alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69935-69936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22361]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel; Implementing Comprehensive HIV Services in Syringe 
Service Program Settings.
    Date: November 17, 2023.
    Time: 12:00 to 2:00 p.m.

[[Page 69936]]

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Health, National Institute on Drug 
Abuse, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Trinh T. Tran, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, Office of Extramural Policy, National 
Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, MSC 
6021, Bethesda, MD 20892 (301) 827-5843, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d4a0a6bdbabcfaa0a6b5ba94babdbcfab3bba2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c1b5b3a8afa9efb5b3a0af81afa8a9efa6aeb7">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug 
Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist 
Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug 
Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 
93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS).

    Dated: October 3, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-22361 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.44

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Employment Agreement") is made effective as of
November 14, 2009 (the "Effective Date") by and among Cloud Peak Energy Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company") and James Orchard (the "Executive").

RECITALS

WHERAS, the Executive currently serves as Vice-PresidentMarketing, Government Affairs & Communications
of Rio Tinto Energy America Inc., pursuant to an employment agreement with Rio Tinto Energy America Inc. dated December 21, 2007 (the "Previous
Agreement");

WHEREAS,
the Executive possesses skills, experience and knowledge that are of value to the Company; and

WHEREAS,
the Company and the Executive desire to enter into this Employment Agreement in connection with the proposed initial public offering of shares of Cloud Peak Energy Inc.
(the "IPO").

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other valid consideration the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

Section 1.Employment.



---





Section 2.Compensation.



2

---





Section 3.Employment Termination.



3

---





4

---





5

---



Section 4.Unauthorized Disclosure; Non-Solicitation; Non-Competition; Proprietary
Rights.



6

---





7

---





Section 5.Representations.The Executive represents and warrants that he (i) is not subject to
any contract, arrangement, policy or understanding, or to any statute, governmental rule or regulation, that in any way limits his or its ability to enter into and fully perform his or its obligations
under this Employment Agreement and (ii) is not otherwise unable to enter into and fully perform his or its obligations under
this Employment Agreement. The Company represents and warrants that this Employment Agreement will, by its effective date, have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the Company.

Section 6.Withholding; Taxes.All amounts paid to the Executive under this Employment Agreement during
or following the Term shall be subject to any required withholding and other employment taxes imposed by applicable law.

Section 7.Miscellaneous.



8

---







9

---





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Employment Agreement as of the date first written above.

CLOUD PEAK ENERGY INC./s/ James Orchard

By:

/s/ Colin MarshallJames Orchard



Name: Colin MarshallTitle: President & CEO


10

---



QuickLinks
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2014 

# Order

September 9 , 2014

149073 ( 6 5 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

,

v

RAHIM OMARKHAN LOCKRIDGE

, Defendant

- Appell ant

. SC: 149073

COA: 310649

Oakland CC: 2011

- 238930

- FC

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the defendant

- appellant for a second

extension to the time for filing his brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief will be

accepted as timely filed if filed on or before September 23 , 2014.
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

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sepracor Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Timothy J. Barberich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

|Date: November 9, 2004 |  | /s/TIMOTHY J. BARBERICHTimothy J. Barberich Chief Executive
Officer
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sepracor Inc. and will be retained by Sepracor Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
_____________________________________________________________ 

ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL MOTIONS (proposed) -1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

LAW OFFICES OF 

RESSLER & TESH 

PENTHOUSE SUITE 

821 SECOND AVENUE 

SEATTLE, WA 98104 

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

PHILIP IVAN GRINER, 

 Defendant. 

No. CR06-0232JLR 

ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL 

MOTIONS FILING DEADLINE TO 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 AND TRIAL DATE 

TO NOVEMBER 7, 2006 (proposed) 

The Court has considered the agreed motion of the parties requesting an extension of time 

to file pretrial motions and a continuance of the trial date. The Court finds that counsel require 

additional time in which to investigate the charges and to prepare pretrial motions, and that an 

extension of the motions deadline and continuance of the trial date are reasonable and necessary 

for effective preparation. 

The Court finds that a failure to grant the continuances would deny counsel the 

reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due 

diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii). The Court further finds that the 

ends of justice will be served by ordering the continuances in this case and that the continuances 

are necessary to insure effective trial preparation and that these factors outweigh the best 

interests of the public in a more speedy trial, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

Case 2:06-cr-00232-JLR Document 16 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 2
_____________________________________________________________ 

ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL MOTIONS (proposed) -2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

LAW OFFICES OF 

RESSLER & TESH 

PENTHOUSE SUITE 

821 SECOND AVENUE 

SEATTLE, WA 98104 

THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the deadline for filing pretrial motions is 

continued from September 12, 2006, to September 26, 2006. The trial date is hereby continued 

from October 24, 2006 to November 7, 2006. It is further ordered that the period of time from 

the current trial date of October 24, 2006 up to and including the new proposed date of 

November 7, 2006, shall be excludable time pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, 

et seq. 

DATED this 15th day of September, 2006. 

 

 JAMES L. ROBART 

 United States District Court Judge 

Presented By: 

A

S/ Allen M. Ressler, WSBA #5530 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

RESSLER & TESH, PLLC. 

821 2nd Avenue, Penthouse Suite 

Seattle, WA 98104 

206/388-0333 

206/388-0197 

allen@randtlaw.com

s/ Susan M. Roe 

Assistant United States Attorney 

700 Stewart St., Suite 5220 

Seattle, WA 98101-1271 

206/553-1077 

206/553-0755 

susan.roe@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00232-JLR Document 16 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 53329.

protests 111958-K, etc. (New York).

#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*118Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64,. C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6417** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. WILKINS MCNAIR, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

**No. 14**  **- 64**  **26**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. WILKINS MCNAIR, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Catherine C. Blake , District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00281

- CCB

- 1 ; 1:11

- cv - 01902

- CCB ; 1:09

- cr - 00320

- CCB

- 1 ; 1:12

- cv - 03546

- CCB )

Submitted : July 30, 2014 Decided: August 20, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.2 Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Wilkins Mc N air , Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure Gray , Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Wilkins McNair, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S. C. § 2255 (2012) motion s . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutio nal claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McNair has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability in No. 14

- 6417, deny McNair’s motion for a certificate of a ppealability in No. 14

- 6426, and dismiss the appeal s . We dispense with oral argument4 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7808
STUART SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; RONALD ANGELONE, Director; MR. CUMMINS, Counselor; MR. WRIGHT, Warden of Work Release Unit, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-94-796) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stuart Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sanders v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , No. CA-94-796 (E.D. Va. Oct. 31, 1995). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 TAXATION OF COSTS -- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE CO,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIRST FINANCIAL INSURANCE CO,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-2098RSL

TAXATION OF COSTS

Costs in the above-entitled cause are hereby taxed against PLAINTIFF AMERICAN STATES

INSURANCE CO. and on behalf of DEFENDANT FIRST FINANCIAL INSURANCE CO. in the

unopposed amount of $7,035.09.

Entered this 2nd day of FEBRUARY , 2008 .

A

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Case 2:05-cv-02098-RSL Document 85 Filed 02/02/08 Page 1 of 1
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICHARD A. KIRKHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELLA DOE et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C05-2131-MJP-JPD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

civil rights action against several officials at the King County Corrections Center in Kent,

Washington. This matter comes before the Court upon plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel. Dkt. No. 13. Defendants have filed no opposition to the motion. Having carefully

reviewed the motion, supporting materials, and the record, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, (Dkt. No. 13), is DENIED. The

Court has discretion to appoint counsel for indigent litigants who are proceeding IFP. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (2005); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 

However, the Court will appoint counsel only on a showing of “exceptional circumstances.”

Case 2:05-cv-02131-MJP Document 15 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

PAGE -2

Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331; U.S. v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 565, 569 (9th Cir.

1995). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of

success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (internal quotations and

citations omitted). Neither of these factors is dispositive; rather both should be considered

together. Id. 

Plaintiff has shown that he is capable of articulating his claims pro se. Plaintiff’s

pleadings, including the present motion, are among the most articulate that the Court has

received in any pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. They identify relevant issues and logically

present appropriate facts and argument. Moreover, plaintiff has not demonstrated a

likelihood of success on the merits. Although he has alleged that he suffers from carpal

tunnel syndrome and that defendants have deprived him of his prescribed wrist braces without

adequate justification, plaintiff has conceded that no federal or state agency has determined

whether there is reasonable cause to believe the allegations in his suit have merit. Dkt. No.

13. Although plaintiff’s complaint may be meritorious, on the present record, the Court

cannot find that exceptional circumstances justify the appointment of counsel at this time. 

(2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to the parties and to the

Honorable Marsha J. Pechman.

DATED this 1st day of May, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02131-MJP Document 15 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 2
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1147 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 191 ) IV-E-6

5 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:57

PM Sheet 191 of 242P. 2

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5 OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N 

## AIJ 6 2 A 198 8

MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : EPA/Mitsubish i Meeting Regarding Activate d Carbo n FROM : Kare n Lostoski , Mechanica l Enginee r ~<CX^-A- ^ ^jo"Hr>U>

Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branch TO : Publi c Docke t A-87-1 1 THRU : Joh

n F . Anderson , Senio r Projec t Manage r Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h On Apri l 6 , 198 8 Mr . Kennet hP . Vo n Hertsenberg , Sale s Consultan t fo r Mitsubish i Internationa l Corporation , me t wit h representative s o f th e Offic e o f Mobil e Source s a t th e Moto r Vehicl e Emission s Laborator yin An

n Arbor , MI . Alis t o f attendee s i s attached . The purpos e o f th

e meeting wa s t o discus s th e result s o f EPA' s testing o

n the activate d carbo n manufacture d b yKurara

y Chemica l Co . The EP Aobtaine d a valu e o f 5 6 g/ L working capacit yfor thi s carbo n wherea s Kurara ygave a valu e o f 11 5 g/ L capacity . Due t o th e grea t discrepancyi n values , i t wa s decide d tha t the tes t procedure s used t o obtai n thes e value s woul d b

e compared . Furthe r discussio n on th e us e o f thi s carbo n wil l tak e plac e afte r the two procedure s ar e compared . Attachmen tP. 3

Attendee s Lis t EPA/Mitsubish i Internationa l Meeting

Apri l 6 , 198 8 Mitsubish i Internationa l Kennet hVo n Hertsenber g EP A Joh n Anderso n Jean Schwendeman Kare n Lostosk i
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6996
KENNETH WAYNE JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GERALD COX, Police Department Chief; MIKE EDWARDS, Town Manager of Gate City, Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-01-365-7) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Edwards , No. CA-01-365-7 (W.D. Va. May 25, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLEN JONES WARD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CORIZON, Medical/Custodial Trustee for 

the State of Idaho Department of 

Corrections, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-35510 

D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00471-DCN 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. 

Idaho state prisoner Glen Jones Ward appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of the denial of a 

special diet to address his numerous food allergies. We have jurisdiction under 28 

* 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

MAY 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-35510 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal 

for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Ward’s action because Ward failed to 

allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that he suffered a constitutional violation as a 

result of an official policy or custom of Corizon. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 

338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, 

plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for 

relief); see also Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(to state a § 1983 claim against a private entity that acts under color of state law, a 

plaintiff must show that a constitutional violation “was caused by an official policy 

or custom of [the private entity]”). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ward further leave 

to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Gordon v. City of 

Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and 

explaining that leave to amend may be denied if amendment would be futile);

Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that a 

district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is “particularly broad” when it 

has previously granted leave to amend). 
3 19-35510 

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 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

We do not consider facts or documents that were not raised before the 

district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). 

All pending motions and requests are denied. 

AFFIRMED.