alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERNEST JOSEPH FRANCESCHI, Jr., Attorney, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. HARRAH’S ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; HARRAH’S OPERATING COMPANY, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendants - Appellees. No. 11-15272 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00205-RLH-RJJ
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Roger L. Hunt, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 19, 2012 Las Vegas, Nevada Before: CLIFTON, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Ernest Joseph Franceschi, Jr., appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint without leave to amend. We have jurisdiction under 28 

# FILED
MAR 28 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS1 At oral argument, counsel was unable to cite to any page of the brief challenging this ruling. Our own review of the brief confirms this. To the extent Franceschi challenges the district court’s determination that he is a “sophisticated card counter who could not possibly be deceived and therefore could not have relied on Defendants’ advertis ing materials,” he is clearly addressing the district court’s fraud ruling, rather than its CLRA/UCL ruling. U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. The district court dismissed Franceschi’s claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) and the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) for two reasons: (1) Nevada law specifically allows the allegedly unfair practices; and (2) Franceschi could not meet the “reasonable” or “ordinary” consumer test under California law because he is, by his own admission, a sophisticated consumer and not an av erage one. On appeal, Franceschi does not address or acknowledge the district court’ s second rationale, so he has waived his challenge to the district court’s dismissal of the California statutory claims. 1 Likewise, the district court dismissed Franceschi’s fraud claim for two reasons: (1) he failed to allege facts sufficient to showthe existence of a “special relationship” between the parties that would give rise to a duty on defendants’ part to affirmatively disclose certain facts; and (2) he likely could not prove justifiable reliance. On appeal, Franceschi addresse s only the reliance holding, so he has not preserved his challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his common law fraud claim. Cf. Hillis v. Heineman , 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure toaddress each of the district court’s alternative holdings on appeal results in waiver); Navellier v. Sletten , 262 F.3d 923, 948–49 (9th Cir. 2001) (issues not supported by argument or citations to authorities and supporting documents in the record are waived). We therefore do not reach the merits of this case. AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION
AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          22,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               32,036,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,122,000
<INVENTORY>                                 26,099,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            70,023,000
<PP&E>                                      67,368,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,860,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             153,480,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      196,110,000
<BONDS>                                    136,387,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (50,087,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               153,480,000
<SALES>                                     68,999,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            68,999,000
<CGS>                                       57,407,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               57,407,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,816,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,619,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,499,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,499,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,499,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29235]



[[Page 69121]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart Q During 
the Week Ending October 20, 2000

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
Q of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 
CFR 302.1701 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming 
Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each 
application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: OST-2000-8155.
    Date Filed: October 19, 2000.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: November 9, 2000.
    Description: Application of Britannia Airways AB (``Applicant'') 
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sections 41301 et seq. and Subpart Q, applies for 
a foreign air carrier permit authorizing it to engage in charter 
foreign air transportation of persons and their accompanying baggage, 
and property: (1) Between a point or point in Sweden, Denmark and 
Norway and a point or points in the United States; (2) between a point 
or points in the United States and any point or points in a third 
country provided that such service constitutes point of a continuous 
operation that includes service to Sweden, Denmark and/or Norway for 
the purpose of carrying local traffic between Sweden, Denmark and 
Norway and the United States; and also authorizing Applicant to engage 
in other charter trips in foreign air transportation subject to the 
terms, conditions, and limitations of the Department's regulations 
governing charters.

Dorothy Y. Beard,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-29235 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 72

Expressing the sense of Congress that stimulus package funds appropriated

to accelerate the economy should be equitably targeted to economically

distressed areas that have not benefited from the current economic recovery.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 25, 1993

Mrs. CLAYTON submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Government Operations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that stimulus package

funds appropriated to accelerate the economy should be

equitably targeted to economically distressed areas that

have not benefited from the current economic recovery.

Whereas the economic recovery of recent months has bypassed certain economically distressed rural and urban

areas;

Whereas the unemployment rate in certain rural and urban

areas continues to be unacceptably high;

Whereas rural areas may disproportionately suffer due to a

reduction in appropriated funds in the regular budget

process; and
2

HCON 72 IH

Whereas certain distressed areas cannot rely on the private

economy to stimulate their local economies: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Federal, State, and local entities should

3 target money appropriated for the purpose of stimulating

4 the economy to distressed rural and urban areas on an

5 equitable basis, using the following criteria:

6 (1) The percentage of the population residing in

7 metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

8 (2) The comparative degree of economic need as

9 measured—

10 (A)(i) in the case of a distressed commu11 nity located in a metropolitan area, by the ex12 tent its annual unemployment rate for 1992

13 and its most current poverty rate exceed the

14 national average for all metropolitan areas; or

15 (ii) in the case of a distressed community

16 located outside of a metropolitan area (includ17 ing rural areas) by the extent its annual unem18 ployment rate for 1992 and its most current

19 poverty rate exceed the national average for all

20 communities located outside of metropolitan

21 areas; and

22 (B) the extent to which a community may

23 be adversely affected by the actual or antici-
3

HCON 72 IH

1 pated closing or significant downsizing of a

2 military facility or defense industry in which a

3 significant percentage of the work force of the

4 facility or industry are residents of the commu5 nity.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KYLE DAMOND JONES,

Plaintiff,

VS.

DOLLAR TREE STORES INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-0809-G-BN

)

)

)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a

recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed

the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. The court

ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge, except for the following: on page seven, line two, the word “was”

should be replaced with “[was]”.

SO ORDERED.

May 9, 2022.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-00809-G-BN Document 8 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 35
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 89

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the primary author and

the official ‘‘Home of Yankee Doodle’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 28, 1993

Mr. MCNULTY (for himself and Mr. SOLOMON) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office

and Civil Service

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the primary

author and the official ‘‘Home of Yankee Doodle’’.

Whereas the song ‘‘Yankee Doodle’’ is a humorous and patriotic ditty that dates back to America’s colonial period;

Whereas ‘‘Yankee Doodle’’ was popular from its inception,

spreading throughout New England and the Middle Atlantic States, where it was sung at parades, in taverns,

and beside campfires;

Whereas the British Regulars picked up the tune at the beginning of the American Revolution as a means of deriding the rag-tag Continental Army;

Whereas, after the Battle of Lexington, ‘‘Yankee Doodle’’ became an anthem and a source of pride among the rough-
2

•HCON 89 IH

hewn Americans who were taking on the polished British

Redcoats;

Whereas, while the tune of ‘‘Yankee Doodle’’ originated in

Europe as a common air, many claims as to the authorship of the lyrics have been made;

Whereas, despite the other claims, Dr. Richard Shuckburgh,

an English Army surgeon who served on America’s frontier for most of his adult life, is today generally considered to be the primary author of the lyrics to ‘‘Yankee

Doodle’’; and

Whereas Dr. Shuckburgh is believed to have written almost

all, if not all, of the lyrics for ‘‘Yankee Doodle’’ at Fort

Crailo in the city of Rensselaer, New York, after viewing

the provincial forces gathered there in the 1750s for an

attack on Fort Ticonderoga: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) Dr. Richard Shuckburgh should be recog4 nized and honored as the primary author of ‘‘Yankee

5 Doodle’’; and

6 (2) Fort Crailo in the present-day city of

7 Rensselaer, New York, should be recognized as the

8 official ‘‘Home of Yankee Doodle’’.

Æ
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

MATTHEW PAUL MORRIS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 1100

[ March 9, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nine t eenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee Count y ; Michael J. McNicholas , Judge; L.T. Case No. 472009CF000585A

.

Matthew Paul Morris

, Cross City , pro se

.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assi stant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

W ARNER , G ROSS and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 7, 2017

p0227 

# Order

Clerk March 7, 2017

152874(14)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152874

COA: 329618

Saginaw CC: 85

- 006709

- FC

JOSEPH EARL GIBBS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September

27, 2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order

was entered erroneously.
EXHIBIT A-1 

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-2 Filed 05/18/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 8
5/17/22, 2:07 PM Tarrant County - Civil

https://dcsa.tarrantcounty.com/Civil/NameSearch#/CaseAndTransInfo 1/2

Civil Case and Transaction Information 05/17/2022 2:01 PM

Court : 236 Case : 332949 Search New Search Show Service Documents ONLY

Cause Number : 236-332949-22 Date Filed : 04-07-2022

GOLDMAN VISTA HOLDINGS LLC | VS |OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE

COMPANY

Cause of Action : OTHER CIVIL, OTHER

Case Status : PENDING

File Mark Description Assessed FeeCredit/Paid Fee

04-07-2022 PLTF'S ORIG PET

N

$350.00

04-07-2022 PAYMENT RECEIVED trans #1

Y

$213.00

04-07-2022 PAYMENT PAID TO STATE trans #1

Y

$137.00

04-07-2022 COPIES - PAPER OR CONVERTED

N

$10.00

04-07-2022 PAYMENT RECEIVED trans #4

Y

$10.00

04-07-2022 CIT Cert Mail-ISSUED ON OHIO SECURITY

INSURANCE COMPANY-On 04/12/2022 N Svc

$83.00

04-07-2022 PAYMENT RECEIVED trans #6

Y

$83.00

04-07-2022 JURY REQUESTED $0.00

04-11-2022 COPIES - PAPER OR CONVERTED

N

$1.00

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-2 Filed 05/18/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 9
5/17/22, 2:07 PM Tarrant County - Civil

https://dcsa.tarrantcounty.com/Civil/NameSearch#/CaseAndTransInfo 2/2

04-11-2022 PAYMENT RECEIVED trans #9

Y

$1.00

05-02-2022 GREEN CARD - OHIO SECURITY

INSURANCE CO

$0.00

05-16-2022 DEFN OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE CO.

ORIG ANS & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO

PLTF ORIG PET

$0.00

Case 4:22-cv-00431-Y Document 1-2 Filed 05/18/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 10
**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
      333-61231 on Form S-8 dated August 12, 1998 (as amended April 11, 2005)
      pertaining to the 1998 stock option plan of PDI, Inc., Registration Statement
      No. 333-60512 on Form S-8 dated May 9, 2001 (as amended April 11, 2005)
      pertaining to the 2000 Omnibus Incentive Plan of PDI, Inc. and Registration
      Statement No. 333-123312 on Form S-8 dated March 14, 2005 pertaining to the
      2004
      Stock Award and Incentive Plan of PDI, Inc. of our reports dated March 15,
      2006,
      with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of PDI,
      Inc.,
      PDI, Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
      over
      financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
      reporting of PDI, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
      ended December 31, 2005.




/s/Ernst
                & Young LLPNew
                York, NYMarch
                15, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.2CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SkillSoft Public LimitedCompany (the “Company”) for the period ended July 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, Thomas J. McDonald, Chief Financial Officer of the Company herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
# AGENCY:

Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.

# ACTION:

Final rule; delay of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) is delaying the effective date of a final rule                         Start Printed Page 67617                        previously published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on July 13, 2000, at 65 FR 43528-43534 which delegated the adjudication of certain petitions for agricultural workers (H-2A) to the United States Department of Labor (DOL).                    

# DATES:

The effective date for the regulation published on July 13, 2000, at 65 FR 43528-43534 amending 8 CFR parts 103 and 214 is delayed from November 13, 2000, until October 1, 2001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John W. Brown, Adjudications Officer, Benefits Division, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 425 I Street NW., Room 3214, Washington, DC 20536, telephone (202) 514-3228.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On July 13, 2000, the Service published a final rule in the                     **Federal Register**                     at 65 FR 43528-43534 delegating the authority to adjudicate certain H-2A petitions to the DOL. The final rule, which amended 8 CFR parts 103 and 214, was to take effect on November 13, 2000. The delay in the effective date of the final rule will afford the public as much opportunity as possible to become familiar with the new procedures in the issuance of temporary employment of nonimmigrant aliens in agriculture in the United States.                

Dated: November 7, 2000.

Doris Meissner,

Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service.

[FR Doc. 00-29008  Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 24, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23

- 1852

Lower Tribunal No. F06

- 43010

________________



### Santiago Milian

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from

the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Ramiro C. Areces , Judge.

Santiago Milian, in proper person

.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, and Christina Lauren Dominguez

, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LOBREE and BOKOR , JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12

- 405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer

generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
No. S
- 1
- SC
- 37248 Filing Date: May 18, 2020
SOUTHWE STERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, Appellant,

v.
NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION, Appellee,

and VOTE SOLAR,
Cross

- Appellant,

and
COALITION FOR CLEAN AFFORDABLE ENERGY,

Intervenor

- Appellee.
In the Matter of Southwestern Public Service Company's Application for Revision of Its Retail Rates Pursuant to Advice Notice No. 272, New Mexico Public Regulation Commission Case No. 17
- 00255
- UT
APPEAL FROM THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSIONHinkle Shanor, LLP

Jeffrey Louis Fornaciari Dana Simmons H ardy Santa Fe, NM Xcel Energy Services, Inc. Stephen Fogel Austin, TX
Winstead PC Ron H. Moss Austin, TX for Appellant
Judith Ellen Amer, Associate General Counsel Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Jason Marks Law, LLC Jason A. Marks Albuquerque, NM Earthjustice Sara Gersen Los Angeles, CA Charles Carter Hall Washington, DC
for Cross

- Appellant
Charles F. Noble Santa Fe, NM
for Intervener

- Appellee New Mexico Gas Company, Inc. Thomas M. Domme, General Counsel Albuquerque, NM
Keleher & McLeod, P.A. Thomas C. Bird Cly de F. Worthen Brian J. HaverlyZachary Cormier

Albuquerque, NM for Interested Party
DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL
BACON , Justice. {1} THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 62

- 11

- 1 (1993). Following dismissal of the original appeal, this Court retained jurisdiction over cross - appellant’s appeal. Having reviewed the briefs submitted to this Court, and being otherwise fully informed on the issues and applicable law, we conclude that there is no reasonable likelihood, under the f acts before us, that a decision or formal opinion of the Court will materially advance the law of the State. Accordingly, we dispose of this case by nonprecedential order. See Rule 12

- 405(B) NMRA. {2} Although any party to a proceeding before the commissio n may appeal to this Court for a review of the commission’s final orders, see Section 62

- 11

- 1, the issues appealed must be ripe for review. See New Mexico Indus. Energy Consumers v. New Mexico Pub. Serv. Comm’n , 1991

- NMSC

- 018, ¶ 7, 111 N.M. 622, 808 P.2d 5 92. The final order in this case did not resolve the issue in dispute and explicitly reserved that issue for future interpretation. In light of this Court’s ripeness determination, any decision rendered would be advisory in nature. See Ramirez v. CYFD , 2016

- NMSC

016, ¶ 11, 372 P.3d 497 (stating that this Court does not render advisory opinions). {3} IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that cross

- appellant’s appeal is dismissed. {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

JUDITH K. NAKAMURA , Chief Justice

BARBARA J. VIGIL , Justice
MICHAEL E. VIGIL , Justice
C. SHANNON BACON , Justice
DAVID K. THOMSON , Justice