alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Genesther TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15159

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

Genesther Taylor, Pro Se

Jaclyn Younger, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, GA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before:'GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Genesther Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her employment action alleging Title VII and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations. *Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco,*535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed as time-barred Taylor’s Title VII claims because Taylor filed this action years after the applicable statute of limitations had run. *See*42 U.S.C. § 2000e~5(f)(1) (statute of limitations for Title VII action is ninety days from receipt of a right-to-sue letter); *O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc.,*466 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2006) (Title VII claims are not equitably tolled during the pendency of a related action, where the related action is commenced after the ninety-day statute of limitations has run).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Taylor’s state law claims after dismissing her federal claims. *See Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc.,*114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors ... will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining, state-law claims.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *see also Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.,*627 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). We treat the dismissal of the state law claims as a dismissal without prejudice. *See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t,*40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (‘When ... the court dismisses the federal claim leaving only state claims for resolution, the court should de*554cline jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them without prejudice.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original)).

Because we affirm the dismissal of Taylor’s action as time-barred, we do not consider Taylor’s contentions regarding the merits of her claims. ■

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Financial Statements of The BISYS Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries for
the nine months ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          57,566
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,304
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,077
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,566
<PP&E>                                          57,671
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,699
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 244,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,702
<BONDS>                                          1,605
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           503
<OTHER-SE>                                     176,106
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   244,116
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               231,153
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,345
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,068
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  71
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,960
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,385
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,575
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,575
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.10<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05<F1>
<FN>
<F1>We have calculated earnings per share amounts in accordance with FAS 128
"Earnings Per Share". We have entered basic and diluted amounts in place of
primary and fully diluted, respectively.
</FN>
        

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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              15,604
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        3,295
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    14,748
<PP&E>                                             834,079
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     910,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              958,574
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          3,665
<COMMON>                                           (52,013)
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       910,226
<SALES>                                             48,504
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    45,504
<CGS>                                               92,904
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       82,904
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   110,544
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,253
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (147,197)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (147,197)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (147,197)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.04)


</TABLE>
SYNERGY MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. REGIONS BANK, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2240

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 08, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-8005

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLAUDE WENDELL BELLAMY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (7:99-cr-00049-F-1)

Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude Wendell Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Claude Wendell Bellamy appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion to relate back and amend. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error and affirm for 

the reasons cited by the district court. United States v. 

Bellamy, No. 7:99-cr-00049-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 6, 2013). We deny 

Bellamy’s motion for relief from judgment. 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
David MICCICHE, DOC #T82787, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3556

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 25, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
June 30, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: October 27, 2014



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|/S/    GEORGE R. AYLWARD                                      
|George R. Aylward                                             
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director               
|(Principal Executive Officer)                                 
|                                                              
|/S/    MICHAEL A. ANGERTHAL                                   
|Michael A. Angerthal                                          
|Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer             
|(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Jeffrey J. QUEEN, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0217

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1154 CARLOS ARMANDO AMADO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in case

no. 03-CV-242, Judge David 0. Carter.

ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of the motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal due to settlement, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT 

# FEB 2 6 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date Jan Horbaly Clerk FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT CC: Vincent J. Belusko, Esq. Joseph A. Micalief, Esq. s20 

# FEB 2 6 2009 FEB 2 6 2009
JAN tIORIsALY CLERK ISSUED AS A MANDATE:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                          90,140
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,066
<INVENTORY>                                    213,773
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               314,078
<PP&E>                                         406,911
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 684,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          137,507
<BONDS>                                        180,435
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       265,569
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,166
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   684,301
<SALES>                                        558,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               558,196
<CGS>                                          401,325
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  401,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               119,392
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,221
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,068
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,435
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,633
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,633
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.69
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Brion Umidi, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a – 15(e) and15d – 15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 10, 2007         By:                      /s/ BRION UMIDI    Name:  Brion Umidi    Title:  *Chief Financial Officer*
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1053** 

CLAUDIA GUARDADO

- GARCIA , Petitioner ,
v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General , Respondent
.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : September 29, 2016 Decided: November 4, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge , and MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition d ismissed in part and de nied in part by un published per curiam opinion
.
Ronald D
. Richey , LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY , Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer , Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John W
. Blakeley , Assistant Director, Enitan O. Otunla , Office of Imm igration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Claudia Yesenia Guardado

- Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Guardado

- Garcia first asse rts that the Board erred in finding that she failed to identify her proposed particular social groups before the IJ , and in declining to consider them on appeal. Upon review, we find no error in the Board’s determination that Guardado

- Garcia failed to rai se her specific social group s before the IJ
. We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider any claim based on the potential social groups , as they were not properly exhausted before the agency
. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012) ; Kporlor v. Holder , 597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010) (“It is well established that an alien must raise each argument to the [Board] before we have jurisdiction to consider it.” (inter nal quotation marks omitted)). We accordingly dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction. Guardado

- Garcia next contends that the agency erred in finding that she failed to otherwise establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the3 record and conclude that the re cord evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, w e deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Guardado

- Garcia (B.I.A. Dec. 16, 2015). We therefore dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and le gal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
August 2, 2011 

Mr. Ron Frederick 

Chief Systems Engineer 

Commercial Derivative Projects 

United States Air Force 

645 AESG 

2530 Loop Road West 

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7106 

Dear Mr. Frederick: 

This is in response to your May 6, 2011 letter (public docket No. FAA-2011-0495) 

petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of the United States Air 

Force (USAF) for an exemption from §§ 45.25 and 45.29 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow the USAF to operate 

military aircraft with registration marks that are smaller than those required by the 

regulations while the aircraft are operating outside the United States. 

Based on the information provided in your letter, your aircraft operation outside the 

United States appears to meet the definition of a state aircraft within the meaning of the 

Chicago Convention. If that is the case, you may mark your aircraft as you deem necessary. 

We recommend an aircraft logbook entry to document the marking change and when 

changing back to 12-inch registration marks. 

Since an exemption is not necessary we will close the docket and take no further action on 

your petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Dorenda D. Baker 

Director, Aircraft Certification Service
<PAGE>
Exhibit 23.1


ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Engage, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos.
333-83245, 333-93151, 333-93153, 333-32202, and 333-53752 on Form S-8 of Engage,
Inc. of our report dated October 1, 2002, except for Note 20 (b) and (c), which
is as of October 31, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Engage, Inc. and subsidiaries as of July 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity (deficit)
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended July 31,
2002, and our report dated October 1, 2002 relating to the consolidated
financial statement schedule, which reports are included in the July 31, 2002
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Engage, Inc.

The reports of KPMG LLP on the aforementioned consolidated financial statements
and financial statement schedule contain an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has incurred significant operating losses since inception, has
an accumulated deficit and a net working capital deficiency that raise
substantial doubt about their ability to continue as a going concern. The
consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of that uncertainty

Boston, Massachusetts
November 13, 2002
Richard GIBSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2384

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nery Gustavo Ramos DUARTE, a/k/a El Diablo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6529

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 23, 2017

Nery Gustavo Ramos 'Duarte, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, Zachery Byrne Stendig, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Ap-pellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nery Gustavo Ramos Duarte appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to set aside forfeiture of United States currency. We have reviewed the record and fínd no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Duarte,*No. 8:10-cr-00308-PWG-4, 2017 WL 1207585 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*