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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN LEWIS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. JAN SCULLY, District Attorney, Sacramento County; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 15241

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv
- 01080

- TLN

- KJN

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 9, 2017 **

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Kevin Lewis appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations
arising from his state court conviction . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We rev iew de novo. Hamilton v. Brown , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclud es this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 15241

2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Whitaker v. Garcetti , 486 F.3d 572,
579 (9th Cir. 2007) ( dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994) ).

We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lewis’s action as Heck

- barred because
success on Lewis’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction,

and Lewis failed to show that his conviction had been invalidated. See Heck , 512

U.S. at 486

- 87 (if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless
the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been
invalidated”).
The district court properly di smissed claims for damages against Judges
Mendez, Gilliard, and Newman on the basis of judicial immunity because Lewis
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that these defendants acted “in the clear
absence of all jurisdiction or perform[ed] an act tha t [was] not judicial in nature.”

Schucker v. Rockwood , 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining judicial
immunity doctrine ).
The district court properly dismissed claims for damages against defendants
Scully and Asker on the basis of prosecutorial immunity because Lewis failed to3 17

- 15241

allege facts sufficient to show that the actions of these defendants were not
“intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Van de
Kamp v. Goldstein , 555 U.S. 335, 341 (2009) (citation and i ntern al quotation
marks omitted) (explaining prosecutorial immunity doctrine).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lewis’s motion to
recuse because Lewis failed to establish any grounds for such relief. See United

States v. Johnson , 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of
review and grounds for recusal ).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

.
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY>   USD

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1999              JUL-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                              94                     135
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,059                  36,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,116                   1,947
<INVENTORY>                                     21,318                  18,956
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,051                  54,284
<PP&E>                                           5,319                   4,871
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,299                   3,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,332                  55,958
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,907                  32,290
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           272                     272
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,903                  10,146
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,332                  55,958
<SALES>                                         53,212                  49,672
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,212                  49,672
<CGS>                                           38,949                  35,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,244                  45,581
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 565                     618
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,403                   3,473
<INCOME-TAX>                                        88                      70
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,315                   3,403
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,315                   3,403
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .16                     .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16                     .13



</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, October 23, 2009, 8 a.m. to October 23, 2009, 12 p.m., InterContinental Mark Hopkins San Francisco, One Nob Hill, 999 California Street, San Francisco, CA, 94108 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 25, 2009, 74 FR 48979.                

The meeting was cancelled due to administration problems.

Dated: October 1, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-24278 Filed 10-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Editorial Note on Part 1102
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 83 FR 43739, Aug. 28, 2018.

§ 1102.302 ASC authority and functions. ( a ) *Authority.* The ASC was established on August 9, 1989, pursuant to title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended (“FIRREA”), 12 U.S.C. 3331 and 3310 through 3351. title XI is intended “to provide that Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate related transactions will be protected by requiring that real estate appraisals utilized in connection with federally related transactions are performed in writing, in accordance with uniform standards, by individuals whose competency has been demonstrated and whose professional conduct will be subject to effective supervision.” 12 U.S.C. 3331.
( b ) *Functions.* The ASC's statutory functions are generally set out in 12 U.S.C. 3332. In summary, the ASC must: ( 1 ) Monitor the requirements established by the States for the certification and licensing of individuals who are qualified to perform appraisals in connection with federally related transactions, including a code of professional responsibility;
( 2 ) Monitor the requirements of the Federal financial institutions regulatory agency and Resolution Trust Corporation with respect to appraisal standards for federally related transactions and determinations as to which federally related transactions require the services of a State certified appraiser and which require the services of a State licensed appraiser;
( 3 ) Monitor and review the practices, procedures, activities and organizational structure of the Appraisal Foundation; and
( 4 ) Maintain a national registry of State certified and licensed appraisers eligible to perform appraisals in federally related transactions.
§ 1080.11 Disposition. ( a ) When the facts disclosed by an investigation indicate that an enforcement action is warranted, further proceedings may be instituted in Federal or State court or pursuant to the Bureau's administrative adjudicatory process. Where appropriate, the Bureau also may refer investigations to appropriate Federal, State, or foreign governmental agencies.
( b ) When the facts disclosed by an investigation indicate that an enforcement action is not necessary or would not be in the public interest, the investigational file will be closed. The matter may be further investigated, at any time, if circumstances so warrant.
( c ) The Assistant Director of the Office of Enforcement and the Deputy Assistant Directors of the Office of Enforcement are authorized to close Bureau investigations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      12,244,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              118,697,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,459,000
<INVENTORY>                                 66,068,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           203,996,000
<PP&E>                                     152,551,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,101,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             559,911,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       91,795,000
<BONDS>                                    180,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 30,900,000
<COMMON>                                       353,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 228,464,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               559,911,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           214,951,000
<CGS>                                      195,202,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              195,202,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,866,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,933,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,641,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (489,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,152,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  47,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (862,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,408,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2840

To amend the Social Security Act to remove the limitation on the period 

of Medicare eligibility for disabled workers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2003

Mr. STARK (for himself, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. COOPER, Mr. OWENS, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. 

CONYERS, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. 

REYES, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. PAYNE, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. GREEN of 

Texas, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. GORDON, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. FROST, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. HOYER, Mrs. MALONEY, 

Mr. CARDIN, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Ms. 

BALDWIN, Mr. LANTOS, and Mr. RUSH) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Social Security Act to remove the limitation 

on the period of Medicare eligibility for disabled workers.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Workers with Disabil5 ities Opportunity Act’’. 
2

•HR 2840 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REMOVING LIMITATION ON PERIOD OF MEDICARE 

2 ELIGIBILITY FOR DISABLED WORKERS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The next to last sentence of sec4 tion 226(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 426(b)) 

5 is amended by striking ‘‘, but not in excess of 78 such 

6 months’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2003. 

9 (c) CONFORMING REPEAL.—Section 202(c) of the 

10 Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 

11 1999 (Public Law 106–170; 113 Stat. 1894) is repealed.

Æ
# C_2022203EN.01000201.xml

| 20.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

19 May 2022

(2022/C 203/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0525 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,46 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4423 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84728 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5098 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0265 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 139,50 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,3102 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,700 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 385,83 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6423 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9474 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 16,8037 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5036 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3490 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2594 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6551 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4576 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 343,21 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,8315 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1028 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5395 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 416,76 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6363 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,140 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,343 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,2094 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,0043 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,7115 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0525

JPY

Japanese yen

134,46

DKK

Danish krone

7,4423

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84728

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5098

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0265

ISK

Iceland króna

139,50

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,3102

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,700

HUF

Hungarian forint

385,83

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6423

RON

Romanian leu

4,9474

TRY

Turkish lira

16,8037

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5036

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3490

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2594

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6551

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4576

KRW

South Korean won

1 343,21

ZAR

South African rand

16,8315

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1028

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5395

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 416,76

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6363

PHP

Philippine peso

55,140

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,343

BRL

Brazilian real

5,2094

MXN

Mexican peso

21,0043

INR

Indian rupee

81,7115

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1

COMMON STOCK

THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE
IN BOSTON, MA AND NEW YORK, NY

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS

CUSIP 452327 10 9

This Certifies that

is the record holder of

FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $.01 PAR VALUE, OF
Illumina, Inc.

transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or
by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this certificate properly
endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by
the Transfer Agent and Registrar.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed in facsimile by its duly authorized officers and a facsimile of its
corporate seal.

Dated:

/s/ Michael J. O'Donnell

SECRETARY

/s/ Jay Flatley

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:
EQUISERVE TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
TRANSFER AGENT
AND REGISTRAR

BY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
<PAGE>

Illumina, Inc.

THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH STOCKHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS,
A FULL STATEMENT OF THE DESIGNATIONS, RELATIVE RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND
LIMITATIONS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK OR SERIES THEREOF AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED AND
THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION TO DESIGNATE AND FIX
THE RELATIVE RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND LIMITATIONS OF CLASSES OF PREFERRED STOCK
IN SERIES.

The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out
in full according to applicable laws or regulations:

TEN COM * - as tenants in common
TEN ENT * - as tenants by the entities
JT WROS * - as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and not as tenants in
            common


UNIF GIFT MIN ACT* Custodian
                                                         (Cust)
(Minor)
                                 under Uniform Gifts to Minors
                                 Act
                                                             (State)


Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.

For value received,
hereby sell, assign and transfer unto

PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE

(Please print or typewrite name and address including postal zip code of
assignee)

Shares of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint

Attorney

to transfer the said Shares on the Books of the within-named Corporation with
full power of substitution in the premises.

Dated:

NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as
written upon the face of the certificate in every particular, without alteration
or enlargement, or any change whatever.

SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:

THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS,
STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN
AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE
17Ad-15.
COMMON STOCK

<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q REPORT OF CHINA RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000
<CURRENCY>                        RENMINBI YUAN

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         8.28
<CASH>                                28,281
<SECURITIES>                          93,562
<RECEIVABLES>                             55
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                            2,847
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     214,793
<PP&E>                                12,280
<DEPRECIATION>                         1,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       342,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 45,385
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                3
<COMMON>                                   5
<OTHER-SE>                           182,580
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         342,616
<SALES>                                1,397
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       1,397
<CGS>                                  1,296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          1,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       4,649
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        8,511
<INCOME-TAX>                           1,957
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    2,137
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                           2,137
<EPS-BASIC>                             3.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                           3.60


</TABLE>
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion file September 3, 2014

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-1409

Lower Tribunal No. 8-66142

________________



### Edgar Nivia,

Appellant,

vs.



### Aurora Loan Services, LLC,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Victoria S.

Sigler, Judge.

Edgar Nivia, in proper person.

Akerman LLP, and Nancy M. Wallace and Ryan M. O’Connor

(Tallahassee); Akerman LLP, and William P. Heller (Fort Lauderdale) for

appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.Appellant, Defendant below, appeals a non-final order directing the MiamiDade County clerk of the court to issue a writ of possession related to property

foreclosed upon by the plaintiff in December 2011.

Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was filed on June 10, 2014. Pursuant to

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(e), Appellant’s Initial Brief was

required to be served no later than June 25, 2014.

In response to Appellee’s July 8, 2014 Motion to Dismiss, on August 6,

2014, we issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the appeal should not be

dismissed due to Appellant’s failure to timely file and serve his Initial Brief.

On August 18, 2014, Appellant responded to our Show Cause Order, and

filed his Initial Brief and Appendix. We therefore deny as moot Appellee’s Motion

to Dismiss, and discharge our Show Cause Order.

Upon consideration of Appellant’s Initial Brief and accompanying

Appendix, and finding no preliminary basis for reversal has been demonstrated, the

order below is summarily affirmed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate

Procedure 9.315(a).

Affirmed.

2