alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mikhael KHOURY; Pierrette Khoury, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 02-57214.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 13, 2004.

Decided June 3, 2004.

Jeffrey D. Diamond, Esq., Encino, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Nathan S. Arrington, Esq., Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps, John T. Brooks, Luce, Forward, Hamilton and Scripps, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: RYMER and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,** Chief District Judge.

**

 The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, Chief District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

*146MEMORANDUM ***

Mikhael and Pierrette Khoury appeal dismissal of their action against Allstate Insurance Company and the district court’s denial of leave to amend.

We understand the difficulty that has been wrought by the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the Khourys’ 1997 actions before an agreement to arbitrate was finalized.1 Unfortunately, however, the dismissal with prejudice of the 1997 actions precludes the present action because each involves damage on account of the 1994 Northridge earthquake and a 1995 aftershock. *Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs-Employers Constr. Indus. Pension, Welfare & Training Trust Funds v. Karr,*994 F.2d 1426, 1429 (9th Cir.1998); *People v. Barragan,*32 Cal.4th 236, 253, 9 Cal. Rptr.3d 76, 83 P.3d 480 (2004). This is true even though the earthquake and aftershock arose in different policy years and are separate seismic events. Cal.Civ.Proc. Code § 340.9 has no effect here because § 340.9(d)(1) exempts from revival “[a]ny claim that has been litigated to finality in any court of competent jurisdiction prior to the effective date of this section.” The dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(l)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is a final judgment on the merits. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that the present action is barred by res judicata. Finally, denying leave to amend was well within the court’s discretion. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

***

 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

. *Mikhael Khoury & Pierrette Khoury v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*Case No. CV97-6377-SVW in the Central District of California; *Mikhael Khoury & Pierrette Khoury v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*Case No. CV97-6468-SVW in the Central District of California. Stipulations of Dismissal with Prejudice were filed in each case June *9,*1998.
# EUR-Lex - 11992MC - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11992MC

**Treaty on European Union - Title I: Common provisions - Article C **

*
Official Journal C 191 , 29/07/1992 P. 0004 *

Article C

The Union shall be served by a single institutional framework which shall ensure the consistency and the continuity of the activities carried out in order to attain its objectives while respecting and building upon the 'acquis communautaire'.

The Union shall in particular ensure the consistency of its external activities as a whole in the context of its external relations, security, economic and development policies. The Council and the Commission shall be responsible for ensuring such consistency. They shall ensure the implementation of these policies, each in accordance with its respective powers.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20337

Summary Calendar

WILLIS FLOYD WILEY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

DR. BHUPATRAI G. VACHHANI, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-3712

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We have considered the briefs, the record on appeal, and all relevant law, 

and we conclude that the district court’s judgment should be affirmed 

essentially for the reasons articulated in the district court’s opinion of April 28, 

2014. The appellant’s arguments on appeal are without merit.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-20337 Document: 00512922876 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2015
No. 14-20337

First, the appellant argues that the district court erred in dismissing his 

case for failure to prosecute or for failing to comply with a court order or rule 

of civil procedure. But the district court did no such thing. The district court 

dismissed the case because the appellant did not assert a valid legal claim. The 

appellant’s arguments in this regard appear irrelevant.

Second, the appellant argues that the appellee, a doctor, was a “state 

actor” who may be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he worked under 

contract with the Social Security Administration. Section 1983 provides a 

right of action against persons who act “under color of any statute, ordinance, 

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State.” (Emphasis added). The Social 

Security Administration, however, is a part of the federal government, not the 

state. There is no allegation in this case that the appellee acted under color of 

state law. The district court was correct to dismiss the § 1983 claim. See Case 

v. Milewski, 327 F.3d 564, 567 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[A]n action brought pursuant 

to § 1983 cannot lie against federal officers acting under color of federal law.”).

Third, the appellant argues that he asserted a valid legal claim under 

title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the district court erred in 

dismissing it. Title II, however, addresses disability discrimination by state

public entities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1); Cellular Phone Taskforce v. F.C.C., 

217 F.3d 72, 73 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Title II of the ADA is not applicable to the 

federal government.”). The appellant’s grievances with the federal Social 

Security Administration and the doctor it hired do not fall under the statute. 

The district court was correct to dismiss the title II claim.

Fourth, the appellant challenges the district court’s failure to grant his 

motion for summary judgment. Because the appellant did not assert any valid 

legal claim, he is not entitled to summary judgment.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-20337 Document: 00512922876 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2015
#### § 1224.2 What definitions apply to this part?

See § 1220.18 of this subchapter for definitions of terms used in part 1224.
#### § 1192.109 Between-car barriers.

Where vehicles operate in a high-platform, level-boarding mode, and where between-car bellows are not provided, devices or systems shall be provided to prevent, deter or warn individuals from inadvertently stepping off the platform between cars. Appropriate devices include, but are not limited to, pantograph gates, chains, motion detectors or other suitable devices.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7646

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICKY D. LAFORCE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CR-91-32, CA-97-252-R)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 25, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky D. LaForce, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. LaForce, Nos. CR-91-32; CA-97-252-R (W.D.

Va. Sept. 18, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
# EUR-Lex - 12008E011 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E011

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART ONE: PRINCIPLES - TITLE II: PROVISIONS HAVING GENERAL APPLICATION - Article 11 (ex Article 6 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0053 - 0053 *

Article 11

(ex Article 6 TEC)

Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 1226.12 How do agencies disseminate approved schedules? ( a ) Agencies must issue disposition authorities through their internal directives system within six months of approval of the SF 115 or GRS to ensure proper distribution and application of the schedule. The directive must cite the legal authority (GRS or SF 115 and item numbers) for each schedule item covering records.
( b ) Agencies must send, via link or file, an electronic copy of each published agency schedule, directive, and other policy issuance relating to records disposition to NARA at *RM.Communications@nara.gov* when the directive, manual, or policy issuance is posted or distributed.
( c ) The submission must include the name, title, agency, address, and phone number of the submitter. If the comprehensive records schedule or other policy issuance is posted on a publicly available Web site, the agency must provide the full Internet address (URL).
# EUR-Lex - 12008E239 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E239

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART SIX: INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - TITLE I: INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS - Chapter 1: The institutions - Section 3: The Council - Article 239 (ex Article 206 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0154 - 0154 *

Article 239

(ex Article 206 TEC)

Where a vote is taken, any Member of the Council may also act on behalf of not more than one other member.

--------------------------------------------------
STATISTICAL ANALYSES FOR: VINCLOSOLIN: A TWO-GENERATION STUDY WITH THE

JAPANESE QUAIL, PERFORMEDAT BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC

WILDLIFE INTERNATIONAL PROJECT NO.: 185-133-1

In Support of EPA Task Order 35, Japanese Quail Two-Generation Test Interlaboratory Evaluation

for EPA Contract EP-W-06-026

AUTHOR:

Timothy A. Springer

Submitted to:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office ofPesticide Programs (7507C)

401 M Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20406

Wildlife Internationa

EVANS ANALYTICAL GROUP

8598 Commerce Drive

Easton, Maryland 21601 USA

1 (410) 822-8600

Page 1 of49
§ 1211.215 Membership practices of certain organizations. ( a ) *Social fraternities and sororities.* These Title IX regulations do not apply to the membership practices of social fraternities and sororities that are exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. 501(a), the active membership of which consists primarily of students in attendance at institutions of higher education.
( b ) *YMCA, YWCA, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Camp Fire Girls.* These Title IX regulations do not apply to the membership practices of the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA), the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA), the Girl Scouts, the Boy Scouts, and Camp Fire Girls.
( c ) *Voluntary youth service organizations.* These Title IX regulations do not apply to the membership practices of a voluntary youth service organization that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. 501(a), and the membership of which has been traditionally limited to members of one sex and principally to persons of less than nineteen years of age.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Meridian Resource
Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-K"), I,
Joseph A. Reeves, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

         Date: April 15, 2003

                                       /s/ Joseph A. Reeves, Jr.
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Joseph A. Reeves, Jr.
                                       Chief Executive Officer

                                      -79-
§ 1254.8 What information do I need to provide when applying for a researcher identification card? ( a ) You must apply in person and show identification containing your picture or physical description, such as a driver's license or school identification card. You also must provide proof of your current address, such as a bank statement, utility bill, or department of motor vehicles change of address card, if the address on your driver's license or other identification is not current. Students who consider the home of their parents as their permanent address, but who do not live there during the academic session, must provide their current student address. If you travel long distance to conduct research in original archival materials at a NARA facility, we may ask you how we can contact you locally. In special circumstances, the director of a facility or unit has the authority to grant exceptions to these requirements.
( b ) If you apply for access to large quantities of documents or to documents that are especially fragile or valuable, we may require you to furnish additional information about reasons why you require access. Some materials are too fragile or valuable for direct handling or viewing. Preservation concerns (*see* §§ 1254.20(b) and 1254.36(e)) and availability of resources (*see* § 1254.20(c)) may limit our ability to accommodate certain requests.
( c ) If you are younger than 14, you must follow the procedures in § 1254.24 to seek permission to conduct research.
( d ) We do not issue you a researcher identification card if the appropriate supervisor or director of the NARA facility determines that the documents that you wish to use are not in the legal custody of NARA and you do not present appropriate written authorization from the legal title holder to examine the documents.
( e ) The collection of information contained in this section has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget with the control number 3095-0016.
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE>                                  5
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                   OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                 2,886
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                         28,102
<ALLOWANCES>                             388
<INVENTORY>                           69,436
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     105,938
<PP&E>                                82,706
<DEPRECIATION>                        27,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       162,064
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 60,946
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                 154
<OTHER-SE>                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         162,064
<SALES>                              295,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     291,060
<CGS>                                252,803
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         13,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     2,067
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       22,224
<INCOME-TAX>                           7,339
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   14,885
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                          14,885
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .97
        

</TABLE>
Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20463 

STATEMENT OF DESIGNATION OF COUNSEL 

MUR##6g20 

Name of Counsel: 

Address: 

Telephone: 

Facsimile: 

Email Address: 

Chris Gober 

The Gober Group 

P.O. Box 341016 

Austin. TX 78734 

(512) 354-1783 

(877) 437-5755 

ca@Qoberaroup.com 

The above-named individual is hereby designated as my counsel and is authorized to 

receive any notifications and other communications from the Commission and to act on 

my behalf before the Commission. 

Date 

RESPONDENT: 

Title 

James C. Thomas III, in his official capacity as Treasurer 

Now or Never PAC 

7509 NW Tiffany Springs Parkway, Suite 300 

Kansas City, MO 64153
TheNational Energy Policy Development Group recently reported a National Energy Policy to the President. One of the recommendations called for the President to direct the Secretary ofEnergy to take steps to improve the energy efficiency of appliances. The recommendation included supporting the existing appliance standardsprogram, settinghigher standards where technologically feasible and economically justified, and expanding the scope of the program to include additional products.

I would like to invite you to attend an informal meeting with me in Washington to discuss the priorities ofthe existingprogram and any possible expansion ofthe scope of the program to include additionalproducts. The authorizing statuteprovides criteriafor addingresidential products to the program, but does not provide similar criteriafor commercial or industrial products. These products could be included through voluntary programs, consumer education or legislationand regulation. Indeed,there are bills being drafted and introduced in the Congress which address these issues. Thus, the timing of this meeting would allow us to do some early planning in anticipationof a number of new activities.

The meeting will be held on September 11,2001, from 9:00 a.m. to noon in Room 1E-245 in the Forrestal Building and will include a wide spectrum of invited stakeholders who have participated in past rulemakings and activities of the appliance standardsprogram. We

are in the process of developing background information on the existing products and on products currently being proposed for inclusion in the appliance standards program. When these are completed, we will be sending them to you for the workshop discussion. I look forward to working with you on developing a rulemaking agenda for the appliance standardsprogram. Please call Brenda Edwards-Jones at (202) 586-2945 if you will be able tojoin me.

Sincerely,

David 

### K. Garman Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy
# EUR-Lex - 12008E158 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E158

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART THREE: UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS - TITLE X: SOCIAL POLICY - Article 158 (ex Article 142 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0118 - 0118 *

Article 158

(ex Article 142 TEC)

Member States shall endeavour to maintain the existing equivalence between paid holiday schemes.

--------------------------------------------------
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:River Hawk UAV, LLC - Exemption/Rulemaking
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7352

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER MCCALLA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:06-

cr-00404-RWT-4)

Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 8, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher McCalla, Appellant Pro Se. Stacy Dawson Belf, Bryan 

E. Foreman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher McCalla seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that McCalla has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
From: William A. Powers

To: Robert Knop

Cc: Chris Siragusa; Fred T. Dombo

Subject: Extension of Time in AOR 2023-11 (VoteDown PAC)

Date: Friday, December 1, 2023 2:34:34 PM

Attachments: image001.png

Mr. Knop –

Thank you for reaching out by phone about this. Our client agrees to the request to extend the

response deadline for this Advisory Opinion Request until Friday January 26, 2024.

Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance.

Thank you,

Bill

William A. Powers

Attorney at Law

NOSSAMAN LLP

1401 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20005

wpowers@nossaman.com

T 202.887.1400 F 202.466.3215

D 202.887.1414

SUBSCRIBE TO E-ALERTS

nossaman.com

PLEASE NOTE: The information in this e-mail message is confidential. It may also be attorney-client

privileged and/or protected from disclosure as attorney work product. If you have received this e-mail

message in error or are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, nor disclose to anyone this

message or any information contained in it. Please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the

message. Thank you.