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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARC ANTHONY LOWELL ENDSLEY, AKA Marc Endsley,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

and

DARYL CARRUTHERS; TIMOTHY

M c WHORTER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 21

- 55202

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv

- 03091

- UA

- SS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez , District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2022 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Nint h 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

FEB 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 55202

Marc Anthony Lowell Endsley appeals pro se from the district court’s order

rejecting his habeas petition on the basis of a vexatious litigant order . We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the

district court’s application of a vexatious litigant pre

- filing order. Moy v. United

States , 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Endsley’s habeas

petition because the proposed filing was within the scope of the district court’s pre

filing order and Endsley failed to comply with the order. See West v. Procunier

,

452 F. 2d 645, 646 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that an order refusing to authorize

filing of complaint was a “proper exercise of the district court’s authority to

effectuate compliance with its earlier order”).

To the extent that Endsley now seeks to challenge th e scope of the pre

- filing

order, that issue has been previously litigated and decided. See Rebel Oil Co., Inc.

v. Atl. Richfield Co. , 146 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Under the doctrine of

‘law of the case,’ a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue that

has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical

case.”)

.

AFFIRMED.
From: janefrantz@new.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:43:31 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jane Frantz

Appleton, WI 54915
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ACORN HOLDING CORP. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000737243
<NAME>                    ACORN HOLDING CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         956,357
<SECURITIES>                                   208,601
<RECEIVABLES>                                  505,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,073,308
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,886,013
<PP&E>                                         1,832,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,016,755
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,525,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          885,283
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       16,280
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,192,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,525,816
<SALES>                                        4,281,949
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,281,949
<CGS>                                          3,453,085
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,972,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (617,827)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (66,512)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (551,315)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (551,315)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.34)



</TABLE>
#            

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (R)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-109182

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  532                                                                   Trade Date:  01/31/05

(To Prospectus Supplement dated November 6, 2003 &

  Prospectus dated October 15,2003)                                                              Issue Date:   02/03/05

The Date of this Pricing SupplementJanuary 31, 2005

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                   Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QYD7  4.00%         02/15/11        100%                1.07%                Quarterly                       YES         NO                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$946,000.00            $935,877.80            ABN AMROInc.        05/15/05               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (R) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (R) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $298.196 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (R) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (R) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated October 15,2003.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. The German-American Bank, Appellant, *v.*Lawson Purdy et al., Constituting the Board of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents.

*People ex rel. German-American Bank*v. Purdy, *154*App. Div. 529, affirmed.

(Argued March 3, 1913;

decided March 11, 1913.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 3, 1913, which reversed an order of Special Term sustaining a writ of certiorari to review proceedings of the board of taxes and assessments of the city of 'New York in assessing stock of the relator for the years 1901 to 1907 for purposes of taxation.

*Lewis G. Wallace*and *P. Chauncey Anderson*for appellant.

*Archibald R. Watson, Corporation Counsel (William H. King*of counsel), for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The relator sued out a writ of certiorari to review the assessments of the shares of stock of the relator for the years 1901 to 1907 inclusive on the claim that such assessments were void for the failure by the board of assessors to give notice of the assessments and of a time and place for hearing the objections thereto. The writ was not applied for till November, 1910. The Appellate Division, reversing the Special Term, dismissed the writ for laches. We think the action was eminently proper. The relator acquiesced in the method of assessment and paid the taxes based thereon without complaint *759till the decision made by this court in another case gave an opportunity for assailing the tax. Had complaint been promptly made the proper method of procedure by the board of assessors would have been determined and a change in the existing method been made to accord with our decision. To allow the relator after this long delay to now recover back the money it has paid would be prejudicial to the city of New York, for the ordinary expenses of a municipality are necessarily predicated upon its receipts from taxation. Moreover, one-half of the claims of the relator, if they were the subject of ordinary action, would have been barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.
From: LEMEACHAM@CFL.RR.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:25:04 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

LEON MEACHAM

Cocoa, FL 32926
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Mark Bradley, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Players Network, a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) the report on Form 10-Q/A of Players Network. (the "Registrant") for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the "Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Date: November 15, 2010





/s/ Mark Bradley


Name:  Mark Bradley


Title: Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: ritacain9@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:00:51 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rita Cain

Parkville, MD 21234
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Smith Barney Westport Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/ Jennifer Magro

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Jennifer MagroCitigroup Managed Futures LLC Chief Financial Officer and Director     Date: August 14, 2007

----
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10964

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Zachary Israel Cuevas, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:21-CR-143-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Zachary Israel 

Cuevas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cuevas has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10964 Document: 00516790602 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
No. 22-10964

2

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-10964 Document: 00516790602 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION 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  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit  Fund VI,  L.P.,  Series 6 (the  "Partnership")  for the  quarters  ended
September 30, 2007 and June 30, 2007 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I,
Thomas J.  Riha,  Senior  Vice-President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of WNC &
Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

1.        The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent
          that  such  provisions  require  the  audit  report  of Local  Limited
          Partnership financial statements to refer to the auditing standards of
          the Public Company  Accounting  Oversight Board for the  Partnership's
          annual financial statements and except that the Report is a cumulative
          report  covering each of the quarters ended  September 30 and June 30,
          2007; and

2.        The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Partnership.



/s/Thomas J. Riha
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
February 15, 2008
From: elissacreen@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:38:13 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

I pray the veil be lifted and for all people's eyes be opened to see the truth. Gives us all eyes to see

and ears to hear what you are saying Lord. Life is so precious.... It is a gift from God. I feel like we

need to honor this precious and gracious gift. When you sow into "death" that is what you will reap. I

choose life. I choose to sow into life.

Sincerely,

Elissa Creen

Grand Prairie, TX 75052