alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4281 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4281

   To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to expand access to 
    capital for rural-area small businesses, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 7, 2017

Mr. Kihuen (for himself and Mr. Mooney of West Virginia) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to expand access to 
    capital for rural-area small businesses, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Expanding Access to Capital for 
Rural Job Creators Act''.

SEC. 2. ACCESS TO CAPITAL FOR RURAL-AREA SMALL BUSINESSES.

    Section 4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78d) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (j)(4)(C), by striking ``and women-owned 
        small businesses'' and inserting ``, women-owned, and rural-
        area small businesses''; and
            (2) in subsection (j)(6)(B)(iii), by striking ``and women-
        owned small businesses'' and inserting ``, women-owned, and 
        rural-area small businesses''.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0423 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-233-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 120L/4716/13

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
. fO~ TtfE C.L~k tfF'r 

~-OF CR!Mif'Jid_ iJ\PPEM_$ OF'Tf::#\;5' 

AUsn ..J, TK . 

IA'Yl~ 6£)(T&v i 7 g7 SD 3 

F'DBEKIS&.!J cv~rr 

t2-o71 P.lv\. ·g 5 2 z 

A.s;~tfi~t~U~ 

COURT OF CR!r.,w·J~1 A~At.S 

AUG 10 20\5 

A 8oU( .lt-i£ CAIO OF"' M ltV J ~wl A LEtv-t6t&tlo/~p£J:JJWk 

Witf61 r INCL.LJ0ctl; L, A Mtmcr--J PO~ MPDtAfi'M£1\J! CtF C.OVt.J5£L 

6PviGL'\W\.-LLY FtL£b IN z__q !1:!: Dts-netc:r ~T i ~ALo P iAlTZJ t covNH, 

ltXfl"$ &1\l ~BER llllir Zlllc:fj&:Xttt8'fi"'At); Z; two (z) L£ThSR6 

·ro THE. ~.NAME".D CDVKI MNZKED GXtiiB'iT5 '8~~-Nt;>"'c ;J' 

f hlet-ER. RCCEIVED fr(f;J\JavJL£0b£M&JT 11\A-T 1iflff P.4Ck11-be t(TtD 

16£8\1 R(C£i VeD gy YoVR 01-f=-IC£ 6fZ WHr-11 ACJ70N HI\·S Ef!VJ 

T¥\-1(-Ef\l R~DW6 ·niE MOllo.tJ < 

l1i£ '€, \'t\"i'E C.OUN6EL FtiR ~-i=BJbS~S IN A*N\CD MS 'lH-A-1 "four<. 

~ .MOST ()RJ;:£1<. Tttt ~Of,0"fM8J\ o-t==-CC!lJN.SfL Ft:1R. w~ tl oF 

· HABEA:~ ~~s ()IN) JA'( PAR.nwt.At< cAS£ ~ (fNl~,s llTcives} 

r. AM UNf\13L£ 1D 0-&Ti\iN 00LUM£tJIS 1V 5utPo-R-r- MY CLA/Ivf) 

Nt\iU-i {S TRUE 1\tJ!J WB6TifTIAL 1 EflN~ -A \llDLIBlD.iJ OF l=DVRrH 

A/VtfNOMeJT .PRffft.G-iiOAlS PRCAJtD&D ISY THE CD.NSnTI.J710N 

OF Tt1C UNfiED SlrtlES fSIL-t... DF RtGtfr:,, 

Jlif U.$, 60fREfv\t c.ov-R-T MAS RUL£D THAT fN.DI~[1JT,JNCIY(cGKt\1tt D£FEi\ltWJ\5 R£61~1<£ COUNS-El- FoR wR t\ llF liA~~ CoRF-vs., 

TMtREFOR.E r eo NrJr wA.NTlD P'R~, PRo s£,o.N f\ ./'JEw 

-~ Cet(j~)~ PR.a::fe.D\NG B'A5£.D 64\1 t-l£W RULfNGS MD 

LI\W occuR.tlJb Afl=Ck. M'f O"Rt61tJAL ~Pi .. JCf\TlDN Fo~ 

WR.q:- OF ·N-t\:15£1\:; QIR:R:Js, 
I i-IA\IC vv~fTTttJ !v'IAN'Y I\~~£'(S AtJD L£QAL .Att> oR@.fZ-fntJJS 

Mf.J g££tJ utJwrcE~srvL- o€r-At'\l 1Al6 R'-rP~$-JTAne.\1 oAl PRo gcxvz; 

iSA-siS 1 6o PA-R. NO:-Jf t/Ail£ t\-Ab THE FRDF~SSiDN.A_L CbURT£6 y TO 

~ RE.s"Po,~t) 10 INOVIR\f. 

IS l11ER£ A RELbRD I C:AtJ D1nAIN Ff'-f)lv\ YD?JR, OfP:t.C£ OF AUFiLi Nb 5 BY .Mt. M·D THE. S!AllJ S {)F 11+£/V\. -ALL DP ;.N'{ 1\ffi_teftrl£9JJ 5 

RJ\Vt:: BEE.,J'' DctJtE-b W1TrtouT W-R. lTTtN R£c:bR.b' 1 w ln,-wur rvJ"t 6DR.! 

Ofi- EKFL...At\lf\ll&l-.1 vJ H 'f J 'lHA I J M l b.J{T Cvvet<.£:-Ct P R:oi~~S bR. 

EY<.~s. 

IN Tt-!!5 frJGTMCt i PALO PiN'ro ~ 1Y-- CAv-:c- 14l2'2. -A, 1 

fikJE A CLftiM IHAT HM ALI<Ekf.JY S-esN CA6ES CNf3f?-TlJR.'-JE_D t .. ....l 

YoVR Cl:n>RT' l). S ·. D \s\'R \ CT ~ M .D l-H£ St)f'Rf:N\-5 CDL)f2,T Fv'R 

\ D£Nl1CAL Gtr<(.i)MSU\!JC£5; 

..f CAJJ N-OT U\'JI)ERST1Wb trJttY .t. AM NMlN(; ££' MvLLi D1r=P:tC.lJU'{ 

0611\V.JlNb R£Lfi£W',. _J._ G-HDLLD 1\l-tFI f6t. RE-~UIQttl ID tt-/R.c CP51JJV6£L 

WrtfN THe t9\ uw- 1:.-i-E s CtJ1Ttf 11f£ tS-r+ITC M b lTS fi-At\! ()L w 6. or .M t:, 

N~ CAN 1 ffP~t) 0~£ I 

~ ~ \,~'1( 7 9/i (pw -c0 {)Rlf,f,J~f- AfPJ...tC.:tH'lo.N 

£f~~ JM\Es ~ !5/ z/ls-
#### Michael J. De Brino Jr., as Administrator of the Estate of Eileen M. De Brino, Deceased, Appellant, v Benequista and Benequista Realty, Inc., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Mercure, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Doran, J.), entered March 21, 1990 in Schenectady County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*447This personal injury action was commenced in 1981 to recover damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff’s decedent on March 14, 1980 as a result of a fall at decedent’s place of employment, the Woodlawn branch of Capital District OffTrack Betting Corporation in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County. Decedent was apparently returning from her lunch break to her work station when her foot caught on the carpeting in an area reserved for employees only. The premises had been leased by defendant’s assignor to the City in 1975 under the terms of an agreement which provided that, with the exception of structural repairs, all maintenance was to be the responsibility of the lessee. Following joinder of issue, defendant moved for summary judgment claiming that, because it was a nonpossessory landlord at the time of the injury, it did not owe a duty of care to decedent. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. It is well settled that an out-of-possession landlord who relinquishes control of the premises and is not contractually obligated to repair unsafe conditions is not liable to employees of a lessee for personal injuries caused by an unsafe condition existing on the premises *(see, Mancini v Cappiello Realty Corp.,*144 AD2d 154, 155, *lv denied*73 NY2d 708; *Gelardo v ASMA Realty Corp.,*137 AD2d 787, 788; *Bellen v Lomanto,*125 AD2d 905, *lv denied*69 NY2d 610; *Williams v Saratoga County Agrie. Socy.,*277 App Div 742, 744). The rule does not apply, however, "if the lessor rents the premises for a public use to which he knows they are unsuited” *(Campbell v Holding Co.,*251 NY 446, 448; *see, Williams v Saratoga County Agrie. Socy., supra).*Although it is by no means clear that defendant, as the lessor, knew or should have known that the premises were in a dangerous condition at the time they were rented *(see, supra),*here the exception could not apply because the injury is not claimed to have occurred in an area which was open to the public *(see, Strade v Ryan,*97 AD2d 880; *cf., Brady v Cocozzo,*174 AD2d 814). Accordingly, Supreme Court’s order should be affirmed.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated January 19, 2017, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-214673) of Smart Trust 291,
comprising Smart Trust, NASDAQ International Dividend Achievers Index Trust, Series 10.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


January 19, 2017
Call 1-866-4USDA-WS (1-866-487-3297) or visit aphis.usda.gov/dontfeedwildlife for more information.

CAUTION

Feeding may harm wildlife and result in 

damage to property and natural resources.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. APHIS-22-011-4 | Issued June 2022

ALL FEEDING IS DISCOURAGED

Wildlife Services
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DWAYNE RODNEY WOODRUFF

,

Appellant

,

v.

T HE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 1 41

- C R

Appeal from the

3 84 th District Court

o f El Paso County , Texas

(TC# 2017 0D02504 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’ s fourth motion for extension of time within which to

file the b rief until February 15

, 20 20

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE APPELLANT ’ S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Eduardo Solis

, the Appellant ’ s attorney, prepare the

Appellant ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 15

, 20 20

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 7 th day of December

, 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5657]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

  The following bill was read the second time, and placed on the 
calendar:

       H.R. 6082. An act to officially replace, within the 60-day 
     Congressional review period under the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act, President Obama's Proposed Final Outer Continental 
     Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program (2012-2017) with a 
     congressional plan that will conduct additional oil and 
     natural gas lease sales to promote offshore energy 
     development, job creation, and increased domestic energy 
     production to ensure a more secure energy future in the 
     United States, and for other purposes.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008092EN.01001701.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 4, Bilbao (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2008 — Asturcom Telecomunicaciones S.L. v Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira

o

(Case C-40/08)

(2008/C 92/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 4, Bilbao

o

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asturcom Telecomunicaciones S.L.

Applicant:

Defendant: Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira

Defendant:

Question referred

May the protection of consumers under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts require the court hearing an action for enforcement of a final arbitration award, made in the absence of the consumer, to determine of its own motion whether the arbitration agreement is void and accordingly to annul the award if it finds that that arbitration agreement contains an unfair term to the detriment of the consumer?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

1

---
From: Crawford, Jeff S [mailto:Jeff.S.Crawford@maine.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 4:27 PM

To: Arnold, Anne

Subject: Additional Technical Additional Documentation in Support of Maine's OTR Restructuring 

and NOx Waiver Requests 

Anne:

I have attached additional materials in support of Maine’s section 182(f) NOx waiver and OTR 

restructuring requests. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 

(207)287-7647.

Jeff Crawford

Policy Development Specialist

Attached files:

 Additional comments cover.pdf

 WDF and Trajectories of Ozone Events with NOX.pptx
# C_2010080EN.01000301.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 February 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-523/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/71/EC - Specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2010/C 80/05

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and M.-A. Rabanal Suárez, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research (OJ 2005 L 289, p. 15)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 24.01.2009.

1

---
# C_2008197EN.01001002.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 May 2008 — Dr. Erhard Eschig v UNIQA Sachversicherung AG

(Case C-199/08)

(2008/C 197/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dr. Erhard Eschig

Applicant:

Defendant: UNIQA Sachversicherung AG

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (1) to be interpreted to the effect that it precludes a clause, contained in the standard terms and conditions of insurance of a legal expenses insurer, which entitles the insurer, in respect of insurance claims concerning losses suffered by a large number of insured persons as a result of the same event (for example the insolvency of an investment services undertaking), to select a legal representative and which thereby restricts the right of the individual insured person to choose his own lawyer (so-called ‘mass torts clause’)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (1) to be interpreted to the effect that it precludes a clause, contained in the standard terms and conditions of insurance of a legal expenses insurer, which entitles the insurer, in respect of insurance claims concerning losses suffered by a large number of insured persons as a result of the same event (for example the insolvency of an investment services undertaking), to select a legal representative and which thereby restricts the right of the individual insured person to choose his own lawyer (so-called ‘mass torts clause’)?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative:
  What are the requirements for the existence of a ‘mass tort’ which, in accordance with (or as a complement to) Directive 87/344/EEC, confers on the insurer instead of the insured person the right to select the legal representative? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative:

What are the requirements for the existence of a ‘mass tort’ which, in accordance with (or as a complement to) Directive 87/344/EEC, confers on the insurer instead of the insured person the right to select the legal representative?

---

(1)  OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77.

1

---
Exhibit 32

                    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 Two Moons Kachinas, Corp. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), I, David C. Merrell, President and director of the Registrant,
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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


Dated: 8-14-03                              /s/ David C. Merrell
      --------                             ---------------------
                                           David C. Merrell
                                           President and director
#### Application of WASHINGTON COUNTY SEWER IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 1.

No. 35835.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 10, 1953.

William L. Ware, Bartlesville, and George J. Fagin, Oklahoma City, for applicant.

DAVISON, Justice.

This original proceeding was filed in this Court under authority granted by the provisions of 19 O.S.Supp.1949, § 896, to secure the approval of sewer improvement bonds to be issued by Washington County Sewer Improvement District No. 1 of Washington County, Oklahoma, in the principal sum of $250,000. Notice of the hearing for such approval was given in manner and form as required and provided by law and no protest or objection to said approval has been filed, ■and no one appeared at the hearing in opposition thereto.

There has been filed with said application a transcript of all the proceedings had in the organization of the sewer improvement district and in the authorization and approval of the improvement sought to be constructed and in the authorization and issuance of the bonds, the proceeds of which are to be used for the payment of the purchase and installation of a sewer system in said district. Said transcript contains copies of all petitions, orders, resolutions and notices with proofs of service thereof. A thorough and complete compliance has been had with the provisions of law governing the same, House Bill No. 278 of the Regular Session of the Twenty-Second Legislature, S.L.1949, C. 22, p. 180 et seq., 19 O.S.Supp.1949, § 871 et seq.

From the record submitted, it appears that the said sewer district was properly and legally created, and the proposed bond issue properly and legally authorized, and therefore this court approves the issuance of the bonds as it is authorized to do by the law above referred to.

The court hereby fixes the period of 10 days within which a petition for rehearing may be filed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
________________________________________________________________________________


Board of Directors
ProCyte Corporation
Redmond, Washington

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 
333-64339. 33-59983, 33-48809, and 33-40565 on Form S-8 and Registration 
Statement No. 333-52073 on Form S-3 of ProCyte Corporation of our report dated 
February 15, 1999, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ProCyte 
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1998.



 /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
--------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Seattle, Washington
February 24, 1999
#### Ronnie S. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ann THOMPSON, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-15452.

D.C. No. CV-03-04457-JF.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.*

Decided Oct. 18, 2005.

Ronnie S. Martin, Soledad, CA, pro se,

Before HALL, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Ronnie S. Martin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Martin’s claim that defendants harassed him because allegations of verbal harassment alone fail to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. *See Freeman v. Arpaio,*125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir.1997)

The district court properly dismissed Martin’s claim that defendants defamed him because Martin fails to allege facts that support a “loss of a recognizable property or liberty interest in conjunction with the allegation of injury to reputation.” *See Cooper v. Dupnik,*924 F.2d 1520, 1532 (9th Cir.1991).

The district court properly dismissed Martin’s claim that defendants violated his due process rights because Martin fails to allege that the psychiatric reports affected his sentence, or otherwise deprived him of a liberty interest. *See Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 *614L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (the due process clause is implicated where changes in conditions affect the sentence imposed in an unexpected manner causing a loss of liberty).

Martin’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.