alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MICHAEL STERN AND DIGIFLO, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

SEQUAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________ 

2012-1207 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Washington in No. 10-CV-1257, Judge 

James L. Robart. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

PHILIP P. MANN, Mann Law Group, of Seattle, 

Washington, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Of counsel 

on the brief was JOHN WHITAKER, Whitaker Law Group, of 

Seattle, Washington. 

ANDREW D. SKALE, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky 

and Popeo P.C., of San Diego, California, argued for 

defendant-appellee. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, MOORE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges). 

 AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

November 9, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
AAM-13-390-E

June 12, 2013

 Exemption No. 10795

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0474

Mr. Michael Rhodes

Diamond Helicopters, LLC

11 Decatur Drive

Nashua, NH 03062

Dear Mr. Rhodes:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 24, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Diamond Helicopters, LLC (Diamond Helicopters) for an exemption from part 120

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Diamond

Helicopters to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing 

program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Diamond Helicopters.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing 

programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of 
2

safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was 

unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also 

apply to the situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Diamond Helicopters, Inc. an exemption from 14 CFR 

part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Diamond Helicopters to cover its safety-sensitive 

employees under one drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and 

limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Diamond Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations 

at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of 

the Diamond Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
**Exhibit 10.10Amended Schedule of NHP/Crossings Lease and Security AgreementsSubstantially in the Form of NHP/Crossings Lease and Security Agreement Which is Attached as Exhibit 10.35 to the Company's Form S-1.**1.     	Lease and Security Agreement by and between Nationwide Health Properties, Inc. and New Crossings Corporation dated as of December 15, 1995 (Heritage at Rogue Valley).2.     	Lease and Security Agreement by and between Nationwide Health Properties, Inc. and New Crossings Corporation dated as of December 15, 1995 (Albany Residential).3.     	Lease and Security Agreement by and between Nationwide Health Properties, Inc. and New Crossings Corporation dated as of December 15, 1995 (Forest Grove Residential).4.     	Lease and Security Agreement by and between Nationwide Health Properties, Inc. and New Crossings Corporation dated as of December 15, 1995 (McMinnville Residential).
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

129) ll-E-89 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:07 AM Sheet 129 of 264 
P.2 

HKK - r-y s i u t 7:0 9 P. 82 

04/06/98 18:42 ©19199410234 PE9 RTP NC ® 002-'003 

A 945 2 

H.-E- 81 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company: 

Contact Report 

Greg LaFlam and Melanie Proctor, 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

November 6,1996 and April 6,1998 

Mr. Charles DeBusk, Plant Engineer 

Appalachian Plastics, Inc., Glade Spring, VA 

L0CT ,22,1233 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

Telephone Number: (540)429-2581 

Fax Number: (540) 429-2631 

Contact Summary: 

Appalachian Plastics uses mostly corrosion-resistant (polyester and vinylester) resins in 

filament winding and open molding operations. The resins contain 40 to 45 percent styrene; no 

additional monomer is added when mixing the resin matrix. Resin is mixed in 10 mixing vats, 

which are approximately 3 feet in diameter and 3 feet high. The vats have a cover made in two 

halves: a fixed half and half that swivels out from the vat so mat ingredients can be added. The 

mixer shaft is mounted through bearings in the fixed half-cover. Prior to mixing, the cover is 

swivelled closed (metal-to-metal contact), so there is only a small crack (if any) in the coverenclosure. 

Clarification based on April 6,1998 contact report with Melanie Proctor (PES) 

Ms. Proctor explained that the purpose of this phone call was to determine if the facility's 

mixers are actively vented. Mr. DeBusk explained that no active ventilation of the mixing 

vessels occurs during the mixing process. 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE (A(A.D.lf
null

245.83548
EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert L. Howard-Anderson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report of Occam Networks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 25, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Occam Networks, Inc.



By:

/s/ Robert L. Howard-AndersonName:

Robert L. Howard-AndersonTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer


I, Christopher B. Farrell, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Occam Networks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 25, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Occam Networks, Inc.



By:

/s/ Christopher B. FarrellName:

Christopher B. FarrellTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Occam
Networks, Inc. and will be retained by Occam Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but 1

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

 Relator also filed a “Motion for Suspension of Operation of Rules,” seeking permission to file fewer 2

copies of his petition for writ of mandamus. We GRANT this motion.

NUMBER 13-10-00073-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE JOSE RAMIRO GARCIA GONZALES

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relator, Jose Ramiro Garcia Gonzales, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus

in the above cause on February 19, 2010, through which he seeks to compel the trial court

to rule on relator’s request for documents that are “necessary to file his 11.07 habeas

corpus.” According to relator, he is attempting to file his second application for writ of 2

habeas corpus. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 4 (Vernon Supp. 2009).
2

Article 11.07 provides the exclusive means for an incarcerated individual to

challenge a final felony conviction in non-death penalty cases. See id., § 5. Jurisdiction

to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief from a final felony conviction rests exclusively

with the court of criminal appeals. See Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court

of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Hoang v. State,

872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex.

App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (“Article 11.07 contains no role for the

courts of appeals; the only courts referred to are the convicting court and the Court of

Criminal Appeals. Should an applicant find it necessary to complain about an action or

inaction of the convicting court, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the Court

of Criminal Appeals.”); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5 (“After

conviction the procedure outlined in this Act shall be exclusive and any other proceeding

shall be void and of no force and effect in discharging the prisoner.”);

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this original proceeding. Accordingly, the

petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 23rd

day of February, 2010.
2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d

S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s

for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-10-2011



# G a d D e m a nd s t ein v

. Att y Ge n U S A

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t N o . 10-1230

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a

U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a

U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" G a d D e m a nd s t ein v

. Att y Ge n U SA" (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 1177.

h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/1177

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

March 22, 2011

No. 10

- 1230

GAD DEMANDSTEIN,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

( Agency No. A071

- 875

- 923 )

Present: FUENTES, VANASKIE and NYGAARD

, Circuit Judges

Motion by Respondent to Publish Opinion Dated 02/24/11.

Respectfully,

Clerk/tmk

____________________ _____________ORDER_____

___________________________

The foregoing motion is granted.

By the Court,

/s/ Julio M. Fuentes

Circuit Judge

Dated : May 10, 2011

tmk/cc: Lauren Anselowitz, Esq.

Robert Frank, Esq.

John C. Cunningham, I, Esq.

Don G. Scroggin, Esq.
October 15, 2014 

# AETOS

VIA FDMS 

# G R O U P

The Honorable Michael P. Huerta Administrator Office of the Administrator Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591
Re: Supplement to Aetos Petition for Exemption — Docket No. FAA-2014-0629 Dear Administrator Huerta: Aetos Group Inc. (AGI) submits this supplement to its Petition for Exemption in the above-referenced docket. In its Petition, AGI requested an exemption from aspects of 14 C.F.R. § 61.133(a)(1)(ii), Commercial Pilot Privileges and Limitations, while noting that "AGI will require all of its UAS operators to hold a commercial pilot certificate." In light of recent FAA Grants of Exemption and Public Guidance, l AGI modifies its Petition so as to delete the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.133(a)(1)(ii) and instead note that "AGI will require all of its UAS Pilots in Command (PIC) to hold a private pilot certificate and a third class medical certificate." Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me via email at bdonberg@aetosgroup.com if you have any questions or concerns. Best regards,

w 

# ~~ William Donberg President Aetos Group Inc.

cc: Gerry Murphy

1 See, e.g., In the Matter of the Petition of Astreaus Aerial, Grant of Exemption No. 11062 (Sep. 2S, 2014), Docket No. FAA-2014-0352; see also FAA, Supplemental Guidance on the Submission of Petitions under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Sep. 25, 2014).
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 16

- 3084

_____________________________
K EITH C HRISTOPHER J OHNSON , Appellant,

v.

R ETIA K ELLY and C HARLES P. J OHNSON , Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appea l from the Circuit Court for Clay County

. Michael S. Sharrit , Judge

. August 7, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRM ED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and K ELSEY and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized m otion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Candice K. Brower, Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, G ainesville ; Robert Keep, Jr., Supervising Attorney for Regional Conflict Counsel, Jack sonville; and Gertrude I. Kehne, Susan Barber, and Crystal McBee Frusciante, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel s , Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regio nal Counsel, Green Cove Springs, Tallahassee
, and Sunrise
, for Appellant.

No appe ar ance for Appelle e s

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7483

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID EUGENE ALLEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:19-cr-00846-CMC-1; 0:21-cv00157-CMC)

Submitted: February 24, 2022 Decided: March 1, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Eugene Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Elliott Bishop Daniels, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Eugene Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Allen has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>


                              POWER OF ATTORNEY 

   KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes 
and appoints each of Eric K. Kawamura, Joram C. Salig and Renee N. Tucei or 
any of them, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and 
agent, with full power of substitution, for him and in his name, place and 
stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the FIRST NATIONWIDE 
(PARENT) HOLDINGS INC. (the "Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the 
year ended December 31, 1997 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as 
amended, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign 
the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf of 
the undersigned as a director or officer of the Corporation, and any 
amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract, document or other 
writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments thereto, and to 
file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection 
therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, the Office of Thrift Supervision or other appropriate regulatory 
authority and any applicable securities exchange or securities 
self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each 
acting alone, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act 
and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as 
fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby 
ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each 
acting alone, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to 
be done by virtue hereof. 

   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this
25th day of March 1998. 
                                           /s/ Ronald O. Perelman
                                          ------------------------ 
                                               RONALD O. PERELMAN
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.26
COMMENCEMENT LETTER TO FOURTH AMENDMENT


		
	Re:
	Fourth Amendment to Lease Agreement dated April 30, 2016 (the “Lease”) , between Greenhouse Office Investors I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Landlord”) and AECOM (“Tenant”) for the File Storage Premises, the Rentable Square Footage of which is approximately 5,195, located on floor 1 (Suite 160) of the Building. Unless otherwise specified, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meaning as in the Lease.


Landlord and Tenant agree that:
		
	1.
	Landlord has fully completed all Landlord Work required under the Terms of the Lease.


		
	2.
	Tenant has accepted possession of the Premises. The Premises are usable by the Tenant as intended; Landlord has no further obligation to perform and Landlord Work. Tenant acknowledges that both the Building and the Premises are satisfactory in all respects; subject to Landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations as set forth in the Lease and subject to Landlord’s express warranty obligations with respect to Landlord Work (including Base Building Condition) as set forth in the Lease.


		
	3.
	The Commencement Date is July 25, 2016.


		
	4.
	Base Rent and Additional Rent under the Fourth Amendment to Lease, taking into account any abatements to which Tenant might be entitled under Section 1(b) of the Fourth Amendment, begin on July 25, 2016.


		
	5.
	The Expiration Date of the Lease is July 24, 2019, subject to extension to the last day of each properly exercised Renewal Option.




All other terms and conditions of the Lease are ratified and acknowledged to be unchanged.











EXECUTED AS OF     September 2        , 2016.


LANDLORD:
GREENHOUSE OFFICE INVESTORS I, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company


By:    /s/ Preston Young            
Name:    Preston Young            
Title:     Authorized Signatory        


TENANT:
AECOM
By:    /s/ Timothy P. Anderson        
Name:    Timothy P. Anderson        
Title:     Vice President, Finance
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R AYM OND W R IGHT, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. L. R UM B LES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-15278 D.C . No. 1:05-c v-01485-B AM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia B arbara M c Auliffe , M a g istra

te Judge , Pre siding * * Subm itte d

Ja nua ry 15, 2013 *** B e fore : SILVERM AN, B EA, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. R aym ond W

right, a C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt following a jury tria l in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging tha t 

# FIL ED JAN 17 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

rtie s c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de fe nda

nt viola te d his Eighth Am

e ndm e nt rights. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm . W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt be c a use Wright ha s fa i le d to ide ntify the re le va nt tria l tra n sc ripts to e na

ble us to re vie wthe a lle ge d e rrors. On August 9, 2012, this c ourt de nie d Wright’ s re que st for full tra nsc ripts of thetria l without pre j udic e to re ne wa l, showing which portions of the tra nsc ript a re ne c e s sa

ry to de c ide the issue s pre se nte d. Wright ha s fa ile d to re spond. Ac c ordingly , we are una ble to re vie w his c o nte ntions c ha lle nging thedistric t c ourt e vide ntia ry rulings. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 10(b)(2); Sy nc o m C apital C o rp. v . W ade , 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th C ir. 1991) (pe r c uriam ) (dism issing a ppe a l by pro se a ppe l la nt for fa ilure to provide re le va

nt tria l tra n sc ripts). W e do not a ddre ss W

right’ s jury

bia s a rgum e nt be c a

use Wright fa i le d to ra ise it in his ope

n ing brie f. Se eLibe ral v . Estrada , 632 F.3d 1064, 1072 n.6 (9th C ir. 2011) (a

rgum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e in a re ply brie f are wa ive d). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 5 2 7 8 2