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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY ANDRE SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

M. ROENNMANN, Correctional Officer at 

S.V.S.P.; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-15238 

D.C. No. 5:16-cv-01269-BLF 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2019**

Before: Farris, D.W. Nelson, and Trott, Circuit Judges.

Gregory Andre Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the 

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth

Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (legal rulings 

* 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

AUG 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15238 

on exhaustion); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary 

judgment). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Smith’s deliberate 

indifference claim against defendant Mack because Smith failed to raise a genuine 

dispute of material fact as to whether Mack was deliberately indifferent in treating 

plaintiff’s symptoms arising from alleged food contamination. See Toguchi, 391 

F.3d at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows 

of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, 

negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not 

amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Smith’s retaliation 

claims because Smith failed to exhaust administrative remedies and failed to raise 

a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were 

effectively unavailable to him. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858-60 (2016)

(setting forth circumstances when administrative remedies are unavailable); 

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (the Prison Litigation Reform Act 

requires “proper exhaustion,” which means “using all steps that the agency holds 

out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)” 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
3 18-15238 

We do not address Smith’s contentions relating to his claims against 

defendants that were resolved in a separate action.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1


                            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  Quarterly  Report  of  Zandaria  Ventures  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  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 results of operations of the Company.


Date:  November 13, 2007


/s/ Jason Smart
-----------------------------------
Jason Smart, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)




-------------------
This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**





**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**


**As
      Adopted Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with the annual report on Form
      10-KSB/A of Simtrol, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2006,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof
      (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify that (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 Company.





This
      Certification is signed on May 2, 2007.




/s/ Richard W. EganRichard W. EganPresident and Chief Executive
              Officer/s/ Stephen N. SampStephen N. SampChief Financial
              Officer
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2409 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on sodium petroleum sulfonic 

acids, sodium salts. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. HAGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on sodium 

petroleum sulfonic acids, sodium salts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SODIUM PETROLEUM SULFONIC ACIDS, SO4 DIUM SALTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.34.01 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 sodium petroleum sulfonic acids, sodium salts) is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2409 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
*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. 98-50771

Summary Calendar

 

VIOLA PENA

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMPASSIONATE CARE, INC.

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(MO-98-CV-179)

 

March 15, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Viola Pena claims that Compassionate Care, Inc., her former

employer, discriminated against her because of her national origin

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She

alleges that Compassionate Care fired her because she is Hispanic.

Judge L. Stuart Platt, United States Magistrate Judge, granted

summary judgment for Compassionate Care, and Pena appeals. Because

the competent summary judgment evidence before the lower court did
2

not raise a material fact issue that national origin was a

motivating reason for Pena’s termination, we AFFIRM.

The analysis for Title VII discrimination claims is wellestablished. See St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502

(1993). The plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case that the

defendant made an employment decision that was motivated by a

protected factor. Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case,

the defendant bears the burden of producing evidence that its

employment decision was based on a legitimate nondiscriminatory

reason. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that

the defendant’s proffered reasons were a pretext for

discrimination. See Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d 1086,

1089 (5th Cir. 1995).

Assuming Pena were to establish a prima facie case, Pena fails

to present competent summary judgment evidence to rebut

Compassionate Care’s proffered reason for her termination: that

Pena submitted a false mileage claim after having been warned not

to do so when had previously submitted a false claim. Pena argues

that similarly situated white employees were treated more favorably

than she was, but this argument is invalid. The white employees

whom Pena claims were similarly situated did not, like Pena, submit

a false mileage claim after having previously done so and been

warned about it. Thus, Pena provides no evidence to show that the

true reason she was terminated was because she was Hispanic.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.
Exhibit 31.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Lorne Broten, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Barrington Sciences
Corporation, a Nevada corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 1, 2007

/S/ Lorne Broten
------------------------------
Lorne Broten, CFO
```

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-63020, No. 333-113834, and No. 333-38765), Form
S-4 (No. 333-11742, No. 333-38759, and No. 333-70522) and Form S-8 (No.
333-130016, 333-129396, 333-112107, No. 333-71063, and No. 333-44742) of Armor
Holdings, Inc. of our report dated March 14, 2006 relating to the financial
statements, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, which appears in the Form 10-K filed with the Securities &
Exchange Commission on March 15, 2006.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Jacksonville, Florida
July 17, 2006
```
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6829]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Eighteenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight 
Visions Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of meeting RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight 
Visions Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
eighteenth meeting of RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight 
Visions Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).

DATES: The meeting will be held April 17-19, 2012, from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 213. The agenda will 
include the following:

April 17, 2012

<bullet> Introductions and administrative items
<bullet> Review and approve minutes from last full plenary meeting
<bullet> Review and approve updated terms of reference for submittal to 
PMC
<bullet> Review SVS/CVS (WG1) and Vision Systems (WG2) objectives
<bullet> Work Group 2 (VS) Discussion

April 18, 2012

<bullet> Work Group 2 (VS) Discussion
<bullet> Work Group 1 (SVS/CVS) break discussion out if needed

April 19, 2012

<bullet> Work Group 1 and 2 Update
<bullet> Administrative items (action item review and meeting 
schedule--July 17-19 DC, September/October Europe)
<bullet> Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 15, 2012.
John Raper,
Manager, Business Operations Branch, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-6829 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN MICHAEL CRIM,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 16676

D.C. No. 1:09

- cv

- 02041

- AWI

- GSA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017 **

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

John Michael Crim , a former federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law

violations

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse

of discretion a d ismissal for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v.

* 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

JAN 5 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 16676

Galaza , 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002)

. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Crim’s action

because Crim failed to comply with a court order and meet d eadlines, despite being

warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal

. See id. at 642

- 43

(discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to

comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet , 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.

1992) ( a lthough dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district court ’ s dismissal should

not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear

error of judgment” (citation s and int ernal quotation marks omitted))

.

We reject as without merit Crim’s contentions that he was denied due

process or deprived of any rights or privileges.

We do not consider the district court’ s order denying Crim’s request to use

electronic filing because Crim did not file an amended notice of appeal. S ee Fed.

R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

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

.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statement No. 333-123549 on Form S-3 and in Registration Statements No.s 333-23237, 333-41327, 333-62157 and 333-71892 on Forms S-8 of Radiant Systems, Inc. of our reports dated February 26, 2007, relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Radiant Systems, Inc (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Companys adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 123(R), Share Based Payment) and our report dated February 26, 2007, relating to managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Radiant
Systems, Inc for the year ended December 31, 2006.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|                         
|Atlanta, Georgia         
|May 4, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/ FREDDIE M. KOTEKName:
    
    Freddie M. KotekTitle:
    
    Chairman of the Board of Directors,Chief Executive Officer and
President of the Managing General PartnerDate: August 16, 2010
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of the 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 the Quarterly Report of American Apparel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Adrian Kowalewski, Chief Financial 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:


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


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.





Date:May 10, 2011By:/s/ JOHN LUTTRELLJohn LuttrellChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Lesesne, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J., at hearing, plea and sentence), rendered June 16, 1988, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him as a violent predicate felon to an indeterminate prison term of from 2 Vi to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

On appeal, defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in summarily denying his motion to withdraw his previously entered plea of guilty, on the ground that he was not aware that the co-defendant’s plea allocution would be inadmissible in evidence against him at trial. We disagree. It is well-settled that a defendant is not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea merely because he discovers that he misapprehended the quality of the State’s case *(see, Brady v United States,*397 US 742, 757; *People v Jones,*44 NY2d 76, 81, *cert denied*439 US 846). Bare allegations of innocence are also insufficient *(People v Cooke,*61 AD2d 1060). As the sentencing court allowed defendant a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions, the motion was properly denied without a hearing *(People v Tinsley,*35 NY2d 926). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No:
33-44036, 33-44035, 33-55094, 33-56856, 33-72512, 33-81314, 333-728, 33-85754,
333-15123, 333-18237, 333-18239, 33-30597, 333-44407, 333-48635, 333-83035,
333-87561, and 333-35578 of Simtrol, Inc on Form S-8 of our report dated
February 20, 2004, except for the last paragraph of Note 11, which is dated
March 29, 2004 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Simtrol,
Inc., which report includes an explanatory paragraph as to an uncertainty with
respect to Simtrol, Inc.'s ability to continue as a going concern, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Simtrol, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 2003.

/s/ Marcum & Kliegman LLP

Marcum & Kliegman LLP
New York, NY
March 30, 2004