alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROYAL PORTER McHENRY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-55447

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-07338-R-JWJ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Royal Porter McHenry, an inmate in Los Angeles County Jail, appeals pro se

from the district court’s judgment dismissing, without prejudice, his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action for failure to comply with a court order. We have jurisdiction under

FILED

APR 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291

F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action

because McHenry failed to comply with the district court’s order requiring him to

file an amended complaint within a specified time period. See id. at 642–43

(discussing factors a court must weigh to determine whether to dismiss a claim for

failure to comply with a court order). Further, McHenry asked the district court to

dismiss this action. To the extent McHenry sought to stand on the original

complaint, we agree with the magistrate judge’s order of December 4, 2007, that

the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to put defendants on notice of a claim

against them.

We do not consider issues not properly raised before the district court. See

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

McHenry’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
§ 4.76 Visual acuity. ( a ) *Examination of visual acuity.* Examination of visual acuity must include the central *uncorrected* and *corrected* visual acuity for *distance* and *near* vision using Snellen's test type or its equivalent.
( b ) *Evaluation of visual acuity.* ( 1 ) Evaluate central visual acuity on the basis of corrected distance vision with central fixation, even if a central scotoma is present. However, when the lens required to correct distance vision in the poorer eye differs by more than three diopters from the lens required to correct distance vision in the better eye (and the difference is not due to congenital or developmental refractive error), and either the poorer eye or both eyes are service connected, evaluate the visual acuity of the poorer eye using either its uncorrected or corrected visual acuity, whichever results in better combined visual acuity.
( 2 ) Provided that he or she customarily wears contact lenses, evaluate the visual acuity of any individual affected by a corneal disorder that results in severe irregular astigmatism that can be improved more by contact lenses than by eyeglass lenses, as corrected by contact lenses.
( 3 ) In any case where the examiner reports that there is a difference equal to two or more scheduled steps between near and distance corrected vision, with the near vision being worse, the examination report must include at least two recordings of near and distance corrected vision and an explanation of the reason for the difference. In these cases, evaluate based on corrected distance vision adjusted to one step poorer than measured.
( 4 ) To evaluate the impairment of visual acuity where a claimant has a reported visual acuity that is between two sequentially listed visual acuities, use the visual acuity which permits the higher evaluation.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)
[73 FR 66549, Nov. 10, 2008]
#### § 45.210 Reporting.

No reporting is required with respect to payments of reasonable compensation made to regularly employed officers or employees of a person.
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 
  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 
  As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Silverado Gold Mines
Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Garry L. Anselmo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
to the best of my knowledge, 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 and 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/ Garry L. Anselmo Garry
L. Anselmo Principal Accounting Officer

April 13, 2006

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                         5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from Shelter
Properties  VI 2000 Second  Quarter  10-QSB and is  qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                             0000730013
<NAME>                            Shelter Properties VI
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1,000


<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              1,080
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         282
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                             55,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                     30,286
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     28,628
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                            24,931
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                          2,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       28,628
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    5,621
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    5,258
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  1,159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                          363
<EPS-BASIC>                                          8.48 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
#### § 350.1 Scope.

This subchapter governs procedures applicable to proceedings before the Copyright Royalty Judges in making determinations and adjustments pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 115(d) and 801(b). The procedures set forth in part 355 of this subchapter shall govern administrative assessment proceedings pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 115(d) and 801(b)(8), and the procedures set forth in parts 351 through 354 of this subchapter shall govern all other proceedings pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 801(b).
#### § 39.6 Amendments to grant application.

A State or Tribal Organization seeking to amend a grant application must submit revised Standard Forms 424 (Application for Federal Assistance) and 424C (Budget Information) with a narrative description of, and justification for, the amendment. Any amendment of an application that changes the scope of the application or increases the amount of the grant requested, whether or not the application has already been approved, shall be subject to approval by VA in the same manner as an original application.

(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control numbers 4040-0004 and 4040-0008)

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2408)

[77 FR 4473, Jan. 30, 2012]
§ 21.7032 Time limits for making elections. ( a ) *Scope of this section.* The provisions of this section are applicable to certain elections to receive educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. ch. 30. For time limits governing formal and informal claims for educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. ch. 30, see § 21.1033. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3018B)
( b ) *Time limit for completing certain elections.* An individual who seeks to establish eligibility to receive educational assistance under § 21.7045 must— ( 1 ) Within one year of the date of the VA letter or other written notice to the individual indicating that additional evidence is needed in order to complete the claim, submit that evidence to VA. This time limit may be extended if the individual is able to show good cause for an extension of the period to the date on which he or she actually submits the additional evidence; and
( 2 ) Submit the $1,200 VA is required pursuant to § 21.7045(c)(2) to collect before educational assistance can be awarded. A delay in submitting the $1,200 may result in a later effective date for the award to the individual, and in no event will VA accept payment of the $1,200 from the individual after the last date of eligibility as determined by § 21.7050 or § 21.7051. See § 21.7131(l).
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3018B)
[53 FR 1757, Jan. 22, 1988, as amended at 56 FR 11671, Mar. 20, 1991; 58 FR 63530, Dec. 2, 1993; 61 FR 6785, Feb. 22, 1996; 64 FR 23773, May 4, 1999; 72 FR 16980, Apr. 5, 2007]
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 247 

To designate a Forest Service trail at Waldo Lake in the Willamette National 

Forest in the State of Oregon as a national recreation trail in honor 

of Jim Weaver, a former Member of the House of Representatives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2007 

Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. WU, and 

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate a Forest Service trail at Waldo Lake in the 

Willamette National Forest in the State of Oregon as 

a national recreation trail in honor of Jim Weaver, a 

former Member of the House of Representatives. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 247 IH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL RECREATIONAL 

2 TRAIL, WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST, OR3 EGON, IN HONOR OF JIM WEAVER, A FORMER 

4 MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA5 TIVES. 

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—Forest Service trail number 

7 3590 in the Willamette National Forest in Lane County, 

8 Oregon, which is a 19.6 mile trail that begins and ends 

9 at North Waldo Campground and circumnavigates Waldo 

10 Lake, is hereby designated as a national recreation trail 

11 under section 4 of the National Trails System Act (16 

12 U.S.C. 1243) and shall be known as the ‘‘Jim Weaver 

13 Loop Trail’’. 

14 (b) INTERPRETIVE SIGN.—Using funds available for 

15 the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pre16 pare, install, and maintain an appropriate sign at the 

17 trailhead of the Jim Weaver Loop Trail to indicate the 

18 name of the trail and to provide information regarding the 

19 life and career of Congressman Jim Weaver. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ERIC MARSHALL, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1666 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 8, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Susan Barthle, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew D. Bernstein, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4709 Notice of servicer's identity. ( a ) *Notice requirement.* When the Secretary makes, increases, extends, renews, sells, or transfers a loan secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area, the Secretary shall notify the Director of FEMA (or the Director's designee) in writing of the identity of the servicer of the loan. The Director of FEMA has designated the insurance provider to receive the Secretary's notice of the servicer's identity. This notice may be provided electronically if electronic transmission is satisfactory to the Director of FEMA's designee.
( b ) *Transfer of servicing rights.* The Secretary shall notify the Director of FEMA (or the Director's designee) of any change in the servicer of a loan described in paragraph (a) of this section within 60 days after the effective date of the change. This notice may be provided electronically if electronic transmission is satisfactory to the Director of FEMA's designee. Upon any change in the servicing of a loan described in paragraph (a) of this section, the duty to provide notice under this paragraph (b) shall transfer to the transferee servicer.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104a)
[62 FR 5534, Feb. 6, 1997]
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00109

- CR

K ENDRICK A LEXANDER

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 362nd District

Court

of Denton County ( F16

- 291

- 362 )

August 3 1, 2022

Per Curiam Memorandum Opin ion

( nf p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is modified to delete $ 15 of

court costs that are associated with the time

- payment fee

. It is ordered that the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed a s modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
§ 17.507 Employee responsibilities. ( a ) All VA employees and other individuals who have access to records designated as confidential and privileged under 38 U.S.C. 5705 and the regulations in §§ 17.500 through 17.511 will treat the findings, views, and actions relating to quality assurance in a confidential manner.
( b ) All individuals who have had access to records designated as confidential and privileged under 38 U.S.C. 5705 and the regulations in §§ 17.500 through 17.511 will not disclose such records or information therein to any person or organization after voluntary or involuntary termination of their relationship to the VA.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5705)
#### William A. Meuthen, Respondent, *v.*John H. Eyelis, Appellant.

Appeal from judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan.

F. X. McCaEry, for appellant.

M. Strassman, for respondent.

*Fer Guriam.*

It nowhere appears in the record that the defendant was at the time of the commencement of the action or in fact at any other time a resident of the city of New York as the same now exists. It is settled in this court that for the absence of such proof.the judgment must be reversed, inasmuch as it is essential to tjje validity of the proceedings that the jurisdictional facts should affirmatively appear upon the face of the record. Tyroler v. Gummersbach, 28 Misc. Rep. 151; Willis v. Parker, 80 id. 750.

The judgment in this case must, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, but inasmuch as the objection was not taken below, without costs. Willis v. Parker, *supra.*

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegebich and O’Gobman, JJ,

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, without costs.
- Home
- Leadership
- Resources
- Remarks and Releases
- Assembly of Local Leaders
- State-to-States Initiative
- Contact Us

HomeSubnational Diplomacy Unit...Remarks and Releases – Special Representative for City and State Diplomacy

# 						Remarks and Releases – Special Representative for City and State Diplomacy					

38 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year202420232022

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a SpeakerAntony J. BlinkenBrian A. NicholsNed PriceNina Hachigian

Select a LocationColombiaGermanyPeruRussiaSpainUkraine

Select a Release TypeDipNoteFPC BriefingMedia NoteNotice to the PressOther ReleaseOther U.S. Government ReleasePress StatementRemarks

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Energy ResourcesBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateForeign Press CentersGlobal Engagement CenterOffice of Diversity and InclusionOffice of Global PartnershipsOffice of Public LiaisonOffice of the SpokespersonOffice of the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for ClimateSubnational Diplomacy UnitThe Secretary of StateUnder Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment

          -    Other Release  		Subnational Diplomacy Unit: Leading Department engagement with local officials in the United States and abroad	   
          -    Media Note  		Special Representative for City and State Diplomacy Ambassador Hachigian to Attend the World Forum of Cities and Territories of Peace in Bogotá	  June 26, 2023 
          -    Media Note  		Driving Regional Cooperation: US Senior Officials Meet APEC Counterparts in Detroit for APEC Second Officials’ Meeting	  May 15, 2023 
          -    FPC Briefing  		City Spotlight Series: Detroit’s Economy, Revitalization, and Hosting of the APEC Transportation & Trade Ministerial Meetings	  May 12, 2023Friday, May 12, 2023, 9:30 a.m. ETNew York, NY 
          -    FPC Briefing  		City Spotlight: Innovation in the Drone Industry in Grand Forks, North Dakota	  May 11, 2023Thursday, May 11, 2023, 1:00 p.m. ETNew York, NY 
          -    FPC Briefing  		Black Sea Grain Initiative	  May 11, 2023Thursday, May 11, 2023, 11:15 a.m. ETNew York, NY 
          -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken Keynote Remarks at the Cities Summit of the Americas Closing Plenary	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 28, 2023Colorado Convention CenterDenver, Colorado 
          -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken Before His Meeting with Women Mayors from the Western Hemisphere On the Margins of the Cities Summit of the Americas	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 28, 2023Colorado Convention CenterDenver, Colorado 
          -    Other Release  		The Colorado Springs Gazette: Cities Summit of the Americas Debuts in Denver	  April 23, 2023 
          -    Other Release  		American Diplomat: City and State Diplomacy	  April 20, 2023 

previous page1234next page

Back to Top
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30191

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BILLY R. DICKSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:02-CR-50039-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Billy R. Dickson, federal prisoner # 10265-079, appeals the denial of his

attempt to have his sentence reduced on the ground that the Government

violated his plea agreement by allowing his sentence to be enhanced pursuant

to the career offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines after promising to

dismiss count two of the indictment.

Following his conviction in 2003, Dickson did not file a direct appeal or a

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He filed his first motion to reduce his sentence

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 8, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-30191 Document: 00511316236 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2010
No. 10-30191

in 2009 and followed it with several other motions citing different provisions of

federal law in an attempt to reduce his sentence.

Federal pleadings are construed “liberally according to . . . substance

rather than . . . form or label.” Hussain v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., 311 F.3d

623, 633 n.39 (5th Cir. 2002); see also Andrade v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 538, 543

(5th Cir. 2006) (construing pro se pleadings liberally). However, if a motion

cannot be construed in such a way that relief is possible, it is a “meaningless,

unauthorized motion” properly denied by the district court. United States v.

Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994).

The district court correctly determined that Dickson was not entitled to

relief under any of the exceptions to the rule of finality in 18 U.S.C. § 3582. He

did not file a direct appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. See § 3582(b). The Bureau

of Prisons did not move to reduce his sentence. See § 3582(c)(1)(A). Dickson did

not file the motion to modify his sentence within 14 days of being sentenced. See

§ 3582(c)(1)(B); FED. R. CRIM. P. 35(a). The Government did not move for a

sentence reduction for substantial assistance. See § 3582(c)(1)(B); FED. R. CRIM.

P. 35(b). Finally, the relevant guideline was not lowered after Dickson was

sentenced. See § 3582(c)(2). With respect to Dickson’s recent argument that he

was entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), the scope

of the rules of civil procedure is limited to civil actions. FED. R. CIV. P. 1.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-30191 Document: 00511316236 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2010
# Official Journal L 142/31 M

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 142 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5131 May 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 142

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5131 May 2008

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 of 30 May 2008 laying down test methods pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
   (1) | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 of 30 May 2008 laying down test methods pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
   (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.