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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO CAMACHO

- CORONA,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. ANGEL ORTIZ, M.D., in individual capacity; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 55218

D.C. No. 5:14

- cv
- 00543

- VAP

- KK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

F ederal prisoner Pedro Camacho

- Corona appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (19 71) , alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs . We have jurisdiction under 28

* 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

MAR 20 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. May v. Baldwin , 109 F.3d 557, 560

- 61 (9th
Cir. 1997) . We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Camacho

Corona’s claim against defendant Blier because Camacho

- Corona failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any delay in treatment for his
surgery wound evinces in deliberate indifference

. See Hallet v. Morgan , 296 F.3d
732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need only if the delay caused significant harm ).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Camacho

Corona’s claim against defendant Castillo on the basis of qualified immunity
because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that denying

Camacho

- Corona access to a wheelchair was unlawful under the circumstances.
See Ashcroft v. al

- Kidd , 563 U.S. 731, 735 (20 11) (explaining two

- par t test for
qualified immunity).
We do not consider argum ents and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
<page>	 	   		  EXHIBIT 32.01



CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Morgan Stanley Spectrum
Global Balanced L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Walter
Davis, President of Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, 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
results of operations of the Partnership.





By:	  /s/	Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President

Date:		March 8, 2007












-
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

 Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 3:00 p.m.

# PLACE:

 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th Floor).

# STATUS:

 This meeting will be open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes for August 2, 2018

Draft Advisory Opinion 2018-11: Microsoft Corporation

Notice of Availability for REG 2018-02 (Leadership PACs' Personal Use)

Implementation of OMB Circular A-123: Internal Control Program

Management and Administrative Matters

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

Dayna C. Brown,

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2018-19229 Filed 8-30-18; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18441]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board's Committee on Strategy (CS), pursuant 
to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation 
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine 
Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a 
teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, 
as follows:

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, August 28, 2018, from 5:00-6:00 p.m. EDT.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National 
Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. An 
audio link will be available for the public. Members of the public must 
contact the Board Office to request the public audio link by sending an 
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cca2adb8a5a3a2ada0bfafa5a9a2afa9aebea88ca2bfaae2aba3ba"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="600e0114090f0e010c130309050e0305021204200e13064e070f16">[email protected]</span></a> at least 24 hours prior to the 
teleconference.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Chair's opening remarks; consideration of a 
potential vision statement for NSF.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Kathy Jacquart, 703-292-7000, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5b30313a2a2e3a291b35283d753c342d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="513a3b3020243023113f22377f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>, 2415 Eisenhower 
Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. Meeting information and updates may be 
found at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/.jsp#sunshine. Please refer to 
the National Science Board website at www.nsf.gov/nsb for general 
information.

Ann Bushmiller,
Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-18441 Filed 8-22-18; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Rodriguez, Also Known as Joe Rodriguez, Appellant.

? Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pesce, J.), rendered March 14, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminal facilitation in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the trial court’s refusal to give an agency charge to *634the jury is without merit. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the defendant *(see, People v Kirk,*143 AD2d 683), we find that no reasonable view thereof would support the inference that the defendant was acting as an agent of the police officer who posed as a buyer in the subject transactions *(see, People v Argibay,*45 NY2d 45, *rearg denied*45 NY2d 839, *cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York,*439 US 930; *People v Carter,*151 AD2d 688). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Supplemental Instructions 

DFAS R&A Pay 

Form DD 2790 

Custodianship Certificate for Minor Children
 

When to use this form: 

This form should be completed when a claim for annuity payments is made on behalf of 

minor child(ren) to identify the custodian of the unmarried minor child(ren), 

incapacitated minor child(ren), or child at least 18 but under 22 who is attending school 

and is a child of a deceased military member. 

To complete the Custodianship Certificate for Minor Children (DD 2790), please follow 

the instructions below. Please note that if DFAS does not receive this information it may 

result in non-payment of annuity. Carefully read and complete all information as 

requested, and be sure to include any required documentation with your submission. 

Instructions by Section 

Section Instruction Reminder or Tip 

1 Enter Member’s name in the space provided. 

2 Enter Member’s social security number in the 

space provided. 

3 Child(ren) 

a. child(ren) complete name 

b. child(ren) social security number 

c. child(ren) date of birth 

d. child(ren) relationship to the deceased 

member 

4 Custodian’s relationship to child(ren) listed in 

part 3. 

5 Check applicable box(es). 

Please complete boxes 5 a-d 

Required Documentation 

This form requires the following accompanying documentation for processing: 

Documentation of any court appointed legal representation 

Submission and Questions 

Please return all documents by mail or fax to: 

Defense Finance and Accounting Service 

Retired and Annuitant Pay 

P.O. Box 7131 
London, KY 40742-7131 

Fax: 1 (800) 982-8459 

Please direct questions to the address above or call our customer service representatives 

at 1 (800) 321-1080, between 7:00 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday 

through Friday.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6259 

ISAAC PERRY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden; UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 05-6908 

ISAAC PERRY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden; UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (CA-04-981)

Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 2, 2005
- 2 -

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Perry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Isaac Perry, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have

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

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Perry v.

Dewalt, No. CA-04-981 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2005; filed Apr. 14,

2005 & entered May 3, 2005). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
| **EXHIBIT 12.1**

                               |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| **BMB MUNAI INC**                                     |
| **COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES** |
|                                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                  |   |   |   |   | **Year ended March 31,** |
|                                                  | **2009** |   | **2008** |   | **2007** |
|                                                  |   |   |   |   |   |
| **Earnings:**                                         |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Income before income taxes                            | $ 16,129,286  |   | $ 31,206,982  |   | $ 1,892,771  |
| Add: Fixed charges                                    | 4,553,914  |   | 3,218,141  |   | -  |
| Add: Amortization of capitalized interest             | 185,554  |   | 68,123  |   | -  |
| Less: Interest capitalized                            | (3,415,040) |   | (3,218,141) |   | -  |
| Total earnings                                        | 17,453,714  |   | 31,275,105  |   | 1,892,771  |
|                                                  |   |   |   |   |   |
| **Fixed charges:**                                    |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expensed and capitalized                     | 3,000,000  |   | 2,141,667  |   | -  |
| Amortized premiums, discounts, & bond costs       | 1,553,914  |   | 1,076,474  |   | -  |
| Total fixed charges                                   | 4,553,914  |   | 3,218,141  |   | -  |
| **Ratio of earnings to fixed charges**                | **3.83**  |   | **9.72**  |   | **-**  |
|                                                  |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                  |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Exhibit 32.4

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of InfraREIT, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2018 (the “Report”), I, Brant Meleski, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of InfraREIT, Inc.

 

| Date: November 13, 2018 | /s/ Brant Meleski                                 |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Brant Meleski                                     |
|                    | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                    | (Principal Financial Officer)                     |

The foregoing certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of InfraREIT, Inc. under Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language of such filing.
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3528

For the relief of Raouf A. Khalil.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 17, 1993

Mr. BLUTE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Raouf A. Khalil.

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

3 SECTION 1. FOREIGN RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT WAIVER

4 FOR RAOUF A. KHALIL.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Raouf A. Khalil is deemed, for

6 purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to be

7 eligible to apply for any benefit under such Act for which

8 he qualifies without need to obtain a waiver of the two9 year residence requirement of section 212(e) of such Act.

10 (b) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

11 FEES.—Subsection (a) shall apply only if Raouf A. Khalil

12 applies for a visa or for a change or adjustment of status
2

•HR 3528 IH

1 and pays the appropriate fees within 2 years after the date

2 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<page>			       EXHIBIT 32.01


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 Morgan Stanley Spectrum
Strategic L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Jeffrey A.
Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, 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 results
of operations of the Partnership.








By:	/s/Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:	   Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	   President

Date:	   March 31, 2006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *275Ronald Gantt, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J., at *Mapp*hearing, *Parker*hearing, trial and sentence) rendered April 11, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, *in absentia*of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him *in absentia*to an indeterminate term of 20 years to life imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

At defendant’s trial, the People offered evidence that two police officers observed defendant in possession of a shopping bag that contained over 3,600 glassine envelopes, 1,400 to which were chemically analyzed as containing an aggregate of over *4 Vs*ounces of heroin. In an effort to prove identification of defendant, who was being tried *in absentia,*as the individual arrested, the prosecutor asked one of the officers whether he saw defendant in the courtroom, and if there came a time that the officer saw defendant after the time of arrest. Both questions were objected to by defense counsel, and both objections were sustained.

The trial court had given specific instructions to the jury that where objections to questions are sustained, the jury was to disregard those questions. Additionally, defense counsel’s request that the court refrain from giving a "no adverse inference” charge regarding defendant’s absence from trial was granted. No objection was made to any portion of the Court’s charge to the jury, and as it is presumed that the jury understood and followed the Court’s instructions, this Court perceives no prejudice to defendant arising from the two stricken questions. *(See, People v Rodriguez,*103 AD2d 121.)

We have considered defendant’s additional arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 92-1744.

Richard W. PICKENS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

LOCKHEED CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

May 21, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This case isthe latest and last of a series of cases brought byRichard W. Pickens("Pickens"),

Texas Extrusion Corp. ("TEC") or Pickens Industries, Inc. ("PII") seeking to set aside part or all of

the provisions of a joint plan of reorganization applicable to Pickens, TEC and PII which was

confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas in 1984 and affirmed by this

Court in Texas Extrusion Corp. v. Lockheed Corp., 844 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S.

926, 109 S.Ct. 311, 102 L.Ed.2d 330 (1988). The district court denied relief here on the basis, inter

alia, that all the claimsin the lawsuit were barred by the doctrine ofresjudicata and on the basisthat

the lawsuit was not brought within six months of the entry of the order approving the joint plan of

reorganization as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1144. The district court was indisputably correct in

dismissing this case. All the claims asserted by Pickens, TEC and PII either could have been brought

in the many previous proceedings or they were brought and ultimately rejected.

Although we would be just ified in assessing sanctions against Pickens, TEC and PII as

Lockheed has requested, we have elected not to do so. Our decision, however, is without prejudice

to Lockheed's right to re-urge the imposition ofsanctionsshould Pickens, TEC or PII attempt to act

in contravention of the order and judgment rendered herein.

We expressly forbid Pickens, TEC and PII, and each of them, from taking any action or filing

any pleadings concerning any matter or issue of any nature arising from or connected with the
litigation or causes of action heretofore asserted or existing between Pickens, TEC or PII, on the one

hand, and Lockheed Corporation or any of its affiliates, on the other hand. Without first obtaining

the express approval of a judge of this Court, neither the Clerk of this Court, nor the clerk of any

district court or bankruptcy court within the Fifth Circuit shall accept for filing any pleading or other

document proffered by or on behalf of Pickens, TEC or PII asto any such matter or issue, including,

without limitation, motions for rehearing or rehearing en banc in connection herewith, which we

expressly forbid them to file.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and the mandate shall issue forthwith.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00070-CR

BRENDA BENNETT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR1201108

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brenda Bennett appeals from her conviction on the charge of bail jumping and failure to 

appear.

1

 In a consolidated trial, Bennett was also convicted of misdemeanor theft.2 Bennett has 

filed a single brief in which she raises an issue common to each of her appeals. In her sole issue 

in this appeal, Bennett argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion for mistrial.

We addressed this issue in detail in our opinion of this date on Bennett’s appeal in cause 

number 06-14-00069-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that error has not 

been shown in this case.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: September 3, 2014

Date Decided: September 26, 2014

Do Not Publish

 1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.10 (West 2011).

2

Bennett’s appeal of her conviction of misdemeanor theft is the subject of a separate opinion in this Court’s cause 

number 06-14-00069-CR issued of even date herewith.