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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR LOPEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MUFG UNION BANK, N.A.; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-55748 

D.C. No. 8:17-cv-01466-JLS-KES 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit 

Judges.

Arthur Lopez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his civil rights and antitrust action arising from a business loan transaction. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the 

basis of res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). 

 

* 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

MAY 30 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-55748 

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lopez’s federal claims as barred by the 

doctrine of res judicata because Lopez litigated these claims in a prior action that 

resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. 

Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth 

requirements of res judicata).

We lack jurisdiction to review the orders denying Lopez’s requests for 

reconsideration because Lopez failed to file an amended notice of appeal from

those decisions. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 

572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007) (a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional).

We reject as meritless Lopez’s contention that the district court violated his 

constitutional rights.

Lopez’s “request to enter audio CD” (Docket Entry No. 15) and requests for 

judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, are denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1227 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1227

To waive the time limitations specified by law for the award of certain 
  military decorations in order to allow the posthumous award of the 
 Medal of Honor to Doris Miller for actions while a member of the Navy 
                          during World War II.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2009

 Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas (for herself, Mr. Meek of Florida, 
      Mr. Rush, Mr. Sestak, Mr. Watt, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mrs. 
Christensen, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Edwards of Texas, 
  Mr. Filner, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. 
Payne, Ms. Sutton, and Ms. Watson) introduced the following bill; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To waive the time limitations specified by law for the award of certain 
  military decorations in order to allow the posthumous award of the 
 Medal of Honor to Doris Miller for actions while a member of the Navy 
                          during World War II.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS ON AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO 
              DORIS MILLER FOR VALOR AS A MEMBER OF THE NAVY DURING 
              WORLD WAR II.

    The time limitations specified in sections 6248(a) and 6250 of 
title 10, United States Code, shall not apply with respect to the 
posthumous award of the Medal of Honor under section 6241 of such title 
to Doris Miller (service number 356-12-35) for acts of heroism during 
World War II while a member of the United States Navy.
                                 <all>
```
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ASTRAZENECA AB, 

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC., 

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2022-2167

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:18-cv-00664-RGA, Judge 

Richard G. Andrews.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 22-2167 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 11/29/2022
2 ASTRAZENECA AB V. ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC.

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

November 29, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 29, 2022

Case: 22-2167 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 11/29/2022
| **Loan Servicing (Details) (USD $)In Thousands, unless otherwise specified** | Dec. 31, 2012 | Dec. 31, 2011 | Dec. 31, 2010 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
| **Banking and Thrift [Abstract]**                                            |          |          |          |
| Unpaid Principal Balance Of Loans Serviced For Others                        | $ 167,879     | $ 136,867     | $ 163,139     |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Unpaid Principal Balance Of Loans Serviced For Others
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**frme_UnpaidPrincipalBalanceOfLoansServicedForOthers**Namespace Prefix:**frme_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_BankingAndThriftAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (i)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.
 Dated: March 29, 2006
    
    /s/ SETH R. JOHNSONSeth R. JohnsonChief Executive OfficerPacific Sunwear of California, Inc.(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: March 29, 2006
    
    /s/ GERALD M. CHANEYGerald M. ChaneySenior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial OfficerPacific Sunwear of California, Inc.(Principal Financial Officer)
March 10, 2015

Mr. Shane J. Renard 1203 Kellogg Street Green Bay WI 54303

Dear Mr. Renard:

This letter is to inform you that we are unabl e to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we cannot proce ss your request and what you s hould do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your February 10, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA2015-0336), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR fr om which you seek relief and the extent of the relief you seek.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adve rsely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equa l to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or ar guments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any fu rther, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requi res you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days , we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additiona l time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Nia Daniels Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2597 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2597

 To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the program of 
    payments to children's hospitals that operate graduate medical 
              education programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 22, 2018

    Mr. Casey (for himself, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Brown, Mr. Blunt, Mr. 
   Whitehouse, Mr. Portman, Ms. Warren, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Murphy, Mr. 
   Cornyn, Mr. Reed, Mr. Perdue, and Mr. Blumenthal) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the program of 
    payments to children's hospitals that operate graduate medical 
              education programs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Children's Hospital GME Support 
Reauthorization Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. PROGRAM OF PAYMENTS TO CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS THAT OPERATE 
              GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

    Section 340E of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 256e) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and each of fiscal 
        years 2014 through 2018,'' and inserting ``, each of fiscal 
        years 2014 through 2018, and each of fiscal years 2019 through 
        2023'';
            (2) in subsection (b)(3)(D), by inserting ``and the end of 
        fiscal year 2022,'' after ``fiscal year 2018,''; and
            (3) in subsection (f)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)(A)--
                            (i) in clause (iv), by striking ``; and'' 
                        and inserting ``;'';
                            (ii) in clause (v), by striking the period 
                        at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                            (iii) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(vi) for each of fiscal years 2019 
                        through 2023, $110,000,000.''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (2)--
                            (i) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``; 
                        and'' and inserting ``;'';
                            (ii) in subparagraph (E), by striking the 
                        period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                            (iii) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(F) for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023, 
                $220,000,000.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 24

Confirming Statement

This  Statement  confirms  that  the  undersigned,  Jeffrey  B.  Lorentson,  has
authorized  and   designated   Larry  R.  Helms  to  execute  and  file  on  the
undersigned's  behalf all Forms 3, 4 and 5 (including  any  amendments  thereto)
that the  undersigned  may be  required  to file  with the U.S.  Securities  and
Exchange   Commission  as  a  result  of  the  undersigned's   ownership  of  or
transactions  in securities  of First  Merchants  Corporation.  The authority of
Larry R. Helms under this statement  shall continue until the  undersigned is no
longer  required  to file  Forms  3, 4 and 5 with  regard  to the  undersigned's
ownership of or  transactions  in  securities  of First  Merchants  Corporation,
unless earlier revoked in writing.  The undersigned  acknowledges Larry R. Helms
is not assuming any of the undersigned's responsibilities to comply with Section
16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Date: July 24, 2007

/s/ Jeffrey B. Lorentson
------------------------
    Jeffrey B. Lorentson
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                  ------------

                   [GOLDSTEIN  GOLUB  KESSLER  LLP LETTERHEAD]



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



To  the  Board  of  Directors
Orbit  International  Corp.


We  hereby  consent  to  incorporation  by  reference  in  Registration  Numbers
333-25979,  333-69410  and  333-122575  on  Form  S-8  and  Registration  Number
333-130629  on  Form  S-3 of our report dated March 27, 2007 on the consolidated
balance  sheets of Orbit International Corp. and Subsidiaries as of December 31,
2006  and  2005  and  the  related  consolidated  statements  of  operations,
stockholders'  equity  and  cash flows for the years then ended, which appear in
the  December 31, 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Orbit International Corp.



/s/ Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP
-------------------------------
GOLDSTEIN  GOLUB  KESSLER  LLP
New  York,  New  York
March  27,  2007
#### J. B. HIRSHFELD & CO., Inc., v. EVANS et ux.

No. 1600-6482.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

April 22, 1936.

Slough, Gibson & Slough, of Amarillo, for .plaintiff in error.

Lackey & Lackey, of Stinnett, for defendants in error.

RYAN, Commissioner.

A complete statement of this case by the •Court of Civil Appeals is reported in 56 S.W.(2d) 683.

The point involved is whether a married woman, not having complied with the provisions of article 4626, Rev.St.1925, by •obtaining an order of court, removing her disabilities of coverture and declaring her feme sole for mercantile and trading purposes, may be held personally liable for the •.price of goods purchased by her in the conduct of a store, on an allegation that the stock of merchandise was her sole and separate property.

The Court of Civil Appeals correctly held that a personal action cannot be maintained against her, where the petition fails to show compliance with said statute.

The Legislature having the right to confer sole management, control, and disposition of the wife’s separate property on her, had also the right to prescribe the conditions and restrictions, if any, under which that right may be exercised.

The circumstances under which the wife may become feme sole for mercantile and trading purposes, being prescribed, the rule of implied exclusion obtains. Arnold v. Leonard, 114 Tex. 535, at page 540, 273 S.W. 799. An order of the district court is required before she can be treated in law, as a merchant or operator 'for mercantile and trading purposes, and her separate estate subjected to her obligations incurred as such.

The judgments of the trial court and Court of Civil Appeals are affirmed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court
<PAGE>
 
                                IA CORPORATION I

  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS
                                      AND
                         PRO FORMA NET INCOME PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED 
                                                 MARCH 31,
                                        ----------------------------
                                              1997           1996
                                        --------------   -----------
<S>                                        <C>           <C>
HISTORICAL:
Net income(loss)                           $   850,000   $  (161,000)
Weighted average common shares              11,053,158     5,640,656
 outstanding
Common stock equivalents (using
 treasury stock method)                      1,104,050            --
 
Common and common stock options issued
 during the twelve month period prior
 to the initial public offering in
 accordance with Staff Accounting                   --       858,641
 Bulletin No. 83 (using the treasury
 stock method)
 
 
 
                                        --------------   -----------
                                            12,157,208     6,499,297
Net income (loss) per share applicable  ==============   ===========
 to common stockholders                    $      0.07   $     (0.02)
                                        ==============   ===========
 
PRO FORMA:
Net income                                 $   850,000   $   132,000
Historical weighted average shares          12,157,208     6,499,297
 outstanding
Common stock equivalents (using
 treasury stock method)                             --       610,437
 
Effect of assumed conversion of                     --     2,973,117
 preferred stock
                                        ==============   ===========
                                            12,157,208    10,082,851
                                        ==============   ===========
Pro forma net income per share             $      0.07   $      0.01
                                        ==============   ===========
 
</TABLE>
| INDIANA                                        | 35-1544218                        |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

|   |  Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |  Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| Exhibit 99.1 | Slide presentation, utilized October 28, 2010, during conference call and web cast by First Merchants Corporation |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

| 99.1 | Slide presentation, utilized October 28, 2010, during conference call and web cast by First Merchants Corporation |
|------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 244 

To repeal the wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2017 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. 

FLAKE, Mr. PERDUE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. ALEXANDER, and Mr. RUBIO) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To repeal the wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Davis-Bacon Repeal 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DAVIS-BACON WAGE REQUIREMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter IV of chapter 31 of 

8 title 40, United States Code, is repealed. 

9 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law to a re10 quirement under subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, 

11 United States Code, shall be null and void. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 244 IS

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND LIMITATION. 

2 Section 2, and the amendment made by such section, 

3 shall take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of 

4 this Act but shall not affect any contract that is— 

5 (1) in existence on the date that is 30 days 

6 after such date of enactment; or 

7 (2) made pursuant to an invitation for bids out8 standing on the date that is 30 days after such date 

9 of enactment. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS