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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD DEAN CARPENTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KLAMATH COUNTY JAIL, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-35245 

D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00085-AA 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Oregon state prisoner Richard Dean Carpenter appeals pro se from the 

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from a 

beating by another inmate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo, Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 

 

* 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

DEC 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35245 

2018), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Carpenter’s 

deliberate indifference to safety and medical needs claims because Carpenter failed 

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether an official policy, custom, 

or usage of the county exposed Carpenter to a substantial risk of serious harm. See 

Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978) (outlining standard 

for municipal liability under § 1983); Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 

1060, 1076 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (explaining that objective standard applies as 

to whether a municipal defendant was deliberately indifferent); see also Mendiola–

Martinez v. Arpaio, 836 F.3d 1239, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment 

affirmed on deliberate indifference to medical needs claim where plaintiff did “not 

attempt to link any policy or practice of the County Defendants” to her alleged 

injury); Labatad v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 714 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(summary judgment affirmed on deliberate indifference to safety claim where there 

was “no record of any threats or problems” between two inmates and plaintiff 

“provided no specifics” about telling officer he should not be housed with 

particular inmate); Deveraux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(explaining that “[o]nce the moving party carries its initial burden, the adverse 

party ‘may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s 

pleading’” to preclude summary judgment).
3 18-35245 

AFFIRMED.
Argued and submitted April 25,

affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded July 27,

reconsideration denied September 9, petition for review denied October 4, 1983 (295 Or 730)

#### ALLUM, *Appellant, v.*HUTCHINSON et al, *Respondents.*

(8109 05459; CA A26370)

666 P2d 873

Jacquelyn Romm, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. On the briefs were Robert D. Woods and Cass, Scott, Woods & Smith, Eugene.

Elizabeth Yeats, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief was Kobin & Meyer, Portland.

Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Young, Judges.

*14GILLETTE, P.J.

*15GILLETTE, P. J.

Plaintiff and defendants were partners in a real estate venture. Plaintiff brought this action to recover a balance claimed due from the allocation of rents and profits following sale of the principal asset and dissolution of the partnership. His first claim for relief was based on the proportionate ownership of the partners; his second claim was based on fees paid to one of the defendant partners during the partnership for managing the partnership’s principal asset. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on both claims — on the first, because relief was barred by the statute of limitations; on the second, because the court found that the majority of the partners had modified the original partnership agreement to permit the payment of a fee like that in question here to a partner. Plaintiff appeals from the resulting judgment in favor of defendants.

A full recitation of the facts would not benefit bench or bar. We are satisfied that the trial judge’s ruling concerning the application of the statute of limitations was correct. We are also satisfied that his ruling concerning the “modification” > of the partnership agreement to permit payment of fees to a partner was not correct. A specific provision of the partnership agreement forbade such payments. The partner receiving the payments is obligated to reimburse the partnership.

Defendants argue that, even if they did not have the authority to modify the partnership agreement in this respect without plaintiffs consent, plaintiff did consent at one of the partnership meetings. There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether plaintiff did or did not consent. Thus, there is a material issue of fact to be tried, and summary judgment should not have been granted on plaintiffs second claim for relief. ORCP 47; *Glassner v. Northwest Lustre Craft Co.,*39 Or App 175, 591 P2d 419 (1979).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<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>                                         595,000
<SECURITIES>                                 3,617,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,909,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   154,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,690,000
<PP&E>                                       4,020,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,198,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,135,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,879,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  6,750,000
<COMMON>                                         3,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,611,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,135,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,998,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,704,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             136,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                930,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   398,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            532,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   532,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        


</TABLE>
----

----

| 1. | the annual                report on Form 10-KSB of Falcon Ridge Development Inc. for the year                ended September 30, 2006 (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 Falcon                Ridge Development Inc.,. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|        |
|--------|
|   |   |   |
|   |   |

|                                                 |                                                          |                                     |
|------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |                                                          |
|                                            |                                                     |                                |
| Dated:  February                  14, 2007 |                                                          | /s/ Karen                  Y. Duran |
|                                                 | Karen                    Y. Duran,                            |
|                                                 | Chief                    Financial                    Officer |

----

----
EXHIBIT 10.16(b)

MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC.

Schedule of Certain Executive Officers for the Summary of Compensation
Arrangement set forth in Exhibit 10.16(a)

The compensation arrangements for the below listed executives are set forth in Exhibit 10.16(a).



|                 |  |                                                              |  |                                           |         |                       |     |  
|---------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------- | ------- | --------------------- | --- | -
|Name             |  | Title                                                        |  | Annualized BaseSalary ForFiscal Year 2008 |         | TargetBonusPercentage |    
|Rajeev Madhavan  |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board            |  | $                                         | 475,000 |                       | 90  | %
|Roy E. Jewell    |  | President and Chief Operating Officer and Director           |  | $                                         | 475,000 |                       | 90  | %
|Bruce Eastman    |  | Corporate Vice President, Worldwide Sales                    |  | $                                         | 300,000 |                       | 100 | %
|Peter S. Teshima |  | Corporate Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer |  | $                                         | 300,000 |                       | 60  | %
|David H. Stanley |  | Corporate Vice President, Corporate Affairs & Secretary      |  | $                                         | 290,000 |                       | 60  | %
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46295-46296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18689]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8819]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``The Heart Is Not a Metaphor'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of

[[Page 46296]]

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 
of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 
1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), 
Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of 
Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation 
of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the 
objects to be included in the exhibition ``The Heart Is Not a 
Metaphor,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
The Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY, from on or about October 4, 
2014, until on or about January 18, 2015, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: July 31, 3014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-18689 Filed 8-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             1131625
<SECURITIES>                                          2280
<RECEIVABLES>                                         5744
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1189188
<PP&E>                                              459501
<DEPRECIATION>                                       68479
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1757500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               278480
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             22560
<OTHER-SE>                                         1433704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1076702
<SALES>                                               5689
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      5689
<CGS>                                                11542
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1266239
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    2053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (1242493)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (1242493)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1242493)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.055)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.055)



</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report of Capital Environmental Resource
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Ronald L. Rubin, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:  (i)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/
Ronald L. RubinName: Ronald L. RubinTitle: Chief Financial Officer
 June 8, 2004
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan



### December 10, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 

### 134969 & (83) Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, J ustices 

### Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134969 COA: 268264 Kent CC: 04-009942-FC RUDOLPH JEROME HORTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for de cision on the defendant’s application is GRANTED. The application for leave to a ppeal the August 28, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DE NIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH 

### and K ELLY 

### , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.

p1203 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 10, 2008
Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         707,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,554,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,863,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   745,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,628,000
<PP&E>                                       5,751,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,928,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,534,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,027,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,487,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,534,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,888,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,095,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             140,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                216,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   113,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            103,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   103,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NATIONAL DIAGNOSTICS, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                 1,874,618
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,197,417
<ALLOWANCES>                                   678,417
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,660,551
<PP&E>                                       9,976,773
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,235,994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,752,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,719,932
<BONDS>                                        732,388
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,475,260
<COMMON>                                         1,936
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,177,147)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,752,369
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,118,294
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,625,208
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,762,564
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             328,185
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (516,189)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (516,189)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (4.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25266]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service TM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 31, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 22, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 513 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-132, K2025-130.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-25266 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```