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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD FERRY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

KEVIN DOOHAN, Washington County Community Corrections (WCCC) Post

Prison Supervision Officer; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 35228

D.C. No. 3:18

- cv

- 00153

- AC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2019 **

Before: TROTT

, TALLMAN , and CALLAHAN , Circuit Judges.

Richard Ferry appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (a)(1). We

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

- 3.

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

# FILED

JAN 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los

Angeles , 834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ferry’s motion for

a preliminary injunction becaus e Ferry failed to establish that he is likely to

succeed on the merits of his claim that the c onditions of his supervised release

requiring him to participate in polygraph examinations violate his Fifth

Amendment right against self

- incrimination

. See Jack

son v. City & County of San

Francisco , 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff seeking preliminary

injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of the

equities tips in his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest) ; United States

v. Antelope , 395 F.3d 1128 , 1134

- 35 (9th Cir. 2005) (conditions of supervised

release that require participation in polygraph examinations implicate Fift h

Amendment right against self

- incrimination where the risk of incrimination in a

criminal prosecution is real and appreciable)

.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal, see Padgett v. Wright

, 587 F. 3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009), and we do not

consider documents not presented to the district court, see United States v. Elias

,3

921 F.3d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

Ferry’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.
Nov. 19: Military Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq
 By U.S. Central Command News Release
  November 19, 2014 RELEASE #20141113FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **TAMPA, Fla., Nov. 19, 2014 -** U.S. and partner nation military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria Nov. 17-19 using fighter and bomber aircraft to conduct six airstrikes against ISIL and one U.S. airstrike against a network of veteran Al Qaeda operatives, sometimes called the "Khorasan Group."  Separately, U.S. and partner nation military forces conducted 24 airstrikes in Iraq Nov. 17-19 using attack, fighter, bomber and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists. In Syria, five airstrikes near Kobani destroyed one ISIL fighting position, an ISIL staging area, three ISIL occupied buildings, suppressed two ISIL fighting positions and struck two tactical and one large ISIL unit. One airstrike southeast of Al-Hasakah damaged a crude oil collection point operated by ISIL.  Finally, in northwest Syria near Haram, a U.S. airstrike struck and destroyed a storage facility associated with a network of veteran Al Qaeda operatives, sometimes called the "Khorasan Group," whose members are plotting external attacks against the United States and its allies. In Iraq, thirteen airstrikes near Kirkuk destroyed two ISIL fighting positions, seven ISIL staging areas, one ISIL mortar position, an ISIL bulldozer and front-loader. Seven airstrikes near Mosul struck five ISIL tactical units, damaged an IED factory and destroyed an ISIL mortar position, three ISIL vehicles, an ISIL occupied building, an ISIL artillery piece and ISIL artillery mover.  Three airstrikes near Bayji struck three ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL occupied building and an ISIL vehicle. One airstrike near Fallujah struck an ISIL tactical unit. All aircraft returned to base safely.  Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports. The strikes were conducted as part of Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the terrorist group ISIL and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community.  The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project power and conduct operations.  Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the U.S., Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.  Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the U.S., Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
----

(2004/C 88 E/0296)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2081/02

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject:   Use of Objective 2 funding in North-Rhine-Westphalia

A big firm in Mülheim, North-Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), needs to move from its current location due to continuous expansion and is looking for a new site. There are two serious contenders in NRW: Mülheim and Oberhausen. Oberhausen town council has announced that it would make a EUR 1,5 million investment grant available under the Land government's regional economic development programme, which is known to be co-financed by Objective 2 funding from the EU, if the firm chose to relocate to Oberhausen. As Mülheim is not an Objective 2 area, it would not get a look-in.

Does the Commission consider this to be legitimate use of Objective 2 funding?

If so, under what conditions may a town/city or Land use such funding to ensure that it is successful when competing against other towns/cities or Länder to attract companies looking for new sites?

If not, what action should, in its opinion, be taken in such cases?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2002)

The Oberhausen town council has no authority with regard to the approval of projects for financial support under the North Rhine Westphalia Objective 2 Single Programming Document (SPD). This responsibility belongs only to the managing authority which is the regional government of North Rhine Westphalia in this case.

Support for private investments under the SPD is in general restricted to small and medium-sized enterprises. As an exception, big companies can be supported where they contribute to building the strength of the region, for example, under measure 2.8, ‘new energies’ or measure 3.4, ‘logistics’.

Decisions on company location are a responsibility for the management which must take into account all the circumstances prevailing. Such decisions are unlikely to be influenced solely by opportunities for financial support from public sources. In addition, all public support of this kind, whether it is of national or Community origin, has to respect Community legislation concerning State aids.

With regard to the Structural Funds, the rules in force envisage two measures that are intended to limit the effects of relocation for companies in receipt of EU support. First, in the Commission's guidelines on national regional aid (1), it is required that recipients of EU support must maintain, for a five-year period, any investment or any jobs thus created. Secondly, Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2) stipulates that the contribution of European funds in productive activities is conditional on the location of these activities remaining unchanged during five years following the decision to grant support.

----

(1)OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

(2)OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

----
#### Barbara Sax, *Executrix, etc., Appellant, v.*Francis Lanzer and another, *Respondents*

—Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion, by

Barnard, P. J.;

Pratt, J., not sitting.
#### HOWARD MILLER ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. EDWARD WEINER ET AL., DEFENDANTS-PROSECUTORS.

Argued August 16, 1933

Decided August 21, 1933.

Before Justice Perskie, at chambers, pursuant to statute.

Por the defendants-prosecutors, *Robert A. Lederer.*

Por the plaintiffs-respondents, *Franklin B. Berry.*

Perskie, J.

This matter comes before me, on the return of a writ of *certiorari*to review a writ of attachment issued in purported compliance with paragraph *2,*section 84, of the Practice act of 1907, as amended, and all proceedings had thereunder.

The plaintiffs’ action instituted against the defendants-prosecutors, was based upon injuries and damages caused them through the alleged negligence of the defendants. It was an automobile accident case.

Among the reasons assigned for the quashing of the writ of attachment and setting aside or vacating all proceedings thereunder, was the following: “Reason *2.*It does not set

forth sufficient evidential facts as to non-residence and inability to serve with a summons.”

The affidavit upon which the writ of attachment was awarded relating to non-residence and inability to serve the summons, is as follows (paragraph 7 of complaint) : “Said Edward Weiner and Prank Weiner are not, to deponents knowledge and belief residents at this time in the State of *817New Jersey and summons cannot be served upon them in this state.” The point is well taken. The affidavit is fatally defective. It is barren of “evidential facts” showing that the defendants are not only non-residents of this state, but, also that a summons cannot be served on them. *Hisor*v. *Vandiver,*83 *N. J. L.*433; 85 *Atl. Rep.*181; *Jaudel*v. *Schoelzke,*95 *N. J. L.*171 (at *p.*177); 112 *Atl. Rep.*328; *Goeringer*v. *Young,*4 *N. J. Mis. R.*859; 134 *Atl. Rep.*756; *Jones*v. *Ellis,*5 *N. J. Mis. R.*1028; 139 *Atl. Rep.*419; *Henry v. Freeman,*7 *N. J. Mis. R.*263; 145 *Atl. Rep.*107.

The aforesaid determination makes it unnecessary to treat the other reasons assigned. Accordingly the writ of attachment will be quashed and the proceedings had thereunder set aside, with costs.
# Unite dState s Departmen t o f th e Interiorl y E l
OFFIC E O F TH E SECRETAR Y ,„ . , f - 5 Offic e o f Environmenta l Polic y an dComplianc e Pos t Offic e Bo x 64 9 Albuquerque , Ne w Mexic o 8710 3 '<'. ' ~ • : ' •" ' l < I N REPL Y REFERTO : ' •••;.'
. -..' » •• - Augus t 11 , 199 9

Rub y William s Remedia l Projec t Manage r (6SF-AP) U.S
. Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency , Regio n 6 144 5 Ros s Avenue , Suite 120

0 Dallas , Texa s 75202-273 3 Dea r Ms
. Williams : Th e U.S
. Department

o f th e Interior

(DOI) ha s receivedinformatio n provide db y th e U.S
. Environmental Protectio n Agenc y (EPA ) o n th e Many Diversifie dInterests , Inc. , Site , Houston , Harri s County , Texas
. Our review o f that informatio n indicate s that

either : 1 ) natura l resource s unde r

ou r trusteeshi p ar

e no t present o n or i n th e vicinit

y o f th e Site ; or

2 ) natura l resource s unde r

ou r trusteeshi p may b e present

bu t n o know n pathway s exis t

fo r migratio n o f

contaminant s i n amount s that woul dlea dto exposure an dsubsequent injur y o f thos e resources . Therefore , furthe r DO I participatio n i n th e Superfun dplannin g proces s appear s to b e unnecessar

y a t thi s time considerin g th e natur e o f th e contaminatio n an dth e action s EPA i s takin g to remediate th e Site
. However , i f

durin g th e Superfun dplannin g process , ne w informatio n i s develope dtha t result s i n adeterminatio n that

ecologica l risk s are greate

r tha n w e hav e previousl y concluded , DO I shoul db e notifie dimmediatel y and , i n thi s regard , w e reserv e th e righ t t o reevaluat

e ou r positio n i n thi s matter . Thank yo u fo r th e opportunit

y t o participat

e i n plannin g a

t th e Man y Diversifie dInterests , Inc. , Site
. Pleas e fee l fre e to contac t u s a t (505 ) 766-3565 shoul dyo u requir e anythin g furthe r

regardin g thi s matter . 

### Sincerely ,

Glenn B
. Sekave c Regiona l Environmental Office r
cc : Chief

, AR/OK/T X Branc h (6SF-A) , U.S
. Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency , Dallas , Texa s



### 193697
#### § 551.68 What if an agent cannot be served?

If an agent cannot be served because the agent cannot be located, has ceased to exist or does not receive correctly addressed mail, service may be made by posting the notice or process in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.

[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/ER08AU05.043/ER08AU05.043_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/ER08AU05.043/ER08AU05.043_original_size.png)
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 579 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 228
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 579

                          [Report No. 107-737]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 5010) making appropriations for the Department of Defense 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

             October 10 (legislative day, October 9), 2002

   Mrs. Myrick, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 5010) making appropriations for the Department of Defense 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
5010) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes. All 
points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as 
read.

                                                 House Calendar No. 228

107th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 579

                          [Report No. 107-737]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 5010) making appropriations for the Department of Defense 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

             October 10 (legislative day, October 9), 2002

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
# 1st TSC hosts a deployment ceremony for 14th HRSC

/ Published July 29, 2019
FORT KNOX, KY, 
FORT KNOX Ky.—The 1st Theater Sustainment Command (TSC) held a deployment ceremony for the 14th Human Resources Sustainment Center (HRSC) at the Sadowski Center July 26, 2019.The 14th HRSC, which is assigned to the 1st TSC, will deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility where it will replace the 3rd HRSC.Family members, friends, and team mates gathered to send off the troops and to recognize the contributions the 14th HRSC Soldiers are making to the country. While in theater, the 14th HRSC will conduct the full range of theater-level human resources operations in support of the 1st TSC’s mission to sustain warfighters throughout the 20-country, six-million-square mile region. Col James R. Peckham, assistant chief of staff for operations, 1st TSC, and host of the ceremony, said their everyday duties will include coordinating current operations requirements, developing human resource training plans, monitoring force management issues, and managing contingency operation planning. They will also manage the theater casualty assistance center, oversee all postal operations in the region, and maintain visibility of all personnel transiting in and out of theater.“Human resource support is critically important in everything we do because everything we do depends on our most important assets...the individual men and women serving in the CENTCOM AOR.” Peckham said. “If they are not taken care of, our best plans for sustaining the warfighters will inevitably fail.” Col. Anthony Dekeyzer, director, 14th HRSC, said his Soldiers trained hard to be prepared to assume this mission.“14th HRSC has participated in training events like Eager Lion and Bright Star in preparation for the mission,” Dekeyzer said. Even though the Soldiers are well trained, Dekeyzer said all deployments present challenges. “There is a degree of difficulty in any deployment, but again I think that being prepared, being trained, and being informed about what your mission is mitigates all those circumstances,” he said. “So again, I think we are ready to go.”During the ceremony, Peckham acknowledged how important family support is to mission success. “I want to thank all the families for the sacrifices they will make over these coming months,” he said. “I know there are no words that will help to fill the vacancy this deployment will place on your daily lives. I can’t tell you how much your support means to these Soldiers, DA Civilians and me,” he said.At the conclusion of the ceremony, Dekeyzer expressed some final words of confidence in his team.

“We are ready and trained to go take over the mission,” he said.
§ 826.21 Contents of application. ( a ) An application for an award of fees and expenses under the Act shall identify the applicant and the proceeding for which an award is sought. The application shall show that the applicant has prevailed and identify the position of the agency in the proceeding that the applicant alleges was not substantially justified. Unless the applicant is an individual, the application shall also state the number of employees of the applicant and describe briefly the type and purpose of its organization or business.
( b ) The application shall also include a statement that the applicant's net worth does not exceed $2 million (if an individual) or $7 million (for all other applicants, including their affiliates). However, an applicant may omit this statement if: ( 1 ) It attaches a copy of a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service that it qualifies as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)), or in the case of a tax-exempt organization not required to obtain a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service on its exempt status, a statement that describes the basis for the applicant's belief that it qualifies under such section; or
( 2 ) It states that it is a cooperative association as defined in section 15(a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act (12 U.S.C. 1141j(a)).
( c ) The application shall state the amount of fees and expenses for which an award is sought.
( d ) The application may also include any other matters that the applicant wishes this agency to consider in determining whether and in what amount an award should be made.
( e ) The application shall be signed by the applicant or an authorized officer or attorney for the applicant. It shall also contain or be accompanied by a written verification under oath or under penalty of perjury that the information provided in the application is true and correct.
[46 FR 48209, Oct. 1, 1981, as amended at 59 FR 30532, June 14, 1994]
# NAVCENT Commander Meets with Commander of the Royal Saudi Naval Forces 

/ Published Oct. 3, 2019
RIYADH, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , 
                Vice Admiral Jim Malloy, Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, travelled to Riyadh to meet with Vice Admiral Fahad al Ghofaily, Commander of the Royal Saudi Naval Forces (RSNF), and U.S. Ambassador John Abizaid. (Photo by Royal Saudi Naval Forces Public Affairs)                            NAVCENT Commander Meets with Commander of the Royal Saudi Naval Forces                            Vice Admiral Jim Malloy, Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, travelled to Riyadh to meet with Vice Admiral Fahad al Ghofaily, Commander of the Royal Saudi Naval Forces (RSNF), and U.S. Ambassador John Abizaid. (Photo by Royal Saudi Naval Forces Public Affairs)            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Royal Saudi Naval Forces Public AffairsVIRIN: 190929-O-N0146-001BVice Admiral Jim Malloy, Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, travelled to Riyadh to meet with Vice Admiral Fahad al Ghofaily, Commander of the Royal Saudi Naval Forces (RSNF), and U.S. Ambassador John Abizaid, Sept. 29, 2019.

The visit, following a Sept. 14 attack on Saudi facilities, focused on RSNF’s lead role in regional efforts to strengthen and reinforce defenses against Iranian aggression.

“Engaging and operating closely with regional counterparts is essential to maintain deterrence,” said Malloy. “Saudi Arabia has been a key ally in promoting regional security, and Vice Admiral Gofaily’s leadership and partnership is key as we coordinate defense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as well as all regional partners and those nations across the globe who rely on maritime commerce in and out of the Middle East.  This visit was an opportunity to discuss our mutual efforts going forward to coordinate defense against provocation and attack.”

U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations encompasses about 2.5 million square miles of water area and includes the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Red Sea and parts of the Indian Ocean. The expanse is comprised of 20 countries and includes three critical choke points at the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal and the Strait of Bab al Mandeb at the southern tip of Yemen.

For more news from Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/5th Fleet, visit www.cusnc.navy.mil/
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00597-CV

In re R. B. Ethridge

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

Filed: September 23, 2016
#### § 29.901 Can the Department and a Tribe resolve disputes using alternative dispute resolution processes?

At any time, the Department or a Tribe may request an informal process or an alternate dispute resolution procedure, such as mediation, conciliation, or arbitration, to resolve disputes. The goal of any such process (which may involve a third party) is to provide an inexpensive and expeditious mechanism to resolve disputes by mutual agreement instead of an administrative or judicial proceeding. The Department and the Tribe should resolve disputes at the lowest possible organizational level whenever possible.