alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VAUGHN RAY BRADFORD,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

D. K. SISTO; PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 08-15418

D.C. No. CV-07-00681-CMK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Craig Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Vaughn Ray Bradford appeals from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

FILED

APR 16 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-15418

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. 

Bradford contends that the district court erred by dismissing his successive

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), (4) because this court previously

granted Bradford’s motion to authorize the district court to consider his successive

petition. However, this did not preclude the district court from determining that

Bradford had not met the requirements for considering a successive petition. See

United States v. Villa-Gonzalez, 208 F.3d 1160, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2000) (per

curiam). 

Furthermore, the district court correctly concluded that, taking as true

Bradford’s new evidence of juror bias, the evidence was not “sufficient to establish

by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable

factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.” 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added); cf. Babbitt v. Woodford, 177 F.3d

744, 747-48 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating that petitioner’s claim of racial bias on part of

defense counsel amounting to structural error would fail under the standard

applicable to successive petitions at § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii)). 

Because the district court did not err in dismissing the petition, we decline to

address Bradford’s contention that remand to a different judge is required.

AFFIRMED.
From: dan_clement@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:44:01 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,

Daniel Clement

Burlington, WI 53105
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 95-40213

(Summary Calendar)

_________________________

RUBEN GARZA CORONADO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES MARSHALL,

McAllen, Texas, ET AL.,

Respondents-Appellees.

____________________________________________________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(B-94-CV-283)

__________________________________________________

July 9, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ruben Garza Coronado appeals the denial of his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal

of his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. Coronado argues that the Parole Commission has

lost jurisdiction over him because, if he is credited with previously earned statutory good time, his2

sentence has expired. He further argues that he is aware that he lost his street time when he violated

his parole, but maintains that Congress never intended to punish prisoners by forfeiting their statutory

good-time credits simply because they were released on parole, thus he is challenging 28 C.F.R. §2.35

and 523.2(c).

Because Coronado’s notice of appeal was f ro m the order denying his motion for

r econsideration, his motion is construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter o r amend the

judgment. H

arcon Barge Co. v. D. &. G. Boat Rentals, Inc.

, 784 F.2d 665, 669 (5th Cir. )( en banc ),

cert. denied

, 479 U.S. 930 (1986). A ruling on such a motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Simon v. United States , 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990).

Coronado admits that this Court’s precedent contradicts his argument. G rannville v. Hogan

,

591 F.2d 323, 324 (5th Cir. 1979); Lambert v. Warden, United States Penitentiary , 591 F.2d 4, 8

(5th Cir. 1979). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse it s discret ion when it denied

Coronado’s motion for reconsideration and its judgment is AFFIRMED. Coronado’s request for the

appointment of counsel is DENIED.
No. 69268.

#### Gross Plumbing & Rubber Co. *v.*United States,

protest 62/12851 (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rotary lawn sprinklers or metal parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 CCPA 56, C.A.D. 820), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL M. LUCORE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee

for the Certificate Holders of the Lmt 2006

- 9

Trust; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Defendant. No. 20

- 56056

D.C. No. 3:18

- cv

- 02382

- L

- MDD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11 , 2022 * *

Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS , Circuit Judges.

* 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

APR 19 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 56056

Paul M. Lucore appeals from the district court’s order denying his second

motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

affirm.

In his opening brief, Lucore fails to challenge the district court’s order

denying his second motion for reconsideration, and he has th erefore waived any

such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n

appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”);

see also Greenwood v. FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not

manufacture arguments for an appellant

. . . . ”).

We do not consider Lucore’s contentions regarding the merits of the district

court’s order dismissing his action or the district court’s order denying his first

motion for reconsideration, because Lucore f iled the notice of appeal on October 9,

2020, more than 30 days after the entr y of the district court’s order denying his

first motion for reconsideration

. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal

must be filed within 30 days of judgment); Stephanie

- Cardona LLC v. Smith ’ s

Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc. , 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of

appeal is a non

- waivable jurisdictional requirement.”) ; S wimmer v. IRS , 811 F.2d

1343, 1344

- 45 (9th Cir. 1987), abrogated on other grounds by Briones v. Riviera

Hotel & Casino , 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997) (filing of the second motion for3 20

- 56056

reconsideration does not toll the time to appeal the underlying judgment).

AFFIRMED.
From: jdriley60@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:56:08 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,

John Riley

Lees Summit, MO 64086
From: tosborne@centurytel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:18:10 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,

Mae Osborne

Kalispell, MT 59901
From: david.w.caudle@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:34:37 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,

David Caudle

Plainfield, IN 46168
Case No. 14,800.

#### UNITED STATES v. CLANCEY.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 13.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1801.

Witness— Interest—Owner op Stolen Goods— Release op Interest in Fine.

Upon indictment for larceny under the act of congress [of 1790 (1 Stat. 112)], the owner of the goods stolen is a competent witness after having released to the United States his half of the fine.

[Cited in U. S. v. McCann. Case No. 15,655; U. S. v. Brown. Id. 14,657; U. S. v. Tolson, Id. 16.530.]

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranc-h. Chief Judge.]

Indictment [against John Clancey], under the act of congress, for stealing the goods of Luke O’Dea.

The attorney for the United States offered the owner of the goods as a witness. The counsel for the prisoner objected, because, by the act of congress, half of the fine Is to go to the owner.

The witness executed a release to the United States of his half of the fine, whereupon he was sworn.
Before the First Division,

November 7, 1963

No. 68080.

#### Imports, Incorporated *v.*United States,

protest 63/6007 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise- and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: carlosbauchiero@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:54:36 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,

Carlos Bauchiero

Gaithersburg, MD 20882
From: jen.d.helm@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:17:21 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,

Jennifer Helm

Plano, TX 75094
No. 69259.

#### John J. Coates Co. *v.*United States,

protest 64/20165 (New York).

Opinon by

Rao, J.

The official papers disclosing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
Blueprint





 






 


 


 


 




 


 


 


 


          




 


 

 


Chandler
Robinson Chief Executive Officer


Monopar
Therapeutics LLC 598 Rockefeller Road


Lake
Forest, IL USA 60045


 

 


 

 



Cancer Research UK

 


Angel Building 407 St John Street London
EClV
4AD United Kingdom

 


020
7242 0200

 



cruk.org



 


 

 


2ist March
2018


 


 


 

 


 


Dear
Chandler,


 


 


 

 


Clinical Tri.al and Option Agreement between
Monopar Therapeutics LLC, Cancer Research UK and Cancer Research
Technology Limited dated 15th May 2015 ("the Agreement")


 

 


 


As
part of a recent portfolio reprioritisation, Cancer Research UK and
Cancer Research Technology have decided to close the project Which
is the subject of the Agreement. We will be working with Monopar
Therapeutics over the coming months to formalise the arrangements
necessary to effect termination of the Agreement.


 


 


Yours
faithfully,

 


 


 

 


 /s/
Nigel Blackburn


Nigel
Blackburn

 


Director
of Drug Development CRUK Centre for Drug Development


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Patron Her Majesty
The Queen

 


Presidents HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO and HRH
Princess Alexandra, the
Hon Lady Ogilvy KG
GCVO Chief Executive Sir
Harpal S Kumar


Regist ered
Charity in England
and Wales (1089464),
Scotland (SC041666) and the Isle
of Man (1103)

 


Regi stered
Company limited by guarantee in England
and Wales (4325234)
and registered rn the Isle of
Man (5713F) Registered Address Angel Building, 407 St John
Street, London
EC1V· 4AD