alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cindy HUNG, deceased; Li Ching Chu, individually and as successor in interest to Cindy K. Hung; Robert Ching Liang Hung, individually and as successors to Cindy Hung, deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TRIBAL TECHNOLOGIES; Glenborough 400 ECR, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-17432

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*603Submitted March 13, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed March 16, 2017

Lynda Hupg, Counsel, Lynda Hung, Daly City, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Kasey C. Townsend, Attorney, Murchison *&*Cumming, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Tribal Technologies

J. Kevin Moore, Attorney, Poole *&*Shaf-fery, LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, David Sean Poole, Attorney, Poole & Shaffery, LLP, Valencia, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Glenborough 400 ECR, LLC

Before: WALLACE, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s judgement entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) in favor of Defendant Glenborough 400 ECR, LLC. We review the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs’ claims against Glenborough are barred by the doctrine of res judicata *de novo, see Bravo v. City of Santa Maria,*665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011), and now affirm.

“[I]n this diversity case where only substantive state law is at issue we apply the preclusion law that the [state court which issued the first judgment] would apply.” *Giles v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.,*494 F.3d 865, 884 (9th Cir. 2007). Because the first judgment in favor of Glenborough was issued by a California court, we apply California preclusion law. That law requires three elements to be met for preclusion to apply:

> (1) A claim or issue raised in the present action is identical to a claim or issue litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding.

*People v. Barragan,*32 Cal.4th 236, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 83 P.3d 480, 492 (2004) (citation omitted).

All three elements are satisfied here. First, the claims Plaintiffs raised against Glenborough in the prior California action are identical to the claims they brought in this case. Second, the California Superior Court entered a final judgment on the merits against Plaintiffs, and that judgment was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. Third, the same Plaintiffs brought both actions.1

AFFIRMED.

**

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

1

. Plaintiffs’ motion to take judicial notice of certain documents is denied.
Each Office is independently Owned And Operated.

SUPPORT CENTER

18756 STONE OAK PARKWAY, SUITE 301

SAN ANTONIO, TX 78258

BUS (210) 483-7000

Michael J. Cameron

800 Independence Ave,., S W

Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Michael J. Cameron,

Thank you for taking the time to review our petition for expemtion. 

Your letter requested the following information:

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., fixed-wing, rotocraft, lighter-than-air) for 

the proposed UAS operation. The descriptions should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manuals.

Listed below you will find the detailed answers to the requested information:

 Describe the aircraft make: DJI 

 Describe the aircraft model: Phantom 3 Professional

 Describe the aircraft type: Quad rotorcraft

 Describe the weight: 1280g (including battery and propellers)

 Describe the maximum payload weight: approximately 420 g 

Please, let me know if there is anymore information that is needed for this petition.

Sincerely,

Lupe Robles

Corporate Photographer and Videographer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Isidro TORRES-MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40410 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016.

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

Isidro Torres-Montoya, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Isidro Torres-Montoya 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). Torres-Montoya 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 nonfrivolous 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.
T.G. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160452

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
---

Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors Lightbridge Corporation 1600
Tysons Boulevard, Suite 550 McLean, VA 22102

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statement No. 333-135842 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 21,
2014, with respect to the financial statements of Lightbridge Corporation (the
Company), appearing in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2013.



/s/ANDERSON BRADSHAW PLLC

Salt Lake City, Utah

March 21, 2014

---
MARKET TAMPA INVESTMENTS, LLC, as Trustee, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CO., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2580

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           11669
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4452
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                            3323
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2574
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  102244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2551
<OTHER-SE>                                       26053
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    102244
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4214
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (313)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (114)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (199)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (199)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
Randall OTEY v. Daniel LEWIS

2160331

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.4







      
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS    
      
Robert M. Burks, Jr.
Michel C. Cadieux 
Thomas L. Deitrich   
Deloris R. Duquette    
Robert H.A. Farrow     
Thomas S. Glanville
Sarah E. Hlavinka
Joan S. Hooper
Frank M. Jaehnert 
Jerome J. Lande
Timothy M. Leyden 
Charles E. McAtee    
Philip C. Mezey    
Sharelynn F. Moore
Daniel S. Pelino
Simon W. Pontin
Carl W. Porter    
Gary E. Pruitt    
Diana D. Tremblay
Lynda L. Ziegler
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6254 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6254

  To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a 
    review on the Public Buildings Service, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 7, 2023

Mr. Van Orden introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a 
    review on the Public Buildings Service, 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 ``Public Buildings Accountability Act 
of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review of the 
Public Buildings Service and submit to the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report containing the 
results of such review, including--
            (1) a review of the administration and management of all 
        Public Buildings Service real estate programs and activities, 
        including--
                    (A) a review and accounting of the number of 
                employees and contract workers, including functions and 
                the sources of funding (for example building 
                operations, reimbursable work, project-specific 
                funding) categorized by region and organizational, 
                management, and oversight structure within the Public 
                Building Service, including identification of 
                components, programs, and reporting structures;
                    (B) an accounting of in-person attendance by 
                employee category and function;
                    (C) an analysis, trends, and comparisons of 
                staffing numbers and associated costs and other 
                administrative costs over the 10 years preceding the 
                review; and
                    (D) an analysis of the effectiveness of 
                organizational structure, management, and oversight in 
                carrying out the mission of the Public Buildings 
                Service; and
            (2) a review of the building operations account of the 
        Federal Buildings Fund established by section 592 of title 40, 
        United States Code, including activities and costs associated 
        with conferences, training, and travel and transportation.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 4 

ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 

61 FORSYTH STREET 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: File Formats not supported in FDMS for Federal Register Document EPA-R04-

0AR-2013-0147; Approval and Promulgation oflmplementation Plans; Atlanta, Georgia 1997 

8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reasonable Further Progress Plan 

FROM: Sara Waterson $'.J 

Regulatory Development Section 

TO: File and Docket EPA-R04-0AR-2013-0147 

This memorandum is to document the following files from Georgia Environmental Protection 

Division are unable to be loaded onto FDMS due to file format. These files can be viewed at the 

Region 4 Office. Please see the Docket section of the Federal Register notice for information on 

viewing the hard docket. 

02 and 08 network database 

20-county _ RFP _targets_ and_ emissions _rev2 

20-county _ RFP _targets_ and_ emissions _rev3 

exhibit_7 _mobile_ files_ ozone _rfp 

senior_ early _progress 

Internet Address (URL) • http//www epa gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Pnnted w1th Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Mimmum 30% Postconsumer)
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1540 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1540

 To provide for joint reports by relevant Federal agencies to Congress 
       regarding incidents of terrorism, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 2021

Mr. Aguilar (for himself, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Payne, Miss Rice 
 of New York, Mrs. Luria, Mr. Correa, Mrs. Napolitano, Mrs. Fletcher, 
   Mr. Lieu, Mr. Panetta, Mrs. Hayes, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Vargas, Mr. 
  Moulton, Ms. Blunt Rochester, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Carson, Mr. 
 Cooper, Mr. Levin of California, Mr. Kahele, Ms. Meng, Mr. Langevin, 
 and Ms. Scanlon) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for joint reports by relevant Federal agencies to Congress 
       regarding incidents of terrorism, 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 ``Reporting Efficiently to Proper 
Officials in Response to Terrorism Act of 2021'' or the ``REPORT Act''.

SEC. 2. DUTY TO REPORT.

    (a) Duty Imposed.--Whenever an incident of terrorism occurs in the 
United States, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Director of 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to submit to Congress, not later 
than upon completion of the investigation relating to such incident by 
the primary United States Government agency conducting such 
investigation, an unclassified report (which may be accompanied by a 
classified annex) concerning such incident.
    (b) Content of Reports.--A report under this section shall 
contain--
            (1) a statement of the facts of the incident of terrorism 
        that is the subject of such report, as known at the time of 
        such report; and
            (2) any recommendations for changes in practices or law, 
        consistent with the Constitution, with particular attention to 
        changes that could help prevent future incidents of terrorism.
    (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``incident of 
terrorism'' means an event declared by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation to be an act of terrorism.
                                 <all>
```
HEMPSTEAD MARINE, INC., Appellant, v. R AND I SHIPPING LINE, LLC, etc., Appellee.

Nos. 3D17-1161 & 3D17-1155

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018

Boldt Law Firm and Mario R. Giommoni, Ryan C. Tyler, Cody L. Frank and Kimberly L. Boldt (Boca Raton); Hoffman & Hoffman and John D. Hoffman, Miami, for appellant.

Xander Law Group, P.A., and Wayne R. Atkins, Miami, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**St. Joe Corp. v. McIver*, 875 So.2d 375, 381 (Fla. 2004) ("Generally, where the parties acknowledge creation of a contract and the disagreement concerns their varying understandings about certain terms, such questions are properly submitted to a jury."); *Pan American Bancshares, Inc. v. Trask*, 278 So.2d 313, 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (when parties to an oral contract dispute their "understanding as to certain terms," the question is "properly submitted to the jury.").
Mark WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3068

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 14, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7838

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWARD ROBINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-98-12, CA-99-130-5)

Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 18, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Gerald Nazzaro, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has

not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 2003

WL 431659 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662), at *10; 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c) (2000). We also deny Robinson’s motion to hold the case

in abeyance. 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

               [LETTERHEAD OF WOLFPACK CORPORATION APPEARS HERE]





                                                              Exhibit No. 99.1


                                 April 12, 2002




Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC

Arthur Andersen LLP has represented to equitel, inc./Wolfpack Corporation that
its audit of the consolidated financial statements of equitel, inc./Wolfpack
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and for the year then ended
was subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards and that there was
appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit, availability
of national office consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates
of Arthur Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

                                       WOLFPACK CORPORATION


                                       By: /s/ Mary Walker
                                           --------------------------------
                                           Name: Mary Walker
                                                ---------------------------
                                          Title: President
                                                ---------------------------


                                      By: /s/ E. Eugene Whitmire
                                         --------------------------------
                                      Name:  E. Eugene Whitmire
                                           ------------------------------
                                      Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                            -----------------------------
SERVED: JANUARY 15, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF DESHAUN 

### L. BLACKETT FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO
. FAA-2013-0850

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013CE090030) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Richard C
. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1



### Deshaun L. 

### Blackett, Respondent 

### 10671 HamiltonPlaza Apt. 402 Oma.I,.a, NE 68114-2078 TEL: (NONE PROVIDED) FAX: (NONE PROVIDED) I ONE COPY



### Mark G. Camacho, Complainant's Counsel 

### Office ofRegional Counsel, Central Region, ACE-7 Federal Aviation Administration 901 Locust Street, DOT Building, Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 TEL: 816-329-3765 FAX: 816-329-3771 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0850 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
Kent PONTOON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4319

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED **

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

|  | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | The                information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                the                Company. |
|--|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Larry C. Shumate                      |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
| Larry                C. Shumate, Chief Executive Officer |
| June                5, 2008                              |

----
Lawrence Eddie HINKLE, Jr. v. STATE

CR-16-0318

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017 Reh. denied June 16, 2017

Affirmed.