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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARVIE B. CARROLL,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

K. DUTRA, Correctional Officer; SOTO,

Lab Assistant Technician,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-15405

D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00623-LJO-SKO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 10, 2014** 

Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Arvie B. Carroll, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 

FILED

MAR 18 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056

(9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Carroll failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he had a serious medical

need at the time of the incident. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.

2006) (a serious medical need exists if a failure to treat a prisoner’s condition

could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of

pain). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting defendants’

expert’s testimony. See Stilwell v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 482 F.3d 1187, 1191-92

(9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for expert

testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702; noting that the district court’s ruling is entitled

to deference, even when the expert testimony determines the outcome of a case). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding portions of his and

his wife’s declarations. See Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int’l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808,

813 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the standard of review and requiring a showing of

prejudice for reversal of an evidentiary ruling). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carroll’s request for

appointment of an expert witness because the action did not involve complex

2 13-15405
scientific evidence or complex issues. See McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500,

1511 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by Helling v. McKinney, 502

U.S. 903 (1991) (standard of review). 

Carroll’s “Request to Use Complete Original Record on Appeal,” filed on

March 18, 2013, is denied as unnecessary. Because Carroll is proceeding without

counsel, the excerpts of record requirement is waived. See 9th Cir. R. 30-1.2.

The parties’ requests for judicial notice, set forth in their briefs, are granted. 

AFFIRMED. 

3 13-15405
Exhibit D

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 82-4 Filed 04/08/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 3346
Exhibit D

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 82-4 Filed 04/08/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 3347
Exhibit D

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 82-4 Filed 04/08/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 3348
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,980
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,541
<ALLOWANCES>                                       708
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,254
<PP&E>                                          15,271
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,837
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   151,757
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,511
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,284
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,345
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,751
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,594
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,594
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75
        

</TABLE>
1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-3626

___________ Kirk Knight; Heather Knight, as * Parents and Legal Guardians of * their minor child J.N.K., * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Washington School District, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 15, 2011 Filed: April 27, 2011

___________ Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Kirk and Heather Knight appeal from the district court’s 1 dismissal of their action under the Individuals with Disabilitie s Education Act (IDEA), in which they sought review of an administrative heari ng officer’s pre-hearing determination that their due process complaint notice was insufficient. Upon de novo review, see Hastings v. Wilson , 516 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2008), we conclude that the district-2- court properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. See20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(c) (governing procedure for hearing officer’s pre-hearing determination of sufficiency of due process complaint notice), (f) (gove rning impartial due process hearings), (i)(2)(A) (“any party aggrieved by the findi ngs and decisions made under subsection (f) or (k) . . . and . . . findings and deci sion made under this subsection” shall have right to bring civil action in federal dist rict court); S. Rep. 108-185 (2003) (“[t]here should be no hearing or appeal in regard to the hearing officer’s determination” of sufficiency of notice); see also Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 162.962 (permitting party to seek judicial review of hearing panel’s “deci sion”), 162.961.3 (indicating “decision” is one reached when, “[a]fter revi ew of all evidence presented and a proper deliberation,” hearing panel “by majority vote determine[ s] its findings, conclusions, and decision in the matter in question”); Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder , 425 U.S. 185, 200-01 (1976) (in cases of statutory interpre tation, language of statute controls when it is sufficiently clear in context). We conclude, however, that the dismissal should have been without prejudice. See Cty. of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin , 361 F.3d 460, 464-65 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court generally barred from dismissing case with prejudice if it concludes subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking).
Accordingly, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, and affirm the dismissal as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 248 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 248

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 8, 1994

   Received and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the printing of eulogies, encomiums, and funeral services 
     for the late President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the eulogies and encomiums for the late President of the United 
States, Richard M. Nixon, as expressed in the House of Representatives 
and the Senate, together with the text of the funeral services for the 
late President in Yorba Linda, California, shall be printed as a House 
document, with illustrations and suitable binding. The document shall 
be prepared under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing.
    Sec. 2. In addition to the usual number, there shall be printed the 
lesser of--
            (1) 32,500 copies of the document, of which 22,150 copies 
        shall be for the use of the House of Representatives and 10,350 
        copies shall be for the use of the Senate; or
            (2) such number of copies of the document as does not 
        exceed a total production and printing cost of $500,000, with 
        distribution to be allocated in the same proportion as 
        described in paragraph (1).

            Passed the House of Representatives August 3, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

ON ADMINISTRATIVE OR CIVIL JUDICIAL SEIZURES

Seizure #: - - -

Seizure Date: 

Date Notice Sent:

Cash Receipt Number :

Deposit Date:

Seizure Amount:

Refund Amount:

Payment date of Refund:

 Special Instructions:

Amount of Interest: (to be determined by EOAF)

Pay To:

Address:

TIN/SS#:

Headquarters Representative:

Name:

Signature & Date:

Port: Title:

Phone: Fax:

SEIZURE#:

FUND:

FUNDS CENTER: RM400

FUNCTIONAL AREA: MA1199999988

ORDER: ZFX5

COST CENTER: 98999000

MATERIAL GROUP: 4312

AMOUNT:

EOAF: Obligator - Signature/Date EOAF: Certifier - Signature/Date

Accomplished by NFC:

NFC Signature and Date

Form #7a Revised: March 2021

This form is to be used to request payment of interest on refunded seized currency as required by the

Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA). Please email this form, with backup documentation,

to U.S. Customs & Border Protection, FP&F Division: OFO-TFF REFUND REQUEST (group mailbox via email)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          57,603
<SECURITIES>                                    38,550
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,144)
<INVENTORY>                                        180
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,792
<PP&E>                                          30,640
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (13,226)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 186,435
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,554
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       135,419
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,022
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   186,435
<SALES>                                         40,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,197
<CGS>                                            6,330
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,838
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (533)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,562
<INCOME-TAX>                                       234
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,328
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,328
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         312,290
<SECURITIES>                                    32,258
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,548
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,131
<INVENTORY>                                      4,218
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               431,314
<PP&E>                                       1,641,149
<DEPRECIATION>                                 168,354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,105,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          169,077
<BONDS>                                      1,341,145
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           344
<OTHER-SE>                                     315,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,105,220
<SALES>                                        276,407
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               276,407
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  198,593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,189
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,625
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,109
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,516
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (6,593)
<CHANGES>                                      (1,416)
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,507
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45


</TABLE>
#### COFFEE v. STATE.

No. 26145.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant. George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for transporting beer and whisky in a dry area; the punishment a fine of $250.

The record is -before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception and the proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 223 (Friday, November 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29434]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: November 8, 2000.
    Time: 2 pm to 5 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Vesailles IV Room, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Jon M. Ranhand, PhD, Scientist Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 
5E03, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6884.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 7, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-29434 Filed 11-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Case 4:22-cr-00170-O Document 117 Filed 10/26/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 477
Case 4:22-cr-00170-O Document 117 Filed 10/26/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 478
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 290

Commending the President and the special delegation to Haiti, and supporting

the United States Armed Forces in Haiti.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 19, 1994

Mr. GEPHARDT (for himself and Mr. MICHEL) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered under suspension of the rules and

agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Commending the President and the special delegation to

Haiti, and supporting the United States Armed Forces

in Haiti.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

Whereas the special delegation sent to Haiti on September 17, 1994, has succeeded in convincing the de facto

authorities in Haiti to agree to leave power;

Whereas on September 18, 1994, after an agreement was

reached in Port-au-Prince that day, the President ordered the present deployment of men and women of the

United States Armed Forces in and around Haiti; and

Whereas the Congress and the people of the United States

have great pride in the men and women of the United
2

HCON 290 ATH

States Armed Forces and fully support them in all their

efforts overseas, including those in Haiti: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) commends the efforts of the President in

4 sending former President Jimmy Carter, retired

5 General Colin Powell and Senator Sam Nunn to

6 Haiti in an effort to avoid the loss of American lives;

7 (2) fully supports the men and women of the

8 United States Armed Forces who are carrying out

9 their mission in Haiti with professional excellence

10 and dedicated patriotism;

11 (3) supports the efforts of the President,

12 through the special delegation, to provide for the de13 parture from power of the de facto authorities and

14 the return of democracy and the rule of law in Haiti;

15 (4) affirms the commitment to national rec16 onciliation and adherence to the rule of law in Haiti;

17 and

18 (5) supports an orderly withdrawal of all

19 United States Armed Forces as soon as possible.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

 § 

VS. § CRIMINAL NO. 4:22-CR-069-Y 

 § 

LUIS RODRIGUEZ-AYALA (1) § 

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ADJUDGING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court has reviewed all relevant matters of record in this case, 

including especially (1) the Consent to Administration of Guilty Plea 

and Allocution by United States Magistrate Judge and (2) the Report of 

Action and Recommendation on Plea Before the United States Magistrate 

Judge. No objections to either have been filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, 

the Court concludes that the report and recommendation of the magistrate 

judge on the plea of guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the 

Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and defendant 

is hereby adjudged guilty. The defendant’s sentence will be imposed in 

accordance with the Court’s sentencing scheduling order. 

SIGNED May 19, 2022. 

 

 _________________________________ 

 TERRY R. MEANS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cr-00069-Y Document 26 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 61
#### SHEPPARD et al. v. COALE.

No. 3748.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

March 21, 1941.

Rehearing Denied April 2, 1941.

D. E. O’Fiel, of Beaumont, for plaintiffs in error.

K. W. Stephenson and D. C. Bland, both of Orange, for defendant in error.

COMBS, Justice.

This appeal is by writ of error.

The transcript was filed in this court too late. Petition for writ of efror was filed December 21, 1939, writ of error bond was filed December 22, 1939, and citation was served December 26, 1939. Transcript was filed in this court May 23, 1940.

The statute requires transcript to be filed with the clerk of the Court of Civil-Appeals within sixty days from service of writ of error. Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. Art. 1839.

The motion of defendant in error to dismiss the appeal is granted. Taylor v. Callahan, Tex.Civ.App., 122 S.W.2d 652.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANTTOSECTION 906**

**OFTHESARBANES-OXLEYACT**

 

In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the “Operating Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward J. Fritsch, President and Chief Executive Officer of Highwoods Properties, Inc., general partner of the Operating Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Operating Partnership. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ EDWARDJ.FRITSCH                                                           |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Edward J. FritschPresident and Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner |   |
| March 12, 2008                                                      |   |