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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGELINA DETTAMANTI, Individually and as former Trustee of the Carrari Family

Trust

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY J. STAFFEL, individually and in his official capacity as Judicial Officer of Santa Barbara Superior Court

, et al.

Defendant s

- Appellee s

. No. 19

- 55272

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 01230

- CBM

- PLA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Consuelo B. Marshall , District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 4, 2020 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN , Circuit Judges.

Angelina Dettamant i appeals from the district court’s order denying

injunctive relief and dismissing sua sponte her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising

* 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

FEB 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 1 9

- 55272

from state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review for an abuse of discretion the denial o f injunctive and de novo interpretation

of the underlying legal principles. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco , 746

F.3d 953, 958

- 59 (9th Cir. 2014) . We affirm.

The district court properly denied Dettamanti’s motion for injunctive relief

and dism issed her claim s against Judge Staffel in his individual capacity on the

basis of judicial immunity because Dettamanti failed to allege facts sufficient to

show that Judge Staffel acted “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction o r

perform[ed] an act that [ was] not judicial in nature .” Schucker v. Rockwood , 846

F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining judicial immunity doctrine) ; see also

Moore v. Brewster , 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996) (judicial immunity extends

to declaratory and other equitable relief), superseded by statute on other grounds

.

The district court properly denied Dettamanti’s motion for injunctive relief

and dismissed her claims against Judge Staffel in his official capacity on the basis

of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Flint v. Dennison , 488 F.3d 816, 824

- 25

(9th Cir. 2007) ( state officials sued in their official capacities are entitled to

Eleventh Amendment immunity).

AFFIRMED.
TAREYAN COOKS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-0358

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 3, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Martin A. Fitzpatrick, Judge.

Tareyan Cooks, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Case 2:04-cv-01855-KJM-EFB Document 48 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 2Case 2:04-cv-01855-KJM-EFB Document 48 Filed 12/04/06 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JARON BRIGNAC,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1690 DFL KJM P

vs.

T. SANCHEZ,

Defendant . ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested that this action be

dismissed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant shall notify this court, within ten days, whether he has any objection

to the dismissal of this action. Should defendant fail to respond, plaintiff’s May 20, 2005 request

will be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff at the

address shown on his filing of May 12, 2005.

DATED: May 25, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2 brig1690.59a 

Case 2:04-cv-01690-DFL -KJM Document 22 Filed 05/26/05 Page 1 of 1
**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**

|  | · | the                  Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September                  30, 2006, as amended, as filed with the Securities and Exchange                  Commission                  on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of                  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                  and |
|--|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | · | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company                for the periods presented therein. |
|--|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /s/                Gary G. Brandt       |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|        |   | Gary                G. Brandt                |
|        |   | Chief                Executive Officer  |
|   |   | (principal                executive officer) |
|   |   | April                20, 2007                |

----
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 23, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00194

- CV

Blake B. Naleid, Appellant

v.

Deutsche Bank Nationa l Trust Company, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2004

- 8A R , Appellee

APPE AL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND FIELD
DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’ S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

THIS DAY came on to be submitted to this Court appellant’ s motion to dismiss the appe al in the

above cause, and the Court having fully considered said motion, and being of the opinion that

same should be granted: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that said

motion is granted, and that the appeal is dismissed. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellant

p ay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision

be certified below for observance.
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

JOHN HARDNEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1897 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM CAREY, et al.,

Respondents. 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 November 2, 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-01897-LKK -GGH Document 35 Filed 01/11/06 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 2, 2005, are adopted in

full; and 

2. Plaintiff’s October 7, 2005, motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

DATED: January 11, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/hard1897.801

Case 2:04-cv-01897-LKK -GGH Document 35 Filed 01/11/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 51985.

#### Rogers Peet Co. *v.*United States,

protests 63291-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Jesse Simkins,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1433 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

Foothill Orthopedic Medical

Clinic, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and

without counsel in a civil rights action. 

The United States Marshal has returned process directed to

defendant D. Sydenstricker unserved because this defendant no

longer works at the Sierra Conservation Center and the department

of corrections could not locate him or her. Plaintiff must

provide new information about where this defendant may be served

with process. Plaintiff may seek such information through

Case 2:04-cv-01433-DFL-PAN Document 19 Filed 07/07/05 Page 1 of 3
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

discovery, the California Public Records Act, California

Government Code § 6250, et seq., or any other means available but

must proceed with haste because Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) requires an

action be dismissed as to a defendant not served within 120 days

after filing the complaint unless the time is enlarged based upon

a demonstration of good cause. If plaintiff’s access to the

required information is denied or unreasonably delayed, plaintiff

may seek judicial intervention.

Accordingly:

1. The clerk of the court shall mail plaintiff one form

USM-285 and a copy of the pleading filed July 21, 2004.

2. Within 90 days from the date this order is signed,

plaintiff may submit the attached Notice of Submission of

Documents with a completed form USM-285 providing instructions

for service of process upon defendant D. Sydenstricker and two

copies of the pleading provided to plaintiff. 

3. If plaintiff does not provide new instructions for

service of process upon defendant D. Sydenstricker within the

time allowed or show good cause for such failure I will recommend

this action be dismissed as to that defendant.

So ordered.

Dated: July 7, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01433-DFL-PAN Document 19 Filed 07/07/05 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Jesse Simkins,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1433 DFL PAN P

vs. Notice of Submission of Documents

Foothill Orthopedic Medical

Clinic, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff hereby submits the following documents in

compliance with the court's order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed forms USM-285 

 copies of the 

 Complaint

Dated: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01433-DFL-PAN Document 19 Filed 07/07/05 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-410]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8268-7]


Proposed Reissuance of General NPDES Permit (GP) for Alaskan 
Small Suction Dredging (Permit Number AKG-37-5000)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed reissuance of a general permit.

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

SUMMARY: On June 4, 2007, a general permit regulating the activities of 
small suction dredge mining for gold placer mining operations in the 
State of Alaska expires. EPA proposes to reissue this general permit 
with minor changes. EPA is proposing to make this permit effective as 
the previous general permit expires.

DATES: Interested persons may submit comments on the proposed 
reissuance of the general permit to EPA, Region 10 at the address 
below. Comments must be received by March 2, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed General Permit should be sent to 
Director, Office of Water and Watersheds; USEPA Region 10; 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, OWW-130; Seattle, Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the Fact Sheet and draft 
General Permit are available upon request. The Fact Sheet and draft 
General Permit may be found on the Region 10 Web site at http://www.epa.gov/r10earth/waterpermits.htm (click on draft permits, then 
Alaska).
    Requests for copies may be made to Audrey Washington at (206) 553-
0523 or to Cindi Godsey at (907) 271-6561 or electronically mailed to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86f1e7f5eeefe8e1f2e9e8a8e7f3e2f4e3ffc6e3f6e7a8e1e9f0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abdccad8c3c2c5ccdfc4c585cadecfd9ced2ebcedbca85ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a> or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a7d757e697f63347973747e735a7f6a7b347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8dfd7dccbddc196dbd1d6dcd1f8ddc8d996dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from 
the review requirements of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to Section 6 
of that order.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    After review of the facts presented in the notice printed above, I 
hereby certify pursuant to the provision of 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 
reissuance of this general permit will not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, the permit reduces a 
significant administrative burden on regulated sources.

    Dated: January 5, 2007.
Michael F. Gearheard,
Director, Office of Water & Watersheds, Region 10, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency.
 [FR Doc. E7-410 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 53521.

protests 69981-K, etc. (New York).

#### Yardley & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bottles the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Griffon Importing Co.*v. *United States*(36 C. C. P. A. 121, C. A. D. 408), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, Alain Delongchamp certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Clearant, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant is made known to us by others within the entity, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information;andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: May 10, 2006 /s/ ALAIN DELONGCHAMP   Alain Delongchamp   *President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)*   
22
Exhibit 10.10
 KATY INDUSTRIES, INC.  2008 Vice President  Sales & Marketings Plan
            (iii)
    
    a transaction or transactions in which any Person or a group of Persons acting
in concert acquires stock of the Company in an amount greater than that held by
Kohlberg & Co. LLC (Kohlberg) and Kohlberg Affiliates and in which Kohlberg
relinquishes control of the Board.




---



##### 



Article VII
 
  
  2




---



##### 



Shares Issued
 Aggregate Limit Article VI
 
 Award
 Option Price
 Payment
 
  3




---



##### 



Article VI
 
 Article VI
 Article VII Article
VII
 
  
 Employment
  Tax Withholding
 4




---



##### 



Share Withholding
 Severability
 Securities Law and Tax Law Compliance
 Governing Law
 5
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

 Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant Diggs from this action was granted by order 1

filed March 3, 2006.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JACKSON KITCHENS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1206 MCE PAN P

vs.

PAT HOUGE, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is an individual serving a term of civil commitment pursuant to

California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act, Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 6600 et seq. On October 27,

2005, plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default and a motion styled as a motion for summary

judgment which the court construes as a motion for default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

55. Plaintiff seeks entry of default and default judgment against all defendants in this action

except defendant Diggs on the ground that they have failed to answer or otherwise respond to the

complaint. 

1

On April 27, 2005, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve process

on defendants Diggs, Parisi, Mayberg, Daly, Houge, Coles and Goldberg. On August 24, 2005,

defendants Daly, Houge, Coles and Goldberg filed an answer to the complaint. For that reason,

Case 2:04-cv-01206-MCE -EFB Document 56 Filed 05/31/06 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 The court has recommended dismissal of defendant Parisi pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 2

4(m).

2

neither entry of default nor default judgment is proper as to those defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

55. There is no evidence in the record that defendant Mayberg has been served with process, and

the record affirmatively reflects that defendant Parisi has not been served with process. Absent 2

proof of such service neither entry of default nor default judgment is proper as to these two

defendants. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October

27, 2005 motion for entry of default is denied; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s October 27, 2005 motion for

summary judgment be construed as a motion for default judgment and, so construed, that said

motion be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: May 30, 2006.

12

kitc1206.def

Case 2:04-cv-01206-MCE -EFB Document 56 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2
### NUMBER 13

- 1 6

- 00 563

- CR



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

EZRA WALLACE JOHNSON

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justi ces Longoria and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

This appeal was abated by this Court on June 30, 2017, because appellant’s brief

had not been filed. This cause is now before the Court because counsel for appellant

has filed a n amended motion to dismiss his appeal. Accordingly, this case is hereby

REINSTATED.2

The motion to dismiss appeal contains a signed affidavit of appellant stating that

he no longer wishes to pursue the appeal and wishes for the Court to dismiss h is appeal.

We find the motion and affidavit together meet the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 42.2(a) that appellant and his attorney must sign a written motion to dismiss

the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we

grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and

dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for

rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue fo rthwith.

/s/ Rogelio Valdez

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the

3rd day of August, 2017

.