alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ELIZAB ETH GAR

DNER ; e t a l., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. INTER NAL REVENUE SER

VIC E; e t a l., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 12-17632 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-08051-FJM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Fre de ric k J. M artone , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 17, 2016 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, C ALLAHAN, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s . Eliz a be th a nd Fre de ric Ga

rdne r (the Ga

rdne rs) c h a lle nge the a

uthority of the Inte rna l R e ve nue Se rvic e (IR S) to re quire tha t the y pa y c e rta in ta xe s. The y

se e k to
re c o ve r funds pa id to theIR S by the e sc row a dm inistra

tor upon sa l e of re a l 

# FIL ED

JAN 12 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).prope rty

to sa tisfy the IR S’ s tax lie n . The distric t c ourt dismisse d the c om pla int a s ba rre d by c la i m pre c l usion (re s judic ata ). W e a ffirm
. Unde r the doc trine of c la im pre c l usion, a

fina l judgm e nt ba

rs suc c e ssive litiga tion “ o f the ve ry

sa m e c la im , whe the r or not re litiga tion of thec la im

ra ise s the
sam e issue s a s the e arlie r suit.” Tay lor v . Sturge ll , 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008). C la im pre c l usion re quire s a

n ide ntity of c la im s, a

fina l judgm e nt on them e rits, a nd ide ntity or privity be twe e n pa

rtie s. C e ll The rape utic

s, Inc . v . Lash Grp. Inc

. , 586 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th C ir. 2009). Gardne r v . Pe te rs , 2006 W L 2092606 (D. Ariz . July 26, 2006), a

ff’d 280 F. App’ x 602 (9th C i r. 2008), is a fina l judgm e nt be t

we e n the sa

m e pa rtie s. Although
m uc h of the distric t c ourt’ s orde r c o nc e rne d its jurisdic tion to re vie w the De c ision Le tte r issue d by

the IR S, the c ourt a lso de te rm ine d tha t “ B e th-e l Aram

M inistrie s
c annot sta te a c la im for wrongful le vy .” Id . This de c ide d a ll c la im s of wrongful le vy be c a use B e th-e l Aram

M inistrie s is the a lte r e g o of the Gardne rs. Ac c ordingly , c la im

pre c l usion ba

rs the Ga rdne rs from

a sse rting a

c la im of wrongful le vy

a ga inst theIR S in the ir 2012 c om pla i nt. W e have re v i e we d

the Ga rdne rs’ 236-pa

ra gra ph c om pla int a nd a gre e with the d istric t c o urt tha

t it doe s not c le arly

se e k any re lie f that is not ba s e d on a lle ge d wrongful le vie s. Ac c ordingly , a ll c la im s a re ba rre d by re s judic at a . 2The distric t c ourt’ s dismi ssa l of the Ga rdne rs’ c om

pla int is AFFIRM E D
.

3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MUJADDID R. MUHAMMAD, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 05-75 Erie

v. )

)

JAMES F. SHERMAN, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This habeas corpus action was received by the Clerk of Court on March 4, 2005,

and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report

and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 7], filed on

March 10, 2006, recommended that Petitioner’s Petition [Doc. No. 1] be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to

file objections. Service was made on Petitioner by certified mail and on Defendant. 

Petitioner filed objections [Doc. No. 8] on March 24, 2006. After de novo review of the

petition and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and

objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Petition [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED

for lack of jurisdiction. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 7] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on March 10, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00075-SJM-SPB Document 9 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




Merge Healthcare Incorporated


Chicago, Illinois





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-125603, 333-161689, 333-169371 and 333-177768) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-34884, 333-100104, 333-107997, 333-40882, 333-107991, 333-125386 and 333-175030) of Merge Healthcare Incorporated of our reports dated February 27, 2012 relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of Merge Healthcare Incorporated’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K.




/s/ BDO USA, LLPChicago, IllinoisFebruary 27, 2012
```

[104th Congress Public Law 51]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ51.104]

Public Law 104-51
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to update references in 
                                 the   
  classification of children for purposes of United States immigration 
               laws. <<NOTE: Nov. 15, 1995 -  [S. 457]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF CHILD.

    Section 101(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1101(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``legitimate 
                child'' and inserting ``child born in wedlock''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``an 
                illegitimate child'' and inserting ``a child born out of 
                wedlock''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``an illegitimate child'' 
        and inserting ``a child born out of wedlock''.

    Approved November 15, 1995.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 457:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):
            July 17, considered and passed Senate.
            Oct. 30, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
### SERVED: APRIL 24, 2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC

IN THE MATTER OF 

### NUFASHION BEAUTY SUPPLY DISTRIBUTORS FAA DOCKETNo. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Case) fDMS No. FAA-2011-1123

ORDER LIMITING PROCEEDING TOJSSUE.OF PENALTY 2LI

The Federal Aviation Administration (''Complainant") filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or Judgment on the Pleadings ("Motion") dated March2.2} 2012, which, following the undersigned's Order to Show Cause ofAprilll, 2012 was addressed by Respondent Nu Fashion Beauty Supply Distributors ("Respondent"). Respondent's answer ofApril23,2012 states that it does not contest Complainant's proposed findings that it committed each ofthe seven violations with which it has been charged. Respondent does, however, oppose Complainant's additional request that the proposed civil penalty of$15,000 be adopted. Respondent endorses Complainant's alternative request for reliefthatthe hearing(setto begin on June 19) be limited to the question ofthe appropriate civil penalty amount. Respondent's proposal is adopted. Summaryjudgmentwill be granted as to the substantive allegations. I find, however, that genuine issues ofmaterial fact exist respecting the appropriate civil penalty aniount and, as such,judgment on that question as a matter oflaw may not be granted.2 WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED as follows: 1- Complainant's Motion for Summary Judgment or for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED as to the substantive allegations ofthe Complaint, and DENIED as to the issue ofcivil penalty; 2 - The Order to Show Cause is VACATED; 3- The proceeding will belimited to the issue ofcivil penalty. 

# fl·ct.J 

# c'**Q<j)Q~:__ ()~**  Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building-Suite2W1000 1 

### ONE COPY Ms. Gayle Chyu Nu FashionBeauty Supply Distributors,

### Respondent 1366 Kingsland Avenue St. Louis, MO 63133 W. Beavis Schock,

### Respondent's Counsel 7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1300 St. Louis, MO 63105 TEL: 314-726-2322 FAJ{: 314-721-1698 Gayle E. Townsend, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel Central Region, ACE-7 Federal Aviation Administration DOT Building 901 Locust, Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 TEL: 816-329-3766 FAJ{: 816-329;.3771 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor

.202,366-5121 StaffAssistant FAJ{: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2011-1123 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., WilburWright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 32.2

Section 1350 Certification of Principal Accounting Officer*

I, Mark E. Lemma, the Chief
Financial Officer of ALCiS Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), certify pursuant to section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge:



| | (i) | Amendment One to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2007 (the Amendment), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Amendment fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                               
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|Dated: July 29, 2007
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ MARK E. LEMMA             
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer       
|                     |  | (Principal Accounting Officer)

---

|* | The material contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



20
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.4
                       MILLENNIUM SPORTS MANAGEMENT, INC.
                     (f/k/a Skylands Park Management, Inc.)
                                  Ross' Corner
                      U.S. Highway 206 & Country Route 565
                                  P.O. Box 117
                         Augusta, New Jersey 07822-0117

                                                               December 19, 1997

VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
----------------------------------

Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company
2 Broadway
New York, New York 10004

Dear Sirs:

     Reference is made to the Warrant Agreement between us dated as of September
24, 1993 (the "Warrant Agreement"). All capitalized terms used herein without
definition have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Warrant
Agreement.

     Pursuant to the Warrant Agreement, the Company hereby certifies that,
pursuant to due authorization of the Board of Directors of the Company, the
Company has elected to extend the Warrant Expiration Date through and including
5:00 p.m. (New York time) on June 30, 1998, subject to the Company's right,
prior to such Warrant Expiration Date, in its sole discretion, to extend such
Warrant Expiration Date on five business days' prior written notice to the
Registered Holders; and Section 1(m) of the Warrant Agreement is hereby
correspondingly amended. No other term of the Warrants has been amended.

     In accordance with Section 8(d) of the Warrant Agreement, the existing
Warrant Certificates will continue to represent the Warrants, notwithstanding
the extension described herein.

     In accordance with Section 8(e) of the Warrant Agreement, the Company
hereby directs you, as Warrant Agent, to send a copy of this letter by ordinary
first class mail to each Registered Holder of Warrants at his, her or its last
address as it appears on your registry books as Warrant Agent.

                                             Very truly yours,

                                             MILLENNIUM SPORTS MANAGEMENT, INC.

                                             By:
                                                --------------------------------
                                                 Barry M. Levine, President

cc:  A. S. Goldmen & Co., Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

JOAN YATSONSKY, : No. 3:15cv1777

Plaintiff :

: (Judge Munley) 

v. :

:

STATE FARM FIRE & :

CASUALTY COMPANY, :

Defendant :

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

ORDER 

 

AND NOW, to wit, this 16th day of October 2015, defendant’s

motion to dismiss Count II, bad faith, (Doc. 3) is hereby DENIED. 

Defendant is further ORDERED to answer plaintiff’s complaint within

fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. 

 

BY THE COURT:

s/ James M. Munley 

JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY 

United States District Court

Case 3:15-cv-01777-JMM Document 9 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 1
PRIVATE LAW 105–6—NOV. 10, 1998

Private Law 105–6

105th Congress

An Act

For the relief of Larry Errol Pieterse.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF, OR DENIAL OF

ADMISSION TO, LARRY ERROL PIETERSE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 212(a)(2)(A) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act, and notwithstanding paragraphs

(1)(A) and (2)(B) of section 241(a) of such Act (before redesignation

as section 237(a) of such Act by section 305(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996), Larry Errol

Pieterse may not be removed or deported from the United States

or denied admission to the United States by reason of any offense

for which he received a full pardon from the Governor of Florida

prior to January 1, 1992.

(b) RESCISSION OF OUTSTANDING ORDER OF REMOVAL OR DEPOR- TATION.—The Attorney General shall rescind any outstanding order

of removal or deportation, or any finding of deportability or removability, that has been entered against Larry Errol Pieterse by

reason of any offense for which he received a full pardon from

the Governor of Florida prior to January 1, 1992.

(c) PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS.—Notwithstanding any

order terminating the status of Larry Errol Pieterse as an alien

lawfully admitted for permanent residence, for purposes of the

Immigration and Nationality Act he shall be considered lawfully

admitted for permanent residence as of November 3, 1981, and

such status shall be considered not to have changed between such

date and the date of the enactment of this Act.

(d) ESTABLISHMENT OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.—Notwithstanding section 101(f ) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,

any offense for which Larry Errol Pieterse received a full pardon

from the Governor of Florida prior to January 1, 1992, may not

be considered in determining whether he is, or during any period

has been, a person of good moral character for purposes of such

Act.

Approved November 10, 1998.

Nov. 10, 1998

[H.R. 379]
Swanson, Brian {OST) 

Frprrt: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Hobey Vance <hobeyvance@gmail.com> 

Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:50 PM 

Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Rhinelander Essential Air Service Proposals 

Please enter these concerns into the record for the consideration of an acceptable carrier to serve the 

Rhinelander, WI market. 

The Sky West proposal for two daily flights serving the Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) airport via Rhinelander 

(RHI) needs to answer two operational concerns. 

One- Previous service via a Delta Connection carrier using the Canadair RJ-200 jet aircraft experienced 

numerous weight and balance problems due to the length of the RHI primary runway. These problems involved 

excessive fuel weights that reduced the allowable passenger loads. Inbound crews would demand or dispatchers 

woud require additional fuel due to weather conditions that would allow the inbound flight to return to MSP, if 

needed. Should the fuel not be used, the additional weight of this extra fuel would limit passenger loads on the 

outbound flights requiring passengers to be "bumped" and rerouted on later flights. The crews and dispathers for 

the inbound flights appear unaware of the ramifications of their operational decisions on flights later that day 

or the morning flights of the next day. Sky West needs to address this issue by ammending dispatch 

considerations for "last flight of the night" flights and the effect on the next day's schedule. One suggestion 

would be to consider Central WI Airport (CWA) as the primary divert airport rather than MSP. Exercising 

caution is always proper, however, excessive caution needlessly disrupts operations and the traveling public 

Two - Regional carriers, in general, schedule crew rest times to the absolute minimum. Additionally, it is all 

too common that the evening arrival crew to a station such as RHI is the same crew for the morning flight the 

next day. Should any operational problem occur, such as weather, maintenance issues or air traffiC delays, 

resulting in a late arrival for the last flight of the night, the morning flight for the next day is delayed due to 

crew rest limitations. This causes missed connections and canceled travel plans for the traveling public. These 

specific types of delays plague the regional carrier industry, as a whole. Sky West needs to address this issue by 

pledging to schedule adequate crew rest times for over-night crews to allow for typical delayed arrivals the 

night before. 

Thank you for including my remarks into the record. 

Hobey Vance 

9368 N. Bay Rd. 

Minocqua, WI 54548 

715 358-6383 

hobeyvance@ gmail.com 

1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20329

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DON RAY VICTORIA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-377-ALL

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Don Ray Victoria presents

arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Daugherty, 264

F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), which rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to

the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006).

Appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 5, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL LEE MYERS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. GADDIS, et al.

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civ. A. No. 05-319E

Judge McLaughlin

Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Document # 1) be denied and the case dismissed without prejudice.

II. REPORT

When submitting a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the Plaintiff is required to submit

“an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable

to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In addition to the

aforementioned affidavit, Plaintiff is further required to “submit a certified copy of the trust fund

account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately

preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of

each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to submit a copy of his institutional account statement,

certified or otherwise. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites for

proceeding In Forma Pauperis, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis should be denied

and the case dismissed without prejudice.

Case 1:05-cv-00319-SJM-SPB Document 2 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 2
2

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis (Document #1) be denied and the case dismissed without prejudice.

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule

72.1.4(B) of the Local Rules for Magistrates, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of

service to file objections to this report and recommendation. Any party opposing the objections

shall have seven (7) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to file

timely objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.

S/ Susan Paradise Baxter_

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: October 26, 2005

Case 1:05-cv-00319-SJM-SPB Document 2 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2