alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Faron E. LOVELACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robin SANDY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35782

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 24, 2017

Faron E. Lovelace, Pro Se

*568Before: 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 **

Idaho state prisoner Faron E. Lovelace appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Barren v. Harrington,*162 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lovelace’s action because Lovelace failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’); *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (complaint must offer more than “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” (citation, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted)); *Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 349-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing that the defendant’s conduct caused actual injury).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright, 587*F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Lovelace’s October 18, 2016 motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is granted. The Clerk shall file the supplemental brief received on October 18, 2016.

All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1








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 Aethlon Medical, Inc. on Form 10-Q for
the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James A. Joyce, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





1. Based
on my knowledge, the Quarterly Report 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Aethlon Medical, Inc.





Date:
February 16, 2010




By:
              /s/ 
      James A. JoyceJames
      A. JoyceChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer


A signed
original of this written statement required by 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 Aethlon Medical, Inc. and will be retained
by Aethlon Medical, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 annual report of INCA Designs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2008 (the Report), I, Stacy Josloff, Chief Executive 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/ Stacy Josloff      
|Stacy Josloff          
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 28, 2008         

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02695]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD


Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from 
University of California, Berkeley (WB22-14--1/31/22) for permission to 
use data from the Board's 1984-2019 Unmasked Carload Waybill Sample. A 
copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under 
docket no. WB22-14.
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics 
within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for 
release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
    Contact: Alexander Dusenberry, (202) 245-0319.

Regena Smith-Bernard,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2022-02695 Filed 2-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
#### Cesar MONTES-ROBLES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-73983

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 15, 2017

Navid David Shamloo, Esquire, Attorney, Portland, OR, for Petitioner

Andrew B. Insenga, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Cesar Montes-Robles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination. *Gutierrez v. Mukasey,*521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Montes-Robles’ contentions that the IJ violated his due process rights because he did not raise these claims to the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings below).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Montes-Robles failed to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal where the record indicates that he accepted voluntary departure in lieu of removal proceedings, breaking his accrual of continuous physical presence. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); *Gutierrez,*521 F.3d at 1117-18 (substantial evidence supported IJ’s determination that petitioner voluntarily departed in lieu of facing removal proceedings); *see. also*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B) (petitioner bears the burden of showing eligibility). We reject Montes-Robles’ contention that the BIA’s analysis was insufficient.

*554PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6020 

AN ACT 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to eliminate consideration of the income of organ recipients in providing 

reimbursement of expenses to donating individuals, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6020 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Honor Our Living Do3 nors Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NO CONSIDERATION OF INCOME OF ORGAN RECIPI5 ENT. 

6 Section 377 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

7 U.S.C. 274f) is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) 

9 as subsections (d) through (g), respectively; 

10 (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol11 lowing: 

12 ‘‘(c) NO CONSIDERATION OF INCOME OF ORGAN RE13 CIPIENT.—The recipient of a grant under this section, in 

14 providing reimbursement to a donating individual through 

15 such grant, shall not give any consideration to the income 

16 of the organ recipient.’’; and 

17 (3) in subsection (f), as so redesignated— 

18 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘sub19 section (c)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection 

20 (d)(1)’’; and 

21 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘sub22 section (c)(2)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection 

23 (d)(2)’’. 
3 

•HR 6020 EH

1 SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF EXPECTATION OF PAYMENTS BY 

2 ORGAN RECIPIENTS. 

3 Section 377(e) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 274f(e)), as redesignated by section 2, is amend5 ed— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the 

7 end; 

8 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘; or’’ and in9 serting a period; and 

10 (3) by striking paragraph (3). 

11 SEC. 4. ANNUAL REPORT. 

12 Section 377 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

13 U.S.C. 274f), as amended by sections 2 and 3, is further 

14 amended by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(h) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than December 31 

16 of each year, the Secretary shall— 

17 ‘‘(1) prepare, submit to the Congress, and make 

18 public a report on whether grants under this section 

19 provided adequate funding during the preceding fis20 cal year to reimburse all donating individuals par21 ticipating in the grant program under this section 

22 for all qualifying expenses; and 

23 ‘‘(2) include in each such report— 

24 ‘‘(A) the estimated number of all donating 

25 individuals participating in the grant program 

26 under this section who did not receive reim-
4 

•HR 6020 EH

1 bursement for all qualifying expenses during 

2 the preceding fiscal year; and 

3 ‘‘(B) the total amount of funding that is 

4 estimated to be necessary to fully reimburse all 

5 donating individuals participating in the grant 

6 program under this section for all qualifying ex7 penses.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 16, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6020 

AN ACT 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to elimidonating individuals, and for other purposes. ents in providing reimbursement of expenses to nate consideration of the income of organ recipi-
Michael PALMORE, DOC #079454, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3557

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Miguel SANTO-HERRERA, also known as Ramon Terrero, also known as Richard Miguel Santos-Herrera, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40329 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/18/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Richard Miguel Santo-Herrera, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Richard Miguel Santo-Herr-era 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). Santo-Herrera has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Santo-Herrera’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Santo-Herrera’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 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.
Exhibit 32.2 Section 906 CFO Certification

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
Quarter Ended October 5, 2004 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the
undersigned hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report 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 Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.


     November  15,  2004     /s/Michael  E.  Rohrkemper
                             ------------------------------
                             Michael  E.  Rohrkemper
                             Chief  Financial  Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT
Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


<PAGE>
#### Glenda WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DALE ERNHARDT JR. CHEVROLET, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-15352 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 10/25/2016

Marie A. Mattox, Michael L. MacNa-mara, Marie A. Mattox, PA, Tallahassee, FL.

Candace W. Padgett, Leonard T. Hack-ett, Vernis & Bowling of North Florida, PA, Jacksonville, FL.

Before HULL, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Glenda Wilson appeals from the summary judgment in favor of her employer, Dale Ernhardt Jr. Chevrolet. Wilson complained that Ernhardt Chevrolet refused to promote her to guest service manager because she was black and older than the three women hired for the position, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01-760.11. We affirm.

We review a summary judgment *de novo*and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. *Trask v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,*822 F.3d 1179, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2016). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Wilson failed to establish a *prima facie*case of discrimination based on race or age. Because Ernhardt Chevrolet promoted its employees without a formal application process, Wilson had to establish that “she refrained from applying due to a justifiable belief that [her] employer’s discriminatory practices made application a futile gesture.” *EEOC v. Joe’s Stone Crabs, Inc.,*296 F.3d 1265, 1274 (11th Cir. 2002). Wilson declined the position when it was offered to her. After Wilson filed charges of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the general manager of the dealership, Mike Futrell, twice asked Wilson if she wanted to be the service manager. On the second occasion, Wilson responded that she was disinterested in the position, so the dealership promoted Chelsea Hyers, a 22-year-old white female. Later, Wilson did not express any interest in being the service manager before the dealership promoted Jennifer Burzynski, a 28-year-old white female, or Nadege Emile, a 26-year-old black female. Wilson argues that it would have been futile to apply for the position because Tracy Thacker, an operations manager, told Wilson that she would have to accept a reduction in her wages. *See id.*But Futrell testified that he clarified with Wilson that he, not Thacker, set the pay and that she would earn the same amount as any other service manager. And Wilson admittedly never investigated what other service managers were paid to determine whether she would receive less money if she was promoted. Wilson failed to *981establish that she was deterred from applying from the position because of a discriminatory practice by the dealership.

We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Ernhardt Chevrolet.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Robert J. Salazar and Elia Salazar v. HP Texas I LLC dba HP Texas LLC, HPA Texas Sub 2016

- 1 LLC, Ser Texas LLC, and Pathlight Property Management Co.

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00 926

- CV

Trial court case number: 2019

- 17589

Trial court: 127th District Court of Harris County

On November 22, 2019, appellants, Robert J. Salazar and Elia Salazar, filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s November 4, 2019 order denying their application for a temporary injunction. Appellants have filed an emergency motion for temporary injunct ion in this Court, seeking to enjoin appellees from leasing, selling, or making changes to real property that appellants had previously rented from appellees, to give appellants possession of the property pending resolution of this appeal without requiring any rental payment, and

to reduce appellants’ supersedeas bond to $1,500. At the Court’s request, appellees, HPA

Texas Sub 2016

- 1 LLC, Pathlight Property Management Co., HP Texas I LLC dba HP Texas LLC, and SER Texas LLC, filed a response in opposition to appellants’ emergency

motion

. All parties agree that appellees were awarded possession of the property in a separate lawsuit in the county civil court at law of Harris County, from which appellants appealed in a separate appeal currently pending in this C ourt in Cause No. 01

- 19

- 00330

- CV. The county civil court at law set appellants’ supersedeas bond at $28,350. Appellants have not superseded the judgment.

On December 20, 2019, appellants filed a motion for leave to file a reply in support of their emergenc y motion by December 24, 2019, but have not filed any reply to date.

We deny appellants’ motion s

. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (“A judgment of a county court may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court.”); see also Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of the City2

of San Antonio , 198 S.W.3d 782, 786 (Tex. 2006) (“[I]f a proper supersedeas bond is not filed, the judgment may be enforced, including issuance of a writ of possession evicting the tenant from the premises.”); cf. TEX. R. APP. P. 24 (providing for suspension of enforcement of judgment and review of trial court order on supersedeas).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: January 9, 20 20
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

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

I, Richard A. Ross, as Chief Financial Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) 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.



|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  |                                                      
|----- |  | ----------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|      |  |             |  | 
|Date: |  | May 5, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard A. Ross                                  
|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  | Richard A. Ross                                      
|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
Kevin J. MURPHY, Appellant, v. CADDY CARTS, INC., Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3555

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

34 36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 09/26 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Sep 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER****PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with theAnnual Report of Rentrak Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul A. Rosenbaum,Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| By:                                  | /s/ Paul A. Rosenbaum |   |   |
|--------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|--------|
| Paul A. Rosenbaum                    |
| Chairman of the Board, President and |
| Chief Executive Officer              |
| Rentrak Corporation                  |
| June 12, 2006                   |

 

----
David C. GRUBER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3765

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Roland Blake HATTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3475

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 13, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.