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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TYRONE WALLACE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
R. OLSON, RJD Appeals Coordinator; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 55660

D.C. No. 3:16

- cv

- 01917

- AJB

- NLS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 13, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Tyrone Wallace , a California state prisoner, appeals pro s e from the district

court’ s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S. C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional

claims

. We have juris diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

. Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

* 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 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 55660

§ 1915A ); Barren v. Harrington , 152 F.3d 11 93, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)

(dismissal under 28 U.S.C

. § 1915 ( e )( 2 )(B)(ii)). We affirm

. The district court properly dismissed Wall a ce’s access

- to

- courts claim

because Wallace failed to alle ge facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual
injury caused by defendants’ alleged improper screening of his grievances

. See
Christopher v. Harbury
, 536 U.S. 403, 416 (2002) (the complaint must describe
the underlying claim “well enough t o apply the ‘nonfrivolous test’ ” and “to show
that the ‘arguable’ nature of the underlying claim is more than a hope” )

.
The district court properly dismissed Wallace’s claim s of deliberate

i ndifference to his safety and serious medical needs because Wallace failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that either Dr. Dalglish or Dr. Glynn was aware of
any risk to his safety or serious medical needs by failing to grant him a single cell

chrono

. See Foster v. Runnels , 554 F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir. 2009) ( “To establish a
prison official’ s deliberate indifference , an inmate must show that the official was

aware of a risk to the inmate ’ s health or safety and that the official delibe rately

disregarded t he risk. ”)

.
AFFIRMED.
Take notice that on January 28, 2000, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) tendered for filing certain tariff sheets to be part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, to be effective March 1, 2000.

Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to implement a new Rate Schedule FRSS, under which Natural would provide a firm “reverse” storage service. Although this new service is available to all customers, it is primarily designed to meet the needs of the electric generation market during the summer peak period for electric demand. This new service mirrors some of the fundamental elements of Natural's Rate Schedule DSS, but with injection and withdrawal seasons reversed. Both are delivered firm storage services with no-notice delivery rights, but Rate Schedule DSS primarily supports traditional winter withdrawals for customers with peak demand in the heating season. By contrast, all withdrawals under new Rate Schedule FRSS must be made during the summer and would be followed by winter injections. Natural also states that conforming tariff changes have also been made in the General Terms and Conditions in its Tariff.

Natural requests waiver of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Regulations to the extent necessary to permit the tariff sheets submitted to become effective March 1, 2000.

Natural states that copies of the filing have been mailed to its customers and interested state regulatory agencies.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-2087-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-2653  Filed 2-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit ‘H’

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112-8 Filed 10/27/22 Page 1 of 4
GUERRA 000957

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112-8 Filed 10/27/22 Page 2 of 4
GUERRA 000958

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112-8 Filed 10/27/22 Page 3 of 4
GUERRA 000959

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112-8 Filed 10/27/22 Page 4 of 4
#### SPANGLER v. CAMPBELL et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 21, 1954.

C. W. Napier, C. W. Napier Jr., Hazard, for appellant.

Stephen Combs, Jr., Whitesburg, for appellees.

DUNCAN, Justice.

Appellees’ motion to strike the bill of exceptions was sustained by this Court oh September .30, 1953, and appellant’s motion to set aside the order to strike the bill ’ of exceptions was overruled on November 9, 1953. Therefore, the evidence heard in the trial of this action cannot be considered on the appeal.

The only question remaining for our consideration is whether the pleadings are sufficient to support the judgment.' Asher v. Nuckols, 253 Ky. 223, 69 S.W.2d 331; Feltner v. Smith, 283. Ky. 783, 143 S.W.2d 505; Montgomery v. Land, 313 Ky. 374, 231 S.W.2d 86.

We have examined the pleadings and it is apparent that they support the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2014 - 0109 Directorate ID : 2013 - SW - 049 - AD Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. Model AB412 and AB412 EP Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 0 Helicopters in the US Registr y. Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of the tail rotor blade and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no helicopters with this ty pe certificate on the U.S. Registry . Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Isthe AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Robert Grant
#### BLANKS v. STATE.

No. 25849.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 7, 1952.

Rehearing Denied June 18, 1952.

*215Sheffy Mahan, Childress, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged with the offense of driving, while intoxicated and while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a motor vehicle, to-wit, an automobile, upon a public highway, to-wit, U. S. Highway 287, commonly called Highway 287, in Donley County. The punishment was assessed at a fine of $200 and confinement in the county jail for 30 days.

The proof shows that appellant was picked up on said highway by Guy Wright, the sheriff; and the testimony of the sheriff relative to the highway on which appellant was found thus driving fails to show that this was U. S. Highway 287, but it does show that this was commonly called Highway 287; that it was known as such and the witness called it such. There were signs thereon calling it Highway 287, but nowhere is it shown to be U. S. Highway 287. We think under the allegation of U. S. Highway 287, commonly called Highway 287, that the proof of the highway as being commonly called Highway 287 would be sufficient, it being alleged that it was called by either name.

In the event of an allegation of a person by his proper name, as well as the name under which he is called, proof to the effect that he is the same person and known by either name would meet the requirement of the law. Art. 401, C.C.P.; Bell v. State, 25 Tex. 574; Owen v. State, 7 Tex.App. 329; Chisom v. State, 77 Tex.Cr.R. 397, 179 S.W. 103; Fuller v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 190, 167 S.W.2d 170; Branch’s Ann.Tex.P.C., p. 238, sec. 460.

We think the testimony is clear, under the rule above stated, that the appellant drove an automobile while intoxicated on a highway commonly called and known as Highway 287, and the proof showing that the highway was commonly called by either name would meet the requirement of the law.

The judgment will be affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BRADFORD VERNON BLAKEWAY,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00280-CR 

Appeal from the

394th Judicial District Court 

of Jeff Davis County, Texas 

(TC# CR2300921)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

judgment. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment and set aside the conviction and sentence 

for the retaliation offense. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5502 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of (acetato) 

pentammine cobalt dinitrate with a polymeric or paraffinic carrier. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mrs. SCHMIDT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures 

of (acetato) pentammine cobalt dinitrate with a polymeric 

or paraffinic carrier. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF (ACETATO) PENTAMMINE CO4 BALT DINITRATE WITH A POLYMERIC OR 

5 PARAFFINIC CARRIER. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.03.34 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 mixtures of (acetato) pentammine cobalt dinitrate with a 

9 polymeric or paraffinic carrier) is amended by striking the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5502 IH

1 date in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

2 2015’’. 

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

4 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

5 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

6 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) BALANCE
SHEETS AND INCOME STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED
HEREWITH.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-01-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      388,639
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      1,388
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          37,995
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        27,492
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 455,514
<COMMON>                                        22,394
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       74,937
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             52,721
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 150,052
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              480
<PREFERRED>                                      1,600
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           130,275
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              12,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      129,537
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       66
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                           40
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                        929
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   125
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 160,916
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  455,514
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       29,955
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,469
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      24,104
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      25,573
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          4,382
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 143
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   4,525
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         2,682
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,843
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         23
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    1,820
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         2,822
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           7,012
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
        

</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1993
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1993
<CASH>                                                  0
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        0
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                              209
<OTHER-SE>                                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          233
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        0
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                            0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
                                               


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 16-2692

_____________

THEODORE HAYES; 

AQEELA FOGLE,

 Appellants 

v.

PHILIP E. HARVEY 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

District Court No. 2-15-cv-02617

District Judge: The Honorable Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro

ORDER SUR PETITION

FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Present: SMITH, Chief Judge, McKEE, AMBRO, CHAGARES, JORDAN 

HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE,

RESTREPO, BIBAS, and FISHER∗, Circuit Judges

A majority of the active judges having voted for rehearing en banc in the above

captioned case, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The Clerk of

this Court shall list the case for rehearing en banc at the convenience of the Court. The

opinion and judgment entered October 18, 2017 are hereby vacated.

BY THE COURT,

s/ D. Brooks Smith

Chief Judge

Dated: December 29, 2017

 

∗ Will participate as a member of the en banc court pursuant to 3d Cir. I.O.P. 9.6.4.
tmm/cc: All Counsel of Record
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS
(a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Sterling Bancorp, a New York corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September
30, 2003 (the "Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: 11/14/03                     /s/ Louis J. Cappelli
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Louis J. Cappelli
                                    Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Sterling Bancorp, a New York corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30,
2003 (the "Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: 11/14/03                      /s/ John W. Tietjen
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Name:  John W. Tietjen
                                     Title: Executive Vice President,
                                     Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

         The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and are not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

                                       40
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7274

CURTIS E. CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

REBECCA BEACH SMITH, U. S. Judge,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-663-2)

Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1997

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis E. Crawford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Curtis E. Crawford, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district

court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. Sept. 1996, Pamphlet

3) and declining to reconsider that dismissal. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal

is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Crawford v. Smith, No. CA-96-663-2 (E.D. Va.

July 23 & Aug. 15, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process. Appellant's motion for a stay is denied.

DISMISSED
|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                           
|                                                                                                        
|No chart available.                                                                                     
|No chart available.                                                                                     
|                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                        
|Nebraska Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs, Wet (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | W      | W     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023