alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

LENIER RENE AYERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5264RBL-KLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION IN REQUEST OF

STATE APPOINTED COUNSEL

This matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), Local Magistrates Rules MJR 3 and 4, and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The case is before the Court upon plaintiff’s filing of a motion in request of state appointed counsel. (Dkt.

#24). Plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status in this case. After reviewing the motion and the

balance of the record, the Court finds and ORDERS as follows:

There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. While the

court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma

pauperis, it may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

(9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d

1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood

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

Case 3:06-cv-05264-RBL-KLS Document 38 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

In his motion, plaintiff requests the Court appoint him counsel due to defendants’ unfair advantage

of experience in litigation, and his complete lack of knowledge and experience regarding the same. These

reasons, however, are not particular to plaintiff, but apply in general to most pro se prisoners. Plaintiff,

therefore, has failed to show exceptional circumstances exist in this case that would warrant appointment

of counsel. In particular, he has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or that the legal

issues in this case are so complex that he will be unable to articulate his claims pro se. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion in request for state appointed counsel (Dkt. #24) hereby is

DENIED. 

The clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2007.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05264-RBL-KLS Document 38 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report (the "Report") on the Form 10-K of Sync2
Networks Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2012, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, John Moore, Chief
Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
          15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2.   The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.

Date: December 6, 2012


/s/ John Moore
---------------------------------
John Moore
Chief Executive Officer,
President and Director
ACCEPTED 06-15-00052-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 9/22/2015 3:53:10 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF OCEAN OPTIQUE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. FOR THE THREE
     MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         176
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,462
<ALLOWANCES>                                   310
<INVENTORY>                                    5,604
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8,296
<PP&E>                                         1,135
<DEPRECIATION>                                 713
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,774
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,458
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,856
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     976
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,774
<SALES>                                        2,698
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,698
<CGS>                                          1,218
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,218
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,050
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             137
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                30
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            30
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   29
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
# CA2005282EN.01000101.xml

| 15.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 282/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 282/1

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Image

---
No. 58749

protests 240443-K, etc. (New York).

#### G. Anena Food Products et al. *v.*United States,

*278Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Pecorino (sheep’s milk) cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fontana Hollywood Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1503), the claim of the plaintifFs was sustained.
Exhibit 13.1**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**     In connection with the Annual Report of Focus Media Holding Limited (the “Company”) on Form20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhi Tan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: May 6, 2008         By:                                     /s/ Zhi Tan    Name:  Zhi Tan    Title:  Chief Executive Officer    * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 ari sing 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 APPEALS2 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 Corizo n. 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. 201 2)

( t o 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 di scretion 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 wo uld be futile);

Chodos v. W

est 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 spe cifically 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.
# Official Journal C 316A/13 D

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 316A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4813 December 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 316A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4813 December 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | Council |
| 2005/C 316A/1 | Notices of open competitions organised by the Council in the fields of security, information technology and information security | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

Council

2005/C 316A/1

Notices of open competitions organised by the Council in the fields of security, information technology and information security

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 10.34
                                                    -------------


 Summary Description of Compensation and Benefits for Directors


1.  Cash Compensation of UAL Non-employee Directors.  Non-
 employee directors receive an $18,000 annual retainer, $900 per
 meeting attended, and $2,700 per year for chairing certain
 Board committees.  Cash compensation may also be taken in
 stock, and all cash and compensation may be deferred for tax
 purposes (see item 4 below).

2.  Flight Benefits for Directors.  Generally, directors, their
 spouses and their dependent children are entitled to
 complimentary positive space travel on United Airlines for
 pleasure or UAL business travel, and will be reimbursed
 annually for the income tax liability incurred in using this
 privilege.

3.  Complimentary Cargo Carriage Policy for Directors.  Directors
 receive complimentary cargo carriage (excludes ground
 transportation) for personal goods on United Airlines, for up
 to 2,500 pounds per year, and are reimbursed for the related
 income tax liability.

4.  Stock-Based Compensation of UAL Non-employee Directors.  Non-
 employee directors receive 400 shares of UAL common stock on
 the first business day of January each year, which they are
 asked to hold while they serve on the Board.  Additionally, non-
 employee directors will be allocated 189 Deferred Stock Units
 on December 31 of each year.  These shares are issued under the
 UAL Corporation 1995 Directors Plan.  This Plan also permits
 director cash compensation to be taken in stock, as well as the
 deferral of receipt of cash or stock compensation for tax
 purposes.

5.  Directors' and Officers' Liability Insurance and
 Indemnification.  The Company has a policy which provides
 liability insurance for directors and officers of UAL and its
 subsidiaries.


6.  Director Emeritus Travel Policy.  A Director who retires from
the Board with at least five years of company creditable service
will receive free travel and cargo benefits for life, subject to
certain exceptions.
# Official Journal L 64/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2014.064.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 64 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 574 March 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2014.064.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 64

English edition

Legislation

Volume 574 March 2014

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | | 2014/116/EU |
| | * | Council Decision of 28 January 2014 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the People’s Republic of China pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union | 1 |
| | | Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the People’s Republic of China pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union | 2 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

2014/116/EU

*

Council Decision of 28 January 2014 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the People’s Republic of China pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union

1

Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the People’s Republic of China pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedules of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the course of their accession to the European Union

2

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
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

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’MOTION 

TO COMPEL AND DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME.-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

TROUT UNLIMITED, PACIFIC RIVERS

COUNCIL, PACIFIC COAST

FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S

ASSOCIATIONS, INSTITUTE FOR

FISHERIES RESOURCES, NATIVE FISH

SOCIETY, OREGON NATURAL

RESOURCES COUNCIL, UMPQUA

WATERSHEDS, and COAST RANGE

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

D. ROBERT LOHN, Northwest Regional

Administrator of National Marine Fisheries

Service, and CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ,

Secretary of Commerce, U.S. Department of

Commerce,

Defendants.

Civ. No. 06-904RSL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL AND

DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR AN

EXTENSION OF TIME.

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of the

Administrative Record” (Dkt. #10) and “Defendants’ Opposition to Motion To Compel and

Cross-Motion for Extension of Time to File the Administrative Record.” (Dkt. #13). Plaintiffs

move, pursuant to Local Rule 79(h), to compel defendants to turn over the administrative record

for this case within 20 days. Defendants oppose plaintiffs’ motion and cross-move to obtain an

Case 2:06-cv-00904-RSL Document 25 Filed 10/10/06 Page 1 of 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

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’MOTION 

TO COMPEL AND DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME.-2

additional 60 days to file the administrative record in the event that the Court denied its Motion

to Transfer (Dkt. #8).

Because the Court has ordered the case to be transferred to the District of Oregon (Dkt.

#24), the Court no longer has jurisdiction over this matter. See State of Utah v. Am. Pipe and

Constr. Co., 316 F. Supp. 837 (C.D. Cal. 1970) (“It is manifest that after an order changing

venue, the jurisdiction of the transferor court...ceases over the transferred action.”). As such,

both plaintiffs’ motion and defendants’ cross-motion are denied due to the Court’s lack of

jurisdiction. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to compel is DENIED, and

defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file the administrative record is DENIED. 

DATED this 10th day of October, 2006

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00904-RSL Document 25 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 61147.

protest 311514-K (New York).

#### David L. Moss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise contained in the 112 crates in question, described on the invoice as 6" x 2” tiles, was, in fact, wall tile, valued at not over 40 cents but over 20 cents per square foot; that the same was not quarries or quarry tiles; and that it was not wholly or in part of cement, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          32,049
<SECURITIES>                                    12,830
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,626
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,694
<INVENTORY>                                     11,640
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               158,164
<PP&E>                                         563,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                 278,736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 618,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          100,860
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           18,920
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,606
<OTHER-SE>                                     343,618
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   618,695
<SALES>                                        555,048
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               555,048
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  446,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   773
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                111,657
<INCOME-TAX>                                    46,231
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             64,292
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    64,292
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.49
        

</TABLE>
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 23

Designating Alan Scott Frumin as a Parliamentarian Emeritus.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 23, 1997

Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, and Mr. BYRD) submitted the following

resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating Alan Scott Frumin as a Parliamentarian

Emeritus.

1 Resolved, That Alan Scott Frumin be, and he is here2 by designated as a Parliamentarian Emeritus of the

3 United States Senate.

Æ
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 MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PUGET SOUND ELECTRICAL WORKERS

HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

AMERICO ELECTRIC, 

Defendant(s).

NO. C06-805P 

MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable Marsha J.

Pechman:

On July 28, 2006, Plaintiffs received an Order of Default (Dkt. No. 5) in this matter. Plaintiffs

are hereby ordered to move for default judgment in this case within 10 days of the date of this order or

face possible dismissal of their case.

Filed this 25th day of August, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By /s Mary Duett

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00805-MJP Document 7 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 1