alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2977

___________

Neil L. Griswold, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

New Madrid County Group Practice, *

Inc., also known as Southeast *

Appeal from the United States

Missouri Health Network, *

District Court for the

 *

Eastern District of Missouri.

Appellee, *

 * 

[UNPUBLISHED]

Jimmy Cravens; Ralph Barnwell, Jr.; *

Dianne Compton; Bill Glaus; Mike *

Barnes, Dr.; Roseann Whittemore; *

Tracye Harris; Angel Castro; Murray *

Wallace; Ben Petit; Linda Marroquin, *

 *

Defendants. ___________ *

 Submitted: February 27, 1998

 Filed: March 2, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
-2-

Neil Griswold sued New Madrid County Group Practice,

Inc. (Group Practice), claiming that it refused to renew

his employment contract in violation of the Age
The HONORABLE E. RICHARD WEBBER, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

-3-

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621

et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the state constitution.

Group Practice moved for summary judgment, arguing that

Griswold failed to state a constitutional violation, and

that--assuming Griswold had made a prima facie case of

discrimination--his failure to obtain admitting

privileges at the local hospital constituted a legitimate

nondiscriminatory reason for nonrenewal, which Griswold

could not demonstrate was pretextual. The district court1

granted summary judgment, holding that Group Practice was

not a state actor under section 1983, and that Griswold

failed to provide any evidence to rebut Group Practice&s

legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for nonrenewal of his

contract. Griswold appeals, arguing only that the

district court should have granted him a continuance to

engage in discovery. 

After careful review of the parties& briefs and

appendix, we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion by ruling on the summary judgment

motion without granting Griswold a continuance for

discovery: although Griswold filed an affidavit

attesting that he needed to engage in discovery to prove

pretext, he did not identify what discovery was necessary

or what facts he hoped to discover. See Dulany v.

Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1238-39 (8th Cir. 1997).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.
-4-

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Chief, EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

Office of Aviation 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey A venue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Tupelo Regional Airport (TUP) 

Docket DOT-OST -2009-0305 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

IZ 

I am writing in support of Silver Airways' proposal to provide commercial 

air service to the Tupelo Regional Airport. Citizens from (our community) 

depend on the Tupelo Regional Airport for their air service. It is very important to our local economy for air service to continue in and out of Tupelo. 

We believe Silver Airways' interline ticketing and baggage agreements with 

Delta Airlines make this option very attractive to our citizens. In addition the 

30 to 50 seat aircraft are much more desirable than the 8 seat aircraft offered 

by Air Choice One. We are excited about this chance to return to profitability. Thank you for considering our citizens in your deliberations. Mayor 

Kennedy, City of Smithville. 

c/tn 

Gregg Kennedy, Mayor
#### WILCOXSON v. STATE.

No. 19615.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 6, 1938.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1938.

*407Smith & Dowdy, of McKinney, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The offense charged is violating the Local Option Law, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 — 1 et seq., and the penalty fixed at a fine of $100.

There are only two points raised in appellant’s brief, both of which are claimed to be fundamental. The first point is to the complaint and information in that the same do not allege that the commissioners’ court canvassed the returns of the local option election, and the second point being, in substance, that when the people of Collin county voted favorably for the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors therein in 1902, that they also voted for a certain fixed punishment in the event of a violation of their thus adopted law, and that under the law as now prescribed there is a different and more severe penalty prescribed for such violation, which the Legislature had no right to change; therefore there is no penalty of any kind now prescribed for any violation of this law in such territory that had adopted and had in force at the time of the adoption of section 20, art. 16, of the State Constitution the laws prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors in such local option territory.

We confess such points are interesting, and invite one to write thereon at some length; however, in a companion case hereto, 116 S.W.2d 404, involving the same appellant, Judge Christian has gone into a full discussion of .both points, and under our agreement with the reasoning and the conclusions therein arrived at in that cas3⁄8 this judgment is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

Our re-examination of the record in the light of appellant’s motion for rehearing leaves us of opinion that error is not presented.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      22,902,754
<SECURITIES>                                21,787,491
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,254,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,660,138
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,243,364
<PP&E>                                       2,182,367
<DEPRECIATION>                                 851,059
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,252,838
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,139,548
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,927
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,105,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,252,838
<SALES>                                      6,721,526
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,721,526
<CGS>                                        4,617,705
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,155,875
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (998,320)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,053,734)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,271
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,063,005)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.45)
        

</TABLE>
[No. 35501.

Department Two.

October 27, 1960.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. William Edward Williams, *Appellant.*
      *1*

*John M. Reese,*for appellant.

*Arthur L. Hawman,*for respondent.

Reported in 356 P. (2d) 99.

Rosellini, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction following a verdict of the jury finding him guilty of a violation of RCW 9.31.010, defining the crime of escape, while he was imprisoned at Walla Walla for the commission of a felony. He assigns error to the denial of his motion for dismissal which was based upon the contention that, inasmuch as he had been disciplined at the prison as a result of the attempted escape, his trial under the statute deprived *232him of his constitutional right not to be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense.

We find in the defendant’s brief no authority supporting this theory, and our research has revealed none.

In order for a plea of double jeopardy to be invoked, it is incumbent upon a defendant to show that he has been previously placed on trial before a court of competent jurisdiction upon an indictment or information for the same offense. *People v. Conson,*72 Cal. App. 509, 237 Pac. 799. The term “jeopardy,” as used in the constitution, signifies the danger of conviction and punishment which the defendant in a criminal prosecution incurs when he is put on trial before a court of competent jurisdiction under an indictment sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction. *Ex parte Kirk,*96 Okla. Crim. 272, 252 P. (2d) 1032; *Holt v. State,*160 Tenn. 366, 24 S. W. (2d) 886; 15 Am. Jur. 40, § 360.

The hearing before the disciplinary committee did not, as the defendant contends, constitute a jeopardy for the crime of escape. He was at that time serving his sentence at the prison, and, as an inmate, was subject to prison discipline, including reasonable punishment for infraction of rules. (See RCW 72.08.120 and 72.08.040.) No new or greater sentence was imposed upon him by virtue of the disciplinary action, nor was he convicted of any offense. Such discipline is an administrative, and not a judicial function. *People v. Conson, supra; Ex Parte Rody,*348 Mo. 1, 152 S. W. (2d) 657; *People v. Ford,*175 Cal. App. (2d) 37, 345 P. (2d) 354.

*People v. Conson, supra, Ex parte Kirk, supra,*and *People v. Garmon*(Cal. App), 2 Cal. Rptr. 60, are cases involving the identical question presented here. In each of them it was held that no question of double jeopardy was presented. Also in accord are *State v. Cahill,*196 Iowa 486, 194 N. W. 191; *People v. Huntley,*112 Mich. 569, 71 N. W. 178; and *People v. Ford, supra.*

The court correctly ruled that the defense of former jeopardy was not available to the defendant.

*233The judgment is affirmed.

Weaver, C. J., Hill, Finley, and Ott, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOHN JOEL RALSTON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 72 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOHN JOEL RALSTON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 73 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
<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>                                           6,527
<SECURITIES>                                     3,970
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,331
<PP&E>                                           5,088
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,445
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,445
<SALES>                                         13,114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,147
<CGS>                                            3,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,711
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,236)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,236)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,236)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
<FN>
<F1>For purposes of this exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### 7 Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2012

- 1313 D irectorate Identifier: 

### 2012

- NM

- 080

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g. , Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$85/h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### same as original

AD $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or m ight not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### 8 Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD cou ld affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001012141
<NAME> ON-SITE SOURCING

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,912
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,199,756
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,726,481
<PP&E>                                       6,230,950
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,765,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,514,284
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,547
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,765,162
<SALES>                                      7,967,584
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,967,584
<CGS>                                        6,030,322
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,695,550
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               113,368
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 65,606
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,198
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,408
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,408
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.2**





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 Annual Report of PLM Equipment Growth Fund VI (the
“Partnership”), on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      the undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner and of
      the
      Partnership, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





(1)  the
      Report of the Partnership filed today 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
      Partnership.














/s/
      Richard K Brock


Richard
      K
      Brock


Chief
      Financial Officer of PLM Financial Services, Inc.


(Principal
      Financial Officer)


June
      6,
      2006
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems.                    

*Date and Time:*                         January 21 and 22, 2001, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 530, Arlington, Virginia 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contract Person:*                         Dr. Alison Flatau, Program Director, Dynamic Systems and Control, Sensor Technologies for Civil and Mechanical Systems, Room 545, (703) 292-8360.                              ( print page 77676)    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning Individual Investigator Award proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate nominations for the FY'01 Dynamic Systems and Control Individual Investigator Award (IIA) Review Panel proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason For Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals.                    

These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

Dated: November 28, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-31487  Filed 12-11-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAYMOND A. MONTES, Jr.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DISTRICT; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 56146

D.C. No. 5:15

- cv

- 01846

- JGB

- DTB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 12 , 2018 **

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Raymond A. Montes, Jr.

, appeals pro se from the district court’ s order

denying his post

-

judgment motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(a), following a jury verdict in his disabili ty discrimination action.

We have juris diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

* 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). 

# F ILED

SEP 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 56146

discretion. Kode v. Carlson , 596 F.3d 608, 612 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse i ts discretion by denying Montes’s motion

for a new trial because Montes failed to set forth any basis for such relief. See

Crowley v. Epicept Corp ., 88 3 F.3d 739, 751 (9th Cir. 2018) ( setting forth grounds

for a new trial under Rule 59(a)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings

regarding the Engebretson note or the Maldonado letter. See Fed. R. Evid. 408

( evidence of an offer to compromise is not admissible to prove or disprove t he

validity of a disputed claim ), 801(c) (hearsay inadmissible if offered in evidence to

prove the truth of the m atter asserted in the statement ) ; Wagner v. C ounty of

Maricopa , 747 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) ( standard of review ).

We do not consider issues not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in

the opening b rief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal.

See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.