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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

JAMES A. MORGAN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CLARK COUNTY CREDIT UNION; et

al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-17605

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00333-PMPPAL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

James A. Morgan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action arising from the alleged denial of disability benefits under an

FILED

APR 20 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-17605

insurance policy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007), and we

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

because there was no diversity jurisdiction, Morgan pleaded only state law claims,

and Morgan’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim was not colorable. See Arbaugh v. Y&H

Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 n.10 (2006) (“A claim invoking federal-question

jurisdiction . . . may be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is not

colorable, i.e., if it is ‘immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining

jurisdiction’ or is ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’” (citation omitted)).

Because the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, it properly

dismissed the state law claims. See Scott v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d

646, 664 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that a federal court has no discretion to retain

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court dismisses the federal

claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).

We construe the judgment as a dismissal without prejudice. See Kelly v.

Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004).
3 08-17605

 In light of our April 29, 2009 order denying appointment of counsel and

stating that no motions for reconsideration shall be filed or entertained, we do not

consider Morgan’s challenge to the denial of appointment of counsel.

Morgan’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392]
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 22, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 22, 2018.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
                        ( print page 34875)
                        Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been delegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R. In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 18, 2018, Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC, 3031 Red Lion Road, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19114, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class of controlled substance: Controlled substance
Drug code
ScheduleGamma Hydroxybutyric Acid
2010
I
 The company plans to import finished dosage unit products containing gamma-hydroxybutyric acid for clinical trials, research, and analytical activities. Dated: July 12, 2018 John J. Martin, Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2018-15719 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
H. Res. 715 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 9, 2014. 

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 5078) to preserve existing rights and responsibilities 

with respect to waters of the United States, and for other 

purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 

All points of order against consideration of the bill are 

waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 

not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the 

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 

rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to 

the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report 

of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. 

Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
2 

•HRES 715 EH 

printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not 

be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 

Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 

been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 

ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 

with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order without intervention of any point of order to consider 

in the House the resolution (H. Res. 644) condemning and 

disapproving of the Obama administration’s failure to comply 

with the lawful statutory requirement to notify Congress before releasing individuals detained at United States Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and expressing national security concerns over the release of five Taliban leaders and 

the repercussions of negotiating with terrorists. The amendments to the resolution and the preamble recommended by 

the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the resolu-
3 

•HRES 715 EH 

tion shall be considered as adopted. The resolution, as 

amended, shall be considered as read. The previous question 

shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble, as amended, to adoption without intervening motion 

except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 

by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 

on Armed Services; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 

without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DIEDRICH
COFFEE, INC. UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED AND AS
OF APRIL 28, 1999 CONTAINED IN COMPANY'S 1ST QUARTER 2000 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-28-1999
<CASH>                                         786,356
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  295,910
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,417,429
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,145,077
<PP&E>                                      14,369,283
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,496,882
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,628,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,181,227
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,736
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,459,556
<SALES>                                      6,098,303
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,098,303
<CGS>                                        2,758,104
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,758,104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,809,738
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              96,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (565,039)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (567,839)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (567,839)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 SurgiCare, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith G. LeBlanc,
Chief Executive Officer 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, that
to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





Keith G. LeBlanc, Chief Executive Officer(1)
April 13, 2004










-------------------------------
( 1)   A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to SurgiCare, Inc. and will be retained by
SurgiCare, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       64
RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF

SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

 

(pursuant to Section 245 of the

Delaware General Corporation Law)

SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), the original Certificate of Incorporation of which was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on August 15, 1985 under the name International Cogeneration Corporation, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

This Restated Certificate of Incorporation hereby restates and integrates, without further amendment, pursuant to Section 245 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware as set forth in Title 8 of the Delaware Code, the Company's Certificate of Incorporation, as amended to date.  There is no discrepancy between the terms of this Restated Certificate of Incorporation and the terms of the Company's Certificate of Incorporation, as amended to date.  The text of this Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as so restated, is as follows:

FIRST:  The name of the Company is Skyterra Communications, Inc.

SECOND:  The address of the Company's registered office in the State of Delaware is Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle 19801.  The name of its registered agent at such address is The Corporation Trust Company.

THIRD:  The purpose of the Company is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which corporations may be organized under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

FOURTH:  The aggregate number of shares which the Company shall have authority to issue shall be:

Three Hundred Ten Million (310,000,000) shares, consisting of Two Hundred Million (200,000,000) shares of Common Stock, with a par value of One Cent ($0.01) per share, One Hundred Million (100,000,000) shares of Non-Voting Common Stock, with a par value of One Cent ($0.01) per share, and Ten Million (10,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, with a par value of One Cent ($0.01) per share.  The Board of Directors, in its sole direction, shall have full and complete authority, by resolutions, from time to time, to establish one or more series or classes to issue shares of Preferred Stock, and to fix, determine and vary the voting rights, designations, preferences, restrictions, qualifications, privileges, limitations, options, conversion rights and other special rights of each series or class of Preferred Stock, including, but not limited to, dividend rates and 

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           Section 1350 Certifications

                            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 Quarterly Report of Professional Veterinary
Products, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:

      1)    The 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 Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.


Date: March 16, 2004.


By:  /s/ Dr. Lionel L. Reilly
    --------------------------------------------
      Dr. Lionel L. Reilly, President, Chief Executive
      Officer and Director


By:    /s/ Neal B. Soderquist
    --------------------------------------------
         Neal B. Soderquist, Chief Financial Officer
#### Richard S. KEENER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. John K. SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 73-268, 73-302.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 22, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1974.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, Bradenton, and Charles H. Livingston, Asst. Public Defender, Sarasota, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Guy E. Labalme, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

MANN, Chief Judge.

Keener’s 1952 Pontiac was manufactured 20 years before automobiles were required in Florida to have two tail lamps,1 but a policeman stopped him. Keener got out of the car and came back toward the officer. He exhibited his driver’s license, which was in order. The officer checked by radio on the license tag and determined that the automobile was not stolen. Its inspection sticker was current. The officer testified that his “curosity” was “kind of aroused” and he began to interrogate Smith, who was the passenger in the car. An ordinary brown grocery bag was under the seat and the officer inquired about it. Finally Smith grabbed the bag, threw it across the car to the floor board on the driver’s side, told the officer, “I guess I don’t have a name” and fled. The bag contained marijuana. It was not suppressed. It should have been.

There are now many circumstances in which an officer who does not have probable cause to make an arrest is justified in detaining a citizen to determine whether a *514crime has been committed.2 It may well have been proper for the officer to stop this car, equipped with one taillight when the law required two. Most citizens would appreciate knowing that one light was out. We need not determine this question. Assuming that the police officer was then acting properly, he later went too far without legal cause.

Reversed and remanded.

HOBSON and GRIMES, JJ., concur.

1

. Fla.Stat. § 316.221, F.S.A., (1971).

2

. *See,*LaFave, “Street Encounters” and the Constitution: Terry, Sibron, Peters, and Beyond, 67 Mich.L.Rev. 40 (1968) ; and numerous authorities cited therein, and the Florida cases on pretextual arrest cited in State v. Holmes, Fla.App.2d 1971, 256 So.2d 32.
#### James Leroy CHORPENNING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-132.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                   
               STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED               NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                          DECEMBER 31,                    DECEMBER 31,
                                                               --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    1997                1996         1997              1996
                                                                    ----                ----         ----              ----
<S>                                                             <C>                 <C>          <C>               <C>
Net income (in thousands)                                       $     254           $     258    $     763         $     586
                                                                =========           =========    =========         =========

Weighted average shares outstanding  (1)                        1,343,676           1,374,175    1,353,007         1,408,115

Basic earnings per share                                        $    0.19           $    0.19    $    0.56         $    0.42
                                                                =========           =========    =========         =========


Weighted average shares outstanding (above)                     1,343,676           1,374,175    1,353,007         1,408,115

Common stock equivalents due to the dilutive effect of
    stock options under the treasury stock method                  44,082              14,337       39,624             8,615
Common stock equivalents due to the dilutive effect of
    RRP awards under the treasury stock method                     13,486               9,070       12,645             7,358
                                                                ---------           ---------    ---------         ---------

Diluted weighted average shares and
  common stock equivalents                                      1,401,244           1,397,582    1,405,276         1,424,088

Diluted earnings per share                                      $    0.18           $    0.18    $    0.54         $    0.41
                                                                =========           =========    =========         =========
</TABLE>

(1) Includes only the portion of ESOP shares committed to be released to
    participants.


                                       22
#### Elwood Lamar ALBRIGHT v. STATE.

No. 35817.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1967.

Appeal dismissed without opinion. 191 So.2d 65.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2013

h1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2013

147562 & (15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147562

COA: 310854

Huron CC: 10-004880-FC

KEITH WALTER BULLARD,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add issue is GRANTED. The application for 

leave to appeal the April 26, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed 

by this Court.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1298 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust the limits on 

expensing of certain depreciable business assets. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 16 (legislative day, JULY 15), 2013 

Mr. BEGICH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust 

the limits on expensing of certain depreciable business assets. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPENSING CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS 

4 ASSETS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 179(b) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ‘‘$25,000’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘$250,000’’, and 

9 (2) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking 

10 ‘‘$200,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$800,000’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1298 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS