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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS MOORE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

SUSAN TSUI GRUNDMANN, Chairman U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 55023

D.C. No. 3:11

- cv

- 01570

- GPC

MDD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016 **

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Dennis Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

h is action arising from the Merit Systems Protection Board ’s (“MSPB”) denial 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). Thus, Moore’ s request for oral argumen t, set forth in his reply brief , is denied. 

# FILED

DEC 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 55023

his request to reopen his appeal

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We re view de novo

. See Starr v. Baca , 652 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011) (Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) ; Crum v. Circus Circus Enters ., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir.

2000) (subject matter jurisdiction)

. We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter

jurisdiction to review the MSPB ’s denial of Moore’s request to reopen his appeal.

See 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (“Any employee . . . aggrieved by a final order or decision of

the Merit Systems Protection Board may ob tain judicial review of the order or

decision ” ); Haines v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd

. , 44 F.3d 998, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

( holding that MSPB den ials of repetitive informal request s to reopen did not

constitute final decision s that the court could review).

The district court properly dismissed Moore’s due process claim s because

Moore failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim

. See Wright v.

Riveland , 219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth elements of a procedural

due process claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion

for an extension of time to file a response to the T hird A mended C omplaint. See

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc ., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) ( standard

of review ); FTC v. Gill

, 265 F.3d 944, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) ( district court has broad

discretion to control its docket and set deadlines ).3 15

- 55023

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised a nd argued

in the opening brief, including Moore’s contention s rega rding the Notification and

Federal Employees Antidiscrimination Act

, 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).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
 
 
 Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Sally A. Fonner, President of Win or Lose Acquisition Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:
 
 The Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Sally A Fonner
 Sally A. Fonner, President Dated: March 29, 2004
MORGAN,

SEPTEMBER TERM, 1794.

#### Steele *v.*Anthony.

A grant from the State without the seal appendant, offered in evidence. Judge Wiiiiams thought that the deed was destroyed by the seal’s being torn off. But A sun Judge, was clearly of opinion, that where an interest once passed and vested in the grantee, the destruction of the deed could not affect the interest before passed by it.

Ejectment. Plaintiff in making out his title, produced a grant from the State without the seal appendant, but it had been registered in the Register’s office. It was signed the Governor, and countersigned by the Secretary.

It was objected by *JIvertj*and *Henderson,*that tiie seal being not appendant, the gr.ant is nullified,and therefore itcannot.be produced in evidence; in like manner, if the seal of a bond be torn off. the bond cannot be read in evidence. They cited *Bull. Nisi Prius*172. ll *Ilep.*28.

*Haywood e contra*

When the seal of a bond is torn off, the presumption is, that it was done in order to cancel the bond, and the existence of the debt depends upon that, of the bond ; when the bond becomes extinct in point of law, the debt is also extinct: but in cases where an interest passes and vests in the grantee by the operation of thedeed,though that deed be afterwards destroyed,that will not revest the interest thus passed. It would be of the most alarming consequence, if in every case w here a deed of bargain &sale was destroyed by tearing off the seal, the bar-gainee or grantee should lose his lands. He cited *L. Evid.*107, 108. *Bull. Nisi Prius*267, 268. Besides, if this paper cannot be read as the grant itself, it surely may be read as a copy or paper containing the words in which the real deed was conceived. The rule is, when a deed is lost, a registered copy, or a sworn copy, may be given in *evidence;*or for want of such an abstract, the contents may be given in evidence. In taking these copies however, there may be a mistake and variance from the original, but here there can be no such mistake, and therefore this paper is better than a registered copy, as being less liable to deceive ns, and therefore ’ on this ground it ought to be read.

Judge *Williams*

cited 2 *Bl. Com.*295. and thought that in every case .where the seal was torn off, the deed was destroyed, and inclined to be of opinion that the paper offered could notberead as the grant; butJudge^sAewaR *115dearly of the contrary opinion, lie said, where an interest once passed and vested in tire grantee, the destruction of the deed afterwards could not affect the interest before passed by *if;*and that this was not like the case of a bond, where the debt must be presumed to be extinct where the instrument which evidenced it, appeared to want one of its most essential constituents : for when the seal is torn from a bond, the conclusion oflaw is, that the bond was meant thereby to be cancelled. They agreed to reserve it as a point for further discussion, but the jury found for the Defendant upon other grounds.
#### STATE v. WILLIAM B. ARMSTRONG.

From a general verdict of “not guilty'” in the Court below, no appeal lies to this Court.

*{State*v. *Phillips,*66 N. C. Rep. 646; *State*v. *Freeman,*Ibid, 647, cited and approved.)

CeimiNAl action for refusing to work on a road, tried at the Fall Term, 1874, of Tyrrell Superior Court, before his Honor Judge Eure.

*194The action, originally commencing: in a Justice’s Court, (Bat. Rev., chap. 104, sec. 10,) was carried by appeal on the part of the State, to the Superior Court. On the trial in that Court, the Solicitor for the State offered to prove *by farol*that the defendant was liable to work the road, upon which he had been nptified to work by the overseer. His Honor rejected the evidence. The Solicitor then asked his Honor to charge the jury, *K*that the State having proved that the defendant lived on said road, he was presumed to be a hand thereon and liable to work the same.” This instruction his Honor declined to give, and charged the jury that the State having failed to prove that the defendant had been assigned as a hand to work said road, or that he lived in a road district in which the hands had been assigned to work said road, no case was made against the defendant, and he was entitled to- an acquittal. To this charge the Solicitor excepted, for error in law.

The jury returned a verdict of “ not guilty,” whereupon the State appealed.

Attorney General Hargrove, for the State.

No counsel for defendant.

Settle, J.

After the numerous decisions of this Court, holding that no appeal is allowqd to the State, after a general verdict of M not guilty” has been recorded in favor of the defendant, we are unable to account for this appeal upon any other supposition than that the record does not develop the case intended to be presented. It may have been that there was a special verdict, but such does not appear, and we are bound by the record, which simply shows an appeal by the State, after a general verdict of “not guilty.”

In addition to the authorities cited in *State*v. *Phillips,*66 N. C, Rep., 646, to show that no appeal lies in such cases, we cite *State*v. *Freeman, ibid,*647.

This disposes of the appeal and renders it unnecessary to notice the questions presented by the record.

*195Let this be certified to the Court, that the defendant may be discharged.

Per Curiam. Appeal dismissed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10597 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

CESAR ZARATE

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14

- CR

- 367

- 6

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Cesar Zarate has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Zarate h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief an d the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 20 , 2016
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10597 Document: 00513472177 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2016No. 15

- 10597

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from furt her responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-10597 Document: 00513472177 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2016
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Wasp Departs to be Forward Deployed to Japan

By USS Wasp (LHD 1) Public Affairs 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7311
LEE S. MYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GENE JOHNSON, Director; DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cv-00348-JLK) Submitted: March 14, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee S. Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lee S. Myers appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Myers v. Va. Dep’t of Corr. , No. 7:06-cv-00348-JLK (W.D. Va. July 6, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-25-1997
<CASH>                                           15019
<SECURITIES>                                     31100
<RECEIVABLES>                                    19071
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     391076
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                468435
<PP&E>                                           96114
<DEPRECIATION>                                   32529
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  536793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           329466
<BONDS>                                          38220
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           205
<OTHER-SE>                                      107981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    536793
<SALES>                                        2161680
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2190964
<CGS>                                          1568974
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1568974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                569680
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               19366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  26804
<INCOME-TAX>                                      8149
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              18655
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (1354)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     17301
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .76
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILHELM ROBERTO STRAUBE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72054

Agency No. A027-623-342

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Wilhelm Roberto Straube, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture,

FILED

OCT 6 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72054

suspension of deportation, and special rule cancellation of removal. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s findings of fact, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), and

review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92

(9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Straube was

deportable as an alien who entered the United States without inspection where

Straube twice conceded the allegation before the IJ. Contrary to Straube’s

contention, entry without inspection was a ground of deportability at the time of

Straube’s entry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2) (1976).

The BIA adequately addressed Straube’s claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel. Substantial record evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Straube did

not comply with the procedural requirements to establish an ineffective assistance

of counsel claim. See Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988). 

Because Straube was imprisoned for more than 180 days for petty theft with

a prior during the relevant time period, he is statutorily barred from showing good

moral character, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7), as required for suspension of

deportation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.65, and special rule cancellation of removal, see 8

C.F.R. § 1240.66.
3 08-72054

Straube’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

We deny the motion for appointment of counsel contained in Straube’s

opening brief, and we deny the motion for stay of removal filed on September 12,

2011.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>   1

                      ADVANCED LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  EXHIBIT 12 -- STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                  ---------------------------------------
                                                                       1998                    1997
                                                                  ---------------          --------------

<S>                                                               <C>                     <C>    
Consolidated pretax income from continuing operations               $   557                   $ 4,356
Interest expense                                                      2,727                       327
Interest portion of rent expense                                        136                       168
                                                                  ---------------          --------------

     EARNINGS                                                       $ 3,420                   $ 4,851
                                                                  ===============          ==============


Interest expense                                                    $ 2,727                   $   327
Interest capitalized                                                    209                       126
Interest portion of rent expense                                        136                       168
                                                                  ---------------          --------------

     FIXED CHARGES                                                  $ 3,072                   $   621
                                                                  ===============          ==============


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                      1.1                       7.8
                                                                  ===============          ==============
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 9 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H371]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. CUMMINGS addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter 
in the Extensions of Remarks.)

                          ____________________
```
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2010 

# Order

June 23, 2010

2 March 2010

138959 138969(149)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 138959 v COA: 269505 Saginaw CC: 02-021097-FH TOD KEVIN HOUTHOOFD a/k/a TODD 04-024765-FH KEVIN HOUTHOOFD, 05-025865-FH Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ___________________
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 138969 v COA: 269505 Saginaw CC: 02-021097-FH TOD KEVIN HOUTHOOFD a/k/a TODD 04-024765-FH KEVIN HOUTHOOFD, 05-025865-FH Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ ___________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion by defenda nt for leave to file a supplemental brief is considered and it is GRANTED. The res ponsive submission by the prosecution will also be considered.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# 3125 Marine Expeditionary Unit Completed Certification Exercise

By Lance Cpl. Breanna Weisenberger31st Marine Expeditionary Unit

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News