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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LISA ANN ATKINS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CREIGHTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-16901

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00729-SRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 22, 2014** 

Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Lisa Ann Atkins appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in her Title VII action alleging gender discrimination. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s

FILED

AUG 01 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
decision regarding the sufficiency of service of process. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio

Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting summary judgment

for defendant because it correctly determined that Atkins failed to effectuate

service in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2) (requiring service of process on state or local government

entity by either delivering summons and complaint on entity’s chief executive

officer or serving a copy of each in the manner proscribed by state law); Batty v.

Glendale Union High Sch. Dist. No. 205, 212 P.3d 930, 933-34 (Ariz. Ct. App.

2009) (under Arizona law, delivery of notice of claim on superintendent

insufficient to complete service of process on defendant school district); see also

Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that actual notice is

insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a defendant if service does not

substantially comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Atkins leave to

amend to allege, among other things, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because

amendment would have been futile. See Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ.,

555 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and

explaining that leave to amend may be denied if amendment would be futile).

2 12-16901
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, including

that defendant waived its service of process defense. See Peterson v. Highland

Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1321 (9th Cir. 1998) (applying a “general rule” against

entertaining arguments on appeal that were not presented or developed before the

district court).

Atkins’s motion to admit into evidence a transcript and CD recording, filed

on February 5, 2013, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 12-16901
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5284 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5284

   To increase the penalty for prohibited provision of a phone in a 
             correctional facility, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2024

 Mr. Ossoff (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Booker) introduced the 
following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, 
                               and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To increase the penalty for prohibited provision of a phone in a 
             correctional facility, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati Stopping 
Prison Contraband Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITED PROVISION OF A PHONE.

    Section 1791(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
        (5) and (6), respectively;
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) in the case of a violation of subsection (a)(1), 
        imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both, if the object 
        is specified in subsection (d)(1)(F) of this section;''; and
            (3) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, by inserting ``, 
        in the case of a violation of subsection (a)(2),'' before 
        ``(d)(1)(F)''.

SEC. 3. REVIEW OF POLICIES.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall--
            (1) conduct a review of the policies of the Bureau of 
        Prisons pertaining to inmates who make, possess, obtain, or 
        attempt to make or obtain a prohibited object, as defined in 
        section 1791(d)(1) of title 18, United States Code; and
            (2) update those policies as needed to improve protections 
        for incarcerated individuals and staff.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

NDIDI OSUJI, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-547 ) ROSEWOOD GARDENS OF TAMPA BAY, ) INC.; and TC 09, LLC, ) ) Respondents. ) ) Opinion filed December 6, 2019. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County; sitting in its appellate capacity. Ndidi Osuji, pro se. Brandon K. Mullis of Mankin Law Group, Clearwater, for Respondent Rosewood Gardens of Tampa Bay, Inc. No appearance for Respondent TC 09, LLC.

PER CURIAM.

Denied. NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
# EUR-Lex - 12005SA056 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12005SA056

**Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded - PART FIVE:PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT - TITLE II:APPLICABILITY OF THE ACTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS - Article 56 **

*
Official Journal L 157 , 21/06/2005 P. 0219 - 0219 *

Article 56

Where acts of the institutions adopted prior to accession require adaptation by reason of accession, and the necessary adaptations have not been provided for in this Act or its Annexes, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, or the Commission, if the original act was adopted by the Commission, shall to this end adopt the necessary acts. Where these adaptations are adopted after accession they may be applied as from the date of accession.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12006M048 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006M048

**Treaty on European Union (consolidated version) - Title VIII - Final provisions - Article 48 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0034 - 0034 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0031 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0171 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 191 , 29/07/1992 P. 0063 *

Article 48

The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded.

If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

--------------------------------------------------
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5102 

To require annual reports on counter illicit cross-border tunnel operations, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require annual reports on counter illicit cross-border 

tunnel operations, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Cross-Border Tunnel 

5 Report Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ANNUAL REPORTS ON COUNTER ILLICIT CROSS7 BORDER TUNNEL OPERATIONS. 

8 Section 7134(a)(2) of the James M. Inhofe National 

9 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Public 

10 Law 117–263; 6 U.S.C. 257 note) is amended by inserting 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 5102 IS

1 ‘‘and annually thereafter,’’ after ‘‘development of the stra2 tegic plan,’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 4, 2011

jam 

# Order

May 4, 2011

143011 (11)

RODGERICK SEAN BOOTH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 143011
COA: 302549 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive f ees is considered and it
is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisone r pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $9.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned
with this order. Failure to comply with this orde r shall result in the appeal not being
filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $366.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.
The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
§ 1213.4 Requirements for review and clearance. ( a ) NARA's regulatory office must review and clear, according to this subpart, all NARA guidance documents before we issue them.
( b ) The regulatory office ensures that each guidance document satisfies the following requirements: ( 1 ) It complies with relevant statutes and regulations, and other applicable authorities;
( 2 ) It identifies or includes: ( i ) The term “guidance” or its functional equivalent;
( ii ) The issuing office's name;
( iii ) A unique agency identifier, according to naming conventions we establish, and a z-RIN, if applicable;
( iv ) A concise title;
( iv ) The issuing or effective date;
( v ) An indicator of whether the guidance revises or replaces any previously issued guidance and, if so, sufficient information to identify the previously issued guidance; and
( vi ) Appropriate citations to applicable statutes, regulations, and other authorities; and
( 3 ) It is consistent with NARA policies, guidance, strategic initiatives, and other authorities, is written in plain and understandable English, and meets other guidance and policy analysis factors .
( c ) The guidance document must also either contain or be accompanied by an appropriate topic keyword and a short summary of the subject matter covered in the guidance document, for use on the guidance portal.
( d ) The regulatory office also assesses whether the guidance document constitutes significant guidance and works with the submitting office to make a good faith cost estimate, as applicable, in accordance with § 1213.8(a). If we determine that a guidance document might be significant, the regulatory office coordinates with OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), as outlined in § 1213.8(d).
( e ) We also assess whether the guidance document might be otherwise important to the agency's interests, if we reasonably anticipate that it might: Relate to a major program, policy, or activity, or a high-profile issue involving the agency or its interests; involve one of NARA's top policy priorities; garner significant press, congressional, or other attention; or raise significant questions or concerns from constituencies such as committees of Congress, states or Indian tribes, the White House or other departments of the executive branch, courts, public interest groups, or leading representatives of industry. When appropriate, we may determine that a particular guidance document that is otherwise of importance to the agency's interests be subject to the informal notice-and-comment procedures described in § 1213.8(f).
( f ) The regulatory office submits guidance documents we determine may be significant to OIRA for significance determinations, before clearing the submitting office to issue them.
( f ) When we issue a guidance document, we post it on our centralized guidance portal (see § 1213.6(a)).
[85 FR 31979, May 28, 2020, as amended at 87 FR 21024, Apr. 11, 2022] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: At 87 FR 21024, Apr. 11, 2022, § 1213.4 was amended; however, a portion of the amendment could not be completed because the section contains two paragraphs designated (f).
§ 1008.2 Definitions. The following terms have the following meanings as used in this part: *Individual* means a citizen of the United States or an alien who is currently lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
*Maintain* means maintain, collect, use or disseminate.
*Privacy Act* means 5 U.S.C. 552a.
*Privacy Act Officer* means the Presidio Trust official charged with responsibility for carrying out the functions assigned in this part.
*Record* means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by the Presidio Trust, including, but not limited to, education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains the individual's name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print, or a photograph. Related definitions include: ( 1 ) *System of records* means a group of any records under the control of the Presidio Trust from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual.
( 2 ) *Medical records* means records which relate to the identification, prevention, cure or alleviation of any disease, illness or injury including psychological disorders, alcoholism and drug addiction.
( 3 ) *Personnel records* means records used for personnel management programs or processes such as staffing, employee development, retirement, and grievances and appeals.
( 4 ) *Statistical records* means records in a system of records maintained for statistical research or reporting purposes only and not used in whole or in part in making any determination about an identifiable individual.
*Routine use* means a use of a record for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected.
*System manager* means the official designated in a system notice as having administrative responsibility for a system of records.
*System notice* means the notice describing a system of records required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) to be published in the Federal Register upon establishment or revision of the system of records.
[63 FR 71779, Dec. 30, 1998, as amended at 83 FR 50834, Oct. 10, 2018]
# EUR-Lex - 12006E264 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E264

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Five - Institutions of the Community - TITLE I - Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 4 - The Committee of the Regions - Article 264 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0161 - 0161 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0138 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0285 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0069 - Consolidated version *

Article 264

The Committee of the Regions shall elect its chairman and officers from among its members for a term of two years.

It shall adopt its Rules of Procedure.

The Committee shall be convened by its chairman at the request of the Council or of the Commission. It may also meet on its own initiative.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 1222.20 How are personal files defined and managed? ( a ) Personal files are defined in § 1220.18 of this subchapter. This section does not apply to agencies and positions that are covered by the Presidential Records Act of 1978 (44 U.S.C. 2201-2207) (see 36 CFR part 1270 of this chapter).
( b ) Personal files must be clearly designated as such and must be maintained separately from the office's official records. ( 1 ) Information about private (non-agency) matters and agency business must not be mixed in outgoing agency documents, such as correspondence and messages.
( 2 ) If information about private matters and agency business appears in a received document, the document is a Federal record. Agencies may make a copy of the document with the personal information deleted or redacted, and treat the copy as the Federal record.
( 3 ) Materials labeled “personal,” “confidential,” or “private,” or similarly designated, and used in the transaction of public business, are Federal records. The use of a label such as “personal” does not affect the status of documentary materials in a Federal agency.
Case 16-28852 Doc 4 Filed 09/09/16 Entered 09/09/16 09:42:49 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-28852 Doc 4 Filed 09/09/16 Entered 09/09/16 09:42:49 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
Adams, Kevin (OST) From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Kevin, Dan Owen <dan@flyAAT.com> Monday, March 11, 2013 4:56 PM Adams, Kevin (OST) Tatitlek EAS deadline extension

J & M AlaskaAirTours, Inc, dbaAlaska Air Transit is interested inthe Tatitlek EAS proposal. Due to our current workload related to the acquisition and implementation ofa new Cessna Grand Caravan EX aircraft, we request a two week extension onthe deadline to submit a bid. Thank you, 

### VCL¥\1 Owerv Owner/ operator Alaska Air Transit 907-276-5422 

### http://www.flyAAT.com ..... !,. ...

:

,.,_,

1
Order entered February 18, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00818
- CV
ESTHER ATIGOGO , Appellant

V. TOWNS OF CHAPEL HILL , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 007
- 03182
- 2021

O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s February 17, 2022 third motion requesting a thirty

- day extension of time to file her brief on the merits. In this Court’s January 19, 202 2 order granting appellant’s second extension motion, we cautioned her that further requests would be disfavored. In her current motion, appellant explains that she is “STILL awaiting additional documents from the Rent Relief financial Department”. Becau se the appellate record is limited to documents that werebefore the trial court, see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 34.5(a)(1), and it does not appear the

documents she is waiting on were before the trial court, we DENY the motion. On the Court’s own motion, we extend the deadline for appellant’s brief to March 7, 2022 . We caution appellant that no further extension will be granted and that failure to file a brief on or before March 7 may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See id . 38.8(a)(1). / s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
# EUR-Lex - 12004V225 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V225

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE III — INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION - CHAPTER III — POLICIES IN OTHER AREAS - Section 4 — Agriculture and fisheries - Article III-225 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0099 - 0099 *

Article III-225

The Union shall define and implement a common agriculture and fisheries policy.

"Agricultural products" means the products of the soil, of stockfarming and of fisheries and products of first-stage processing directly related to these products. References to the common agricultural policy or to agriculture, and the use of the term "agricultural", shall be understood as also referring to fisheries, having regard to the specific characteristics of this sector.

--------------------------------------------------
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10550 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GABRIEL CARDENAS-RICHAR, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CR-73-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1998 Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gabriel Cardenas-Richar appeals his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He contends that he should have been awarded a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Because Cardenas did not object to the findings in the presentence report or to the court’s reliance on those findings at sentencing, appellate review is for plain error. See United States v. McCaskey , 9 F.3d 368, 376 (5th Cir. 1993).No. 98-10550 -2- Although Cardenas has admitted the factual elements of the crime charged, he did not present any legal argument that did not relate to factual guilt. See , e.g. , United States v. Fells , 78 F.3d 168, 171-72 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S.Ct. 134 (1996); United States v. Broussard , 987 F.2d 215, 224 (5th Cir. 1993). Cardenas has failed to show that the district court plainly erred in its failure to award a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
AFFIRMED.
# EUR-Lex - 11992E005 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11992E005

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY - PART ONE: PRINCIPLES - ARTICLE 5 /* CODIFIED VERSION OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY */ **

*
Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0009 *

Article 5

Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks.

The shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardize the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty.