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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VINA YAZZIE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

COUNTY OF MOHAVE and STEVE

LATOSKI,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16452

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-08153-JAT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 5, 2019 

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

VinaYazzie (“Yazzie”), a NativeAmerican woman, wasfired fromher position

at the MohaveCounty PublicWorks Department (“PWD”) after failing a randomdrug

test while on duty. Yazzie appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment on her

FILED

FEB 08 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
race discrimination claims, brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

§ 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Merrick v. Hilton

Worldwide, Inc., 867 F.3d 1139, 1145 (9th Cir. 2017), we affirm.

1. There was no error in granting summary judgment on Yazzie’s Title VII

and § 1981 claims. Defendants proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for

terminating Yazzie’s employment, namely her failed drug test. Thus, under the

McDonnell Douglas framework, Yazzie was required to show that the proffered

reason was pretextual, see Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115,

1124 (9th Cir. 2000), which she failed to do. Indeed, the record shows that the Public

Works Director—the sole decision maker with regard to Yazzie’s

dismissal—uniformly terminated, or permitted resignation in lieu of termination, all

PWD employees who failed drug or alcohol tests while on duty.

1

2. Because Yazzie failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether

defendants were motivated by discriminatory intent, there was no error in granting

summary judgment on her § 1983 claim for violation of her equal protection and due

process rights. See Peters v. Lieuallen, 746 F.2d 1390, 1393 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Since

1 Yazzie does not contend she should have been afforded the opportunity to

resign in lieu of termination.

2
[plaintiff] has failed to demonstrate intentional discrimination on the part of the

defendants, his [§ 1983 claim] must also fail.”).

3. Yazzie does not appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of

defendants Ramon Osuna, Kevin Stockbridge, or Warren Twitchel. Accordingly, we

GRANT their request to be dismissed from this appeal.

AFFIRMED, and defendants Osuna, Stockbridge, and Twitchel are

DISMISSED.

3
**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 Hesperia Holding, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Edison, President 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; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ Michael Edison                                                    |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael Edison                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|   | President and Principal Accounting Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|   | November			21, 2005                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
#### James Onard HILL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28563.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 7, 1956.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

< Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State. ■ . .

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for the felony offense of driving while intoxicated, as defined in Art. 802b, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.;. the punishment, a fine of $250.

The record an apppal- contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear'to be'regülar; and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### MOTORS INSURANCE CORPORATION OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. Gladys MORSE et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 2, 1955.

Warren & Jones, Fulton, for appellant.

Dee L. McNeil, C. L. Davis, Hickman, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Fulton Circuit Court, Elvis J. Stahr, Judge.

This action was brought to recover $1,800 damages done by fire to the automobile of appellees, Gladys Morse and her husband, Ernest Morse, while same was covered, by an insurance policy issued by appellant, Motors Insurance Corporation of New York. The action was tried before the judge without a jury and judgment was entered for appellees in the sum of $1,400.

'An • examination of the record convinces us that the judgment is supported by the pleadings and the evidence, and we find no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of appellant.

The motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report,
based on our evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Merrill W. Sherman

Merrill W. ShermanPresident andChief Executive Officer
---

EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

The undersigned, Garth Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of AMG
Oil Ltd. (the Company), 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, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of AMG Oil Ltd. for the
period ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
that the information contained in the Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: February 14, 2008

/s /Garth
JohnsonGarth Johnson, Chief Financial Officer

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Melissa Young Selph v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00776-CR

Trial court case number: 15-CR-1597

Trial court: 56th District Court of Galveston County

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel, Thomas A. Martin, filed a motion to 

withdraw as counsel with a brief concluding that the above-referenced appeal is 

frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). 

Although counsel’s motion to withdraw states that he sent to the appellant a copy of the 

brief and motion, counsel has not, however, filed a copy of the letter he wrote, or 

otherwise certified that he has written a letter, in accordance with Kelly v. State, 436 

S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), “to (1) notify his client of the motion to withdraw 

and the accompanying Anders brief, providing h[er] with a copy of each, (2) inform h[er]

of h[er] right to file a pro se response and of h[er] right to review the record preparatory 

to filing that response, [] (3) inform h[er]of h[er] pro se right to seek discretionary review 

should the court of appeals declare h[er] appeal frivolous,” and (4) “notify his client that, 

should [s]he wish to exercise h[er] right to review the appellate record in preparing to file 

a response to the Anders brief, [s]he should immediately file a motion for pro se access to 

the appellate record with the applicable court of appeals,” which letter includes “a form 

motion . . ., lacking only the appellant’s signature and the date, . . . inform[ing] the 

appellant that, in order to effectuate his right to review the appellate record pro se, should

[s]he choose to invoke it, [s]he must sign and date the motion and send it on to the court 

of appeals within ten days of the date of the letter from appellate counsel.” 436 S.W.3d 

at 319–20.

Accordingly, we order appellant’s appointed counsel, Thomas A. Martin, to send 

a letter to the appellant in accordance with Kelly. 436 S.W.3d at 319–20. We further 

order appellant’s appointed counsel to notify us in writing “that he has (1) informed the 

appellant of the motion to withdraw and attendant Anders brief, (2) provided the 
2

appellant with the requisite copies while notifying h[er] of h[er] various pro se rights, and 

(3) supplied h[er] with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record.” Id. at 

320. Because the Clerk of this Court already mailed appellant a form pro se motion for 

access to the appellate record after counsel filed his motion to withdraw on January 17, 

2017, counsel does not need to send the form motion to his client, but should notify his

client as provided above.

Counsel shall send the required Kelly letter to his client and shall file the required 

notice with the Clerk of this Court within 10 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

 Acting individually 

Date: January 24, 2017
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1669 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1669

To amend title 23, United States Code, to establish a disincentive with 
   respect to States funneling proceeds from license plate sales to 
       partisan political organizations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 2011

 Mr. Ackerman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 23, United States Code, to establish a disincentive with 
   respect to States funneling proceeds from license plate sales to 
       partisan political organizations, 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 ``License Plate Political Slush Fund 
Prevention Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. LICENSE PLATE SALES AND POLITICAL ACTIVITY.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 167. License plate sales and political activity
    ``(a) Withholding of Apportionments for Noncompliance.--The 
Secretary shall withhold 15 percent of the amount required to be 
apportioned to any State under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of 
section 104(b) on October 1 of the first fiscal year beginning after 
the date of enactment of this Act, and on October 1 of each fiscal year 
thereafter, if the State does not meet the requirement of subsection 
(b) on that date.
    ``(b) Requirement.--A State meets the requirement of this 
subsection if the chief executive of the State certifies to the 
Secretary that the State, as of the date of the certification, does not 
provide to an organization that engages in covered political activity 
any proceeds resulting from the sale of a license plate in that State.
    ``(c) Effect of Noncompliance.--Funds withheld from a State under 
subsection (a) shall lapse and shall be deposited in the Treasury and 
used for deficit reduction (or, if there is no Federal budget deficit, 
for reducing the Federal debt, in such manner as the Secretary of the 
Treasury considers appropriate).
    ``(d) Covered Political Activity Defined.--In this section, the 
term `covered political activity' means the advocacy of the election or 
defeat of a candidate with respect to an election for a Federal, State, 
or local office.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of title 23, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``167. License plate sales and political activity.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1(*)
 
 Certification of Chief Executive 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 WebEx Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Subrah S. Iyar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: May 7, 2004
 
 
 /s/SUBRAH S. IYAR
 Subrah S. Iyar
 Chief Executive Officer
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _____________________________
 (*) In accordance with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K and SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986, Final Rule: Managements Reports on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the certification furnished in this Exhibit 32.2 is deemed to accompany this Form 10-Q and will not be deemed filed for purpose of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date hereof irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in any such filing, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
 
 
 
 
 Form 10-Q for quarter ended March 31, 2004 
 Form 10-Q for quarter ended March 31, 2004
Augustine Nwabuishi, Rose

Nwabuishi, Resource Health

Services, Inc dba Resource

Home Health Services, Inc.

and Resource Care

Corp.Appellant/s

Dana D.

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 30, 2014

No. 04-14-00363-CV

Augustine NWABUISHI, Rose Nwabuishi, Resource Health Services, Inc dba Resource Home

Health Services, Inc. and Resource Care Corp.,

Appellants

v.

Dana D. MOHAMMADI,

Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-05341

Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The

appellant’s brief is due on November 3, 2014.

sbm

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 30th day of October, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03516]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 24-07]


Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment; Impact Products, 
LLC and Safety Zone, LLC, Complainants, v. CMA CGM S.A., Respondent

Served: February 14, 2024.
    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (the ``Commission'') by Impact Products, LLC and 
Safety Zone, LLC (the ``Complainants'') against CMA CGM S.A. (the 
``Respondent''). Complainants state that the Commission has 
jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 41301 through 
41309 and personal jurisdiction over the Respondent as an ocean common 
carrier, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(18), that has entered into a 
service contract, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(21), with the 
Complainants.
    Complainant Impact Products, LLC is a corporation located in 
Toledo, Ohio. Complainant Safety Zone, LLC is a corporation located in 
Guilford, Connecticut. Complainants are shippers as this term is 
defined under 46 U.S.C. 40102(23).
    Complainants identify Respondent as a company existing under the 
laws of France with its principal place of business in Marseilles, 
France and as a global ocean carrier.
    Complainants allege that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) and 
41104(a)(10) and 46 CFR 545.5. Complainants allege these violations 
arose from assessment of demurrage, detention, per diem, and yard 
storage charges during periods of time in which the charges were not 
just or reasonable because of circumstances outside the control of the 
Complainants and its agents and service providers, and from the acts or 
omissions of the Respondent that led to the assessment of these 
charges.
    An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 
25 days after the date of service.
    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's 
electronic Reading Room at https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/proceeding/24-07/. This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of 
Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding judge 
shall be issued by February 14, 2025, and the final decision of the 
Commission shall be issued by August 29, 2025.

David Eng,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-03516 Filed 2-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-
14(a)/15d-14(a)

I, Michael T. Everett, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WebEx
Communications, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  August 13, 2003


/s/   MICHAEL T. EVERETT
----------------------------
Michael T. Everett
Chief Financial Officer