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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; XAVIER 

BECERRA, Attorney General; KRISTEN K. 

CHENELIA, Deputy Attorney General; 

TAMI M. KREZIN, Deputy Attorney 

General; PAUL E. O’CONNOR, Deputy 

Attorney General; SARAH M. BRATTIN, 

Deputy Attorney General; LUCAS L. 

HENNES, Deputy Attorney General; 

JOANNA B. HOOD, Deputy Attorney 

General; MATTHEW R. WILSON, Deputy 

Attorney General, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-15559 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02100-JAM-DMC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

* 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 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-15559 

California state prisoner Joshua Davis Bland appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of the 

Contract Clause. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 

213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bland’s action because Bland failed to 

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,

341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff 

must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see 

also RUI One Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 371 F.3d 1137, 1147 (9th Cir. 2004)

(stating framework to review a claim under the Contract Clause).

AFFIRMED.
Order filed, June 02, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00781-CV

____________

IN THE MATTER OF I.F.M., Appellant

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14-CJV-019259

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due November 17, 2015. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. On April 12, 2016, this court ordered the court reporter to file the 

record within 30 days. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the 

reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Kelly Kelly, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. No further extension will be 

entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are 

jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Kelly Kelly does not timely file the record as ordered, we 

will issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the 

reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: LORENZO GARCIA,

 Appellant.

 

 

 

§

§

§

 

§

§

§ 

 

§

'

'

No. 08-14-00316-CR

Appeal from the

384th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20100D00224-384-1)

 O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief 

until May 20, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE 

APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Mario A. Gonzalez, the Appellant’s Attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before May 20, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of April, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
# C_2012326EN.01039301.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/391

---

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

TITLE IV

SOLIDARITY

SOLIDARITY

Article 31

Fair and just working conditions

1.   Every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity.

2.   Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave.

---
# L_2004376EN.01005101.xml

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 376/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 376/51

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 113/2004

of 9 July 2004

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 82/2004 of 8 June 2004 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 82/2004 of 8 June 2004 (1).

| (2) | Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in point 23a (Council Directive 96/82/EC) of Annex XX to the Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32003 L 0105: Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 (OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 97).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32003 L 0105: Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 (OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 97).’

Article 2

The texts of Directive 2003/105/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 10 July 2004, provided that all the notifications under Article 103 (1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1)

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 9 July 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kjartan JÓHANNSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 349, 25.11.2004, p. 39.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 97.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
**For fastest processing, please attach this form and a PDF shipping label in an email to DairySanitaryCerts@ams.usda.gov.

DA-249 (01/2013)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program.  (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

 To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 202 (Thursday, October 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 64108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25803]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, November 16, 2012.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the 
event that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, 
an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the 
meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-25803 Filed 10-16-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50474 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JOSE ROBERTO YEPEZ

- VALENCIA , also known as Jose Roberto Yepez,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:18

- CR

- 3615

- 1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Roberto Yepez

- Valencia appeals his conviction for illegal reentry , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He stipulated at a bench trial that he illegally reentered this country, reserving the ri ght to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. Yepez

- Valencia asserts that the indictment was invalid because the removal order was void due to a defective notice to appear that failed to specify the date and time for his removal hearin g. He concedes

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 31, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50474 Document: 00515293387 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2020No. 19

- 50474

2 that the issue is foreclosed by United States v. Pedroza

- Rocha , 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19

- 6588), and Pierre

- Paul v. Barr , 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19

- 779) , but he wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is foreclosed under Pedroza

- Rocha and Pierre

- Paul . Alternat iv ely, the Government reques ts an extension of time to file a brief. In Pedroza

- Rocha , we conclude d that the notice to appear was not rendered deficient because it did not specify a date or time for the removal hearing, that any such alleged deficiency had not deprived the immigrati on court of jurisdiction, and that Pedroza

- Rocha could not collaterally attack his underlying removal order without first exhausting his administrative remedies. 933 F.3d at 496

- 98

. Because the Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law s o that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extensi on of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-50474 Document: 00515293387 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2020
Exhibit 99.6




CEO AND CFO SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION








February 1, 2013







Securities and Exchange Commission


450 Fifth Street, N.W


Washington, D.C. 20549











Ladies and Gentlemen:





The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.




Claude Mongeau, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Luc Jobin, Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, of Canadian National Railway Company, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:




1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and




2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Canadian National Railway Company.














/s/ Claude Mongeau

Claude Mongeau

President and Chief Executive Officer
/s/ Luc Jobin

Luc Jobin

Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-14 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 June 28, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

National Beef Black Canyon Angus Beef Premium Reserve Program

G-14 Specification

1 REQUIREMENTS

Beef carcasses certified under this specification shall meet the following requirements: 

a. Phenotypic or genotypic requirements of the American Angus Association’s (AAA) Live

Animal Specification;

b. Classed as Steer or Heifer carcasses only1;

c. U.S. Prime or Choice and have a minimum marbling score of Small 501; 

d. Less than 30 months of age with lean color, texture, and firmness, meeting the requirements for

A maturity in the U.S. grade it qualifies for1;

e. Moderately thick or thicker muscling and tend to be at least moderately wide and thick in

relation to their length1F

2

;

f. No hump exceeding 2 inches in height 3

; 

g. Practically free (not detracting from visual quality) of capillary rupture in the ribeye muscle;

and

h. Free of “dark cutting” characteristics.

2 CERTIFICATION

Carcasses to be examined for compliance with this specification shall be clearly identified and 

presented to an AMS grader for certification. Certification procedures for identification, the removal 

of preliminary identification marks (or other methods of control) from non-qualifying carcasses, and 

control of certified carcasses shall be in accordance with established Quality Assessment Division 

(QAD) procedures. 

3 LABELING

Labeling of products derived from certified carcasses must follow Food Safety and Inspection Service 

regulations and policy guidelines and QAD procedures. 

1 Determined in accordance with the “Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef.” 2 Muscle thickness is evaluated by averaging the thickness of the various parts, considering not only the proportion of each part of the 

carcass but also the general value of each part. Superior muscle thickness implies a high proportion of meat to bone and a high 

proportion of the weight of the carcass in the more valuable parts.

3 Measured from a line formed by the extension of the top line (including the fat) and measuring the lean muscle (excluding the fat) 

perpendicular to that line in the center of the hump.
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-14 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 June 28, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

4 FEES

The costs of all grading and certification services performed by an AMS grader involving 

examinations, supervision, official documentation, and related services shall be borne by the person, 

group, or plant requesting the service.

___________________________________

Chad Nelson, National Meat Supervisor

Quality Assessment Division

Livestock & Poultry Program
First Page Transaction:

Once you click a control number:When you click on the PR/Award number:

Then click “Edit Breakdown” and the drawdown amounts will become editable.This image cannot currently be displayed.
# C_2016202EN.01039801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/398 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/398

---

Article 21

Non-discrimination

1.   Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

2.   Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 amendment to the Quarterly Report of American
HomePatient, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Joseph F. Furlong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Company.

This Certification is executed as of April 29, 2003.



                                       /s/ Joseph F. Furlong
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Joseph F. Furlong
                                       Chief Executive Officer

A signed original 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.
# Missouri_county_differentials_2
# C_2016203EN.01003001.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/30

---

Article 73

Where an agreement or contract between a Member State, a person or an undertaking on the one hand, and a third State, an international organisation or a national of a third State on the other, provides inter alia for delivery of products which come within the province of the Agency, the prior consent of the Commission shall be required for the conclusion or renewal of that agreement or contract, as far as delivery of the products is concerned.

---
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE VII

COMMON RULES ON COMPETITION, TAXATION AND APPROXIMATION OF LAWS

COMMON RULES ON COMPETITION, TAXATION AND APPROXIMATION OF LAWS

CHAPTER 1

RULES ON COMPETITION

SECTION 1

SECTION 1

RULES APPLYING TO UNDERTAKINGS

Article 104

(ex Article 84 TEC)

(ex Article 84 TEC)

Until the entry into force of the provisions adopted in pursuance of Article 103, the authorities in Member States shall rule on the admissibility of agreements, decisions and concerted practices and on abuse of a dominant position in the internal market in accordance with the law of their country and with the provisions of Article 101, in particular paragraph 3, and of Article 102.

---
# C_2016202EN.01019401.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/194 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/194

---

Article 347

(ex Article 297 TEC)

(ex Article 297 TEC)

Member States shall consult each other with a view to taking together the steps needed to prevent the functioning of the internal market being affected by measures which a Member State may be called upon to take in the event of serious internal disturbances affecting the maintenance of law and order, in the event of war, serious international tension constituting a threat of war, or in order to carry out obligations it has accepted for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

APPOINTMENT TO THE

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF LAW

EXAMINERS

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 908

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2022, Patrick J. Thomassey, Esquire, Allegheny 

County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners 

for a term of three years, commencing April 1, 2022.
#### In the Matter of Catina C. and Others, Children Alleged to be Abused.

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: In this child abuse/neglect proceeding brought pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, petitioner, the Monroe County Department of Social Services, appeals from an order which granted respondent’s discovery request. The court directed petitioner to videotape any "validation” interview conducted with the allegedly abused child and to provide respondent and the law guardian with access to such videotape for "review and reproduction”, or be prohibited from offering validation testimony into evidence at the hearing. On appeal, petitioner challenges the court’s disclosure order on various constitutional and statutory grounds. Additionally, the parties debate the wisdom and desirability of the court’s order on policy grounds. We *1054express no opinion on the general advisability of videotaping validation interviews. We merely find that, under the circumstances presented here, the court’s order was an improvident exercise of discretion because there were no compelling reasons presented to warrant such novel expansion of discovery rights. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Miller, J.—Child Abuse.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.