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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEY ’ S OFFICE; ANN MARIE SCHUBERT, District Attorney, Sacramento County,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 16613

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 02662

- JAM

- CKD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14 , 2020 * *

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON , Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner William Chapman appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that California

Penal Code § 1405 violates his right to procedural due process. We have

* 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

JUL 20 2020

MOLL Y C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 16613

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to

state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

. Wilhelm v. Rot man , 680 F.3d 1113, 1118

(9th Cir. 2012)

. We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Chapman’s action because Chapman

failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Dist

. Attorney’s

Office v. Osborne , 557 U.S. 52, 6 9 (2009) ( a s tate ’ s procedures for post

- conviction

relief can violate procedural due process if they “offend[] some principle of justice

so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as

fundamental, or transgress[ ] any recognized principle of fundamental fairness in

operation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ) ; Morrison v. Peterson

,

809 F.3d 1059, 106 7

- 69 (9th Cir. 2015) (rejecting facial challenge to § 1405’s

“reasonable probability” and “chain of c ustody” requirements); Hebbe v. Pliler

,

627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally

construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim)

.

T o the extent Chapman alleges errors by the state court during his criminal

prosecution or during the adjudication of his post

- conviction § 1405 motions

, we

do not consider those contentions because they are outside the scope of this appeal.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend

because amendment would h ave been futile. See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music

Publ’g , 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review and3 19

- 16613

explaining that futility is a basis for denying leave to amend).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised fo r the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Chapman’s motion for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 6) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### Larry Mark LUTHERMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1334.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 12, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 24, 1977.

*625Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

BARKDULL, Judge.

Harry Mark Lutherman appeals from convictions of aggravated assault and resisting an officer without violence, pursuant to a jury verdict.

During cross-examination by defense counsel of Officer Martin, the following question was objected to:

> “So is it true that Hialeah Gardens and yourself as an individual are under investigation for police brutality as a result of this case?”

The trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard. Subsequently, Officer Nieto, another State’s witness, was asked by defense counsel:

> “Is it true that you are under investigation as a result of police brutality?”

The State’s objection was sustained and defense counsel was admonished to restrict himself in the future.

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to permit defense counsel to question the State’s police witnesses concerning an investigation of allegations of police brutality, when the allegations arose from the same incident, as did the charges against the defendant, and where the information sought to be elicited was relevant to show bias or prejudice on the part of witnesses. A defendant in a criminal case is normally accorded a wide range in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. *Wallace v. State,*41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713 (1899); *Leavine v. State,*109 Fla. 447, 147 So. 897 (1983); *Roberts*v. *State,*164 So.2d 817 (Fla.1964); *Kirkland v. State,*185 So.2d 5 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A.1966); 35 FlaJur., Witnesses, § 190. The credibility, bias, or prejudice of a prosecution witness should be of paramount concern to a jury in the exercise of its fact-finding function. Liberality of cross-examination should be permitted in order to demonstrate a bias or prejudice on the part of a prosecution witness. *Wallace v. State, supra; Kirkland v. State, supra;*35 Fla.Jur., Witnesses, § 190.

Clearly, in the instant case, where the *only*witnesses for the prosecution were the two police officers, the jury should have been permitted to hear evidence and to consider it relating to a pending investigation of these same police officers upon a complaint made by the defendant, in order for the jury to correctly determine their credibility.

Wherefore, for the reasons above stated, the jury verdicts, adjudications of guilt, and sentences be and they are hereby reversed, and this cause is remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.
EXHIBIT 99.2


          BIGSTRING CORPORATION LAUNCHES VIDEO EMAIL FOR CHINESE MARKET

         RED BANK, N.J., January 23 - BigString Corporation (OTCBB: BSGC)
announced today that it is launching a new video email platform for the Chinese
market through its BigString.cn and BigString.com.cn websites. This service will
allow users of both the traditional and simplified language Chinese BigString
websites to send video emails up to 30 minutes in length that can be set to
self-destruct after a predetermined number of views.

         "The popularity of video as means to communicate, in combination with
one of the fastest-growing internet markets in the world, creates a significant
new market opportunity for BigString" stated Darin Myman, President and CEO of
BigString Corporation. Myman also noted that BigString "will continue to
innovate communication privacy initiatives and seek distribution partnerships
for the global market."

About BigString
---------------

         BigString Corporation, owner and operator of BigString.com, is a
provider of social networking messaging applications and user-controllable email
services. In addition to permitting users to send recallable, erasable,
self-destructing messages and video, BigString's patent-pending technology
allows emails and pictures to be rendered non-forwardable, non-printable and
non-savable before or after the recipients read them, no matter what email
service provider is used.

Forward-Looking Statements
--------------------------

         Statements about the future expectations of BigString Corporation, and
all other statements in this press release other than historical facts, are
"forward looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995. BigString Corporation intends that such forward-looking
statements shall be subject to the safe harbors created thereby. Since these
statements involve certain risks and uncertainties and are subject to change at
any time, BigString Corporation's actual results could differ materially from
expected results.

CONTACT:   Darin Myman, BigString Corporation, 732-741-2840, darin@bigstring.com
           Howard Greene, Greene Inc., 516-825-0400, greenepr@bigstring.com or
           greenepr@aol.com
**Exhibit 32.1**

  

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,ASADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VillageEDOCS, Inc. (the "Company") onForm 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company. 

| Date:  May 15, 2009           | /s/ K. Mason Conner           |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                           | Chief ExecutiveOfficer                                                          |

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BYSECTION 906, OR OTHER DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISEADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSIONOF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TOVILLAGEEDOCS AND WILL BE RETAINED BY VILLAGEEDOCS AND FURNISHED TO THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
No. 9430.

#### Ellis *v.*Behymer.

(Decided February 13, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of' Hamilton county.

*Mr. II. E. Englehardt,*for plaintiff in error.

*424
      *Messrs. Wilson & DeWitt*and *Mr. Wm. M. Tug-man,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
# Delivering MRAPs safely downrange

/ Published Jan. 5, 2018
SOUTHWEST ASIA, Delivering mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles downrange to U.S. troops is vital to their safety and overall mission success. Logistic Airmen at the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing show their commitment to make this happen safely every day.The process that the 386th Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron goes through to send MRAP vehicles throughout the area of responsibility is designed to ensure the vehicle makes its destination and operates properly when it gets there. “If we don’t do a good job, it can cause the airplane to crash,” said Senior Master Sgt. Jeremy Burlingame, 386th ELRS aerial port operations superintendent. “The vehicle may not be air worthy and fail inspection in some way. It may also have explosives or hazardous material that if not identified can cause big trouble.”Master Sgt. Michael Beswick, 386th ELRS special handling noncommissioned officer in charge, is one of eight inspectors responsible for ensuring the MRAP vehicles meet the necessary specifications to be transported downrange for use. “My focus is getting the cargo to people that need it,” said Beswick. “I’m not here to ‘wow’ people. I have friends downrange and I think of it like that. I’m just here to get my friends whatever they need.”U.S. contractors present the vehicles to inspectors who use a checklist to meticulously determine whether it passes or fails. If for some reason it fails, the inspector identifies the reason and what needs to be corrected before it can be accepted by the inspector and flown downrange.After it passes inspection, the load planning team determines how many MRAP vehicles will be flown in a C-17 and how they will be balanced inside the aircraft. Finally, once it gets onto the aircraft it gets secured by the ramp crew.Understanding the process of properly restraining cargo and the consequences of a sudden weight change in the cabin is critical in making sure the aircraft makes it to its destination. “I like having a hands-on of what’s happening in the military and equipment being used downrange,” said Senior Airman Brian Dobbs, 386th ELRS ramp specialist. “It takes about four or five of us to load one MRAP safely.”The frequency in which the vehicles sent downrange fluctuates but reach all parts of the AOR. “Our team moves a lot of tonnage and it all goes into the fight to win the war or protect our troops,” concluded Burlingame. “Our mission supports the war fighter and when we send MRAP vehicles into theater it saves lives. [Our efforts help] save American lives and project the force needed to win wars.”The MRAP vehicles have proven to be lifesavers against improvised explosive device attacks, small arms fire, mines, and ambushes. Furthermore, they are constructed with V-shaped hulls and a raised chassis design to deflect underbelly blasts.*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing website.*
**Fresh Fruit Prices and Spreads (88002)**
**Catfish_Processing_(PCF-BB)
A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture**Description:**
**
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.2



July 9, 2015
Re:    Consulting Agreement
Dear John,
This letter sets forth the terms of the consulting arrangement between you and The Kraft Heinz Company (“Kraft Heinz” or the “Company), effective July 9, 2015 (the “Agreement”).
1.    Consulting Services. You agree to provide advisory and consulting services (the “Services”) to CEO Bernardo Hees and Chairman Alex Behring related to the current and historical finances of the Company; relationships with licensors, customers and vendors; employee matters; product development, marketing and distribution; government affairs and strategic opportunities (including potential mergers, divestitures, or acquisitions).  You will participate in monthly reviews of performance.  You will also attend site visits and other Company meetings/events as requested from time to time. The Services are distinct from the duties you provide as a member of the Board of Directors of Kraft Heinz or any committee thereof. 
2.    Payment for Services. You will be paid for the Services at the rate of $4 million per year, payable monthly in arrears for a two year term.  You will be provided with certain administrative support, and expenses incurred while performing the Services will be covered in a manner most administratively convenient for the Company
3.    Term. The Agreement will continue in effect through July 8, 2017 (the “Term”). After the first year, the parties will assess and determine whether to continue the Services.  If Kraft Heinz decides to terminate the Agreement at that time, Kraft Heinz will pay you the payment balance owed under the Agreement.  If you decide to terminate the Agreement, you will forfeit any remaining payments under the Agreement.  
4.    Confidentiality. You agree to keep confidential and not to disclose in any manner any confidential or proprietary information obtained in performance of the Services under this Agreement without the prior written consent of Kraft Heinz. Your agreement with respect to confidential and proprietary information shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement for any reason, you agree to return to the General Counsel of Kraft Heinz all papers, records or other documents, and any electronic information that The Kraft Heinz Company has made available to you in connection with the performance of the Services, including all copies thereof.


By signing below, you acknowledge that you understand and accept the terms and conditions of this Consulting Agreement.


	
					
	By:
	/s/ John T. Cahill
	 
	Date:
	July 9, 2015

	 
	John T. Cahill
	 
	 
	 










ON BEHALF OF THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY


	
					
	By:
	/s/ Bernardo Hees
	 
	By:
	/s/ James J. Savina

	 
	Bernardo Hees
	 
	 
	James J. Savina

	 
	Chief Executive Officer
	 
	 
	SVP, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary







THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, 3 LAKES DRIVE, NORTHFIELD, IL 60093
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES ex rel. DEREK

CASADY and NANCY CASADY,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL

GROUP, INC.; THE GOLDMAN

SACHS GROUP, INC.; MERRILL

LYNCH INTERNATIONAL, and its

successor Bank of America;

DEUTSCHE BANK, AG; DEUTSCHE

BANK CAYMAN ISLANDS BRANCH;

GOLDMAN SACHS

INTERNATIONAL; GOLDMAN

SACHS BANK USA, as Successor-InInterest to Goldman Sachs Capital

Markets, L.P.; SOCIETE GENERALE,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-55712

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00431-GPCMDD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding

FILED

MAY 05 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
page 2

Submitted May 3, 2016** 

Pasadena, California

Before: KOZINSKI, W. FLETCHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

AFFIRMED for the reasons stated by the district court.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
**Cold_Storage_Annual_Summary_(PCS-BBAN)
A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture**Description:**
**
No. 99-897.

#### Lee, Warden, et al. *v.*Taylor.

C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari denied.
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74 -73

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/06

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 06 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
I am DLA
 By DLA Public Affairs
  ***As the forward logistics specialist for DLA Troop Support in the Singapore area of responsibility, I provide contracting and acquisition logistics support to the military services, civilian agencies and other customers in the Indo-Pacific region.
        I am DLA: Greg Turner
            As the forward logistics specialist for DLA Troop Support in the Singapore area of responsibility, I provide contracting and acquisition logistics support to the military services, civilian agencies and other customers in the Indo-Pacific region.

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: Courtesy Photo
                    
                    VIRIN: 181101-D-YE683-025***
Gregory Turner***I am:***
Serving as a forward logistics specialist for DLA Troop Support Pacific in the Singapore Support Office.***Describe your job in a sentence:***
As the only forward logistics specialist for DLA Troop Support in the Singapore area of responsibility for all classes of supplies, I provide contracting and acquisition logistics support to the military services, civilian agencies and other customers in the Indo-Pacific region.  ***How long have you worked for DLA?***
I have been with DLA Troop Support since December 2014.***What is your favorite thing about working for DLA?***  
The opportunity to support the warfighter, our men and women who put their lives on the line every day to serve our country. ***What are your best memories of working here?***
Supporting Cobra Gold, one of the largest military exercises in the Indo-Pacific region. It builds on the longstanding friendship between Thailand and the United States.***How do you make a difference?***
Due to the time difference between customers and headquarters, forward logistics specialists have the utmost latitude to make significant decisions without supervisory assistance. I make a difference by developing solutions and recommendations for customer problems, including emergencies.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of PCS Edventures!.com , Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), We, Anthony A. Maher, President and CEO, and Shannon M. Stith, CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:  (1) The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)  The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    Date:November 1, 2007By:/s/Anthony A. MaherAnthony A. MaherPresident and CEO  DateNovember 1, 2007By:/s/Shannon M. StithShannon M. StithVP and CFO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOHN DAVID STEVENSON AND KW LOGISTICS, LLC,

Petitioners

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 51 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3 rd day of June , 2019

, the Emergency Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED . The Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus is

DENIED

. The Application for Leave to Intervene is DENIED as moot.
**Food Consumption (89015)**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0169 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KAYLEA LYNN MULLENDORE,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 10 , 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 3 2024

05/03/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0169
No. 9502.

#### The M. I. Wilcox Co. *v.*Krayer.

(Decided February 27, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*437
      *Messrs. Chittenden & Chittenden*and *Messrs. Smith S Baker,*for plaintiff in error. ■.

*Mr. Joseph P. Hanley*and *Mr. O. S. Brumbacky*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### Stanley DUNN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 61427.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1978.

In re: Stanley Dunn, applying for writs of habeas corpus, mandamus and prohibition. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.