alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AARON JAMES PIERCE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JEANNIE S. WOODFORD; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-17015

D.C. No. 5:03-cv-04934-JF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Aaron James Pierce appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

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

FILED

FEB 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-17015

court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9th Cir. 2000), and its grant of summary judgment, EEOC v. Luce, Forward,

Hamilton & Scripps, 345 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Pierce’s claims against Woodford and

Hamlet pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because Pierce failed to allege that they

“participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to

act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

The district court properly dismissed Pierce’s claims against Galgano

because Pierce did not allege that as a parole officer, Galgano had a legal duty to

obtain medical treatment for an inmate. See Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743

(9th Cir. 1978). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Grewel and Luca

because the statute of limitations had expired. See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d

945, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2004) (two-year statute of limitations applies to § 1983 suits

in California). Moreover, equitable tolling did not apply because Grewel and Luca

did not receive timely notice. See Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.,

241 F.3d 1131, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (listing elements of equitable

tolling).
3 09-17015

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Pierce’s claims

against Robertson and Sinna for failure to serve within 120 days under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4(m) because Pierce failed to provide the necessary information to help

effectuate service. See Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 273-75 (9th Cir. 1990)

(setting forth standard of review).

We decline to address issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v.

Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). 

We deny Pierce’s requests for documents.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2008268EN.01000801.xml

| 23.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 268/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

22 October 2008

(2008/C 268/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2843 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 126,88 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4534 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78815 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,1225 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4991 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 305 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0135 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,485 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 275,55 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7095 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,764 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,58 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 30,475 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1097 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,9073 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6088 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9566 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1554 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9241 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 785,18 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,0926 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,777 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2259 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 714,57 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5541 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,35 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,6084 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,334 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0008 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4408 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2843

JPY

Japanese yen

126,88

DKK

Danish krone

7,4534

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78815

SEK

Swedish krona

10,1225

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4991

ISK

Iceland króna

305

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0135

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,485

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

275,55

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7095

PLN

Polish zloty

3,764

RON

Romanian leu

3,58

SKK

Slovak koruna

30,475

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1097

AUD

Australian dollar

1,9073

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6088

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9566

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1554

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9241

KRW

South Korean won

1 785,18

ZAR

South African rand

14,0926

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,777

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2259

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 714,57

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5541

PHP

Philippine peso

62,35

RUB

Russian rouble

34,6084

THB

Thai baht

44,334

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0008

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4408

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 0158 V

Filed: December 7, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

MARGERY HEBDEN

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;
Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA , for petitioner.
Jeffrey T. Sprague , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On January 31, 2018 , petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) after receiving the tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis ( “ Tdap ” ) vaccine on June 24, 2017 . Petition at 1, ¶ 5

. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccination in the United States, suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for her injury, alleged as vaccine caused. Id. at 1, ¶¶ 13, 15.

The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance wi th

the E

- Government Act of 2002

. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Pr omotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to
identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon re view, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for

eas e of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012 ).On December 7, 2018

, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in whic h he

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “ h a s concluded that petitioner ’ s a lleged injury

is consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table. ” Id. at 4

. Respondent further agrees that “ based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act

. ” Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK Byron White United States Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80257 (303) 844-3157

December 16, 2009 Douglas E. Cressler Chief Deputy Clerk

Ronnie D. Lister Lawton Correctional Facility 8607 S.E. Flower Mound Road Lawton, OK 73501-9700 #131973

RE: 09-6150, 09-6164, Lister v. Jones District docket: 5:07-CV-00732-M

Dear Mr. Lister:

Enclosed is a copy of a final order dismissi ng the appeals entered today in the captioned

case.
Please contact this office if you have questions.

Sincerely,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of the Court

cc: Theodore M. Peeper

EAS/ao
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of
November 2, 2010 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2010-4 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and
the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (f/k/a AmeriCredit Corp.), AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in
connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that
I am the Executive Vice President, Accounting Corporate Controller of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     |  |                                 |  |  |  |                      
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. |  |                                 |  | 
|                                     |  |                                 | 
|By:                                  |  | /s/ Connie Coffey               |  |  |  | Dated: March 26, 2013
|                                     |  | Connie Coffey                   |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Executive Vice President,       |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Accounting Corporate Controller |  |  |  |
# C_2008266EN.01S00301.xml

| 21.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
#### Isaac Dyer *versus*Abner Toothaker *& al.*

The mortgager, or person claiming under him, cannot maintain a *writ of entry*against the assignee of an undischarged mortgage, paid after breach of condition.

On Repoet from *Nisi Prius,*Kent, J., presiding.

Writ op Entry. The facts are stated in the opinion.

*381
      *J. II. Webster,*for demandant.

*A. W. Paine,*for tenants.

The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Davis, J.

The premises in controversy were mortgaged by David Webster and Daniel Burnham to James Rangoley, July 20, 1836. The *tenants*claim under a deed from Noah Burnham, and an assignment of the mortgage to him, made Feb. 18, 1843, which was subsequently foreclosed. The *demandant*claims under a seizure of the right of redemption, upon an execution in his favor against the mortgagers, Jan. 21, 1843, and a sale thereof to him March 21, following.

At the trial, the demandant offered to prove that Noah Burnham, at the time the mortgage was assigned to him, *paid*the notes secured thereby; and that the assignment was made to him for the purpose of defrauding the creditors of the mortgagers. The evidence offered having been excluded, the facts are to be taken as proved. And this presents the question whether the mortgager, or person claiming under him, can maintain a *writ of entry*against the assignee of a *paid mortgage,*which has not been released.

The general principles applicable to such a case are examined at length in *Stewart*v. *Crosby,*50 Maine, 130. It is unnecessary to repeat them. It is sufficient to say, that, even if such an action could be maintained at common law, as was believed by Judge Stoby, he conceded that, by the *statutes of this State,*the mortgager, *not in possession,*could have no remedy but in equity. *Gray*v. *Jenks,*3 Mason, 520, 527.

According to the agreement of the parties, judgment must be rendered *for the tenants.*

Appleton, C. J., Kent, Walton and Dickekson, JJ., concurred.
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# A New deal for American art in federal buildings, "Structure"; Work Projects Administration, 1935-1943 golden anniversary

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  A New deal for American art in federal buildings, "Structure"; Work Projects Administration, 1935-1943 golden anniversary 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  Morley, Eugene, 1909-1953 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  United States. General Services Administration 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Structure by Eugene Morley, 1939 
                    -           Subjects        
                    -  United States. General Services Administration 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1980-1990 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  177 × 61 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  018928335.jpg; 018928335.jpg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
No. 56106.

protest 122804-K (Indianapolis).

#### Oldetyme Distillers, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### J. D. Smith Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6382.

Entry No. 716753, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, September 1945, etc.

Certified September 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 19, 1945, etc.

(Decided September 26, 1946)

*Jerome G. Clifford*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
To learn more about the FRA RRIF Program, please visit our website at www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0128.

PROJECT FACTS

Project Lead: Florida East Coast Industries, Inc. (FECI)

Financing Request: FECI submitted an application to the Federal Railroad Administration’s 

(FRA) Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program.

Route: 235 mile corridor, spanning from Miami to Orlando Airport (MCO)

• Phase I ̶Miami to West Palm Beach; 66.5 miles of existing track (see red on map); 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

issued January 30, 2013.

• Phase II ̶West Palm Beach to MCO; 128.5 miles of existing track (see blue), which 

connects to a 40-mile, east-westerly extension of new track between Cocoa and 

MCO (see green). The recently released Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) covers Phase II.

Speed: 

• South of West Palm Beach, average 60 mph up to 79 mph 

• North of West Palm Beach, up to 110 mph

• Between Cocoa and Orlando, as high as 125 mph

Number of Passenger Trains: 32 a day; 16 in each direction

Approximate Travel Times: 

• 3 hours between Miami and MCO 

• 2 hours, 20 minutes between Fort Lauderdale and MCO

• 1 hour, 45 minutes between West Palm Beach and MCO

Capacity: Each 9-car train (seven single-level coaches with a locomotive on each end) is 

capable of handling 400 passengers.

RRIF Program: Background

• The RRIF Program was established to provide up to $35 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees to finance railroad infrastructure. 

• To date, FRA has issued 33 RRIF loans totaling $1.7 billion in obligated funds. 

• Out of the 33 loans, 82 percent (or 27 loans) has been for Class II and Class III railroads.

• FRA gives priority to projects that provide public benefits such as improving public safety, enhancing the environment, and promoting 

economic development.

All Aboard Florida (AAF) Intercity Passenger Rail Project: Request for Federal Financing

FRA has published the Draft EIS in the Federal Register and will hold eight public meetings during the course a 75-day public 

comment period. These public meetings, focused on educating Florida residents on the AAF Project EIS, will be held in the 

following cities: Miami, Oct. 27th; Fort Lauderdale, Oct. 28th; West Palm Beach, Oct. 29th; Stuart, Oct. 30th; Vero Beach, Nov. 5

th; 

Port St. Lucie, Nov. 6

th; Cocoa, Nov. 12th; Orlando, Nov. 13th

. 

Status of RRIF Loan Application Review and Publication of EIS

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance is a prerequisite to approval for a RRIF loan. 

The NEPA Process

RRIF 

Application 

Submitted

EIS Study Release 

Draft EIS

EIS Public 

Comment 

Period

Release Final 

EIS 

Record of 

Decision 

(ROD)

Final 

Application 

Review

Decision 

Announced

Source: Based on FRA data as of September 19, 2014.
### ., 

### Faulk, Scott (OST) From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Subject:
Dear M. Schlemmer, tim richmond <kalaupapatim@hotmail.com> Wednesday, November 06, 2013 7:58PM EAS (OST) Kalaupapa EAS contract

I have read all for proposals forthe EAS contractto service Kalaupapa. Although some others offerflights to Maui, it does not make up forthe service and commitmentthat Makani Kai has provided our community. Makani Kai knows the needs and wants ofour unique area and works hard to provide us with the best all-around service that we have had in the 7years that I have lived here. The needs ofour patients are paramount and Makani Kai knows howto fulfill those needs. Please retain Makani Kai and grantthe contract tothem.They are what's best for Kalaupapa Tim Richmond Food Service Supervisor Kalaupapa Settlement 808-567-6925

1
No. 48028.

#### Protest 692714-G of Straw Goods Exchange, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel, certain of the hats in question were held dutiable at only 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) as claimed, following *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664).
- fplr2204-1
- fplr2204-2
- fplr2204-3
- fplr2204-4
- fplr2204-5
- fplr2204-6
- fplr2204-7
- fplr2204-8
- fplr2204-9
- fplr2204-10
- fplr2204-11
- fplr2204-12
- fplr2204-13
- fplr2204-14
- fplr2204-15
- fplr2204-16
- fplr2204-17