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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARY VANDERMEULEN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
THOMAS L. LECLAIRE , Superior Court Judge (retired) County of Maricopa; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 15273

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv
- 02062

- JAT

- DMF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted Ju ly 15 , 2019 **

Before: SCHROEDER , SILVERMAN , and CLIFTON , Circuit Judges. Cary VanDerMeulen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a variety of con stitutional claims.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Whitaker v.

Garcetti , 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) ( dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey ,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circui t 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

JUL 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 19

- 15273

512 U.S. 477 (1994) ); Barren v. Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998 )
(order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed VanDerMeulen’s claims against

officers Walter and Tucker related to VanDerMeulen’s arrest and the search and
seizure of his property because succes s on these claims would necessarily imply
the invalidity of his conviction, and VanDerMeulen failed to show that his

conviction had been invalidated. See Heck , 512 U.S. at 486

- 87 (if “a judgment in
favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invali dity of his conviction or
sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate
that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”).
The district court properly dismissed VanDerMeulen’s remaining claims
against o fficers Walter and Tucker, as well as his claims against Brinker, Shupe,

and Judge s LeClaire, McMurdie, Swann, and Orozco, because these defendants are

entitled to absolute immunity. See Paine v. City of Lompoc , 265 F.3d 975, 980
(9th Cir. 2001) (“Witnesses, including police witnesses, are accorded absolute
immunity from liability for their testimony in judicial proceedings.”); Fry v.
Melaragno , 939 F.2d 832, 836

- 38 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that government

attorneys are subject to absolute immunity in both civil trials and criminal3 19

- 15273

proceedings); Schucker v. Rockwood , 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988)
(explaining judicial immunity doctrine)

. We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appea l. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2017121EN.01000201.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Balş — Judeţul Olt — Romania) — SC Casa Noastră SA v Ministerul Transporturilor — Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul în Transportul Rutier (ISCTR)

(Case C-245/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Social provisions - Exceptions - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 3(a) - Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 - Article 2(3) - Regular services providing for the carriage of passengers - Concept - Carriage free of charge organised by an economic operator for its employees, to and from work, in vehicles belonging to it and driven by one of its employees))

(2017/C 121/02)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Judecătoria Balş — Judeţul Olt

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Casa Noastră SA

Applicant:

Defendants: Ministerul Transporturilor — Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul în Transportul Rutier (ISCTR)

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the service of the carriage by road of workers between home and work, organised by their employer, where the route covered does not exceed 50 km, falls within the scope of the derogation laid down in Article 3(a) of Regulation No 561/2006, according to which that regulation does not apply to such a service.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROMMEL VILLANUEVA-HERRERA, 

Petitioner,

v.  No. 01-2415 JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General;

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondents. 

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A74-864-246)

Submitted: April 3, 2002

Decided: May 1, 2002

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Hakeem Ishola, ISHOLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Katy, Texas, for

Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, John

J. Andre, Senior Litigation Counsel, Shelley R. Goad, Office of

Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Rommel Villanueva-Herrera, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals dismissing his appeal. Villanueva-Herrera claims to have

"surrendered himself" to the Immigration and Naturalization Service

for deportation proceedings in early 1997, when he was statutorily eligible for suspension of deportation. The INS did not institute removal

proceedings against him until after April 1, 1997, at which point the

law changed and he was no longer eligible for suspension of deportation. Villanueva-Herrera argues that the INS violated his due process

rights when it delayed instituting deportation proceedings against him

until he was no longer eligible for suspension of deportation. However, "[t]he Attorney General has discretion regarding when and

whether to initiate deportation proceedings," Cortez-Felipe v. INS,

245 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir. 2001), and we lack jurisdiction to

review a "decision or action by the Attorney General to commence

proceedings . . . ." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). We interpret § 1252(g)’s reference to the "decision . . . to commence proceedings" as encompassing

the decision of when to commence proceedings. See Reno v.

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482-85

(1999). 

Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

2 VILLANUEVA-HERRERA v. ASHCROFT
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 112 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.112
                                                   Agreed to May 2, 2008

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and eight

                          Concurrent Resolution

Whereas approximately 63 percent of the Nation's children under 5 are 
  in nonparental care during part or all of the day while their parents 
  work;

Whereas the early care and education industry employs more than 
  2,300,000 workers;

Whereas the average salary of early care and education workers is 
  $18,180 per year, and only \1/3 \have health insurance and even fewer 
  have a pension plan;

Whereas the quality of early care and education programs is directly 
  linked to the quality of early childhood educators;

Whereas the turnover rate of early childhood program staff is roughly 
  30 percent per year, and low wages and lack of benefits, among other 
  factors, make it difficult to retain high quality educators who have 
  the consistent, caring relationships with young children that are 
  important to children's development;

Whereas the compensation of early childhood program staff should be 
  commensurate with the importance of the job of helping the young 
  children of the Nation develop their social, emotional, physical, and 
  cognitive skills, and to help them be ready for school;

Whereas providing adequate compensation to early childhood program 
  staff should be a priority, and resources may be allocated to improve 
  the compensation of early childhood educators to ensure that quality 
  care and education are accessible for all families;

Whereas additional training and education for the early care and 
  education workforce is critical to ensuring high-quality early 
  learning environments;

Whereas child care workers should receive compensation commensurate 
  with such training and experience; and

Whereas the Center for the Child Care Workforce, a project of the 
  American Federation of Teachers Educational Foundation, with support 
  by the National Association for the Education of Young Children and 
  other early childhood organizations, recognizes May 1 as National 
  Child Care Worthy Wage Day: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress supports the goals and ideas of National Child Care 
Worthy Wage Day, and urges public officials and the general public to 
honor early childhood care and education staff and programs in their 
communities and to work together to resolve the early childhood care 
and education staff compensation crisis.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 111 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 111

Expressing the sense of Congress that Lionel Hampton should be honored 
                for his contributions to American music.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 16, 2007

  Mr. Rangel submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress that Lionel Hampton should be honored 
                for his contributions to American music.

Whereas Lionel Hampton was one of the Nation's greatest jazz musicians, 
        composers, and band leaders;
Whereas Lionel Hampton was one of the first musicians to play the vibraphone in 
        jazz, setting the standard for mastery of that instrument;
Whereas Lionel Hampton nurtured and inspired many of the greatest performers of 
        jazz music who would go on to fame in their own right;
Whereas Lionel Hampton shattered the racial barriers of his time when he was 
        recruited to perform with the Benny Goodman band in the 1930s, creating 
        for the first time an integrated public face of jazz music;
Whereas Lionel Hampton, with his performances around the world, was a musical 
        ambassador of goodwill and friendship for the United States;
Whereas Lionel Hampton was never deterred by fame from contributing to the 
        Harlem, New York, community that he viewed as his home;
Whereas Lionel Hampton was active in the development of affordable housing, such 
        as Harlem's Gladys Hampton Houses, named after his late wife, the former 
        Gladys Riddle;
Whereas Lionel Hampton performed at the White House under Republican and 
        Democratic presidents and was honored with the Presidential Gold Medal 
        by President Bill Clinton; and
Whereas Lionel Hampton was born in Louisville, Kentucky on April 20, 1908, and 
        died in New York City on August 31, 2002: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That it is the sense of Congress that Lionel Hampton should be honored 
for his contributions to American music and for his work as an 
ambassador of goodwill and democracy.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6644

JAMES GILBERT WOODSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

J.D. HUPPENTHAL, Administrator; PRIMECARE MEDICAL; KIM BROWNING,

Head Nurse; WV REGIONAL JAIL AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

AUTHORITY; OFFICER HINDSON, Corrections Officer, Retired,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,

District Judge. (5:07-cv-00141)

Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: June 25, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Gilbert Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. Chad Marlo Cardinal,

Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia; Joseph
- 2 -

Dustin Dillard, John Dorsey Hoffman, FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH &

BONASSO, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Mark William Browning,

David L. Shuman, Sr., SHUMAN, MCCUSKEY & SLICER, PLLC, Charleston,

West Virginia, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

James Gilbert Woodson appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Woodson

v. Huppenthal, No. 5:07-cv-00141 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 27, 2008). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2015381EN.01001701.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA

(Case C-450/15)

(2015/C 381/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Applicant:

Defendant: Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the principle of proportionality, which must guide the process of quantifying fines — as affirmed by Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — preclude an interpretation of Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), in the version consolidated by the European Commission through the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006/C 201/02), and practice, including national practice, according to which the fine to be applied to undertakings which have breached the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements is to be calculated by applying the circumstances to the basic amount resulting from the calculation of the various factors which have to be taken into account under EU law, and in any event before the reduction to 10 % of turnover, with the risk that the application of the extenuating circumstances to the basic amount may prove entirely unsuitable for having the effect of personalising the fine, the circumstances of which, by contrast, are predetermined by the adjustment of the relevant amount according to the characteristics of the specific case?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

1

---
<PAGE>   1

                       UGI UTILITIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
           COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
                  AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS - EXHIBIT 12.2
                             (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Nine
                                                Months
                                                 Ended             Year Ended September 30,
                                                June 30,    -------------------------------------
                                                  1999        1998      1997      1996      1995
                                                --------    -------   -------   -------   -------
<S>                                             <C>         <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
EARNINGS:
Earnings before income taxes                    $66,425     $57,007   $63,275   $61,717   $39,759
Interest expense                                 13,000      17,383    16,696    15,921    16,632
Amortization of debt discount and expense           141         200       176       173       206
Interest component of rental expense              1,268       1,624     1,887     1,838     1,604
                                                -------     -------   -------   -------   -------
                                                $80,834     $76,214   $82,034   $79,649   $58,201
                                                =======     =======   =======   =======   =======

COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED
      STOCK DIVIDENDS:
Interest expense                                $13,000     $17,383   $16,696   $15,921   $16,632
Amortization of debt discount and expense           141         200       176       173       206
Allowance for funds used during
      construction (capitalized interest)            27          39       114       107        65
Interest component of rental expense              1,268       1,624     1,887     1,838     1,604
Preferred stock dividend requirements             1,163       2,160     2,764     2,765     2,778
Adjustment required to state preferred stock
      dividend requirements on a pretax basis       709       1,304     1,754     1,685     1,164
                                                -------     -------   -------   -------   -------
                                                $16,308     $22,710   $23,391   $22,489   $22,449
                                                =======     =======   =======   =======   =======
Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges
      and preferred stock dividends                4.96        3.36      3.51      3.54      2.59
                                                =======     =======   =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>
# C_2017374EN.01000202.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 — French Republic v Carl Schlyter, European Commission, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-331/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Right of public access to documents of the EU institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), third indent - Exceptions to the right of access to documents - Protection of the purpose of investigations - Directive 98/34/EC - Articles 8 and 9 - Detailed opinion of the European Commission concerning a draft technical regulation - Refusal to grant access))

(2017/C 374/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, G. de Bergues, B. Fodda and F. Fize, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Intervener in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Vláčil and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Carl Schlyter (represented by: S. Schubert, Rechtsanwalt and O.W. Brouwer, advocaat), European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, A. Tokár and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, N. Otte Widgren, U. Persson, A. Falk, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic, Mr Carl Schlyter and the Commission to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic, Mr Carl Schlyter and the Commission to bear their own costs;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs;

| 4. | Orders the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

1

---