alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Yerina CHRISTIAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1293

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed because of the appellant's failure to satisfy this court's April 4, 2018 fee order.

Appellee's motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### KOO SOO KIM, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71883

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017

Rosana Cheung, Law Office of Rosana Kit Wai Cheung, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Brett F. Kinney, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for' Attorney General, Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Koo Soo Kim, a native of South Korea and citizen of Canada, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance. *Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Kim’s request for a 16th continuance, where he failed to establish good cause. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; *Ahmed v. Holder,*569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded and the number of continuances previously granted); *Lata v. I.N.S.,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Fw: MATS RIA for OMB Distribution 12/09 (Message 2 of 2) 

 12/09/2011 04:15 PM 

From: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US 

 

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

 

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cortney - 

Attached are the remaining chapters. 

thanx! 

bob 

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. 

Leader, Energy Strategies Group 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Mail Code D243-01 

RTP, NC 27711 

 

Phone: (919) 541-1045 

Cell: (919) 306-2290 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov 

********************************************************* 

DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

Chapter 5_HealthWelfareCobenefits_1209_clean.docx 

Chapter 5_HealthWelfareCobenefits_1209 (REDLINE).docx 

Chapter 6_EmploymentImpactAnalysis_1209_clean.docx 

Chapter 6_EmploymentImpactAnalysis_1209 (REDLINE).docx 
 

Chapter 7_StatutoryandExecutiveOrderAnalyses_1209_clean.doc 

Chapter 7_StatutoryandExecutiveOrderAnalyses_1209 (REDLINE).doc 

Chapter 8_SummaryofCostsandBenefits_1209_clean.doc 

Chapter 8_SummaryofCostsandBenefits_1209 (REDLINE).doc
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 21.1

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                                                  Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization
----                                                                  ---------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                   <C>
ICI Holdings, LLC                                                                     Delaware
Insight Communications Company, L.P.                                                  Delaware
Insight Midwest, L.P.                                                                 Delaware
Insight Capital, Inc.                                                                 Delaware
Insight Communications Midwest, LLC (f/k/a Insight Communications of                  Delaware
     Indiana, LLC)
Insight Midwest Holdings, LLC                                                         Delaware
Insight Communications of Kentucky, L.P.                                              Delaware
Insight Kentucky Partners I, L.P.                                                     Delaware
Insight Kentucky Partners II, L.P.                                                    Delaware
Insight Kentucky Capital, LLC                                                         Delaware
Insight Holdings of Ohio, LLC                                                         Delaware
Insight Communications of Central Ohio, LLC                                           Delaware
Insight Interactive, LLC                                                              Delaware
</TABLE>
#### AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES INCORPORATED, subsidiary of Ameriprise Financial Incorporated, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. Ijeamaka EKWEANI, Wife; Henry Ekweani, Husband, Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants.

Nos. 15-15866

15-16417

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 20, 2017

*642Julie Anne Fleming-Wolfe, Esquire, Attorney, Fleming-Wolfe Law, P.A., Saint Paul, MN, Amy Jo Gittler, Attorney, Jackson Lewis LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee

Ijeamaka Ekweani, Pro Se

Henry Ekweani, Pro Se

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

*

 The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Ijeamaka and Henry Ekweani appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and order granting attorney’s fees in Ameri-prise Financial Services, Inc.’s (“AFSI”) declaratory judgment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *N. Cty. Commc’ns Corp. of Ariz. v. Qwest Corp.,*824 F.3d 830, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for AFSI and entered a declaratory judgment because AFSI demonstrated the Ekweanis’ knowledge of an existing right to arbitrate, acts inconsistent with that right, and prejudice to AFSI. *See Martin v. Yasuda,*829 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2016) (a party seeking to prove waiver of a right to arbitration must demonstrate knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration, acts inconsistent with that existing right, and prejudice to'the opposing party).

Contrary to the Ekweanis’ contentions, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the “underlying substantive controversy” involved arbitration of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims. *Vaden v. Discover Bank,*556 U.S. 49, 62, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 173 L.Ed.2d 206 (2009); *see also Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC,*— U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 843, 848, 187 L.Ed.2d 703 (2014) (when determining declaratory judgment jurisdiction, courts must look to “whether a coercive action brought by the declaratory judgment defendant ... would necessarily present a federal question” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $25,000 in attorney’s fees because the district court considered each of the factors set forth in *Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner,*143 Ariz. 567, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (1985) (in banc). *See Med. Protective Co. v. Pang,*740 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review).

AFSI’s request for attorney’s fees, set forth in its answering brief in Appeal No. 15-16417, is denied.

15-15866: AFFIRMED.

15-16417: AFFIRMED.

**

 This Disposition Is Not Appropriate for Publication and Is Not Precedent Except as Provided By Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
MARTIN, AYCOCK & MCCOY PROPERTIES, LLC v. Mark JEWELL

2160190

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF L.W.

NO. 2018-CK-0139

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 2018

Denied.
Antwaun WELCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-160

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tawnya BEARCOMESOUT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30276

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

John David Sullivan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, Kris Allen McLean, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kris A McLean Law Firm, Florence, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Anthony R. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana (Great Falls), Great Falls, MT, Joslyn Michelle Hunt, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana (Helena), Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Tawnya Bearcomesout appeals from the district court’s denial of her motion to dismiss the indictment and challenges her guilty-plea conviction for involuntary manslaughter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 1112(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bearcomesout argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred her successive homicide prosecutions by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the United States government because the two entities are not separate sovereigns. This argument is foreclosed. *See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1863, 1870-72, 195 L.Ed.2d 179 (2016) (successive prosecutions for the same offense are not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause if brought by separate sovereigns, and Indian Tribes “count as separate sovereigns under the Double Jeopardy Clause”). Furthermore, Bearcomesout has not shown impermissible collusion between the United States government and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe such that an exception *242applies under *Bartkus v. Illinois,*359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959). *See United States v. Lucas,*841 F.3d 796, 803 (9th Cir. 2016) (impermissible collusion occurs where “the prosecutors of one sovereign so thoroughly dominate or manipulate the prosecutorial machinery of the other sovereign that the latter retains little or no volition in its own proceedings” (internal quotations omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kerby LUMA, a.k.a. Money Makin Kerb, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-11644 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed (January 11, 2017)

Carol Herman, Laura Thomas Rivero, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, Brooke C. Watson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, Bernardo Lopez, Federal Public defender’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kerby Luma appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 108 months, after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 286;' one count of conspiracy to possess 15 or more unauthorized access devices, *id.*§ 1029(b)(2); one count of possession of 15 or more unauthorized access devices, *id.*§ 1029(a)(3); and one count of aggravated identity theft, *id.*§ 1028A. Luma argues that his sentence at the lowest end of the advisory guideline range is unreasonable because the district court misconstrued his argument that the loss calculation substantially overstated the severity of his offense. We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness. *United States v. Winingear,*422 F.3d 1241, 1245 (11th Cir. 2005). Our review is deferential for abuse of discretion. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

The district court did not abuse its discretion. Luma withdrew his objection to the loss amount at sentencing and stated, “We’re agreeing that the intended loss amount calculated in the presentence report is correct.” As a result, Luma waived *892any objection to the calculation of the loss amount. *United States v. Love,*449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006). And the district court did not misconstrue Luma’s argument about the difference between the actual and intended loss amounts. The district court instead determined that the seriousness of Luma’s crimes and the need to promote respect for the law and to deter others warranted a sentence within the advisory guideline range. Luma’s sentence is reasonable.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02919]



[[Page 8025]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Minority Health and 
Health Disparities Special Emphasis Panel; Clinical Research 
Education and Career Development (CRECD) Program (R25-Independent 
Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: March 23, 2022.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Cancer Institute, Gateway Plaza, 7201 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Maryline Laude-Sharp, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Extramural Research Administration, National 
Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National 
Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Ste. 
525, MSC. 9206, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-9536, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b76777a6e7f7e68737a696b5b767a727735757273357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="177a7b76627372647f766567577a767e7b39797e7f39707861">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 7, 2022.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-02919 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Julio A. FERNANDEZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Patricia FERNANDEZ, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D16-2544

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 2, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00177

- CR

Alejandro Leal PENA

, A ppellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 090168

- CRA Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On March 27, 2014, appellant’s court

- appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel. The motion is GRANTED. Since appellant is indigent, new appellate counsel must be appointed. It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is ABATED to the trial court. See

Duncan v. State , 653 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (holding that appellate courts may abate appeals so that trial court can assure appellant has effective assistance of counsel). The trial court is ORDERED to appoint new appellate counsel and to cause the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing documentation of such appointmen t within fifteen days

from the date this order is signed.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 2nd day of April, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial information extracted from SEC
     Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
     statements as of and for the six months ended June 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000883946
<NAME>                        TREEV INC
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,741
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,595
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,251)
<INVENTORY>                                        597
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,429
<PP&E>                                           7,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (6,350)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,878
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,464
<SALES>                                         14,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,034
<CGS>                                            7,869
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,869
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,261
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  46
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,142)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,142)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,142)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.30)



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Richard Kwasnik, Petitioner, *v.*Edward M. Vetrano, as Westchester County Clerk, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Westchester County,

August 31, 1973.

*Robert Kwasnik,*petitioner in person. *Harry Lott, County Attorney,*for respondent.

*373Edward M. O’Gorman, J.

The petitioner herein contends that on July 20, 1973, pursuant to the requirements of section 20 of the Lien Law, he tendered to the County Clerk of Westchester County the appropriate amount of cash to obtain the discharge of a mechanic’s lien filed against property owned by petitioner. The County Clerk has refused to discharge the lien.

The petitioner seeks an order of this court in this CPLR article 78 proceeding directing the County Clerk of the County of Westchester to accept the said cash deposit to discharge the said mechanic’s lien. The County Clerk has based his refusal to do so on the ground that a search of his records revealed that there was then pending an action to foreclose the said mechanic’s lien.

Petitioner contends that he was never served with process in any action to foreclose the said lien, and that there is no such action now pending against him.

Under these circumstances, it would seem that the petitioner has two courses available to him. The first is a motion to dismiss the action now pending against him on the record, on the ground that the summons and complaint were never served upon him, or to ignore the situation at the moment and proceed pursuant to the provisions of section 20 of the Lien Law, which outlines the procedure for making such cash substitution to discharge a mechanic’s lien while an action to foreclose the lien is on thé record.

In my opinion, it is not the responsibility of the County Clerk to look beyond the records of actions pending in his county to determine his responsibilities pursuant to section 20 of the Lien Law.

In view of the foregoing, and the availability of alternative procedures, relief sought by way of mandamus in this article 78 proceeding must be denied.
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF SEPTEMBER 30 , 2014

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ------------------------------------------------------------------

WD76480 Kevin D. Ro berts vs. State of Missouri

WD76624 In Re the Matter of: Makenzie Irene Cullen, A Minor, by her

Father and Next Friend, Troy A. Cullen and Troy A. Cullen,

Individually vs. Laura Shupert

WD76678 Alonzo Darrough vs. State of Missouri

WD76762 Bradley Rob erts vs. State of Missouri

WD76802 Travis L. Knott vs. State of Missouri

WD76979 Derick Miller vs. State of Missouri

WD77026 J.S.N. and A.E.G

- N. vs. B.M.N. and R.T., Co

- Guardian and

Co

- Conservator of B.M.N. and L.T., Co

- Guardian and Co

Conservator of B.M.N.

WD77027 Consolidated with WD77026

WD77116 In Re: Mark P. Reynolds vs. Boone County, Missouri

WD77247 R.K.H. and T.D.H. vs. L.K.P.

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### -------------------------------- -------------------------------- --

WD75816 State of Missouri vs. John J. Smothers

WD76629 State of Missouri vs. Joseph B. Sprofera