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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS DANIEL CLARK,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

RON DAVIS,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 16

- 15992

D.C. No. 4:14

- cv

- 02637

- YGR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge,

Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

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

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclud es this

case is suitable for decision without oral 

### FILED

MAY 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 15992 Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges

.

California state prisoner Douglas Daniel

Clark appeals pro se from the district court’ s

judgment in his action brought under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act (“R LUIPA”)

alleging that defendant interfered with the

practice of his religion. We have jurisdict ion

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).3 16

- 15992 district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de

novo. ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R. Co. , 765

F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2014) . We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Clark’s

claims seeking injunctive and declaratory relief

because defendant voluntarily changed the

allegedly infringing policy, rendering his claims

moot. See Rosebrock v. Mathis , 745 F.3d 963,

972 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth factors f or

evaluating whether defendant’s volun tary

cessation of beh avior has rendered a case moot);

Native Vill. of Noatak v. Blatchford , 38 F.3d4 16

- 15992 1505, 1514 (9th Cir. 1994) (declaratory relief

not appropriate for moot claims).

The district court properly dismissed Clark’s

claim s seeking monetary damages as barred by

the Eleventh Amendment. See Holley v. Cal.

Dep’t. Corr ., 599 F.3d 1108, 1111 , 1114 (9th

Cir. 2010) (state officials acting in their official

capacity are immune from sui t under the

Eleventh Amendment, and “[t] he Eleventh

Ame ndment bars [an inmate’s] suit for officia l

capacity damages under RLUIPA ”).

We reject as without merit Clark’s5 16

- 15992 contentions regarding judicial misconduct.

Clark’s motion for oral argument (Docket

Entry No. 28) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
       This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from
       Dynamic  Associates,  Inc. and Subsidiaries  September 30, 1997 financial
       statements  and is  qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  such
       financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<CIK>                         0000878146
<NAME>                        Dynamic Associates, Inc.
       
<S>
                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                  SEP-30-1997

<CASH>                                                        3,072,519
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 4,819,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  (759,925)
<INVENTORY>                                                   671,335
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              8,441,144
<PP&E>                                                        2,431,508
<DEPRECIATION>                                                (1,608,242)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                34,387,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         1,758,707
<BONDS>                                                       17,001,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                      13,876
<OTHER-SE>                                                    15,337,596
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  34,387,528
<SALES>                                                       2,670,511
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              13,619,561
<CGS>                                                         2,046,345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 2,046,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              10,867,530
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            1,535,561
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (1,128,260)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  266,745
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           705,686
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (1,395,005)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (.11)
        



</TABLE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Send in the Marines [electronicresource] : a Marine Corps operational employment concept to meet an uncertainsecurity environment.**
 
Parts: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:D 214.2:M 33/10
Item Number:0383 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000622589
 
September 27, 2018
Before the Third Division,

October 8, 1953

No. 57520.

#### A. J. Van Dugteren & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 145969-K and 148239-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of figures the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Order entered September 2 4 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 00518

- CR

RONNIE DECOURTLAND B ASS, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, T exas Trial Court Cause No. F11

- 26843

- N



### O RDER

The Court REINSTATE S the appeal.

On September 12, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the

reporter’s record had not been filed. On September 23, 2013, we received the reporter’s re cord.

Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the September 12, 2013 order

requiring findings.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

13 August 2004

(2004/C 206/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY THE SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, David M. Mulder, hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Salton, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Salton, Inc.

                                 By: /s/ David M. Mulder
                                    ------------------------
                                 David M. Mulder
                                 Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative
                                 Officer and Senior Financial Officer

May 12, 2005

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. (the Exchange Act). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

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



                                       40
[No. 14301.

Department Two.

February 18, 1918.]

#### Frederick W. Buff, *Appellant,*v. John F. Davies, *Respondent.**1*

Appeal—Review—Findings. Where there is evidence tending to support the theory of either party, findings of the trial court will not be disturbed where an examination of the abstract of the evidence on appeal is not convincing that the trial court was wrong.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Sullivan, J., entered January 4, 1917, upon findings in favor of the defendant, in an action for an accounting, tried to the court.

Affirmed.

*Cannon & Ferris*and *Ernest C. Smith,*for appellant.

*Allen, Winston & Allen,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 170 Pac. 875.

Mount, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff for an accounting upon an alleged partnership. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint, in substance, that, in the year 1912, he and the defendant entered into a contract by which the defendant agreed to furnish all the money necessary to buy certain telephone stock, the plaintiff was to buy the stock, the defendant was to sell it, and they were to divide the profits equally, and that the defendant had failed to account for certain profits. *344The prayer was for an accounting and for a judgment. The defendant, in answer to the complaint, admitted that a contract was entered into, but alleged that the agreement was that each party was to contribute such moneys as he could raise; that the plaintiff was to furnish from $5,000 to $6,000, and the defendant from $10,000 to $12,000, for the purpose of buying the stock; that the defendant should sell the stock and the profits should be divided between them; and that the plaintiff had failed to account for certain stock purchased. The defendant asked for judgment against the plaintiff. On these issues, the case was tried to the court without a jury. The court concluded that the contract was as stated by the defendant, and entered a judgment in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff for $4,132.90. The plaintiff has appealed from that judgment.

The principal and controlling question in the case is as to the terms of the contract. This is entirely a question of fact. There are circumstances in the case which tend to support the theory of each party. The trial court, after hearing all the evidence and hearing the explanations of the different circumstances, found that the contract was as alleged by the respondent. An examination of the abstract of the evidence does not convince us that the trial court was wrong in this finding.

Some contention is made in the brief of the appellant that certain of the items of the account were not correctly found by the trial court, but we are of the opinion that the trial court properly found upon these items.

We find'no good reason for reversing the judgment, and it is therefore affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., Chadwick, Morris, and Holcomb, JJ., concur.
Before the Second Division,

December 6, 1962

No. 67244.

protests 61/21271, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### World Sales, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard*& *Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,249
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,729
<ALLOWANCES>                                       752
<INVENTORY>                                     14,277
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,008
<PP&E>                                          26,717
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,244
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,691
<BONDS>                                         31,594
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        649
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,454
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,079
<SALES>                                         15,674
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,674
<CGS>                                           18,829
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,226
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,752)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,752)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,752)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.04)
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 283A/26 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 283A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5726 August 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 283A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5726 August 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2014/C 283A/1 | Vacancy notice ECA/2014/47 — Head of Unit — Legal Service — (Function group AD, grade 9-14) — Presidency | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Court of Auditors

2014/C 283A/1

Vacancy notice ECA/2014/47 — Head of Unit — Legal Service — (Function group AD, grade 9-14) — Presidency

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 283A/2 | Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals | 6 |

2014/C 283A/2

Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals

6

---

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

EN
No. 60326.

protests 259696-K, etc. (New York).

#### Alfred Orlik, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), *407the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 (a); and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 10 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3) and related Prospectus of WavePhore, Inc. for
the registration of 135,000 shares of its common stock and the incorporation by
reference therein of our report dated February 14, 1997 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of WavePhore, Inc. included in its Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
October 27, 1997
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at                           ( print page 73342)    *https://www.federalreserve.gov/​foia/​request.htm.*                     Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.                

Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than November 8, 2023.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis*                     (Holly A. Rieser, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to                     *Comments.applications@stls.frb.org:*

                    1.                     *Pauline Elizabeth Hawkins, individually, and as trustee of the Pauline E. Hawkins Trust, both of St. Louis, Missouri;*                     to retain voting shares of SBW Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of State Bank, both of Waterloo, Illinois.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Michele Taylor Fennell,

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2023-23514 Filed 10-24-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Before the First Division,

October 10, 1960

No. 64660.

#### Pez-Haas, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/11721, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic candy dispensers in chief value of polystyrene, not articles in chief value of cellulose acetate, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
A89A0937.

#### WHALEY v. THE STATE.

(390 SE2d 677)

Order of Court.

This court having held that the issue of whether municipal courts have jurisdiction over state traffic offenses is one which requires a construction of the Georgia Constitution *(Kolker v. State,*193 Ga. App. 306 (387 SE2d 597) (1989)), and the Supreme Court having exclusive jurisdiction over cases requiring construction of constitutional provisions (id.), it is hereby ordered that our decision in this case, *50dated November 8, 1989, is vacated and this case is transferred to the Supreme Court.

Decided December 19, 1989

Rehearing denied December 19, 1989.

*Virgil L. Brown & Associates, Virgil L. Brown, Eric D. Hearn,*for appellant.

*W. Fletcher Sams, District Attorney, J. David Fowler, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Deen, Presiding Judge,

dissenting.

I dissent from the transferral of this case to the Supreme Court, for basically the same reasons I dissented in *Kolker v. State,*193 Ga. App. 306 (387 SE2d 597) (1989). Moreover, the fact that the Supreme Court actually transferred this case to us in the first place should foreclose our conclusion that the issue to be resolved involves construction of the Constitution. Regardless of the eventual outcome of *Kolker,*the instant case is properly before this court.

Concerning the merits of the State’s motion for rehearing, I believe we correctly determined that under the Constitution and OCGA § 40-13-21, municipal courts have jurisdiction over misdemeanor traffic offenses. Accordingly, the motion for rehearing should be denied.

I am authorized to state that Judge Beasley joins in this dissent.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6801** 

JONATHAN OJEDA , Plaintiff

- Appell ant ,
v. DR. PROCTER, sued individually and as an Agent of Wexford Medical Sources; TRISTEN TENNY, sued individually and as Agent of Wexford Medical Resources; ADRIAN HOKE, sued individually and in his Official Capacity; WEXFORD MEDICAL SOURCES, sued as a Corporation, working within the State of West Virginia , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Cou rt for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Elkins
. John Preston Bailey , Chief District Judge. ( 2:10

- cv - 00126

- JPB

- DJJ )

Submitted : September 13, 2011 Decided: October 7, 2011

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jonathan Ojeda, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Cameron Petty, ROSE PADDEN & PETTY, LC, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellees Procter and Tenny
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jon atha n Ojeda appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reas ons stated by the district court. Oj eda v. Procte r , No. 2:10

- cv - 00126

- JPB

- DJJ (N.D. W. Va. June 16, 2011) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument woul d not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED