alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCWC-18-0000816

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

________________________________________________________________

STATE OF HAWAIʻI,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

KARL L. FORSTER,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-18-0000816; CR. NO. 1PC161001251)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and 

Circuit Judge Valenciano, in place of Eddins, J., recused)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Karl L. Forster’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on June 4, 2021, is 

hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, July 12, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Randal G.B. Valenciano

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000816

12-JUL-2021

11:27 AM

Dkt. 7 ODAC
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VINSON TREMAYNE JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DAVID SHINN, Director, Director of the 

A.D.O.C.R.R. at Central Office; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-15954 

D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00080-GMS-JZB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Vinson Tremayne Johnson, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from 

the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due 

process claims arising from a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

* 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 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-15954

Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014). We reverse and remand. 

The district court dismissed Johnson’s due process claims on the ground that 

the sanctions imposed on Johnson through the disciplinary proceeding finding him 

guilty of arson did not implicate Johnson’s constitutionally protected interests. 

However, Johnson has a protected property interest in the $500 penalty levied 

against him. See Shinault v. Hawks, 782 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting 

that an inmate’s account funds are a protected property interest). Moreover, 

Johnson alleged that the arson conviction resulted in a twelve-month term of 

maximum-security custody, involving solitary confinement for over twenty-three 

hours each day with almost no interpersonal contact and denial of most privileges 

afforded inmates in the general population. See Brown v. Or. Dep’t. of Corr., 751 

F.3d 983, 987-99 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding a protected liberty interest existed 

where two-year term of detention in solitary confinement was imposed on a 

prisoner as a sanction for misconduct). Liberally construed, these allegations are 

sufficient to warrant ordering defendants to file an answer. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that “where the petitioner is pro se, 

particularly in civil rights cases, [courts should] construe the pleadings liberally 

and [ ] afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt” (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted)); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566-69 

(1974) (prisoner must be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary 
3 21-15954

evidence in his defense during disciplinary proceedings, unless limited exceptions 

apply).

Johnson’s motions for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 4), 

injunctive relief pending appeal (Docket Entry No. 5), and to expedite (Docket 

Entry Nos. 14 and 15) are denied as moot. 

REVERSED and REMANDED.
# C_2005012EN.01002701.xml

| 18.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 12/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 12/27

---

Amendments to a call for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 315 of 17 December 2002
  as amended in the
  Official Journal of the European Union C 307 of 17 December 2003
  and
  C 235 of 22 September 2004
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 315 of 17 December 2002

Official Journal of the European Union C 307 of 17 December 2003

C 235 of 22 September 2004

(2005/C 12/12)

Following the Commission decision of 14 January 2005 (1) updating the Work Programme adopted on 9 December 2002 (2), and in particular Section 11 — ‘Support for coordination of national, regional and European activities in the field of research and innovation’ (updated a first time on 12 December 2003 (3) and a second time on 23 July 2004 (4)), the following amendments are made to the Call:

1

2

3

4

On page 56, in Annex 30 (ERA-NET scheme), under point 7 (this page number refers to the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 315 of 17 December 2002, while the text is as amended on page 8 of the
  Official Journal of the European Union C 235 of 22 September 2004):

Official Journal of the European Communities

Official Journal of the European Union

for:

for:

‘7.   Total indicative budget for 2004 and 2005 closure dates: EUR 48 million for the 2 March 2004 closure date, EUR 23 million for the 5 October 2004 closure date, EUR 40 million for the 2 March 2005 closure date and EUR 18.6 million for the 4 October 2005 final deadline.

read:

read:

‘7.   Total indicative budget for 2004 and 2005 closure dates: EUR 48 million for the 2 March 2004 closure date, EUR 47 million for the 5 October 2004 closure date, EUR 16 million for the 2 March 2005 closure date and EUR 18.6 million for the 4 October 2005 final deadline.

---

(1)  Commission Decision C(2005) 27 of 14 January 2005, unpublished.

1

(2)  Commission Decision C(2002) 4789 of 9 December 2002, unpublished.

2

(3)  Commission Decision C(2003) 4609 of 12 December 2003, unpublished.

3

(4)  Commission Decision C(2004) 2727 of 23 July 2004, unpublished.

4

(5)  CA = Coordination action; SSA = Specific support action. Please note that SSA proposals can only be submitted up to the 5.10.2004 closure date.’

5

(6)  CA = Coordination action; SSA = Specific support action. Please note that SSA proposals can only be submitted up to the 5.10.2004 closure date.’

6

---
Conservation Stewardship Program - Grassland Conservation Initiative Fiscal Year 2024 United States Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Code Practice Component Units Unit Cost

E300GCI Grassland Conservation Initiative Grassland Conservation Initiative Activity AC $18.00

CSP-Grassland Conservation Itiative Page 1 of 1 Montana - Fiscal Year 2024
#### Spiller *v.*Spiller.

This was a hill filed by *Mrs. Spiller,*for alimony; and her counsel now moved, that so much of his property might be taken, as would probably equal the decree of the court, saying *Mr. Spiller*was wasting his property.

*Per curiam*

We have ordered sequestrations of this kind, when we have found the Defendant withdrawing his property, or being about to move it and himself to avoid an execution of the decree j but not otherwise. It would be a great stretch of power in this court, to order a sequestration, or a bond for the absolute performance of the decree, whenever a bill is filed against a man by one who claims to be his wife.

*Note.*— Vide *Anonymous, ante*347.
Exhibit
10.18(b)
 Second Amendment To The  Sterling Chemicals, Inc. Comprehensive Welfare  Benefit Plan
 Whereas Corporation Existing Plan
 Whereas Committee
 Whereas Amendment
 Now, Therefore
 Amendment of Article IV of the Existing Plan
 provided, however
 Effect of Amendments
 Binding Effect
 Severability




---



##### 



Governing Law To The Extent Not Superseded By The Laws Of The United
States, This Amendment Shall Be Construed and Enforced in Accordance With, and the Rights
of the Parties Shall Be Governed By, the Internal Laws of the State of Texas, Without Reference to
Principles of Conflicts of Law.
 In Witness Whereof
 Sterling Chemicals, Inc.Kenneth M. HaleSenior Vice President and General Counsel
 -2-
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

1111.4111111111

IONNOSIMMi

November 19, 1973

-10P-SECitftNATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

MEMORANDUM FOR: Associate Deputy, to the DCI for the IC

Director, Program A •

Director, OA Reconnaissance Programs

Director, Program C

Director, Program D

Director of Security, CIA

Director, NRO Staff

SUBJECT: 111111111Security

Over a period of time, compromises of th

Security System have occurred with increasing freq

Because of'this, the Director of Central Intelligence and

the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office have

asked that a group be formed to study the need for continued tight security controls for the National Reconnaissance

Program. To accomplish this task, I am chairing a committee

to scope the problem and make recommendations that will be

beneficial to all parties involved.

Each addressee is asked to name a representative

to this committee. The first meeting is scheduled for 2 p.m.

on December 3, 1973 in the Pentagon, Room 4C-1000. Prior

to the meeting I would like your thoughts on the types of

problems that might be considered. Extensive ive is

not desired, but rather brief indications ell elated .

security problems. Your listing should be al - sive,

including policy problems and needs, in order that we can try

to bound the problem at our first meeting. Please send your

inputs to reach me by close of business on November 28, 1973.

IA :NAIN111111111111111eCIPOTUUT-Top-sEaff_ Main old WC CORY rtS2 DCCL MOM ON 1W OCT

CONT

LAMCIP

,pAkill,„Latir pikctif
z::,77.:ztrrioN
# C_2005129EN.01002701.xml

| 26.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/27

---

Amendment to the notice of invitation for the refund on export of wholly milled and parboiled long-grain B rice to certain third countries

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 290 of 27 November 2004
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 290 of 27 November 2004

(2005/C 129/07)

Point 2 of Chapter I (‘Subject’) is replaced by the following text:

| ‘2. | The total quantity for which a maximum export refund may be fixed in accordance with Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/75 (1) is approximately 30 000 tonnes.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘2.

The total quantity for which a maximum export refund may be fixed in accordance with Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/75 (1) is approximately 30 000 tonnes.’

---

(1)  OJ L 61, 7.3.1975, p. 25. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1948/2002 (JO L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 18).

1

---
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2014-0578 Directorate ID: 2013-SW-048-AD

Helicopter Model: Airbus Deutschland Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117C-2 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): Airbus Deutschland Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The proposed actions are intended to prevent the loss of an attachment screw, which 

could result in movement of the output lever in an axial direction, contact of a bolt connecting 

the control rod to an output lever with the actuator housing, and subsequent loss of helicopter 

control. 

Costs: Applying torque and torque marking to the lateral and longitudinal trim actuator output 

levers would require 1 work-hour for a labor cost of $85. No parts would be needed, so the cost 

for the U.S. fleet would total $8,500. Visually inspecting for correct torque would require 0.5 

work-hour for a labor cost of about $43. No parts would be needed, so the total cost for the U.S. 

fleet would be $4,300 per inspection cycle. 

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Matt Wilbanks
Approved for Release:. 2019/05/02 C051 08116 

29 February 1968 

TOa 

FROM: 

SUBJEOTa B. F. Goodrioh Oompany (Suboontractor) 

The attached advertisement is approved for release. 

I I 

Seourity Offioer 

F-12/SR-71 SPO 

1 Atoh 

a/s 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 08116 
Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 08116 

22 February 1968 

TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY (Subcontractor) 

The above vendor has requested permission to advertise their 

association with the program using the attached copy for release. 

Please review the attached material and return to this office at 

your earliest convenience. 

Manager, ADP Secur1 ty 

ERE:bh 

Enclosures 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 08116 
Approved for Releas~: 2019/05/02 C051 08116 

In t ern at jon a I B. F. Goo d rIc h Com pan y 

A D I V I SION OF THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 

500 S O UTH MAIN STREET 

CABLE ADDRESS: "TUBEDOOGE" AKRON 

Mr. Wayne Pryor 

Sales Promotion Department 

Lockheed California Company 

Burbank, California 

Dear Mr. Pryor: 

AKRON , OH I O 44318 U.S.A. 

February 1, 1968 

TRADE ADVERTISEMENT 

You will recall that we were in touch with you about this time 

last year concerning illustrations of the YF-l2A. 

We propose to use the attached trade advertisement in Interavia 

magazine. This is a slightly revised version of our Domestic 

Company's ads to fit our International Company's graphics format. 

A copy of the domestic ad is also attached for your information. 

We shall look forward to receiving y 

Attachments 

cc: Mr. W. G. Wilson 

Mr. E. O. Schmalzer 

Mr. W. C. Olendorf 

Mr. R. J. Magruder 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 08116 
Headline 

Copy 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 08116 

FOOTE, CONE & BELDING 

Client INTERNATIONAL B.F.GOODRICH CO. Number 33 Date 

Aerospace schedule 

YF-l2A 

Copy for 1P 2C 

Who developed the tires, wheels and brakes 

for the YF-l2A? 

B.F.Goodrich! 

L# 7299 

What can B.F.Goodrich do for you? You name it. Write 

for our free fact book for the aerospace industry. 

International B.F.Goodrich Co., Akron Ohio 44318 U.S.A. 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 08116 

1/3/68 

A8prove.d for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 0811~, 

~ A 

III 

Who developed the tires, wheels 

and brakes 

for the YF-12A ? 

. B.F.Goodrich! 

Get drat good Goodrkl1/ffi/~~ y' 

o 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 08116
#### In the Matter of Raymond Mathieu, Respondent, v Deborah Grosser, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 673]

*1070Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wayne County (John B. Nesbitt, J.), entered September 19, 2002. The order granted the parties joint custody of their child with primary physical placement to petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to respondent’s contention, the determination of Family Court transferring primary physical placement of the parties’ child to petitioner has a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Tracy v Tracy,*309 AD2d 1252 [2003]; *Matter of Coryea v Allen,*262 AD2d 1023, 1024 [1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 751 [1999]). The court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order a psychological evaluation of the child. Neither the parties nor the Law Guardian requested such an evaluation, “and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the child[ ] ‘displayed emotional problems which would make the assistance of psychological experts necessary’ ” *(Matter of Paul C. v Tracy C.,*209 AD2d 955, 955 [1994], quoting *Mascoli v Mascoli,*132 AD2d 653, 654 [1987]; *see Tracy,*309 AD2d at 1253). We reject the contention of respondent that she was denied effective assistance of counsel (see *Matter of Amanda L.,*302 AD2d 1004 [2003]). We agree with respondent, however, that the court erred in admitting in evidence, over her objection, the psychological evaluation prepared in connection with a PINS proceeding involving her daughter from a prior relationship *(see Matter of Brice v Mitchell,*184 AD2d 1008 [1992]). Contrary to the contention of the Law Guardian, the portions of that evaluation to which respondent objects, i.e., the allegations of abuse made by respondent’s daughter, were not admissible pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1046 (a) (vi) because those allegations are unrelated to the issues raised in the instant proceeding *(cf. Matter of Nilda S. v Dawn K.,*302 AD2d 237, 238 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 512 [2003]; *Matter of Pratt v Wood,*210 AD2d 741, 742 [1994]). Nevertheless, the record establishes that the evaluation did not influence the court’s decision, and thus the error in its admission is harmless *(see Tracy,*309 AD2d at 1253; *Scialdo v Kernan,*301 AD2d 884, 887 [2003]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Gorski, JJ.
<PAGE>
 
                                AmeriKing, Inc.
               Calculation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                          Fiscal Year Ended           Fiscal Year Ended
                                                          December 28, 1998           December 29, 1997
                                                     -------------------------    ---------------------------
                                                       W/O PIK      With PIK        W/O PIK        With PIK
                                                      Dividends     Dividends      Dividends       Dividends
                                                     -----------   -----------    -----------     -----------
<S>                                                  <C>           <C>            <C>             <C> 
EARNINGS
Income (Loss) before income taxes benefit             $3,757,000    $3,757,000    $(2,399,000)    $(2,399,000)      
Interest expense                                      16,275,000    16,275,000     13,320,000      13,320,000
Amortization of deferred financing costs                 896,000       896,000        616,000         616,000
Portion of rents representative of interest            7,046,000     7,046,000      5,556,000       5,556,000 
Preferred stock PIK dividends                                          559,000                        450,000
                                                     -----------   -----------    -----------     -----------
Total Earnings                                       $27,974,000   $28,533,000    $17,093,000     $17,543,000
                                                     -----------   -----------    -----------     -----------
FIXED CHARGES
Interest expense                                     $16,275,000   $16,275,000    $13,320,000     $13,320,000
Amortization of deferred financing costs                 896,000       896,000        616,000         616,000
Portion of rents representative of interest            7,046,000     7,046,000      5,556,000       5,556,000 
Preferred stock PIK dividends                                          559,000                        450,000
                                                     -----------   -----------    -----------     -----------
Total Fixed Charges                                  $24,217,000   $24,776,000    $19,492,000     $19,942,000
                                                     -----------   -----------    -----------     -----------
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                          1.16          1.15           0.88            0.88  
                                                     ===========   ===========    ===========     ===========
INSUFFICIENT EARNINGS TO COVER FIXED CHARGES                 N/A           N/A    $ 2,399,000     $ 2,399,000
                                                     ===========   ===========    ===========     ===========
</TABLE>
# Rupprecht Law P. A.

28 11 Grande Parkway, Suite 113 | Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 P: (561) 222

- 6979 | E: jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com

May 27 , 2016 U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140, Washington, DC 20590
Re: Petition to Add Aircraft to Samuel Fleishman ’ s Exemption. (Exemption # 12362A in Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1624 ) Dear Sir or Madam:

Samuel Fleishman (Exemption # 12362A in Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1624 ) was granted an exemption. Samuel Fleishman requests for an amendment to add all the aircraft from FAA

- 2007

- 3330

- 0007 to the already existing exemption

. The list of aircraft under FAA

- 2007

- 3330

- 0007 does not include the following aircraft we are requesting:

 Monster X which has the following specifications: o Coaxial configuration o A2 Flight control o Power hungry 10 PDB o Kde 75 amp ESCs o Kde 5215

- 435 motors o Kde 18" props o Futaba R7008SB receiver

 Freefly Systems Alta 8
 DJI Matrice 600
T here is no request for additional relief from any further regulations. Granting this exemption would not affect safety but will bene fit the public because instead of dangerous helicopters being used, safer and quieter unmanned aircraft can b e used under the restric tions outlined in the previous ly granted exemption. Samuel Fleishman will operate only within the limitations in t he previously granted exemption.2

Since the list has been previously granted by incorporation for many other exemption amendments and the above listed a ircraft are substantially similar to previously granted aircraft , no precedent will be set and there is good cause to waive the publishing of this petition in the Federal Register. Sincerely,

________________________ Jonathan B. Rupprecht, Esq.