alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Craig ROSS; Natalie Operstein, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-55871

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed March 2, 2017

Craig Ross, Pro Se

Natalie Operstein, Pro Se

Elisabeth Ann Frater, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los An-geles, CA

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 **

Craig Ross and Natalie Operstein appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in their employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a preliminary injunction and de novo the underlying issues of law. *Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting,*709 F.3d 808, 816-17 (9th Cir. 2013), We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Denial of the preliminary injunction was proper because plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they are entitled to injunctive relief. *See Thalheimer v. City of San Diego,*645 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”).

Defendant’s motion to accept a late filing, filed on November 18, 2016, is granted.

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.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 1070 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 1 75 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
Thomas G. HYLAND, Petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondents.

No. 1D18-1468

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 2018

Thomas G. Hyland, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Tallahassee; Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Beverly Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondents.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

Wolf, Jay, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1


                                   Exhibit 15






Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20549


Dear Sirs:


We are aware that Acme Metals Incorporated has included our report dated August
11, 1998 (issued pursuant to the provisions of Statement on Auditing Standards
No. 71) in the Prospectuses constituting part of its Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 33-17235, 33-19437 and 33-30841) and in its Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-38747 and 33-59627).  We are also aware of our
responsibilities under the Securities Act of 1933.


Very truly yours,



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Chicago, Illinois
August 11 , 1998













                                       30
Erin CRONIN v. INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY and Mid-City Carriages, Inc.

NO. 2018-CC-0702

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 2018

Denied.
E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 250  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Telephone: (919)484-0222  Fax: (919) 484-0122

MEMORANDUM

Date: August 12, 2010

To: Bruce Moore, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/CCG

From: Heather Brown, EC/R Incorporated

Subject: Documentation of the May 12, 2010 EPA site visit to the Hawkins Gas 

Plant in Hawkins, Texas. 

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the EPA site visit to the Hawkins Gas 

Processing Plant in Hawkins Texas. 

II. DATE

The site visit took place on May 12, 2010, between 10:45-11:30 AM.

III. ATTENDEES

API

Cathe Kalisz

Matt Todd

BP

Jeffrey A. Adams, Manager, Regulatory Affairs

ExxonMobil

Bobby Browning

Danny Hailey

Jessie Johnson

Sandra Stephens

Tom Monahan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA/OAQPS)

Alex MacPherson, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Benefit and Cost Group

Bruce Moore, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group

Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group

Nick Parsons, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group

Rachel Agnew, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Measurement Policy Group

EC/R Incorporated

Heather Brown 

Phil Norwood

Robert Vogt

The site visit report for this facility contains confidential business information (CBI), and 

pending approval by the facility, a non-confidential report has not been issued.
EXHIBIT 10.3


                                                                  Chronimed Inc.

Memo                                              CONFIDENTIAL

To:         PAT TAFFE                             FOR RECIPIENT ONLY

From:       MAURY TAYLOR

CC:

Date:       MAY 17, 1999

Re:         RETENTION INCENTIVE

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


AS YOU KNOW, THE COMPANY HAS ANNOUNCED THAT IT HAS ENGAGED A FINANCIAL SERVICES
FIRM TO SEEK STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES TO TAKE THE BUSINESS FORWARD AND GROW THE
COMPANY MOST EFFECTIVELY. THE END PRODUCT OF THIS MAY INCLUDE A TRANSACTION
WHICH RESULTS IN A MERGER, ACQUISITION OR SALE OF ALL OR PART OF THE COMPANY. IF
SUCH A TRANSACTION IS TO BE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED, THE COMPANY BELIEVES IT IS
NECESSARY TO RETAIN CERTAIN KEY PERSONNEL DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN NOW AND THE
CLOSING OF SUCH A TRANSACTION. YOU HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN A KEY
EMPLOYEE RETENTION ARRANGEMENT, IF YOU SO AGREE. THE REST OF THIS MEMO EXPLAINS
THIS INCENTIVE PLAN, AND ITS CONDITIONS.
TO QUALIFY FOR THE INCENTIVE, YOU MUST REMAIN EMPLOYED UNTIL THE EARLIER OF A
TRANSACTION CLOSING OR DECEMBER 31,1999. HOWEVER, IF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS
ACCEPTED A LETTER OF INTENT BY DECEMBER 31, 1999, BUT A TRANSACTION HAS NOT YET
CLOSED, THE COMPANY MAY EXTEND THE DATE YOU MUST REMAIN EMPLOYED TO THE EARLIER
OF THE ACTUAL DATE OF CLOSING OR MARCH 31, 2000. PAYMENT OF THE INCENTIVE WILL
BE 30 DAYS FOLLOWING DATE OF VESTING (THE DATE YOU ARE FULLY QUALIFIED AND
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE INCENTIVE). YOU AGREE THAT IF YOU INITIATE A TERMINATION
OF EMPLOYMENT PRIOR TO BEING FULLY VESTED IN THIS INCENTIVE PLAN, OR IF YOU ARE
TERMINATED BY THE COMPANY FOR CAUSE, YOU WILL FORFEIT ALL RIGHTS TO THE
INCENTIVE.
THE INCENTIVE IS IN THE FORM OF A ONE TIME CASH BONUS, BEFORE TAXES AND
DEDUCTIONS OF: $30,000.00 (THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS)

<PAGE>


YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A SPECIAL ONE TIME BONUS ARRANGEMENT. BY AGREEING TO
ACCEPT THIS INCENTIVE ARRANGEMENT, YOU AGREE THAT YOU WILL KEEP THE EXISTENCE
AND THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT CONFIDENTIAL, AND YOU WILL NOT SHARE IT WITH ANY
OTHER PERSON EXCEPT YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND/OR FINANCIAL ADVISOR. THOSE
INDIVIDUALS ALSO MUST KEEP THIS CONFIDENTIAL. BREACH OF THIS CONFIDENTIALITY
PROVISION WILL RESULT IN FORFEITURE OF INCENTIVE. THIS CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
WILL REMAIN INTACT AS LONG AS YOU REMAIN EMPLOYED WITH CHRONIMED.
YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THIS IS SOLELY AN INCENTIVE AGREEMENT. IT
DOES NOT CHANGE THE STATUS OF ANY OTHER ASPECTS OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
WITH CHRONIMED, AND IS NOT AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.
PLEASE SIGN THIS MEMO AS AN INDICATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND
KEEP A COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS.
I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THIS INCENTIVE PLAN. I AGREE TO ACCEPT
ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS.


/S/ PATRICK L. TAFFE                  /S/ SHAWN FEATHERSTON VP HUMAN RESOURCES
---------------------                 ---------------------
SIGNATURE OF EMPLOYEE                 COMPANY - NAME/TITLE
---------------------                 --------------------


5/18/99
--------------------
DATE
----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6574

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

Antonio Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Tamera Lynn Fine, Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorneys, Christine Marie Celeste, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that-reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thompson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss 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.

*DISMISSED*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6073 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6073

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 9925 Bustleton Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the 
    ``Sergeant Christopher David Fitzgerald Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SERGEANT CHRISTOPHER DAVID FITZGERALD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 9925 Bustleton Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Sergeant Christopher David Fitzgerald 
Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
Christopher David Fitzgerald Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6073

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 9925 Bustleton Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the 
    ``Sergeant Christopher David Fitzgerald Post Office Building''.
```
May 22, 2015 

 

Mr. Donald Lee 

22705 NE Mountain View Court 

Ridgefield, WA 98642 

Dear Mr. Donald Lee: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 13, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA2015-0959), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent 

does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the 

request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief 

you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition 

for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3785

_____________________________

REGINALD SMITH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jennie Kinsey, Judge.

May 21, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6045 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6045

  To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a 
study and submit a report on the efficacy of Federal drug surveillance 
                    systems, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 25, 2023

  Ms. Caraveo (for herself and Mr. Kean of New Jersey) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a 
study and submit a report on the efficacy of Federal drug surveillance 
                    systems, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Curbing Illicit Drug Threats Act''.

SEC. 2. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON EFFICACY OF FEDERAL DRUG SURVEILLANCE 
              SYSTEMS.

    (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States shall 
conduct a study on--
            (1) the efficacy of Federal drug surveillance systems in 
        providing up-to-date information on illicit drug use in the 
        United States, including any limitations affecting such 
        efficacy; and
            (2) how such systems are used to address illicit drug use 
        in the United States.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
complete the study under subsection (a) and submit to Congress a report 
containing--
            (1) the findings and conclusions of such study; and
            (2) any recommendations for legislative or administrative 
        actions to improve the efficacy of the Federal drug 
        surveillance systems examined in such study, including any 
        recommendations pertaining to interagency communication or data 
        collection procedures.
    (c) Federal Drug Surveillance Systems Defined.--In this section, 
the term ``Federal drug surveillance systems'' includes--
            (1) the Drug Overdose Surveillance and Epidemiology System 
        of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (commonly 
        known as ``DOSE'');
            (2) the State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System 
        of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (commonly 
        known as ``SUDORS'');
            (3) the National Drug Early Warning System of the National 
        Institute on Drug Abuse (commonly known as ``NDEWS''); and
            (4) the Drug Abuse Warning Network of the Substance Abuse 
        and Mental Health Services Administration (commonly known as 
        ``DAWN'').
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

August 9, 2000

Catalina Marketing Corporation
11300 9th Street North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33716

Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We are aware that Catalina Marketing Corporation has incorporated by reference
in its Registration Statement Nos. 33-46793, 33-77100, 33-82456, 333-07525,
333-13335 and 333-86905, its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2000,
which includes our report dated July 12, 2000, covering the unaudited interim
financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Regulation C of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), that report is not considered a part of the
registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or
certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,


/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-072-CR

SCOTT TYLER SHELBY	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Scott Tyler Shelby appeals from his conviction for felony assault causing bodily injury to a family member.  According to the trial court’s judgment, Appellant was convicted upon his plea of guilty, and his punishment was assessed at ten years’ confinement and a $700 fine.  The trial court suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence, placing Appellant on community supervision for seven years.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

	The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea-bargain case and that Appellant has no right to appeal.  Accordingly, we informed Appellant’s appointed counsel by letter on March 18, 2005 that this court would dismiss the appeal unless Appellant or any party showed grounds for continuing it.2  We received no response.  Consequently, we dismiss this appeal.3

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  May 12, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02963]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules; Meeting of the Judicial 
Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules; notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules will hold a meeting 
on May 6, 2022 in Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public for 
observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials 
will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at: https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/records-rules-committees/agenda-books.

DATES: May 6, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bridget Healy, Esq., Acting Chief 
Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus 
Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fcae8990998fbf9391919588889999a3af999f8e99889d8e85bc9d93d2898f9f93898e888fd29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e0c2b323b2d1d313333372a2a3b3b010d3b3d2c3b2a3f2c271e3f31702b2d3d312b2c2a2d70393128">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

    Dated: February 8, 2022.
Shelly L. Cox,
Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2022-02963 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>