alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lonnie G. SCHMIDT; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-15725

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Lonnie G. Schmidt, Pro Se

Gregory Thomas Broderick, I, Esquire, Attorney, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees

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 **

Plaintiffs appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in their Federal Tort Claim Act (“FTCA”) action relating to the enforcement of a contempt order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Oyama v. Univ. of Hawaii,*813 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment); *Rhoades v. Avon Prod., Inc.,*504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007) (motion to dismiss). We affirm.

*574The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ false imprisonment and false arrest claims because the United States is immune from liability. *See Tekle v. United States,*511 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The FTCA specifies that the liability of the United States is to be determined in accordance with the law of the state where the alleged [wrong] occurred.”) (citation and internal quotation omitted); *see also Lopez v. City of Oxnard,*207 Cal.App.3d 1, 254 Cal.Rptr. 556, 559-60 (1989) (describing law enforcement immunity under California law).

The district court properly dismissed defendant Jerry Buchmeyer because plaintiffs failed to file a motion for substitution as to Buchmeyer’s estate. *See*Fed R. Civ. P. 25(a); *Kentucky v. Graham,*473 U.S. 159, 166 & n.11, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985) (if an official in a personal-capacity action dies pending final resolution of the case, plaintiff must pursue the action against the decedent’s estate).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ request to recuse the magistrate judge. *See United States v. Johnson,*610 F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review for denial of a recusal motion).

We do not consider any matters related to the district court’s orders granting defendants’ motions to dismiss that were not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in plaintiffs’ opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contentions that the magistrate judge and district judge did not address their claims and objections.

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice, set forth in their opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Catalina Marketing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Rick P. Frier, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ Rick P. Frier                           
|Rick P. Frier                               
|Executive Vice President and                
|Chief Financial Officer                     
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|                                            
|February 7, 2006
Joseph Wade ROBINSON, II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-1341

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Darryl E. PEARLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-507

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Joseph BUTLER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4457

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1



AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Amendment to the certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) between Markel Corporation (the “Company”) and Alan I. Kirshner (the “Executive”) dated December 31, 2008 is entered into this 21st day of February, 2019.
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend the Agreement effective on December 31, 2018 to adjust the Executive’s annual base salary to $550,000 commensurate with the time the parties expect and agree that the Executive will expend to perform his duties under the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is mutually acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1.Section 3 of the Agreement entitled “Salary” is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


During the term of this Agreement, the Executive’s base salary shall be not less than $550,000.00 per year, which sum shall be payable in bi-weekly installments.  The Executive shall be eligible for an annual cash incentive bonus, subject to such performance conditions as shall be approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board, having a target value equal to not less than 100% of Base Salary, and payable not later than March 15th after the end of the applicable performance period.  The Executive shall not be entitled to an annual equity incentive award for the 2018 performance year or any future performance year. In the event of an increase in salary or the payment of a bonus, the other terms and conditions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The salary in effect at any given time is sometimes referred to in this Agreement as “Base Salary.” There shall be withheld from all amounts due the Executive such federal and state income taxes, FICA and other amounts as may be required to be withheld under applicable law. 


2.This Amendment shall become effective December 31, 2018.


3.Each party to this Amendment hereby confirms and agrees that all the other terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE BY SIGNING BELOW THAT THEY HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE AND INTEND TO BE BOUND THEREBY:
	
			
	ALAN I. KIRSHNER
	 
	MARKEL CORPORATION

	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Alan I. Kirshner
	 
	/s/ Richard R. Whitt, III

	 
	 
	By: Richard R. Whitt, III

	 
	 
	Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer
#### Sabrina Renee BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PARK PLACE FAMILY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1317

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Sabrina Renee Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sabrina Renee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012) without prejudice for failure to state a claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because it is possible that Brown could cure the defects in her complaint through amendment, the order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an *72appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-26, 628-30 (4th Cir. 2016); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Brown to file an amended complaint. 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.

*DISMISSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS*
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report of NetIQ Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Charles M. Boesenberg, Chief Executive Officer and Richard H. Van Hoesen, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, each certifies pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                             
|/s/    Charles M. BoesenbergChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors September 13, 2005



|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                
|/s/    Richard H. Van HoesenSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer September 13,
2005
Exhibit 32.1

HEARTLAND, INC.


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT 20 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 Heartland,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB For the period ended  December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the Date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Trent  Sommerville,
Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 905 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                       By: /s/ TRENT SOMMERVILLE
                                           ----------------------------
                                           Trent Sommerville
                                           Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 30, 2005

A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 ("Section  906"), or other document  authenticating,
acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature  that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been provided to Heartland, Inc. and will be retained by Heartland, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Jeffery SOBCZAK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2092

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 20, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Nicole J. Martingano, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur.
#### Sherman Lamont FIELDS, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America and Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, Appellees.

No. 16-5041

September Term, 2015

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed: 07/26/2016

Sherman Lamont Fields, Terre Haute, IN, Pro Se.

Elizabeth Trosman, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USAO Appellate Counsel, U.S. Attorney’s Office (USA), Appellate Division, Washington, DC, for Respondents-Appellees.

BEFORE: Rogers and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34®. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, entered January 15, 2016, be affirmed. Appellant sought, by means of the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to have the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia take action he thought should have been taken by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. But the All Writs Act “is not itself a grant of jurisdiction.” In re Tennant, 359 F.3d 523, 527 (D.C.Cir.2004). Nor does the All Writs Act “enlarge th[e] jurisdiction” of a court. Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 535, 119 S.Ct. 1538, 143 L.Ed.2d 720 (1999). The district court in the District of Columbia has no jurisdiction to review a decision by a district court in Texas—or any appeals therefrom—or any claims by appellant stemming from those decisions. Consequently, the district court properly dismissed his petition.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert S.N. HEE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10018

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted February 24, 2017 Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed March 14, 2017

Lawrence Tong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Albert S.N. Hee, Pro Se

Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and BEA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

1. A criminal defendant can suppress evidence from a civil tax audit if he shows “clear and convincing” evidence of an “affirmative misrepresentation” by the IRS. United States v. Bridges, 344 F.3d 1010, 1020 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977)). Because Hee presented no such evidence, the district court did not err in denying his motions.

2. The government violates Brady when it suppresses evidence favorable to the defense, resulting in prejudice. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999). The suppression must be “so serious that there is a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different” outcome. Id. at 281, 119 S.Ct. 1936. Because evidence of guilt was overwhelming, there’s no reasonable probability that the allegedly suppressed evidence would have changed the outcome of Hee’s March 2015 motion, August 2015'motion or trial.

3.Because Hee failed to properly object below, we review the district court’s decisions concerning the admissibility of testimony for plain error. See United States v. Lopez, 762 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2014). Under this standard, Hee must show that any error was not “subject to reasonable dispute.” Id, at 863 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). But it’s a matter of reasonable dispute whether questions concerning “the understanding” of Hee’s family members were intended to elicit hearsay rather than evidence of Hee’s contemporaneous good faith. Nor did the exclusion of this line of questioning affect the outcome of the proceeding. Hee’s defense, which lasted five days and included seventeen witnesses, amply aired the available evidence of his alleged good faith.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lincare Holdings Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Paul G. Gabos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ PAUL G. GABOSPaul G. Gabos Chief Financial Officer


May 6, 2009
EX-99.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CEO

		Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer ofElevon, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2002(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

/s/ Frank M. Richardson

------------------------------------------

Frank M. Richardson

August 5, 2002
EX PARTE K.W.

1151147 (2150015)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 20, 2017

Writ of cert. quashed.
Edgar FRANCISCO-JUAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 4D17-1577 4D17-1579 4D17-1581

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Javier ASTELLO-VILLASANA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40082 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 14, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Luis Javier Astello-Villasana, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Javier Astello-Villasana has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Astello-Villasana has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is *88GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3785

_____________________________
R EGINALD S MITH , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

. May 21, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , O STERHAUS , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Reginald Smith, pro se
, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Jose Luis RIVAS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM and Frosini A. Smith, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1557

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

R.T., the father and J.T., the mother,

Appellants,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and

GUARDIAN AD LITEM,

Appellees.

No. 4D19-2711

[December 5, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Yael Gamm, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2019-912 CJ JDP.

John B. Agnetti and Daniel H. Kent of Hoffman, Larin & Agnetti, P.A., 

Miami, for appellants.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Department of 

Children and Families.

Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, 

Senior Attorney, Tallahassee, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ SHIRLEY ENOS, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2015

- 7002

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 13

- 721, Chief Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

S ANDRA E. B OOTH , Columbus, OH, argued for clai mant

- appellant.

E RIC P ETER B RUSKIN , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by B ENJAMIN C. M IZER , R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , S COTT D. A USTIN ; Y. K EN L EE , R ACHAELB RANT , A MANDA B LACKMON , United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST , Chief Judge, M OORE and W ALLACH , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 15, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court