alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LANCE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. KERKFOOT, Deputy; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 56230
D.C. No. 2:14

- cv - 07583

- GW

- KK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2016 **

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Lance Williams, a California state prisoner, appe als pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismiss ing as time

- barred his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

excessive force and racial discrimination

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo both the district court’s dismissal ba sed on the statute

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

# FILED

SEP 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 56230

of limitations and the legal question of whether equitable tolling applies

. Jones v.

Blanas , 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004)

. W e affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams’ action as time

- barred
because, even with the ben efit of statutory and all arguably applicable equitable
tolling, Williams failed to file his action within the applicable statute of limitations

.
See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § § 335.1 (two

- year statute of limitations for personal
injury claims); 352.1 (statutory tolling for up to two years due to incarceration);
Douglas v. Noelle , 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 claims are
governed by forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions) ; Jones ,
393 F.3d at 928 (“[A]ctual, uninterrupted incarceration is the touchstone for
applying California’s tolling provision of the disability of imprisonment.” ( citation
and internal quotation marks omitted ) ) ; Ervin v. County of Los Angeles , 848 F.2d
1018, 1019

- 20 (9th Cir. 1988) (concludi ng that plaintiff ’ s unwarranted delay of
more than a year in filing her federal civil rights claim after filing a tort action in
state court was neither reasonable nor in good faith).

We review the denial of an extension of time for abuse of discretion

. See
Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co ., 28 F.3d 928, 930 (9th Cir. 1994)

. The district court
did not abuse its discretion when it denied Williams’ request for an extension of3 15

- 56230

time to obtain counsel because, at the time Williams made the request, no action

was d ue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) (“When an act may or must be done within a
specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time.”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first
time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F .3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
In light of our disposition, Williams’ request for the court to rev e rse and

remand the action to the district court , filed on February 24, 2016, is denied

.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY DOW, No. CIV S-04-1667-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

W. HUTTO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s second motion for an extension of

time (Doc. 13), filed on December 27, 2005. 

On November 4, 2005, the court issued findings and recommendations and

provided for objections to be filed within 10 days of the date of service thereof. Plaintiff now

seeks a second 30-day extension of that deadline. Good cause appearing therefor, the request

will be granted. Plaintiff is reminded that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal any order adopting the findings and recommendations. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01667-GEB-CMK Document 15 Filed 01/10/06 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Within 30 days after being served with this order, any party may file

written objections with the court, such document to be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendations”.

DATED: January 9, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01667-GEB-CMK Document 15 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JAMES P. DEFAZIO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

NOS. CIV. 04-1358 WBS GGH

05-0559 WBS GGH

05-1726 WBS GGH

CONSOLIDATED

ORDER

----oo0oo----

On December 12, 2008, defendants filed a motion to

strike the expert witness reports of Kevin G. Long and Karen L.

Handorf. That motion was set for hearing on January 20, 2009, at

2:00 p.m. In conjunction with their opposition to that motion,

plaintiffs filed a counter-motion on December 23, 2008, to strike

the expert reports of Grabowski & Levitske and Wallace. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(e), in order to give the

parties a full opportunity to brief both pending motions, the

court will modify the hearing date and briefing schedule as

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 438 Filed 12/31/08 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

2

follows:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) The hearing date for both defendants’ motion to

strike and plaintiffs’ counter-motion to strike is moved to

February 2, 2009, at 2:00 p.m.;

(2) Defendants may file a reply to plaintiffs’

opposition and an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to strike no

later than January 16, 2009; and

(3) Plaintiffs may file a reply to any opposition filed

by defendants no later than January 26, 2009.

DATED: December 30, 2008

 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 438 Filed 12/31/08 Page 2 of 2
|   |  | **Audio-magnetotelluric        Data from the Culpeper Basin, Loudoun, Fauquier, Fairfax, Prince        William, Culpeper, and Orange Counties**, **Virginia:**
**A Web Site for Distribution of Data**

***By***          **Herbert A. Pierce         *and* Michael P. Ryan**

**U.S. Geological         Survey Open-File Report 03-056**

**2003**

**Outline of the Culpeper Basin,        Virginia on the Digital Elevation Model**

Click here         to see Open-File Report 03-056

Non-graphical version of this page
|| USGS - Eastern Earth Surface Processes Team || USGS - Geology || USGS ||		
This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards.  Use of brand names is for descriptive purposes and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.
      This project was supported by the Bedrock       Regional Aquifer Systematics Study (BRASS) of the USGS.      
Contact: Herbert A. Pierce[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
|--------|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30281

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN B. CORLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:05-CR-50083

Before GARWOOD, CLEMENT and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John B. Corley appeals the sentence imposed following his

post-Booker conviction of theft of firearms that were transported

in interstate commerce, transporting stolen firearms in interstate

commerce, possession of stolen firearms that were transported in

interstate commerce, and possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon. Corley argues for the first time on appeal that the non-
**It does not reflect any general dissatisfaction with the

offense Guidelines.

2

Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable

because the district court based its decision on general

dissatisfaction with the Guidelines. He also argues that the

Guidelines adequately accounted for his criminal behavior.

The record indicates that the district court correctly

calculated the Guidelines range and used the Guidelines as a frame

of reference.** See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th

Cir. 2006). The district court, troubled by Corley’s extensive

criminal history (29 criminal history points) and the facts of his

offenses, articulated reasons that were consistent with 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) for imposing a non-Guidelines sentence. See id.

Moreover, given the seriousness of Corley’s criminal history and

offense conduct as found by the district court, the extent of the

deviation was not unreasonable. See United States v. Smith, 417

F.3d 483, 491-93 and n.40-42 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct.

713 (2005).

Corley fails to meet his burden of showing that the district

court’s non-Guidelines sentence, which was imposed after United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), was error, plain or

otherwise. See United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 434-36 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 2958 (2006).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,554
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,063
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,453
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      6,100
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          91,316
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        215,568
<ALLOWANCE>                                        738
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 330,303
<DEPOSITS>                                     277,085
<SHORT-TERM>                                       456
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,508
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,196
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,058
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 330,303
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,723
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,726
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,449
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,412
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,442
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,027
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       12
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    684
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,431
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         933
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       933
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     2.5
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,500
<LOANS-PAST>                                         1
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     46
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   725
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  738
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               738
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            738



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3471]



[[Page 9076]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34976]


BNSF Railway Company--Lease and Operation Exemption--Interlocker 
Plant of the Illinois Central Railroad Company

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board is granting a petition for 
exemption from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323 et 
seq., for BNSF Railway Company, a Class I rail carrier, to lease and 
operate an interlocker plant and underlying land owned by the Illinois 
Central Railroad Company (CN), a Class I rail carrier. The interlocker 
plant, which is situated at or near BNSF's Corwith Yard in the City of 
Chicago, Cook County, IL, includes all signal appliances and structures 
thereon and the tower facility, but excludes the tracks, track 
appurtenances, turnouts and derails of CN and BNSF. The interlocker 
plant is bounded by: (i) The opposing home signals on the BNSF Joliet, 
IL-Chicago main line; (ii) the opposing home signals on the CN Joliet-
Chicago main line; and (iii) the opposing home signals on the BNSF 
Joliet-Chicago main line and the BNSF Wye.

DATES: The exemption will be effective on March 5, 2007. Petitions to 
reopen must be filed by March 15, 2007.

ADDRESSES: An original and 10 copies of all pleadings referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34976 must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one 
copy of all pleadings must be served on petitioner's representative: 
Sidney L. Strickland, Jr., 3050 K Street, NW., Suite 101, Washington, 
DC 20007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565-1609. 
[Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Board's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write to, e-
mail, or call: ASAP Document Solutions, 9332 Annapolis Rd., Suite 103, 
Lanham, MD 20706; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fd9c8e9c8d999ebd8b988f94879293d3939889"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b1a081a0b1f183b0d1e091201141555151e0f">[email protected]</span></a>; telephone: (202) 306-
4004. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through FIRS at 
1-800-877-8339.]
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: February 21, 2007.

    By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice Chairman Buttrey, and 
Commissioner Mulvey.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3471 Filed 2-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 61350.

protest 199955-K (New York).

#### Eastern Airlines, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARNELL LEE FLEMMINGS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1384 FCD PAN P

vs.

GEORGE STRATTON, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On April 27, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01384-FCD-PAN Document 12 Filed 06/13/05 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

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 27, 2005, are adopted in full;

and 

2. Respondent’s December 29, 2004, motion to dismiss is granted and this action

is dismissed for petitioner’s failure to exhaust available state remedies. 

DATED:June 10, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

/flem1384.801.hc

Case 2:04-cv-01384-FCD-PAN Document 12 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

March 29, 1949

No. 52966.

#### W. T. Grant Co. *v.*United States,

protest 523641-G/9269 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius*
      *272
      *Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C, P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGEI PORTNOY,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1462-GEB-JFM-PS

vs.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On April 19, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01462-GEB -JFM Document 36 Filed 05/15/06 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

2

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 19, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. The award of arbitrator is entered and is the judgment of this court.

3. This action is dismissed.

Dated: May 12, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01462-GEB -JFM Document 36 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD WILSON,

NO. CIV. S-04-633 LKK/CMK

Plaintiff,

v.

PIER 1 IMPORTS (US), INC;

and MELLON/PIER 1 PROPERTIES

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of a request for clarification from

counsel for defendants. Counsel requests clarification on whether

the language in this court's July 27, 2005 Status Order that all

experts have been previously designated now precludes them from

designating experts prior to the close of discovery. The court now

clarifies that discovery was reopened for all purposes in the July

27, 2005 Status Order. In this regard, all counsel may designate

in writing and file with the court and serve upon all other parties

a list of the names of all additional experts that they propose to

tender at trial not later than forty-five (45) days before the

Case 2:04-cv-00633-LKK -CMK Document 63 Filed 08/03/05 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

2

close of discovery established in the July 27 order. Accompanying

the designation shall be the written report specified in Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26 A2B. All experts so designated are to be fully prepared

to render an informed opinion at the time of designation so that

they may fully participate in any deposition taken by the opposing

party. Experts will not be permitted to testify at the trial as

to any information gathered or evaluated, or opinion formed, after

deposition taken subsequent to designation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 3, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00633-LKK -CMK Document 63 Filed 08/03/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

October 6, 1948

No. 52580.

protests 38902-K, etc. (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis).

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Mr. George S. Aburn, Jr., Director

Maryland Department ofthe Environment

Air and Radiation Management Administration

1800 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21230

Dear Mr. Abum:

On April 23, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision

to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Maryland Department oftheEnvironment. The SIP revision numbered SIP revision #10-06 pertains to the repeal ofthe

general emission limitation in section C4 ofRegulation .15 under COMAR 26.11.19, VolatileOrganic Compounds from Specific Processes and replacing the general limitation with a source

specific RACT limitation. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and

technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Mr. Christopher

Cripps at (215) 814-2179. He is the principal contact for this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

Diana Esher, Director

Air Protection Division

cc: Brian Hug, MDE

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474