alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Firpo W. CARR, Ph.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walter SAWALL, individually; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Redondo Beach City of, Defendant.

No. 01-57023.

D.C. No. CV-00-12670-MLR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Firpo W. Carr appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was improperly detained by a police officer based on his race. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion, *Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52*F.3d 252, 253 (9th Cir.1996), and affirm.1

The newly discovered evidence submitted in support of Carr’s Rule 60(b) motion did not raise any genuine issues of material fact to warrant reconsideration of the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Officer Sawall. *See Cel-A-Pak v. California Agr. Labor Relations Bd.,*680 F.2d 664, 668-69 (9th Cir.1982); *cf. Washington v. Lambert,*98 F.3d 1181, 1185-90 (9th Cir.1996) (setting forth factors converting a lawful investigatory stop into an arrest). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reconsider the stipulated dismissal of defendant Chief Nichols because the affidavits did not establish any injury to Carr. *See Quintanilla v. City of Downey,*84 F.3d 353, 355-56 (9th Cir.1996) (noting that “an individual may recover [against a public entity] only when that individual’s federal rights have been violated”).

We reject Carr’s remaining contentions.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Because Carr’s motion for reconsideration was filed more than ten days after entry of judgment, we do not have jurisdiction to review the grant of summary judgment. *Maraz-iti, 52*F.3d at 253.
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


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 on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Report”) of OFS Capital Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bilal Rashid, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:


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


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.


/s/ Bilal RashidName:Bilal RashidDate:March 12, 2018
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Arthur SHIPMAN and Frederick A. Pierce, Appellees.

No. 77-1493.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 14, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1978.

Michael J. Satz, State’s Atty., and Patti Englander, Asst. State’s Atty., Ft. Lauder-dale, for appellant.

Fred Haddad, of Sandstrom & Haddad, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellees.

OPINION ON MOTION

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Appellees have sought our review of an order below setting bond for them pending the state’s appeal of an order granting a suppression of evidence.

They complain they are being denied equal protection of the law because they had to post a bond where an indigent person would be released on his own recognizance, without bond. They cite a sentence from Sec. 924.071(2) Florida Statutes (1975) which says:

> “A defendant in custody whose case is stayed either automatically or by order of the court shall be released on his own recognizance pending the appeal if he is charged with a bailable offense.”

Appellees maintain that because an indigent person is entitled to be released on his own recognizance then they should also be so entitled. In a strict construction of the statute appellees make a most convincing argument. Everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law, not just poor people. However, in *State of Florida ex rel. Harrington v. Genung,*300 So.2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), it was held the word “shall” in Sec. 924.071(2) means “may” because the legislature does not have the authority to mandate the courts in matters of bail. It was held that the quoted statute is *783directory rather than mandatory. We agree with the holding in that case for the reasons stated in the opinion. Therefore, an indigent defendant is not always entitled to be released on his own recognizance and can be held in custody if he is unable to post bail, in the sound discretion of the committing magistrate. With that all are given equal protection.

The order is affirmed.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and GREEN, OLIVER L., Associate Judge, concur.
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 2nd QUARTER 2015

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO 12-MO

4-WEEK AND 3/26 3/30 4/2 40.00 24.00 24.00 25.00 103.00 10.00

3&6&12 MO BILLS 4/2 4/6 4/9 30.00 24.00 24.00 88.00 -10.00

4/9 4/13 4/16 30.00 24.00 24.00 91.00 -13.00

4/16 4/20 4/23 30.00 24.00 24.00 94.00 -16.00

4/23 4/27 4/30 30.00 24.00 24.00 25.00 119.00 -16.00

4/30 5/4 5/7 30.00 24.00 24.00 86.00 -8.00

5/7 5/11 5/14 30.00 24.00 24.00 84.00 -6.00

5/14 5/18 5/21 30.00 24.00 24.00 84.00 -6.00

5/21 5/25 5/28 35.00 24.00 24.00 25.00 109.00 -1.00

5/28 6/1 6/4 35.00 24.00 24.00 82.00 1.00

6/4 6/8 6/11 30.00 24.00 24.00 82.00 -4.00

6/11 6/15 6/18 30.00 24.00 24.00 82.00 -4.00

6/18 6/22 6/25 30.00 24.00 24.00 25.00 108.00 -5.00

1134.00 1212.00 -78.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

CMB Funds: 0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

3-year Note 4/2 4/7 4/15 24.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 4/2 4/8 4/15 21.00 0.00

30-year Bond ® 4/2 4/9 4/15 13.00 0.00 61.09 -3.09

5-year TIPS 4/16 4/23 4/30 18.00 0.00

2-year note 4/23 4/27 4/30 26.00 0.00

5-year note 4/23 4/28 4/30 35.00 0.00

7-year note 4/23 4/29 4/30 29.00 0.00

2-year FRN 4/23 4/29 4/30 15.00 0.00 77.89 45.11

3-year Note 5/6 5/12 5/15 24.00 0.00

10-year Note 5/6 5/13 5/15 24.00 0.00

30-year Bond 5/6 5/14 5/15 16.00 0.00 68.47 -4.47

10-year TIPS ® 5/14 5/21 5/29 13.00 0.00

2-year FRN ® 5/21 5/27 5/29 13.00 0.00 0.00 26.00

2-year note 5/21 5/26 6/1 26.00 0.00

5-year note 5/21 5/27 6/1 35.00 0.00

7-year note 5/21 5/28 6/1 29.00 0.00 75.86 14.14

3-year Note 6/4 6/9 6/15 24.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 6/4 6/10 6/15 21.00 0.00

30-year Bond ® 6/4 6/11 6/15 13.00 0.00 34.26 23.74

2-year FRN ® 6/18 6/24 6/26 13.00 0.00 0.00 13.00
2-year note 6/18 6/23 6/30 26.00 0.00

5-year note 6/18 6/24 6/30 35.00 0.00

7-year note 6/18 6/25 6/30 29.00 0.00

30-year TIPS ® 6/11 6/18 6/30 7.00 0.00 74.13 22.87

529.00 391.71 137.29

Estimates are italicized. R = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 59
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65266-65267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32406]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Freight Forwarder License; Revocations

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the 
following freight forwarder licenses have been revoked pursuant to 
section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the 
regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of ocean 
freight forwarders, effective on the corresponding revocation dates 
shown below:
    License Number: 3791.
    Name: Air-Sea International, Inc.
    Address: 218 Marsh Island Drive, Chesapeake, VA 23320-9246.
    Date Revoked: November 17, 1997.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.

    License Number: 3159.
    Name: Artpak Transport, Ltd.
    Address: c/o Judson, 50 West 57th Street, New York, NY 10019.
    Date Revoked: November 25, 1997.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.

    License Number: 3593.
    Name: Caliber Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders, Inc.

[[Page 65267]]

    Address: 1731 Adrian Road, Unit 1, Burlingame, CA 94010.
    Date Revoked: October 14, 1997.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid surety bond.

    License Number: 3404.
    Name: Choice Transportation Services, Inc.
    Address: 752 Birginal Drive, Bensenville, IL 60106.
    Date Revoked: October 17, 1997.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.

    License Number: 3786.
    Name: Da-Ma's Forwarding, Inc.
    Address: 2011 N.W. 89th Place, Miami, FL 33172.
    Date Revoked: October 29, 1997.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid surety bond.

    License Number: 782.
    Name: J.R. Michels, Inc.
    Address: 260 Townsend Street, San Francisco, CA 94107.
    Date Revoked: October 29, 1997.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.

    License Number: 4198.
    Name: NG Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Randy International and NG 
Enterprises of New York.
    Address: 326 Smith Street, Keasbey, NJ 08832.
    Date Revoked: October 15, 1997.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid surety bond.

    License Number: 3975.
    Name: Southern World International, Inc.
    Address: 7975 N.W. 154th Street, Suite 300, Miami Lakes, FL 33016.
    Date Revoked: October 2, 1997.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.

    License Number: 4057.
    Name: Tampa Bay Ocean Services, Inc.
    Address: 6001 Jet Port Industrial Blvd., Tampa, FL 33634.
    Date Revoked: November 20, 1997.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid surety bond.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Director, Bureau of Tariffs, Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 97-32406 Filed 12-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

647 KA 10-02201 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PAUL M. LARRABEE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MARY R. HUMPHREY, NEW HARTFORD, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SCOTT D. MCNAMARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (STEVEN G. COX OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M. Donalty, J.), rendered August 19, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and possession of burglar’s tools (§ 140.35). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence inasmuch as he made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal ( see People v Gray , 86 NY2d 10, 19), and he failed to renew that motion after presenting evidence ( see People v Hines , 97 NY2d 56, 61, rearg denied 97 NY2d 678). In any event, that contention lacks merit ( see generally People v Bleakley
, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495). “[R]esolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury” ( People v Witherspoon , 66 AD3d 1456, 1457, lv denied 13 NY3d 942 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

We agree with defendant that County Court erred in admitting evidence with respect to modifications made to the victim’s home after the burglary and as to the effect of the burglary on the children who resided in that home ( see People v Kelly , 71 AD3d 1520, 1521, lv denied 15 NY3d 775; see generally People v Scarola , 71 NY2d 769, 777). We note that, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s contention is unpreserved for our review, we would nevertheless exercise our power-2- 647 KA 10-02201

to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We conclude, however, that the error is harmless inasmuch as the evidence of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that defendant would have been acquitted but for the admission of that testimony ( see generally People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 241-242).

Entered: June 14, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
No. 00-7417.

#### Gaston *v.*Powell, Warden.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-1724

___________________________ Jeffrey Charles Rodd lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Warden Leann LaRiva et al. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________ Submitted: September 15, 2020 Filed: September 20, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Jeffrey Rodd brought this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act against various prison staff, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they left him outside in sub zero weather in December 2014, causing seriousinjury to his eyes, and then delayed effective treatment until successful surgeries on

each eye in 2017. The district court 1 granted summary judgment dismissing Rodd’s Bivens claims for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, as he did not attempt to file formal grievances. See Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003). His alleged blindness did not excuse failure to exhaust because Bureau of Prisons regulations provide for assistance in obtaining administrative remedies, and Rodd did not allege that prison officials prevented him from seeking assistance. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.16(a). The court dismissed Rodd’s Federal Tort Claims Act claims because they were not adequately presented in any of the five prior administrative tort claims Rodd filed; this action was not filed within six months after the Bureau of Prisons denied the only arguably related claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); and Rodd was not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to establish that anything prevented him from timely filing suit, see Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). After careful review of the record, we agree with the district court’s analysis and further conclude the court did not abuse it discretion in denying Rodd’s motion for appointment of counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court but modify dismissal of the Bivens claims to be without prejudice. We deny Rodd’s request that we appoint appellate counsel.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Nancy E. Brasel, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2433 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2433

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 17, 2021

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to take actions necessary 
  to ensure that certain individuals may update the burn pit registry 
 with a registered individual's cause of death, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Burn Pit Registry Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. BURN PIT REGISTRY UPDATES.

    (a) Individuals Eligible to Update.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
        shall take actions necessary to ensure that the burn pit 
        registry may be updated with the cause of death of a deceased 
        registered individual by--
                    (A) an individual designated by such deceased 
                registered individual; or
                    (B) if no such individual is designated, an 
                immediate family member of such deceased registered 
                individual.
            (2) Designation.--The Secretary shall provide, with respect 
        to the burn pit registry, a process by which a registered 
        individual may make a designation for purposes of paragraph 
        (1)(A).
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``burn pit registry'' means the registry 
        established under section 201 of the Dignified Burial and Other 
        Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-260; 
        38 U.S.C. 527 note).
            (2) The term ``immediate family member'', with respect to a 
        deceased individual, means--
                    (A) the spouse, parent, brother, sister, or adult 
                child of the individual;
                    (B) an adult person to whom the individual stands 
                in loco parentis; or
                    (C) any other adult person--
                            (i) living in the household of the 
                        individual at the time of the death of the 
                        individual; and
                            (ii) related to the individual by blood or 
                        marriage.
            (3) The term ``registered individual'' means an individual 
        registered with the burn pit registry.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 2021.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Cyntori Cooper, Respondent, v St. Vincent’s Hospital of New York et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[736 NYS2d 41]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered April 30, 2001, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although defendants submitted a physician’s affidavit stating that the care and treatment afforded plaintiff and her mother by defendants was in accordance with then accepted standards of medical care, it is undisputed that defendants were aware at the time of plaintiffs delivery that her mother suffered from the papilloma virus lesions in her genital region, and in view of that circumstance and the physician’s affidavit submitted by plaintiff stating that plaintiff contracted the papilloma virus from her mother in the course of her vaginal delivery and that this could have been avoided had plaintiff been delivered by cesarean section, issues of fact are presented as to whether defendants’ decision to permit plaintiff to be vaginally delivered constituted medical malpractice. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Sullivan, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 221 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to modify the oath of office taken 

by individuals in the civil service or uniformed services, and of other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2021 

Ms. ESHOO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to modify the oath 

of office taken by individuals in the civil service or uniformed services, and of other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF OATH OF OFFICE FOR INDI4 VIDUALS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE OR UNI5 FORMED SERVICES. 

6 Section 3331 of title 5, United States Code, is 

7 amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘§ 3331. Oath of office 

9 ‘‘An individual, except the President, elected or ap10 pointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 221 IH

1 or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: ‘I, 

2 AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and 

3 defend the Constitution of the United States against all 

4 enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith 

5 and allegiance to the same; that I place this obligation 

6 above that to any individual, political party, or faction; 

7 that I take this obligation freely, without any mental res8 ervation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and 

9 faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am 

10 about to enter. So help me God.’ This section does not 

11 affect other oaths required by law.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 provided the U.S. Department of the Treasury $9 billion for the 

Emergency Capital Investment Program (ECIP) to provide direct investments into Community Development 

Financial Institution (CDFI) and Minority Depository Institution (MDI) banks, credit unions and holding companies. 

These investments are designed to support the efforts of community financial institutions to, among other things, 

provide loans, grants, and forbearance for small and minority-owned businesses and consumers, especially in lowincome and financially underserved communities that struggled the most during the COVID-19 crisis.

These mission-driven financial institutions specialize in delivering responsible capital, credit and financial services 

to underserved communities. The investments made by Treasury are expected to be used for a range of 

community investments, including loans to low-income and minority borrowers and underserved small business, 

the development and preservation of affordable housing, and investments in community development projects.

Emergency Capital Investment Program Fact Sheet

Alaska

 

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/emergency-capital-investment-program

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email ecip@treasury.gov for additional information

Treasury has awarded institutions headquartered within Alaska 

$10 million in ECIP investment funds. 

Institution Headquarters City Type Award Amount 

Tongass Federal Credit Union Ketchikan CDFI $ 10,000,000 

Note: Headquarters City indicates institution headquarters location only. Institution's lending activity may go beyond identified city.