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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1612

JULISSA OLIVARES POLANCO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LINCOLN COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00260-CCE-JEP)

Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 22, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julissa Olivares Polanco, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Woodward Yarbrough, 

CONSTANGY BROOKS & SMITH, LLP, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Julissa Olivares Polanco appeals the district court’s order granting summary 

judgment to her former employer on Polanco’s employment discrimination claims. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Polanco v. Lincoln Cmty. Healthcare, No. 1:18-cv-00260-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. May 31, 

2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Crim. No. 526.

Fourth Appellate District.

October 11, 1939.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LOREN TWYMAN PERCE, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellant.

Earl Warren, Attorney-General, and Eugene M. Elson, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

MARKS, J. —

Respondent has moved to affirm the judgment or to dismiss the appeal under the provisions of section 1253 of the Penal Code.

The record on appeal was filed in the office of the clerk of this court on August 15, 1939. The cause was placed on the calendar of October 10, 1939. No one appeared for *117defendant and he has filed no brief nor otherwise made any appearance herein.

The judgment is affirmed.

Barnard, P. J., and Griffin, J., concurred.
Exhibit 12

| | WyethComputation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (in thousands except ratio amounts)
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                               | Six Months      Ended | Year Ended December 31,
|---------------------------------------------- | --------------------- | -----------------------
|
|
|Earnings (Loss):                               |                       |                        
|Income (loss) from continuing                  |                      
|operations before income taxes                 |                       | $ 2,617,509            
|Add:                                           |                      
|Fixed charges                                  |                       | 207,686                
|Minority interests                             |                       | 8,806                  
|Amortization of capitalized interest           |                       | 10,703                 
|Less:                                          |                      
|Equity income (loss)                           |                       | (16                    
|Capitalized interest                           |                       | 17,500                 
|                                               |                       |                        
|Total earnings (loss) as defined               |                       | $ 2,827,220            
|                                               |                       |                        
|Fixed Charges:                                 |                      
|Interest and amortization of debt
     expense |                       | $    163,958           
|Capitalized interest                           |                       | 17,500                 
|Interest factor of rental expense (1)          |                       | 26,228                 
|                                               |                       |                        
|Total fixed charges as defined                 |                       | $    207,686           
|                                               |                       |                        
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (2)         |                       | 13.6                   

|(1) | A
1/3 factor was used to compute the portion of rental expenses deemed
representative of the interest factor.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | The
results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2000 was inadequate to
cover total fixed charges as defined. The coverage deficiency for the
year ended December 31, 2000 was $1,171,633.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Grant Guthrie et ux. v. Hamilton Loan *&*Trust Company.

Filed September 17, 1895.

No. 6261.

Usury. The facts in this case are substantially the same as those in *Upton v. O'Donahue,*32 Neb., 565, and *Pierce v. Davey,*43 Neb., 45. On,the authority of those cases the decree of the district court in this action is affirmed.

'Error from the district court of Sioux county. Tried below before Bartow, J.

*Grant*Guthrie, for plaintiffs in error.

*Wharton & Baird*and *H. T.*Conley, *contra.*

*767Ragan, C.

The facts in this case are substantially the same as those in *Upton v. O’Donahue,*32 Neb., 565, and *Pierce v. Davey,*43 Neb., 45. On the authority of those cases the decree of the district court in this action is

Affirmed.
792 A.2d 1239

#### IN THE MATTER OF MARC ROY LEVENTHAL, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

March 7, 2002.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court in DRB 01-150, concluding that by way of reciprocal discipline, MARC ROY LEVENTHAL of TEL AVIV, ISRAEL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1976, should be disbarred based on his disbarment in the States of New York and Israel following his conviction in Israel of the offense of stealing by agent in the amount of $35,000;

And respondent having failed to appear on the return date of the Order to Show Cause issued in this matter;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MARC ROY LEVENTHAL be disbarred, effective immediately, and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys;

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by MARC ROY LEVEN-THAL pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6 shall be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court for good cause shown and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund pending further Order of this Court;

ORDERED that MARC ROY LEVENTHAL be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

*141ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"Patrick Chesnut","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/chesnutp\/","title":"Appointment of New Advisory Council Members - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"kEsaAuXYSm\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/appointment-of-new-advisory-council-members-2\/\">Appointment of New Advisory Council Members<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/appointment-of-new-advisory-council-members-2\/embed\/#?secret=kEsaAuXYSm\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Appointment of New Advisory Council Members” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"kEsaAuXYSm\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore has appointed the following new members to the Advisory Council for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Eldora Ellison, Michelle Klancnik, Roman Martinez, and Sonal Mehta. These appointments are for terms of three years and are effective October 1, 2022. The full announcement is available on […]"}
#### Chauncey F. Gaines, appellee, v. F. P. Bonnell et al., appellants.

Filed June 18, 1895.

No. 6245.

Reviews Failubeto File Briefs. Affirmance of judgment in absence of brief and oral argument.

Appeal from the district court of Nuckolls county. Heard below before Hastings, J.

*F. P. Olmstead,*for appellants.

*Letton & Hinshaw, contra.*

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order confirming a sale of real estate under foreclosure. The case was not argued and no briefs have been filed. The judgment is, therefore,

Affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"Human Resources - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"vVytZSVAcq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/the-court\/human-resources\/\">Human Resources<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/the-court\/human-resources\/embed\/#?secret=vVytZSVAcq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Human Resources” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"vVytZSVAcq\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Information relating to Human Resources at the Federal Circuit can be found on these pages. Careers Employee Forms & Resources Your Employee Rights and How to Report Wrongful Conduct"}
No. 11-9552.

#### Baldon *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.2108 Procedures for filing petitions to deny against long-form applications. ( a ) Where petitions to deny are otherwise provided for under the Act or the commission's Rules, and unless other service-specific procedures for the filing of such petitions are provided for elsewhere in the Commission's Rules, the procedures in this section shall apply to the filing of petitions to deny the long-form applications of winning bidders.
( b ) Within a period specified by Public Notice and after the Commission by Public Notice announces that long-form applications have been accepted for filing, petitions to deny such applications may be filed. The period for filing petitions to deny shall be no more than ten (10) days. The appropriate licensing Bureau, within its discretion, may, in exigent circumstances, reduce this period of time to no less than five (5) days. Any such petitions must contain allegations of fact supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.
( c ) An applicant may file an opposition to any petition to deny, and the petitioner a reply to such opposition. Allegations of fact or denials thereof must be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof. The time for filing such oppositions shall be at least five (5) days from the filing date for petitions to deny, and the time for filing replies shall be at least five (5) days from the filing date for oppositions. The Commission may grant a license based on any long-form application that has been accepted for filing. The Commission shall in no case grant licenses earlier than seven (7) days following issuance of a public notice announcing long-form applications have been accepted for filing.
( d ) If the Commission determines that: ( 1 ) An applicant is qualified and there is no substantial and material issue of fact concerning that determination, it will grant the application.
( 2 ) An applicant is not qualified and that there is no substantial issue of fact concerning that determination, the Commission need not hold an evidentiary hearing and will deny the application.
( 3 ) Substantial and material issues of fact require a hearing, it will conduct a hearing. The Commission may permit all or part of the evidence to be submitted in written form and may permit employees other than administrative law judges to preside at the taking of written evidence. Such hearing will be conducted on an expedited basis.
[59 FR 44293, Aug. 26, 1994, as amended at 63 FR 2343, Jan. 15, 1998; 65 FR 52345, Aug. 29, 2000]
#### Susan L. Thompson, appellee, v. Freeman A. Field et al., appellants.

Filed May 21, 1895.

No. 6529.

Review. Findings of fact made by the district court upon conflicting evidence, on appeal will not be disturbed.

Appeal from the district court of Buffalo county-Heard below before Holcomb, J.

*Dryden & Main,*for appellants.

*Gaslin, Newman & Hallowell, contra.*

Ryan, C.

This action was brought for the foreclosure of a mortgage securing payment of a note for $6,000, of date August 15,1889, made by appellants to Charles O. Norton, by whom said note and mortgage were assigned to plaintiff-Two years before the dale above given, Mr. Norton had loaned to a Mr. Wood the sum of $3,000, at ten per cent interest per annum, for five years, secured by a mortgage upon the same property as described in the mortgage whereof a foreclosure was had herein. Subsequently, Mr. Wood sold the mortgaged property to Mr. Field, who,, about August 15, 1889, had so improved it that it was deemed ample security for a larger loan. Mr. Field, being unable to borrow elsewhere the desired sum upon the property, applied to Mr. !Norton, who at first refused, but afterwards consented to make a loan of $6,000, taking the already mortgaged property as security. He would not, however, forego the advantage of a first-class loan having three years to run at ten per cent interest per annum without compensation, and between himself and Mr. Field it was arranged that in addition to payment of $3,000 there *147should be paid Norton $300 in consideration of his satisfaction of the existing mortgage. This was the explanation of the payment of $300 made by both Mr. and Mrs.. Norton, each of whom testified as from actual knowledge of the transaction. Mr, Field on the other hand testified that the sum of $300 above referred to was exacted from him as advance interest on the $6,000 borrowed, and if this was true, his defense of usury was without doubt established. The district court, however, found as a fact that there was no usury in the transaction, and it can hardly be contended that there was no evidence upon which this finding could be based. Under such circumstances the judgment of the district court cannot be disturbed. There was a contention that the transfer from Mr. Norton to plaintiff was such as would protect her, even though there existed a defense against the note in the hands of the original payee. "We have not found it necessary to the determination of this case to consider this question, for, as has already been seen, there was no such defense established by the. proofs. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed..
#### VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JSL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 02-17353, 03-15420.

D.C. Nos. CV-01-00294-LRH/LRL, CV-01-00294-LRH(LRL).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 3, 2003.

Decided Dec. 22, 2003.

*485M. Patricia Thayer, Beth M. Goldman, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, San Francisco, CA, Michael J. McCue, Lewis and Rocca LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas E. Moore, III, Tomlinson Zisko Morosoli & Maser, Palo Alto, CA, Cindy A. Cohn, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, CA, Bradley L. Booke, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Alan C. Drewsen, International Trademark Association, New York, NY, for Ami-cus.

Before PAEZ, BERZON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

In appeal No. 02-17353, JSL Corporation appeals the district court’s injunction barring JSL from using or registering the mark “eVisa” or the domain name <evisa.com>.1 We have jurisdiction over JSL’s timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and we vacate and remand.

The basis for the district court’s injunction was its determination that JSL’s use of the “eVisa” mark was “likely to dilute” the senior VISA mark, in violation of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (“FTDA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). However, after the district court issued the injunction and while JSL’s appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided *Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.,*537 U.S. 418, 123 S.Ct. 1115, 155 L.Ed.2d 1 (2003), which clarified the standard of proof for trademark dilution under the FTDA. *Moseley*held that, to prevail on a FTDA claim, the plaintiff must establish *actual*dilution rather than the likelihood of dilution. *Id.*at 1124. “Because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider the facts of this case in light of the standard the Supreme Court articulated in *Moseley,*we vacate the district court’s judgment on the trademark dilution claim and remand for reconsideration in light of *Moseley.” Horphag Research Ltd. v. Pellegrini,*337 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir.2003) (vacating and remanding judgment in favor of trademark holder’s FTDA claim).

*486Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s injunction, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

Appeal No. 02-17353: VACATED AND REMANDED.

Appeal No. 03-15420: DISMISSED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. In appeal No. 03-15420, JSL also appeals the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment against JSL’s trademark infringement counterclaim. However, because the district court did not enter an express final judgment as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), it is not a "final decision” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we do not have jurisdiction to review this appeal.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16700]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-304-001]

PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation; Notice of Tariff 
Filing

June 27, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 21, 2000, PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest 
Corporation (PG&E GTN) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1-A: Substitute Twenty-fourth Revised 
Sheet No. 5. PG&E GTN requests that the above-referenced tariff sheet 
become effective July 1, 2000.
    PG&E GTN asserts that the purpose of this filing is to correct an 
error in its fuel surcharge filing filed June 1, 2000 in this Docket. 
PG&E GTN states that the correction of the error will reduce PG&E GTN's 
proposed fuel surcharge to be in effect for the period July 1, 2000 
through December 31, 2000 from 0.0015% per Dth per pipeline-mile to 
0.0006% per Dth per pipeline-mile. Also included are revised workpapers 
showing the derivation of the corrected fuel surcharge.
    PG&E GTN further states that a copy of this filing has been served 
on PG&E GTN's jurisdictional customers, interested state regulatory 
agencies, and all parties on the Commission's official service list for 
this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protect this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. 
This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16700 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```