alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Memorandum

To: Four Corners Power Plant Permit File, NN 14-01 and T-002-NN From: 

### Lisa BeckhamLJ~~’ Date: June 3, 2014 

### Re: Summaryof Phone Call with Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

On February 27, 2014, had a phone call with Ron Maldonado, Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, to discuss U.S. EPA, Region 9’s PSD permit application and required Section 106 NHPA consultation. We discussed the specifics ofthe project, and Mr. Maldonado explained thatthe FourCorners Power Plant itselfis considered an historic propertythat is eligiblefor listing in the Register of National Historic Places. The FCPP has been an important ofthe economyand historyofthe Navajo Nation. Currently, Arizona PublicService Company (APS) is alreadyworking with Mr. Maldonado on the shutdown and removal of Units 1-3 and requiring several measure to documentthe removal ofthe units (e.g., taking pictures) for NHPA purposes. However, Mr. Maldonado noted thatthe FCPP SCR Project on units 4 and 5 would be separate from those actions related to Units 1-3.
#### Daniele DEPAOLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. B. KING, Lieutenant; Hughes, Lieutenant; T. B. Smith, Sergeant; B. K. McCray, Sergeant; D. J. Davis, Officer; M. S. Byington, Officer; T. W. Hall, Officer; J. R. Ledford, Officer; John Short, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6096

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Daniele Depaolis, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniele Depaolis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion for preliminary injunctive relief; denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief; and denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Although the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction is an appealable interlocutory order, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1) (2012), we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Depaolis’ transfer to another prison rendered his claim for injunctive relief moot. *See Dewhurst v. Century. Aluminum Co.,*649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review). We therefore affirm the district court’s orders denying Depaolis’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief and denying his motion for reconsideration for the reasons stated by the district court. *Depaolis v. King,*No. 7:16-cv-00409-EKD-RSB (W.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2016 & Jan. 31, 2017).

With respect to the order denying De-paolis’ motion for appointment of counsel, 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because this order is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order, we dismiss this portion of the appeal. 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 IN PART DISMISSED IN PART*
Tamatha SPANGLER, Appellant, v. Thomas Michael MCDONALD, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3427

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 18, 2018.

Ama N. Appiah of Law Office of Ama N. Appiah, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

Wyndel G. Darville of The Law Office of Wyndel G. Darville, PLLC, Sarasota, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 The
undersigned, Brion D. Umidi, the Chief Financial Officer of ReGen Biologics,
Inc. (the “Company”), has executed this certification in connection with the
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2008 (the
“Report”). 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 the Company.
 
 Date:
November 10, 2008
 
 /s/
      BRION D. UMIDIName:
                Brion
      D. UmidiTitle:
                Senior
      Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer
Doryaz Dewaz ROTHER, Appellant v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3612

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2466 

LUCY JENKAA BADOH,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals. (A76-903-217)

Submitted: August 22, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sopo Ngwa, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,

Assistant Director, Michele Y. F. Sarko, Office of Immigration

Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lucy Jenkaa Badoh, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. The order in question affirmed a ruling of the

immigration judge denying Badoh’s motion for reconsideration of the

denial of her motion to reopen. We have reviewed the

administrative record and the Board’s order and find that the Board

did not abuse its discretion in affirming the immigration judge’s

decision. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
Patrice KERR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3147

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Armando LOPEZ-SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40013 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

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

Luis Armando Lopez-Sandoval, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Armando Lopez-Sandoval 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). Lopez-Sandoval 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 nonfrivo-*147lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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.
#### In the Matter of Garfield Allen, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[771 NYS2d 206]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting smuggling and failure to comply with visiting regulations. The misbehavior report was authored by a correction officer who was surveilling the facility’s noncontact visiting area when he observed petitioner and his visitor crouched down on either side of the door separating the two sides of the noncontact visiting room. The visit was immediately terminated after which a second correction officer searched petitioner’s side of the visiting room where he found a beverage can that contained straw broom bristles tied to lengths of dental floss and a plastic bag. The officer characterized these items as paraphernalia known to be used to transfer contraband under locked doors. The misbehavior report prepared by the correction officer who witnessed the events in question, as well as the other evidence relied on by the Hearing Officer, were sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see Matter of Alejandro v Goord,*278 AD2d 731 [2000]). The hearing testimony of petitioner and the telephonic testimony given by his visitor, both of whom attested to petitioner’s innocence, presented issues of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Price v Goord,*301 AD2d 986, 987 [2003]).

Petitioner’s additional contentions, including his arguments that his right to a fair hearing was denied by procedural violations, including hearing officer bias, have been examined and *634found to be without merit *(see Matter of Jackson v Portuondo,*287 AD2d 847, 848 [2001]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/ Randall GausmanDate: March 16, 2007
    Randall Gausman
Vice President and
Chief Financial 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50735 Summary Calendar

DAVID ANTHONY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-98-CV-524

- - - - - - - - - - March 18, 1999 Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David Anthony, Texas prisoner #602435, appeals from the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition seeking relief from aprison disciplinary hearing that resulted in the loss of goodconduct time for failure to exhaust state-law remedies. Texas state courts will not entertain habeas corpus challenges to prison disciplinary proceedings. Ex parte Palomo , 759 S.W.2d 671, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Accordingly, a Texas prisoner seeking to challenge the outcome of a prison disciplinary hearingNo. 98-50735 -2-

in habeas corpus proceedings need exhaust only prison grievance procedures. See Gartrell v. Gaylor , 981 F.2d 254, 258 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court therefore erred by holding that Anthony had failed to exhaust state-law remedies because he had not sought relief in state court following his pursuit of relief in the prison grievance procedure. Should the district court wish to consider the exhaustion issue following our remand, the district court may wish to obtain copies of Anthony’s prison grievances and the responses to those grievances.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Xavier Arsenio JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-1587

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 1, 2018

Robert Wesley, Public Defender, Orlando and Robert Thompson Adams, Assistant Public Defender, Orlando, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the January 29, 2018 order denying motion for postconviction relief rendered in Case No. 12-CF-005009-A-O, in the Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

SAWAYA, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
#### Joe NEWMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHOW LOW POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16113

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 20, 2017

Joe Newman, Pro Se

Larry Jay Crown, Esquire, Attorney, Elan Shai Mizrahi, Titus Brueckner & Levine PLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

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 **

Joe Newman appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force during an arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. *Long v. City & County of Honolulu,*511 F.3d 901, 905 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because, in light of the video recording of the incident from Officer Williams’ patrol car, no reasonable jury could credit Newman’s account of the arrest and find that defendants used an unreasonable amount of force. *See Scott v. Harris,*550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (holding that when a video recording of an alleged excessive force incident contradicts the nonmoving party’s version of the incident to the extent that “no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment”); *Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco,*598 F.3d 528, 537 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth factors for determining whether excessive force was used in arrest).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the video recording on summary judgment because the recording was authenticated, it was unquestionably relevant, and it contradicted key aspects of Newman’s account of the incident. *See*Fed. R. Evid. 401 *&*901; *Scott,*550 U.S. at 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769; *see also Muniz v. Amec Const. Mgmt., Inc.,*623 F.3d 1290, 1294 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to order defendants to produce what Newman claims is an unedited version of the video recording because Newman failed to establish that another, more complete version of the recording exists. *See Lane v. Dep’t of Interior,*523 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A district court has wide latitude in controlling discovery, and its rulings will not be overturned in absence of a clear abuse of discretion.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

*605We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the June 29,
1997 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                         2,534
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,114
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    4,642
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,532<F1>
<PP&E>                                         32,772
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,345
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 69,350
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          16,102<F2>
<BONDS>                                        21,970
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       65
<OTHER-SE>                                     25,136
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   69,350
<SALES>                                        87,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               87,595
<CGS>                                          30,171
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  72,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               8,974
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,209
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,148
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,287
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,861
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,861
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.56
<FN>
<F1> Current assets inclued $371 of Assets Held for Sale.
<F2> Current liabilities include $3,352 of Liabilities related to assets held
     for sale.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Jamal Trevor HUNT, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Child Support Program and Crystal Lee Kemp, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2138

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0518 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROBERT CRAIG BRITZIUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 20 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s Reply Brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 13 2023

04/13/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0518
##### 



Exhibit 10.4
 RAE SYSTEMS, INC.
STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
(For U.S. Participant)
 Notice of Grant of Stock Option  Grant Notice   Option Agreement   Option   Plan   Plan Prospectus 
 1. Definitions and Construction.
 Definitions .
 Construction .
 2. Tax Consequences.
 Tax Status of Option .
 Incentive Stock Option .




---



##### 



Nonstatutory Stock Option.
 ISO Fair Market Value Limitation. If the Grant Notice designates this Option as an
Incentive Stock Option,
 3. Administration.
  4. Exercise of the Option.
 Right to Exercise .
 Method of Exercise .  Exercise Notice 
 2




---



##### 



Payment of Exercise Price.
 Forms of Consideration Authorized .
 Limitations on Forms of Consideration.
 Tender of Stock.
 Cashless Exercise.  Cashless Exercise 
 3




---



##### 



Tax Withholding .
 In General
 Withholding in Shares .
 Beneficial Ownership of Shares; Certificate Registration .
 Restrictions on Grant of the Option and Issuance of Shares .
 4




---



##### 



Fractional Shares .
 5. Nontransferability of the Option.
  6. Termination of the Option.
  7. Effect of Termination of Service.
 Option Exercisability.
 Disability .
 Death .
 5




---



##### 



Termination for Cause .
 Other Termination of Service .
 Extension if Exercise Prevented by Law or Insider Trading Policy .
 8. Effect of Change in Control.
  Acquiror 
 6




---



##### 



9. Adjustments for Changes in Capital Structure.
  10. Rights as a Stockholder, Director, Employee or Consultant.
  11. Notice of Sales Upon Disqualifying Disposition.
 if the Grant Notice designates this
Option as an Incentive Stock Option,
 7




---



##### 



12. Legends.
   INSERT DISQUALIFYING DISPOSITION DATE HERE
 13. Miscellaneous Provisions.
 Termination or Amendment.
 8




---



##### 



Further Instruments.
 Binding Effect.
 Delivery of Documents and Notices.
 Description of Electronic Delivery .
 Consent to Electronic Delivery.
 9




---



##### 



Integrated Agreement.
 Applicable Law.
 Counterparts.
 10




---



##### 



ä Incentive Stock Optionä Nonstatutory Stock Option
    
    Participant:Date:
 STOCK OPTION EXERCISE NOTICE
 
  Option .  Option   Shares   Company   Plan   Grant Notice   Option Agreement 
 Date of Grant:Number of Option Shares:Exercise Price per Share:
    
    $
 Exercise of Option .
 Total Shares Purchased:Total Exercise Price (Total Shares X Price per Share)
    
    $
 Payments .
 ä Cash:
    
    
    $ä Check:
    
    
    $ä Tender of Company Stock:
    
    Contact Plan Administratorä Cashless Exercise (same-day sale):
    
    Contact Plan Administrator
 Tax Withholding .
 (Contact Plan Administrator for amount of tax due.)
 ä Cash:
    
    
    $ä Check:
    
    
    $ä Tender of Company Stock:
    
    Contact Plan Administrator




---



##### 



ä Cashless Exercise (same-day sale):
    
    Contact Plan Administrator
 Participant Information .
 My address is:
 My Social Security Number is:
 Notice of Disqualifying Disposition .
 Binding Effect .
 Very truly yours,(Signature)
 Receipt of the above is hereby acknowledged.RAE SYSTEMS, INC.By:Title:Dated:
 2
#### IN RE: Sheikha Lateefah ALSABAH, Appellant

2016-1788

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 27, 2017

David E. Dougherty, Hauptman Ham, LLP, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Sean A. Passino, Amir H. Behnia, Martin James Cosenza, II.

Benjamin T. Hickman, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Monica Barnes Lateef.

(Newman, Mayer, and O’Malley, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
STATE v. Caleb Tyler HAYWOOD

CR-16-0309

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.