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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YANG MO GOO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MARIA RULLO, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-55399 

D.C. No. 8:22-cv-00341-JLS-DFM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Yang Mo Goo appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying Goo’s 

request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissing Goo’s action alleging 

federal law violations by a state court judge pro tempore. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of an IFP 

* 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

FEB 24 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-55399 

request. Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015) (order). We 

review de novo a determination of judicial immunity. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 

1076, 1077 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Goo’s request to proceed IFP and 

dismissed Goo’s action as barred by absolute immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 

793 F.2d 1072, 1075-78 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (“Judges and those performing 

judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts 

performed in their official capacities.”); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 

1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing factors relevant to the determination of whether 

an act is judicial in nature and subject to absolute judicial immunity).

Because Goo has paid the required filing fee on appeal, Goo’s motion to 

proceed IFP on appeal (Docket Entry No. 6) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 12.1
COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORPORATION

|                                         |  |                          |      |      |   |       |  |      |       |      |   |       |  |   |       | 
|---------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ | ---- | ---- | - | ----- |  | ---- | ----- | ---- | - | ----- |  | - | ----- | 
|                                         |  | Years Ended December 31, |     
|                                         |  |                          |     
|(Dollars
 in Millions)                   |  | 2009                     |      | 2008 |   | 2007  |  | 2006 |       | 2005 |  
|                                         |  |                          |      |      |   |       |  |      |       |      |  
|Earnings:                                |  |                          |      |      |   |       |  |      |       |      |   |       |  |   |       | 
|Net income                               |  | $                        | 362  |      | $ | 864   |  | $    | 725   |      | $ | 622   |  | $ | 415   | 
|Income tax provision                     |  |                          | 8    |      |   | 132   |  |      | 60    |      |   | 95    |  |   | 50    | 
|Interest expense                         |  |                          | 629  |      |   | 1,618 |  |      | 2,046 |      |   | 1,614 |  |   | 1,141 | 
|                                         |  |                          |      |      |   |       |  |      |       |      |   |       |  |   |       | 
|Total earnings (a)                       |  | $                        | 999  |      | $ | 2,614 |  | $    | 2,831 |      | $ | 2,331 |  | $ | 1,606 | 
|                                         |  |                          |      |      |   |       |  |      |       |      |   |       |  |   |       | 
|                                         |  |                          |      |      |   |       |  |      |       |      |   |       |  |   |       | 
|Fixed charges  interest expense (b)     |  | $                        | 629  |      | $ | 1,618 |  | $    | 2,046 |      | $ | 1,614 |  | $ | 1,141 | 
|                                         |  |                          |      |      |   |       |  |      |       |      |   |       |  |   |       | 
|                                         |  |                          |      |      |   |       |  |      |       |      |   |       |  |   |       | 
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (a/b) |  |                          | 1.59 |      |   | 1.62  |  |      | 1.38  |      |   | 1.44  |  |   | 1.41  | 
|                                         |  |                          |      |      |   |       |  |      |       |      |   |       |  |   |       | 

Interest expense does not
include interest on liabilities recorded under GAAP governing accounting for
uncertainty in income taxes as Credcos policy is to classify such interest in
the income tax provision in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THE COMPANY'S 10Q FOR THE YEAR TO DATE AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-2000
<CASH>                                         127,606
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     29,018
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               195,009
<PP&E>                                          11,012
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,015
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       190,709
<OTHER-SE>                                     (10,265)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   180,444
<SALES>                                         42,581
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,581
<CGS>                                           21,606
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,606
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,908
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,465
<INCOME-TAX>                                       446
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,019
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,019
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.02



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 Quarterly Report of CyberGuard Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Matte, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                          
|/s/    MICHAEL D. MATTE                                   
|                                                          
|Michael D. Matte Chief Financial Officer February 12, 2004
<PAGE>   1






                                  EXHIBIT 23
                                      
                        INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

<PAGE>   2
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference of our reports dated February 23,
1996, appearing in and incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of American Business Products, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1995
in the following Registration Statements of American Business Products, Inc.:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                     FORM                  FILE NO.
                     <S>                   <C>

                     S-3                   33-60567
                     S-8                   33-53627
                     S-8                   33-59271
                     S-8                   33-61359
</TABLE>



/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
-------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
March 18, 1996
-  Laws & Regulations 
          Authorizations to Proceed
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
Chronology of Major SMCRA-Related Events		
Directives
Environmental Justice		
Federal Register Notices
Information Quality
National Environmental Policy Act 
Scientific Integrity

# Authorizations to Proceed

Tribal and state partners request and receive approval before beginning construction on a reclamation project with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE).

The process in which project(s) are requested and approved is called the Authorization to Proceed (ATP).

Once an ATP is issued, partners have approval to proceed with construction on a specific reclamation project.

#### Fiscal Year 2023 & 2024 ATP Status

As of September 30th in **Fiscal Year 2023, a total of 370 ATPs** have been approved across all AML Reclamation programs. As of February 29th in **Fiscal Year 2024, ****a total of 152 ATPs** have been approved across all AML Reclamation programs. 

ATPs are issued by OSMRE for three programs, including Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (BIL) AML, AML Fee-Based, and AMLER.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 7, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

  The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the 
calendar:

       S. 1. A bill to create jobs, restore economic growth, and 
     strengthen America's middle class through measures that 
     modernize the Nation's infrastructure, enhance America's 
     energy independence, expand educational opportunities, 
     preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax 
     relief, and protect those in greatest need, and for other 
     purposes.
       S. 2. A bill to improve the lives of middle class families 
     and provide them with greater opportunity to achieve the 
     American dream.
       S. 3. A bill to protect homeowners and consumers by 
     reducing foreclosures, ensuring the availability of credit 
     for homeowners, businesses, and consumers, and reforming the 
     financial regulatory system, and for other purposes.
       S. 4. A bill to guarantee affordable, quality health 
     coverage for all Americans, and for other purposes.
       S. 5. A bill to improve the economy and security of the 
     United States by reducing the dependence of the United States 
     on foreign and unsustainable energy sources and the risks of 
     global warming, and for other purposes.
       S. 6. A bill to restore and enhance the national security 
     of the United States.
       S. 7. A bill to expand educational opportunities for all 
     Americans by increasing access to high-quality early 
     childhood education and after school programs, advancing 
     reform in elementary and secondary education, strengthening 
     mathematics and science instruction, and ensuring that higher 
     education is more affordable, and for other purposes.
       S. 8. A bill to return the Government to the people by 
     reviewing controversial ``midnight regulations'' issued in 
     the waning days of the Bush administration.
       S. 9. A bill to strengthen the United States economy, 
     provide for more effective border and employment enforcement, 
     and for other purposes.
       S. 10. A bill to restore fiscal discipline and begin to 
     address the long-term fiscal challenges facing the United 
     States, and for other purposes.
       S. 33. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     with respect to the proper tax treatment of certain 
     indebtedness discharged in 2009 or 2010, and for other 
     purposes.
       S. 34. A bill to prevent the Federal Communications 
     Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.

                          ____________________
```
#### Hunnicutt and Others v. Carsley.

November, 1806.

Covenant — Not Guilty — Verdict.*—A plea of not guilty to an action of covenant is cured by a verdict.

*

Pleading and Practice — Defective Pleas — Jeofails.-Where an improper or defective plea raises a substantial defence to the action, and it is unobjected to in the court below, and issue is thereon joined, after verdict or judgment, it is too late to object, the defect being cured by the statute of jeofails. State v. Seabright, 15 W. Va. 595, citing principal case, Cleek v. Haines, *2*Rand. 440, Chew v. Moffett. 6 Munf. 120. and Pence v. Huston, 6 Gratt. 304. To the same effect, see the principal case also cited with approval in Gray v. Kemp, 88 Va. 263, 16 S. E. Rep. 225; Roderick v. Railroad Co., 7 W. Va. 56; Smith v. Townsend, 31 W. Va. 495.

The appellee brought an action of covenant against the appellants in the District Court of Petersburg. The defendants pleaded, “not guilty upon which issue was joined. A verdict and judgment having been rendered for the plaintiff on this issue, an appeal was taken to this Court.

JUDGE TUCKER

remarked the informality of the plea ; but conceived it was too late to take advantage of it, after verdict. And, by the whole Court, judgment affirmed.
-   Sign In 
              -   Create Account 

### U.S. Department of Energy                                        Office of Scientific and Technical Information

      to      

 More Options...                        

-   Sign In 
-   Create Account 

Advanced Search
                  -   Submit Software/Code                                             
                  -   Repository Service                                             
                  -   Software Policy 
                  -   Resources                                             
                  -   About                                             
                  -   FAQs                                             
                  -   News                                             

# Repository Service

request formdoecoderepositories@osti.gov

Hosting Security Page

----

-    Website Policies / Important Links 
-    Contact Us 
-                              Vulnerability Disclosure Program 
-   
-   
-   
-    Website Policies / Important Links 
-    Contact Us 
-                              Vulnerability Disclosure Program 
-   
-   
-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,886,787
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,447,912
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     99,968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,434,667
<PP&E>                                      21,918,694
<DEPRECIATION>                              (6,788,798)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,564,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,640,847
<BONDS>                                      1,330,887
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     41,784
<COMMON>                                     4,622,225
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,928,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,564,563
<SALES>                                      2,379,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,495,898
<CGS>                                        1,295,271
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               533,575
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                667,002
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            667,002
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   667,002
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

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

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

April 28, 2014

t0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2014

148299

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148299

COA: 310403

Ionia CC: 2011

- 015114

- FH

MICHAEL ROBERT BRIDINGER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 24, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

   EXHIBIT 12 - COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
               AND FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS
                        (Dollars in Thousands)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               Year Ended December 31,
                                                                1996       1995       1994       1993       1992

<S>                                                        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Pretax income (loss) excluding discontinued operations      $304,651   $253,449   $ 26,376   $257,426  ($144,854)
Minority interest in subsidiaries having fixed charges(*)     52,838     27,076      8,565     34,800     37,685
Less undistributed equity in (earnings) losses
  of investees                                                31,353     (1,559)    49,010    (25,067)   376,020
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                            88,144    124,633    114,803    153,836    212,150
  Debt discount (premium) and expense                         (1,174)    (1,023)     1,240      5,273      4,698
  One-third of rentals                                         9,279      9,471      5,119      5,801     16,341
                                                           
      EARNINGS                                              $485,091   $412,047   $205,113   $432,069   $502,040

Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                          $ 88,144   $124,633   $114,803   $153,836   $212,150
  Debt discount (premium) and expense                         (1,174)    (1,023)     1,240      5,273      4,698
  One-third of rentals                                         9,279      9,471      5,119      5,801     16,341
  Pretax preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries       1,031       -          -          -          -

      FIXED CHARGES                                         $ 97,280   $133,081   $121,162   $164,910   $233,189


Fixed charges and preferred dividends:
  Fixed charges - per above                                 $ 97,280   $133,081   $121,162   $164,910   $233,189
  Preferred dividends                                         25,190     25,376     25,709     26,122     26,218
     
     FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS                  $122,470   $158,457   $146,871   $191,032   $259,407

 
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                              4.99       3.10       1.69       2.62       2.15

Earnings in excess of Fixed Charges                         $387,811   $278,966   $ 83,951   $267,159   $268,851


Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
  Charges and Preferred Dividends                               3.96       2.60       1.40       2.26       1.94


Earnings in excess of Fixed
  Charges and Preferred Dividends                           $362,621   $253,590   $ 58,242   $241,037   $242,633

<FN>
(*)  Amounts include subsidiary preferred dividends and accrued distributions on TOPrS.
</FN>
</TABLE>

                                E-2
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

g-able V. B. Qoer 

county Att--Y 

You have 

lpon the r0110vlngr 

rtqwrte of thle department 

mane0 counsame brand in 

eath o? (A) redate es appears an the record book bee prefarenoe. Therefore, 

under article 6899, if a dlepute arises as to who has the 

preierential r$gbt tq reoord 8 mrk, this preisrenoe belongs 

to the person who hils had the particular mark on reaord the 

loagest . 

t&arks ant5 brands are persona1 ppopert and are eubject to be sold or lnborlted. Rankin v. Bell, 8 5 Tex. 28, 19 

3. W. 8743 ?A¶better v. State, 35 Tex. &, R. 195, 32 9. V. 

9038 Dugat v. State, 67 Tax. Cr. It. 46, 148 S. U. 789. 
V.” 

Honmab& 0. B. War, page 2 

ft 10 also prmtaalble for an lndlvldur;l to ahmga 

or abandon a r8oordecl vrk or bran&. Moc1ulw V. shwk’a nelra, 

68 Tex. 426, 4 Se W. 552; Dugcat v. State, rup~a. 

Thrrerore, und6r the given rasata, ii (A) had not 

l badoned or ohanged the &urk lo queatlan at tha tlm6 of his 

dea th, l ud (C) 6811 ahov he is the doviaee or 614 l&malt thla 

mk, than it la our o~inian that (C) has the ~feraxW.al 

right to raoord this bm14 under Artiolo 6899. rr thote raota 

oamot be shown, than (B) Lo. our opinion poasoaaea this pmfexwntlal ridght. 

ROK:db 

Your* vary truly 

ATTO- OEIIRIUL OF TEXAS
June 8, 2011 

MEMORANDUM 

From: William H. Maxwell 

EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01) 

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 

Subject: Meeting with Labor Unions 

Attendees: 

EPA: 

Gina McCarthy, OAR/IO 

Joe Goffman, OAR/IO 

Sam Napolitano, OAR/OAP/CAMD 

Ellen Kurlansky, OAR/OPAR 

Kevin Culligan, OAR/OAQPS/SPPD 

Bill Maxwell, OAR/OAQPS/SPPD (by phone) 

Unions: 

See attached. 

Discussion: 

The following materials were discussed. 

Units meeting floors_UMWA_060211.pdf 

Meeting all floors_UMWA_060211.xls 

UMWA_handout_060811.pdf