alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 812.140 Employment.

No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the agency. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANNY GARCIA,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. TSENG, Dr.,
Defendant

- Appellee. No. 19

- 15252
D.C. No. 2:14

- cv - 00093

- TLN

DMC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2020 * *
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Danny Garcia appeals pro se fro m the district

cou rt’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo cross - motions for summary judgment

. Guatay

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

- 3.

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

# FILED

JUN 5 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 15252

Christian Fel lowship v. County of San Diego , 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011).
We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for Tseng because
Garcia failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Tseng was deliberately indifferent to Garcia’s leg

- length discrepancy and his back and shoulder pain

. See Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056

- 6 0 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards

an excessive risk to inmate health ; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference) ; see also Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976) (“A medical
decision not to ord er an X

- ray, or like measures, does not represent cruel and unusual punishment. At most it is medical malpractice”)

. We do not consider Garcia’s arguments regarding his First Amendment claim because it was not properly presented to the district court. Se e Navajo
Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 535 F.3d 1058, 1080 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that “[w]here . . . the complaint does not include the necessary factual allegations to state a claim, raising such claim in a summary judgment motion is insufficient to present the claim to the district cour t”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal3 19

- 15252

or in the reply brief

. See Padgett v. Wright , 58 7 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See
United States v. Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). Garcia’s requests for miscellaneous relief, set forth in the reply brief, are
denied.
AFFIRMED.
LAKE
& ASSOCIATES CPA’s, LLC








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the use, in the report on Form 10-K of Sadhana Equity
Investment, Inc. (A Development Stage Company), of our report dated April 5,
2010 on our audit of the financial statements of Sadhana Equity Investment, Inc.
(A Development Stage Company) as of December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, and
the related statements of operations, shareholders’ deficit and cash flows for
the years ended December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 and from inception on
July 5, 2006 through December 31, 2009, and the reference to us under the
caption “Experts.”








/s/
      Lake & Associates, CPA’s LLC





Lake
& Associates, CPA’s LLC


Shaumburg,
Illinois


April 15,
2010
#### § 158.604 Request for extension.

In circumstances in which an entity cannot prepare a response to HHS within the 30 days provided in the notice, the entity may make a written request for an extension from HHS detailing the reason for the extension request and showing good cause. If HHS grants the extension, the responsible entity must respond to the notice within the time frame specified in HHS's letter granting the extension of time. Failure to respond within 30 days, or within the extended time frame, may result in HHS's imposition of a civil monetary penalty based upon its determination of a potential violation described in § 158.602 of this subpart.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION { CONVENED JANUARY 4, 1996 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Monday, March 27, 1995 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF SHEILA P. BURKE, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Gerald A Hackett, Executive Clerk 
1 

RESOLUTIONS 

CALENDAR Ex..REs SUBJECT REPOJm:D 

No. No. BY 
2 

TREATIES 

CALENDAR TREATY REPoR'J'ED 

No. Doo. No. SUBJECr BY 
NOMINATIONS 

- CALENDAR MESSAGE REPORTflO 

No No 

NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR BY 

INTERNATIONAL BANKS 

* 31 2 Robert E. Rubin, ofNew York, to be United Feb 28, 95 Reported by Mr. Helms, 

States Governor of the International Monetary Committee on Foreign Relations, Fund for a term of five years; United States Wlthout printed report. 

Governor of the International Bank for 

.Reconstruction and Development for a term of 

five years; United States Governor of the 

Inter· American Development Bank for a teml. 

of five years; United States Governor of the 

African Development Bank for a term of five 

years; Umted States Governor of the Asian 

Development Bank, United States Governor of 

the African Development Fund; United States 

Governor of the E\ll'Opean Bank for 

Reconstruction and Development. 

FEDERALTRADECOMMSmON 

* 49 79 Robert Pitofsky, of Maryland, to be a Federal Mar 23, 95 Reported by Mr. 

Trade Comnnssic-1"• 4'9r the term of seven Pressler, Committee on 

years from September 26, 1994, vice Deborah Commerce, Science, and 

Kaye Owen, resigned. Transportation, without printed 

report. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

* 50 260 Daniel Robert Glickman, of Kansas, to be Mar 23, 95 ·Reported by Mr. Lugar, 

Secretary of Agriculture, vice Mike Espy, Committee on Agriculture, 

resigned. Nutrition, and Forestry, Wlthout 

printed report. 

* Szgmjies nomuwe's commttment to respond to requests to appear and testtfy before any duly constttuted commtttee of tM Senate 
4 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK
#### Robert Maynicke, Appellant, *v.*Central Realty Bond and Trust Company, Respondent.

*Maynicke*v. *Central Realty Bond & Trust Co., 115*App. Div. 899, affirmed.

(Argued October 23, 1907;

decided November 19, 1907.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 19, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for services alleged to have been rendered defendant.

*L. Lafin Kellogg*and *Alfred C. Petté*for appellant.

*Arthur 11. Van Brunt*and *Adrian 11. Joline*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Gray, O’Brien, Wkrner and Willard Bartlett, JJ. Dissenting: Cullen, Oh. J., Vann and Chase, JJ.
§ 1638.3 Prohibition. ( a ) Recipients and their employees shall not represent a client as a result of in-person unsolicited advice.
( b ) Recipients and their employees shall not refer to other recipients individuals to whom they have given in-person unsolicited advice.
[89 FR 25816, Apr. 12, 2024]
#### § 13.330 Appeal procedures.

An appeal of the denial of rights with respect to providing visitor services under this subpart may be made to the next higher level of authority. Such an appeal must be submitted in writing within 30 days of receipt of the denial. Appeals must set forth the facts and circumstances that the appellant believes support the appeal. The appellant may request an informal meeting to discuss the appeal with the National Park Service. After consideration of the materials submitted by the appellant and the National Park Service record of the matter, and meeting with the appellant if so requested, the Director will affirm, reverse, or modify the denial appealed and will set forth in writing the basis of the decision. A copy of the decision will be forwarded to the appellant and will constitute the final administrative decision in the matter. No person will be considered to have exhausted administrative remedies with respect to a denial of rights to provide visitor services under this subpart until a final administrative decision has been made pursuant to this section.
EXHIBIT 35.2
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
              RALI SERIES 2006-QA6 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Executive Vice President
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Michael V.  Shustek,  as Chief  Executive  Officer of Vestin  Group,  Inc.  (the
"Company"), and John Alderfer, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, that

     (1) the Company's  Quarterly  Report of Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period
ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report")  fully complies with the applicable  requirements
of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: November 14, 2002                    /s/ Michael V. Shustek
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Michael V. Shustek
                                            Chief Executive Officer of
                                            Vestin Group, Inc.

Dated: November 14, 2002                    /s/ John Alderfer
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            John Alderfer
                                            Chief Financial Officer of
                                            Vestin Group, Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 29A13

FILED 8 NOVEMBER 2013

RICHARD M. JOHNSTON

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 

the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 735 S.E.2d 859 (2012), reversing and 

remanding a judgment entered on 24 October 2011 by Judge Abraham P. Jones in 

Superior Court, Caswell County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 15 October 2013.

Dan L. Hardway for plaintiff-appellee.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Hal F. Askins, Special Deputy Attorney 

General, and Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for defendantappellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Justice BEASLEY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

case.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MONICA FRISBY,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellant,

v.

NATIONAL STORAGE 

AFFILIATES 

(NSA/ISTORAGE), and CEO 

ARLEN D. NORDHAGEN,

Defendants Below,

Appellees.

§

§ No. 554, 2019

§

§

§

§ Court Below–Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. N19M-07-068

§ 

§

§

§

§ 

Submitted: January 17, 2020

Decided: January 23, 2020

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES,

Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 

it appears to the Court that:

(1) On December 26, 2019, the appellant, Monica Frisby, filed a notice of 

appeal from a bench ruling issued by the Superior Court on December 18, 2019,1

which granted Frisby’s request to have access to her storage unit at the defendants’ 

 

1 The Superior Court issued a written order memorializing its bench ruling on January 6, 2020.
2

facility for thirty days and ordered the case to be dismissed after the expiration of 

the thirty-day period unless further disputes between the parties arose. The Superior 

Court docket reflects that the case has not yet been dismissed. 

(2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Frisby to show cause 

why her appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with Supreme 

Court Rule 42 in taking an appeal from an interlocutory order. Frisby filed a 

response to the notice to show cause, but it does not address the interlocutory nature 

of the appeal.

(3) “An order is deemed final when the trial court has declared its intention 

that the order is the court’s final act in a case.”2 Here, Frisby filed her appeal before 

the Superior Court dismissed the case. The Superior Court’s ruling is therefore 

interlocutory.

(4) Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate 

jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final orders. Frisby’s failure to 

comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 leaves this Court without jurisdiction to hear 

her interlocutory appeal. The filing fee for any future appeal from the Superior 

Court’s final judgment shall be waived.

 

2 Pollard v. The Placers, Inc., 692 A.2d 879, 880 (Del. 1997).
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 

Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
Exhibit
10.28


 


Promissory
Note


 


 


	$61,000.00	November
    5, 2019


 


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, SUNDANCE STRATEGIES, INC., a Nevada Corporation (“Sundance”) promises to pay to Glenn S. Dickman (collectively
“Lender”), the principal sum of $61,000.00, to be calculated at 8% per annum for 180 days. Interest will be calculated
from the date funds are received by Sundance Strategies. There is no penalty for prepayment of this note.


 


Payment
shall be in lawful money of the United States of America and in immediately available funds. Payment shall be made at such address
as Lender may direct Sundance in writing from time to time. All payments shall be applied first to accrued and unpaid interest
and then to the principal balance outstanding. Upon any default of this Note by Sundance, Lender may exercise any and all rights
afforded to Lender by contract and law.


 


Sundance
waives presentment for payment, demand and notice of dishonor and nonpayment of this Note, and consents to any and all extensions
of time, renewals, waivers or modifications that may be granted by the holder hereof with respect to the payment or other provisions
of this Note.


 


If
any legal action is initiated with regard to this Note, including but not limited to any action to enforce or interpret the terms
hereof, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to the recovery of all costs, including attorney fees, incurred
in the legal action and any appeal thereof, whether or not formal legal action is filed or prosecuted to judgment. This Note may
not be modified or amended except in a writing signed by the parties. This Note shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Utah.





 


	SUNDANCE
    STRATEGIES, INC.	 	LENDER
	 	 	 
	 		 	/s/ Glenn S. Dickman
	By:	Kraig
    T. Higginson, Chief Executive Officer	 	Glenn
    S. Dickman, Lender
	 	 	 
	 	/s/
    Randall F. Pearson	 	 
	By:	Randall
    F. Pearson, It’s President
Servant Air Qr^-ts^^-^^^^-xo 

Post Office Box 3 <r, <?-r . i ^ -. ^ 

Kodiak,A K 99615 ^^^'^-^ ^ {^^ ^ 

907-487-4400 

March 18, 2010 

Dennis Devany, Chief o,;3 

Essential Air Service Division Sr^ 

Office of Aviation Analysis .-

U.S. Department of Transportation - ' 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Essential Air Service at Karluk, AK Docket 2004-19342 

Dear Mr. Davany: 

As you may be aware, Monday March 15, 2010 a Britten-Norman BN-2 "Islander" 

operated by Servant Air had an accident on takeoff at Kodiak airport. Fortunately, none 

of the occupants was seriously injured. The aircraft appears to be a total loss, however. 

The Islander is a Short Takeoff and Landing aircraft (STOL) particularly well suited for 

short, undeveloped runways such as that at Karluk. We believe this aircraft is necessary 

to provide enough safe and reliable capacity to meet the needs of Essential Air Service at 

Karluk at least during the peak season. Servant Air will be unable to secure a 

replacement Islander in time to begin Essential Service at Karluk on April 1. Servant Air 

has an adequate fleet to provide all of its current service including Essential Service to 

Akhiok. 

In Order 2010-2-15, the Department noted that if Servant Air has not inaugurated service 

at Karluk by April 1, 2010, ".. .we will compensate Island Air at the rate contained in its 

proposal until Servant inaugurates service." At this time we are providing notice that 

Servant will not inaugurate service at Karluk until a suitable replacement aircraft has 

been secured. A copy of this letter has been sent as an attachment to Island Air Service. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Terry Cratty 

Director of Operations 

o
IIA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 80 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service relating to ‘‘Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Regulations Pertaining to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15, 2024 

Ms. LUMMIS (for herself, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. RICKETTS, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. 

DAINES, Mr. LEE, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROUNDS, Mrs. BRITT, 

Mr. WICKER, Mr. CRAPO, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MARSHALL, and Mr. 

HOEVEN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to 

‘‘Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations Pertaining to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the 

4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to ‘‘EnVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:04 May 16, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ80.IS SJ80

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 80 IS 

1 dangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations 

2 Pertaining to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

3 Plants’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 23919 (April 5, 2024)), and such 

4 rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statements of operations found on pages 3 and 4 of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             678
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   678
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,237
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,050
<OTHER-SE>                                      (7,376)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,911
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,694
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,694)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>