alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stephen B. TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dustin TIERNEY, in his Individual Capacity as Correctional Officer of the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-15390

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Stephen B, Turner, Pro Se

Matthew Roman, Attorney, AGCA-Of-fice of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, 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 **

Stephen B, Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to modify a settlement agreement and request to vacate the 'order dismissing his underlying 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in light of that settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We *581review for an abuse of discretion a denial of motion for relief from a final judgment or order. *Casey v. Albertson’s Inc.,*362 F.3d 1264, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Turner’s motion to modify the settlement agreement and vacate the order of dismissal because Turner failed to file these motion within 180 days, as required by the order of dismissal. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (motions to vacate an order under Rule 60(b) must be brought “within a reasonable time”); *see also Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,*624 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing district court’s wide discretion in case management and obligation “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc.,*452 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006) (attorney mistakes are more appropriately addressed through malpractice claims, not Rule 60(b)(1) motions).

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

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 3RD QTR. 10Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,311
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,954
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (295)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,528
<PP&E>                                           3,566
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,545)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,788
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        79,288
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,783
<SALES>                                             75
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,585
<CGS>                                                2
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,609
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,263
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   132
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  66
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    352
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                352
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       352
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
Xiomara ZUNIGA, Appellant, v. PACIFIC FINANCIAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D18-0487

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Yvette Nunez, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 605]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated April 30, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the Transit Authority) to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained as the result of inhaling smoke while on a subway train for approximately one hour during a tunnel fire. The Transit Authority moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, submitting evidence that the fire had been intentionally set, and arguing that it was entitled to governmental immunity for its alleged negligence, since the plaintiff was unable to establish that she had a special relationship with the Transit Authority. The motion was denied and the Transit Authority appeals.

We reverse. The Transit Authority made a prima facie showing, through the submission of admissible evidence, that the fire in the subway tunnel was intentionally set. The plaintiff alleges that the Transit Authority was negligent in permitting combustible material to be left in an abandoned area in the subway tunnel, and in failing to get the subway train out of the tunnel more quickly. We conclude that these alleged acts and omissions *482involve the Transit Authority’s governmental function, such that liability cannot attach absent a special relationship between the plaintiff and the Transit Authority (see *Clinger v New York City Tr. Auth.,*85 NY2d 957 [1995]; *Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*55 NY2d 175 [1982]. Since the plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of special relationship between the Transit Authority and her, the motion for summary judgment should have been granted (see *Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., supra).*

In light of the above, we need not reach the parties’ remaining *contentions.*Smith, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.
Rudolph LUDAWAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2378

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 17, 2018

Rudolph Ludaway, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wolf, Jay, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 618 

To amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to cover, for purposes 

of workers’ compensation under such chapter, services by physician assistants and nurse practitioners provided to injured Federal workers, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2023 

Mr. WALBERG (for himself and Mr. COURTNEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to 

cover, for purposes of workers’ compensation under such 

chapter, services by physician assistants and nurse practitioners provided to injured Federal workers, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Access to 

5 Workers’ Compensation for Injured Federal Workers 

6 Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 618 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS AND NURSE 

2 PRACTITIONERS IN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ 

3 COMPENSATION ACT. 

4 (a) INCLUSION.—Section 8101 of title 5, United 

5 States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘, other eligi7 ble providers,’’ after ‘‘osteopathic practitioners’’; 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraphs 

9 (18) and (19); 

10 (3) by striking the period at the end of para11 graph (20) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

12 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(21) ‘other eligible provider’ means a nurse 

14 practitioner or physician assistant within the scope 

15 of their practice as defined by State law.’’. 

16 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Chapter 81 of 

17 title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

18 (1) in section 8103(a)— 

19 (A) by inserting ‘‘or other eligible pro20 vider’’ after ‘‘physician’’ in each instance; and 

21 (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘or 

22 other eligible providers’’ after ‘‘physicians’’; 

23 (2) in section 8121(6), by inserting ‘‘or other 

24 eligible provider’’ after ‘‘physician’’; and 

25 (3) in section 8123(a)— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 618 IH

1 (A) by inserting ‘‘or other eligible pro2 vider’’ after ‘‘The employee may have a physi3 cian’’; and 

4 (B) by inserting ‘‘or other eligible pro5 vider’’ after ‘‘United States and the physician’’. 

6 (c) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 6 months after 

7 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall final8 ize rules to carry out the amendments made by this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02609]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB784]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will 
hold a public meeting of its Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Advisory 
Panel. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for agenda details.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 23, 2022, from 9 
a.m. until 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via webinar. Connection information 
will be posted to the calendar prior to the meeting at www.mafmc.org.
    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N 
State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; 
www.mafmc.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 
526-5255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council's Mackerel, Squid, and 
Butterfish Advisory Panel will meet via webinar. The purpose of this 
meeting is for the Advisory Panel to develop fishery performance 
reports (FPRs) for Illex squid and Atlantic mackerel. The intent of the 
FPR is to facilitate structured input from the Advisory Panel on recent 
fishery performance. The FPR will be considered as 2022 Illex 
specifications are reviewed and as mackerel rebuilding revisions are 
considered.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should 
be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior 
to the meeting date.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 3, 2022.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-02609 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10486

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DARREN LADELL WADE,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

U.S.D.C. 3:97-CR-159

Before OWEN, HAYNES, Circuit Judges, and LEMELLE,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

Darren Ladell Wade, federal prisoner #29672-077, appeals the district

court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentencing reduction

based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. On June 17, 2013,

before this case was decided, Wade was released from federal custody. “Where

a defendant has begun serving a term of supervised release, the appeal of the

denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion is moot.” United States v. Booker, 645 F.3d 328

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 1, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

** 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.

 Case: 12-10486 Document: 00512292317 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2013
No. 12-10486

(5th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Boston, 419 F. App’x 505, 505–07 (5th Cir.

2011) (unpublished). Because Wade’s appeal concerns only the term of his

imprisonment, and makes no mention of his term of supervised release, his

arguments pertain only to relief under § 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, we conclude,

and the parties agree, that Wade’s appeal must be DISMISSED AS MOOT.

2

 Case: 12-10486 Document: 00512292317 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2013
EX PARTE Eibe Damorro SCOTT

CR-16-0394

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. denied.
Kevin Darnell POWELL v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-00518-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: January 30, 2018 Closed: April 12, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition For Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
T.F., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4502

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 11, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Rachel Roebuck, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
#### Doran BOWERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rory PERRY; Robin Davis; Brent Benjamin; Margaret Workman; Menis Ketchum; Allen Loughry; The State of West Virginia; Gregory Hilton; Peter Krauser; Alexander Wright; Albert Matricciani; Charles Moylan; Lawrence Rodowsky; Robert Bell; Mary *779Ellen Barbera; Glen Harell; Lynne Battaglia; Clayton Greene; Sally Atkins; Robert Mcdonald; Shirley Watts, and; The State of Maryland; Katthleen Cox, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-1713

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Doran Bowers, Appellant Pro Se. Teresa Jean Lyons, Hedges & Lyons, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Michele J. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Doran Bowers appeals the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing with prejudice Bowers’ civil action, and denying Bowers’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bowers v. Perry, No. 2:14-cv-27242, 2015 WL 5684136, 2016 WL 3365484 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 28, 2015 & June 16, 2016). We deny Bowers’ motions to correct the docket, to recuse the Clerk of Court, and to amend or correct prior orders entered by the Clerk. 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
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 99

Review Report Of Independent Certified Public Accountants

To Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Catalina Marketing Corporation (a Delaware corporation) and subsidiaries as of
June 30, 2001, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income and
cash flows for the three-month periods ended June 30, 2001 and 2000.  These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above for them to be in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States, the consolidated balance sheet of Catalina
Marketing Corporation and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
year then ended (not presented herein), and, in our report dated April 19, 2001,
we expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.  In our
opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of March 31, 2001, is fairly stated, in all material respects,
in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


Arthur Andersen LLP


Tampa, Florida,
July 18, 2001
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 report on Form 10-Q/A Amendment No. 2 for
the quarter ended April 5, 2005 (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.


     March 31, 2006                    /s/ Kevin G. Gregory
                                       --------------------
                                       Kevin G. Gregory
                                       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.
Exhibit 10.7(d)


 


Filing note:


Exhibit 10(j) to FHN’s Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year 1995 was a schedule of deferral agreements with directors. Only a single director listed in old exhibit 10(j) currently
is a director of FHN. This exhibit 10.7(d), being filed with FHN’s 2018 Form 10-K, contains the text of the old exhibit
as it relates to the remaining director; all obsolete portions of the old exhibit are omitted from this exhibit.


 


========================================================


 


SCHEDULE OF DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS


 


	NAME	 	DATE	 	AMOUNT	 	TERMS(1)
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Vicki G. Roman	 	12-30-94	 	1-95 Director Fees	 	Lump Sum on retirement


 


	1)	Terms column lists (1) the number
    of payments, (2) whether semiannually, annually or lump sum, and (3) payment commencement date.
	 	 
	 	All agreements dated prior to 1991 provide that
    interest shall accrue at the Corporation’s annual cost of money, as determined by the Corporation.  All other
    agreements accrue interest at a rate based on 10-year U.S. Treasury securities.
EX PARTE G & R MINERAL SERVICES, INC.

1160211 (2150335)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
GULF COAST MEDICAL PARK, LLC, a Florida limited liability company and Magnus Karlstedt, individually, Appellants, v. GULF COAST LORAIN PARTNERS, LLC, a limited liability company and LOROH, LP, an Ohio limited partnership, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-4786

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Brion Umidi, certify that:
     1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of ReGenBiologics, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a — 15(e) and 15d — 15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially 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 recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: June 18, 2004           By:  /s/ BRION UMIDI            Name: Brion Umidi    *Title:   Chief Financial          Officer*