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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SCOTT LEE MICKELSEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

STEPHEN POULTER, Sgt., IFPD; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 16-35686 

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00385-CWD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Candy W. Dale, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted July 11, 2017***

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. 

Scott Lee Mickelsen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying 

his motion for reconsideration of the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

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

FILED

JUL 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 16-35686 

review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. 

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mickelsen’s motion 

for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) because 

Mickelsen failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (grounds for 

reconsideration under Rule 60(b)); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 

642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the five factors for determining whether to 

dismiss for failure to prosecute). 

We reject as meritless Mickelsen’s contention that the magistrate judge erred 

in not examining the police department video. 

Mickelsen’s request for the appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening 

brief, is denied. 

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

in the opening brief, 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). 

AFFIRMED.
**UNPUBLISHED**
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14-6256**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. HOPETON FRANK GOODEN, a/k/a Richard Doleson, a/k/a Michael Frank Burke, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh . Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. (5:06-cr-00313-FL-1; 5:11-cv-00097-FL)

Submitted: June 23, 2014 Decided: June 26, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hopeton Frank Gooden, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Hopeton Frank Gooden seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relie f on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and its order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . A certificate of app ealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)

. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable juri sts would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedur al grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the recor d and conclude that Gooden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
"

rp: 9r5

cv thd.azi.

1111k4ATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

12 December 1975

• •

:"*.• ••

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. LATIMER, OSD rlra•n•••n•=1110.

SUBJECT: Comments on Second Draft White Nouse Paper on

Intelligence Reorganization

This organization has the following comments on Draft #2

of "Organization and Management of the Foreign Intelligence

Community":

The chart on page 5 is not properly classified,

vis-a-vis showing the NRP. Also, the NRP is responsible for

execution of its programs through the Secretary of Defense.

There is not enough emphasis throughout the

paper on the needs for tactical intelligence and the method

by which this might be tasked, collected, and disseminated

within the bounds of resource allocation, security, etc.

The number "two-fifths" on line 8 of page 7

should be 'five-sixths" from the earlier draft.

On page 8, more emphasis could be placed on the

needs, resources, etc., fOr energy sources, as well as food

and raw materials.

On the bottom of page 11 it appears that mention

should be made of security in addition to the others. •

On page 16, in the NRP area, the requirements

organizaticins are receiving considerable feedback with regard

to cost of our systems through the WRO-USIB relationship.

This might be a way for the rest of the community to follow.

g. One of the needs of the Intelligence Community

is for a National Intelligence Center. It is recommended that

the following thoughts on this subject be considered in the

discussion under the heading of Quality Intelligence on a Timely 

Basis:

111110111Pmer IIIIII`1 COP 1:11.11111111* COME 1 0$
111111101111111111111.4'

COPY OF COPIES

PAGIA...OF 2 mass

There isis a need, especially in times of crises,

but at other times as well, for a fusion center of all types

of intelligence from the various sources and from the various

analysis activities. Such a focus of intelligence information

could be the Office of a Director General of Intelligence. He

could serve as the national intelligence officer. If he did

not have line control over certain collection resources or be

administratively in charge of a production or analysis function,

he could objectively evaluate the various inputs of intelligence

and provide such a storehouse of information to leaders--be they

White House, Congressional, Departmental, Agency or other. With

proper communications lines to the various collection and production agencies, he could see that resources were properly

tasked to serve the national and tactical intelligence needs.

Such a system would have strong benefits with regard to being

able to provide timely information to decision makers based on

the proper balance of inputs from various sources. This would

be a National Intelligence Center (NIC), which would be organisationally one step up from the National Military Intelligence

Center (NMIC) to coordinate all intelligence information.

Charles W. Cook

•
# C_2005115EN.01000402.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 10 March 2005

in Case C-336/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division: easyCar (UK) Ltd v Office of Fair Trading (1)

1

(Protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts - Directive 97/7/EC - Contracts for the provision of transport services - Meaning - Contracts for car hire)

(2005/C 115/08)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-336/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (United Kingdom), made by decision of 21 July 2003, received at the Court on 20 July 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between easyCar (UK) Ltd and Office of Fair Trading — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Schiemann and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

easyCar (UK) Ltd

Office of Fair Trading

Article 3(2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts is to be interpreted as meaning that ‘contracts for the provision of transport services’ includes contracts for the provision of car hire services.

---

(1)  OJ C 226 of 20.09.2003.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          15,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,082
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,476
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,656
<PP&E>                                          22,878
<DEPRECIATION>                                (17,256)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,359
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,718
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,359
<SALES>                                         16,954
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,451
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,095
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   188
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,975
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,511
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,464
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,464
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
TOP SECRET

DOD BT?. Ever, 1

........_

Lie:".`...T.E.r. FRU GTONIATIC E" *". '.h1.1;

ot 9 MRS rf . I - -.If

......,

5 JUN 1962

ItEMOBABDUld P The Director et Celina itelligmee

SUBJECT: 110-Beistiemidp between the-(11)-11etimmi Reemeabmasse

Moe sad the 17811

is regard to the later see bermes the WM eed the -11)-11atioesi

iteommaismace Cake, the gaieties arises as to the proper DEB

eostactie). The rob apeedied kr the Ufa is the 2 May 1262 DOD-

= Apeesuat is ere of establishisg rewire:soft sad priorities.

k the past, ad at present, both the COME ead MIST Camases

appear to be pundit ommersed with this task, with some overlap is

their areas at Mersa. it might be desirable to charge am grog

with photograghic priorities and regoinsmats sod assiker with

similar SE= respessibilities, since these techeical area rewire

persamel et dine:rat bowledge sad experleace.

1 would appreciate pas looking into this matter and isterming

are as to the USW groupie) to which tbsiii)-Nallimel Itemmsaissmsce

Office should look for odder:* es regoirestats sad priorities.

Joseph V. Chan&

Under Secretary at the Mr Force

5

54 f s S /RP

rl ,-•..

to.

'41; v:,..‘,1 %

i

•• ..-• •

`Ponies

Control he ..rS.442-"a 7
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

CNET Networks, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (File Nos. 333-127785, 333-119997, 333-119962, 333-115569, 333-105563, 333-90739, 333-85374, 333-65224, 333-58724, 333-35458, 333-78247, 333-67325, 333-34491, 333-07671, and 333-07667) on Forms S-8 and S-3 of CNET Networks,Inc. of our reports dated March 16, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of CNET Networks, Inc. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity andcomprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2005, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005, annual report on Form 10-K of CNET Networks, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP 

SanFrancisco, California 

March 16, 2006
DOWNGRADED AT 12 YEAR

1. ‘The total. Afr Ferea "Man tm Space” Program towtrd |
@ mid-1960 eperationdl date te estinated to be as follows: ae . .
P-100 (Afrerafe & Missfles) i \.
“P2200, (Suppert)
. 2-300 (Coustrection) oat
F600 (aD) ah Se .
133.0 . =

. 2. If the Air Force does not receive the full fund suppert,’
fer the above program the following projects could be progreseively
undertaken with a resultant delay of the firet manced capsule lauach |
from mid-1960 te some future date: toon . me

a. ~ For development of omall-aninal = _ ’
. Capsules and comperients fer use ia cen- Y
Jwmetion with YN0R-boosted W8-117L leunches, .
starting in November 1958. — mort

b. ‘$5.0 Miilfe0 - Yor assembly buildings,” and launch
ped sed instrumentation modifications, .

©. $30,0 Milliew- Yor men-sise capsule and second stage
booster ign, development and test, aswell asthe -
procurement ef Support test vehicles, —.*

a $13.0 Willie - Foe fabrication ofa evall-‘mmber of
_ capsules, including second stages end boesters..’. a

NG? AYiDR:ATICALLY
D. DED DIR 5200.10 -



ea eee
# C_2004262EN.01005402.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/54

---

Action brought on 6 August 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-343/04)

(2004/C 262/100)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 August 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas, resident in Volos (Greece), represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the appeal assessor adopted on 4 August 2003, approving, without amendment, the applicant's final staff report for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appeal assessor adopted on 4 August 2003, approving, without amendment, the applicant's final staff report for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;

| — | annul the Commission's implied decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 30 December 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's implied decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 30 December 2003;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 10 000 in respect of non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 10 000 in respect of non-material damage;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of this action. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant challenges the appeal assessor's decision, which approves, without amendment, his staff report for the period 1997–1999. He also claims compensation for the non-material damage he has suffered.

The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support of his application for annulment:

| — | procedural irregularities; |
| --- | --- |

—

procedural irregularities;

| — | manifest error of assessment; |
| --- | --- |

—

manifest error of assessment;

| — | failure to state reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to state reasons;

| — | misuse of powers and harassment; |
| --- | --- |

—

misuse of powers and harassment;

As regards his claim for compensation, the applicant submits that the staff report was drawn up four years late, which is quite unacceptable. Furthermore, the applicant was subjected to harassment. For all the damage suffered, the applicant is claiming compensation which he assesses, on the basis of equity, at EUR 10 000.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                 CERTIFICATION OF JANICE P. ANDERSON 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 annual report of Onyx Software Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Janice P. Anderson, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
      Company.

Date: March 24, 2005           /s/ JANICE P. ANDERSON
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Janice P. Anderson
                               Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

NIOSH gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from the Carborundum Company in Niagara Falls, New York, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:

*Facility:*                         Carborundum Company.                    

*Location:*                         Niagara Falls, New York.                    

*Job Titles and/or Job Duties:*                         All employees who worked in any area.                    

*Period of Employment:*                         January 1, 1943 through December 31, 1976.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to                         *DCAS@CDC.GOV.*

John Howard,

Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 2015-02803 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7979
WAYNE A. SOUSER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT J. ROBINSON, Building 9; LIEUTENANT G. JACOBS, Building 9; L. JOHNSON, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-05-481-2) Submitted: March 30, 2007 Decided: April 27, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne A. Souser, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Wayne A. Souser appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record, considered the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jones v. Bock , 127 S. Ct. 910 (2007), and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Souser v. Robinson , No. CA-05-481-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2005). 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: J.W.B. AND R.D.B., MINORS

PETITION OF: L.B., FATHER :

:

:

:

: No. 566 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26 th day of November, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED . The issue, as stated by petitioner is:

Did the Trial Court and Superior Court err in application of 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2711(c) by failing to consider the invalidity of consents for adoption under Colorado law, simply because the Colorado resident Father did not revoke consent within 30 days in accordance with Pennsylvania law, where no such requirement exists in

C olorado and where Colorado law permits revocation of consent up to and including the date of hearing?
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION


REQUIRED
BY RULE 13a-14(b) or


RULE
15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


(AS
ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)




I, Floyd
Warkol, as Chief Executive Officer of KSW, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002:





(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) on the date hereof fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  August
12, 2009




/s/
      Floyd WarkolFloyd
      WarkolChief Executive
    Officer