 (74 FR 
14769-14770), on page 14770, first column, under SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION which begins on page 14769, correct the burden estimated 
numbers by replacing the estimates to read:
    Estimate of Burden: The public reporting burden for this 
information collection is estimated to average 36 minutes per 
respondent.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 6300.
    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Estimated Total Annual Number of Respondents: 6300.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 3770.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on August 28, 2009.
Carolyn B. Cooksie,
Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-21294 Filed 9-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In re Ruby COOPER, alias v. STATE. Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SC 701.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 28, 1974.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and George W. Royer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

No brief for respondent.

JONES, Justice.

Petition of the State by its Attorney General for Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Cooper, alias v. State, 53 Ala.App. 36, 297 So.2d 169.

Writ denied.

HEFLIN, C. J., and COLEMAN, BLOODWORTH and McCALL, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Agency Holding the Meeting: 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

# Time and Date: 

11 a.m., Friday, February 6, 2009.

# Place: 

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# Status: 

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered: 

Surveillance matters.

# Contact Person for More Information: 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,

Staff Assistant.

 [FR Doc. E9-2188 Filed 1-28-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2862 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2862

             To permanently increase the public debt limit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 1996

  Mrs. Kennelly (for herself, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Matsui, Mr. 
   Kleczka, Mr. Stark, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. McDermott, Mr. 
  Levin, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Ford, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Payne of Virginia, Mr. 
Coyne, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, and Mr. Gephardt) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To permanently increase the public debt limit.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

    Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is 
amended by striking the dollar amount contained in such subsection and 
inserting ``$5,500,000,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Daisy ARMSTRONG et al.

No. 63271.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1978.

In re: Roger Williams Insurance Company, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

*912Granted, Stay Order continued.

NOTE: Argument is requested to take into consideration Official Revision Comment (a), La.C.Cr.P. art. 323, and La.R.S. 15:103 (1962), as well as all other sources deemed applicable.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Matthew S. Braniff, Judge of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, immediately the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the 31st day of October, 1978 at 10:00 A.M. why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

It is further ordered that, in the meantime and until the further orders of this court all proceedings against the relator in said Criminal District Court shall be stayed and suspended.

Argument is requested to take into consideration Official Revision Comment (a), La.C.Cr.P. art. 323, and La.R.S. 15:103 (1962), as well as all other sources deemed applicable.
### Martin, Michael (OST) From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Cc: Subject: Attachments: Everyone: Martin, Michael (OST) Thursday, May 15, 2014 12:46 PM

. .· •. ···.· . . .. Billi McRoberts (BilliMcRoberts@alpenacounty.org); Matthew} Waligora (mattwa@alpena.mi.us) Brad Rawson; Schlemmer, Kevin (OST) EAS at Alpena SkyWest Alpena bid - May 2014.pdf

Iwould like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation atAlpena and give you an opportunityto offerany comments on the record before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant SecretaryforAviation and International Affairs. We issued Order2014-4-4 (April 3, 2014), requesting proposals from airlines interested in providing EAS for a newterm. In response to our request, SkyWest, the incumbent, was the onlyairline to submit a proposal. I have attached SkyWest's proposal foryour review and Iexpect itto be uploaded on www.regulations.gov sometime this afternoon. I request thatyou review the proposal and submit any commentsyou may have as soon as possible, but no laterthan Thursday, June 5. Please send your comments directlyto me via e-mail at michael.f.martin@dot.gov. Also, please forward this e-mail to all relevant parties that I have not included on this e-mail. Ifyou have any questions, feel free to contact me. Regards, Michael Martin United States Department ofTransportation Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small CommunityAir Service Development Program (SCASDP) (202) 366-6494

1
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Call with French Foreign Ministry Secretary General Descôtes

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Call with French Foreign Ministry Secretary General Descôtes							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

July 19, 2023

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman spoke today with French Foreign Ministry Secretary General Anne-Marie Descôtes.  The Deputy Secretary and the Secretary General discussed outcomes from the NATO Summit in Vilnius and our two countries’ steadfast support for Ukraine in response to Russia’s brutal war.  The Deputy Secretary and the Secretary General also discussed President Macron’s upcoming visit to the Indo-Pacific region, as well as key global issues, including challenges posed by the People’s Republic of China, peace and security in the Western Balkans, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Haiti.  ****

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateFranceIndo-PacificNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganizationOffice of the SpokespersonSecurity

Back to Top
synovus-amendmentno1toec






Exhibit 10.22(c) CERTAIN INFORMATION, IDENTIFIED BY [*****], HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE  EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH NOT MATERIAL AND WOULD LIKELY CAUSE  COMPETITIVE HARM TO THE COMPANY IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. FIRST AMENDMENT TO ECONOMICS AGREEMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO ECONOMICS AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is  made as of December 31, 2020 (the “Effective Date”) by and between GreenSky, LLC, a  Georgia limited liability company (“Servicer”), and Synovus Bank, a Georgia state-chartered  bank (“Lender”).  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the  meanings ascribed to such terms in the Economics Agreement (as defined herein).  WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Lender and Servicer have previously entered into that certain Economics  Agreement dated as of May 27, 2020 (the “Economics Agreement”); WHEREAS, Lender and Servicer desire to amend the Economics Agreement as set forth  herein;  NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of  which are hereby acknowledged, Lender and Servicer hereby agree as follows: 1. Effective as of the Effective Date, the Economics Agreement is hereby amended  as follows: a. Section 2.01(g) of the Economics Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and  the following is inserted in lieu thereof:  “(g) [*****]” b. Section 3.03 of the Economics Agreement is hereby amended by adding the  following as a new subsection (g) therein immediately after subsection (f) therein: “(g) [*****]” 2. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Economics Agreement shall remain in  full force and effect. 3. This Amendment may be executed and delivered by Lender and Servicer in  facsimile or PDF format and in any number of separate counterparts, all of which, when  delivered, shall together constitute one and the same document. [Signature page follows] 





 






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first  above written. SERVICER: GREENSKY, LLC By: /s/ Timothy D. Kaliban Name: Timothy D. Kaliban Title: President LENDER: SYNOVUS BANK By: /s/ Christopher Pyle Name: Christopher Pyle Title: Group Executive
§ 423.663 Record of hearing. ( a ) A complete record of the proceedings at the hearing is made and transcribed and made available to all parties upon request.
( b ) The record may not be closed until a hearing decision is issued.
# C_2006143EN.01003201.xml

| 17.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/32

---

Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL& FIT)

(Case T-111/06)

(2006/C 143/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG (Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: P. Godenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, Rechtsanwälte)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 February 2006 (R 3/2005-2); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 February 2006 (R 3/2005-2);

| — | order the OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘VITAL& FIT’ for goods in Class 32 (Application no. 1 457 951).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German word mark ‘VITAFIT’ no. 1 050 163 for goods in Class 32.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Grant of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

Pleas in law: Misinterpretation of the subject of the appeal by the Board of Appeal (Article 62(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)); breach of the right to a fair hearing and the obligation to state reasons (Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94); breach of the obligation to take into account the facts and evidence which were not submitted late (Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94); breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing trade marks.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

1

---
§ 423.2032 Issues before an ALJ or attorney adjudicator. ( a ) *General rule.* The issues before the ALJ or attorney adjudicator include all the issues for the appealed matter specified in the request for hearing that were brought out in the coverage determination or at-risk determination, redetermination, or reconsideration that were not decided entirely in an enrollee's favor.
( b ) *New issues* — ( 1 ) *When a new issue may be considered.* A new issue may include issues resulting from the participation of CMS, the IRE, or the Part D plan sponsor at the OMHA level of adjudication and from any evidence and position papers submitted by CMS, the IRE, or the Part D plan sponsor for the first time to the ALJ. The ALJ or the enrollee may raise a new issue; however, the ALJ may only consider a new issue relating to a determination or appealed matter specified in the request for hearing, including a favorable portion of a determination or appealed matter specified in the request for hearing, if its resolution could have a material impact on the appealed matter and— ( i ) There is new and material evidence that was not available or known at the time of the determination and that may result in a different conclusion; or
( ii ) The evidence that was considered in making the determination clearly shows on its face that an obvious error was made at the time of the determination.
( 2 ) *Notice of the new issue.* The ALJ may consider a new issue at the hearing if he or she notifies the enrollee about the new issue before the start of the hearing.
( 3 ) *Opportunity to submit evidence.* If notice of the new issue is sent after the notice of hearing, the enrollee will have at least 10 calendar days in standard appeals or 2 calendar days in expedited appeals after receiving notice of the new issue to submit evidence regarding the issue, and without affecting any applicable adjudication period. If a hearing is conducted before the time to submit evidence regarding the issue expires, the record will remain open until the opportunity to submit evidence expires.
( c ) *Adding coverage determinations to a pending appeal.* A coverage determination on a drug that was not specified in a request for hearing may only be added to a pending appeal if the coverage determination was adjudicated in the same reconsideration that is appealed, and the period to request an ALJ hearing for that reconsideration has not expired, or an ALJ or attorney adjudicator extends the time to request an ALJ hearing on the reconsideration in accordance with § 423.2014(e).
[82 FR 5132, Jan. 17, 2017, as amended at 83 FR 16754, Apr. 16, 2018; 84 FR 19873, May 7, 2019]
#### Donahoo & Matthews *v.*Tarrant.

*Damage for Breach of Warranty in Sale of Mule.*

(Decided April 16, 1911.

55 South. 270.)

*Appeal and Error; Exceptions; Necessity.*— Where the bill of exceptions shows that exception was reserved to the oral charge of the court, but it nowhere appears from the bill of exceptions that the exception was taken pending the trial or before the jury had retired, the exception is not available for review of such charge on appeal.

Appeal from Anniston City Court.

Heard before Hon. Thomas W. Coleman, Jr.

Action by Moat. Tarrant against Donahoo & Matthews for damages for breach of warranty in the sale of a mule. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Blackwell & Agee, for appellant.

Counsel discuss assignments of error relative to the evidence and the charges and cite authorities in support thereof, but do not discuss the points decided.

Lapsley & Arnold, for appellee.

The only exception reserved is reserved in such a way as to render it unavailable for a review by this *court.*— Moore *v. The State,**44740 So. 345, and authorities there cited. Counsel discuss assignments of error, but without citation of authority.

PELHAM, J.

There is but one assignment of errer disclosed by the record in this case, and that goes to a certain part of the oral charge of the trial court. It does not appear from the hill of exceptions that the exception was taken and reserved pending the trial, or before the jury retired. At the conclusion of the oral charge as set out in the bill of exceptions, the bill of exceptions contains the following statement: “And defendant. excepted to that part of said oral charge as follows: (Setting out the part of the charge to which an exception was reserved.) ” But there is nothing preceding this statement, nor following it, in the hill of exceptions, from which it is made to appear whether this exception was taken and reserved pending the trial, or before the jury had retired to consider its verdict, and the exception is, therefore, not available for review by this court, and the case is *affirmed.*—Moore *v. State,*40 South. 345; *Renolds v. State,*68 Ala. 502; *City Council of Montgomery v. Gilmer,*33 Ala. 116, 70 Am. Dec. 562.

Affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.300 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Basis.* This subpart implements section 1888(d) of the Act, which provides for optional prospectively determined payment rates for qualified SNFs.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart sets forth the eligibility criteria an SNF must meet to qualify, the process governing election of prospectively determined payment rates, and the basis and methodology for determining prospectively determined payment rates.