alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gerald J. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOPEZ, Sgt.; Diaz, Lt., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17463

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

*580Gerald J. Wilson, Pro Se

Kelli Hammond, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General,- Sacramento, CA, Suzanne Antley, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the Attorney General (San Diego), San Diego, CA, 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 **

California state prisoner Gerald J. Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs arising from a bunk assignment. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s evidentiary rulings. *Harper v. City of Los Angeles,*533 F.3d 1010, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of Wilson’s inmate witness because the witness declared that he lacked personal knowledge of the events at issue. *See*Fed. R. Evid. 701.

The district court did not abuse-its discretion by admitting defendants’ exhibits into evidence because they were relevant to Wilson’s allegations that he had fallen from an upper bunk, and the medical records were admissible under the hearsay exception for records of a regularly conducted activity. *See*Fed. R. Evid. 401, 803(6). We reject as unsupported by the record Wilson’s contention that the district court did not rule on his motion to exclude deféndants’ exhibits and trial brief.

Wilson’s arguments regarding Dr. Barnett’s expert testimony were not raised before the district court and are waived. *See Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrocchi,*673 F.3d 1105, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Failure to raise a *[Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*509 U.S. 579, 597, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)] challenge at trial causes a party to waive the right to raise objections to the substance of expert testimony post-trial.”); *Price v. Kramer,*200 F.3d 1237, 1252 (9th Cir. 2000) (failure to object to evidence at trial on the specific basis raised on appeal results in waiver).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Wilson’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
BELL SPORTS CORP.
                           EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE:
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                    (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Three months ended
                                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                                         September 28,           September 30,
                                                                  1996                    1995
                                                  ---------------------------------------------
<S>                                                           <C>                     <C>
Net income (loss)                                             $      3                $(5,372)

Net effect of convertible subordinated                             566                     607
debentures (using the if-converted method)

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

Adjusted net income (loss)                                    $    569                $(4,765)
                                                  =============================================

Weighted average number of common                               13,754                  14,131
and common equivalent shares
outstanding - primary

Additional shares assuming conversion of                         1,595                   1,595
convertible subordinated debentures
                                                  ---------------------------------------------

Adjusted average shares outstanding for                         15,349                  15,726
fully diluted computation
                                                  =============================================

Per share amount - fully diluted                              $   0.04                $ (0.30)
                                                  =============================================
</TABLE>
                                       17
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      Exhibit 24


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


     We, the undersigned directors of Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") hereby appoint E. Thomas Arington and Timothy J. Holt or either of
them, with full power of substitution, our true and lawful attorneys and agents,
to do any and all acts and things in our names and on our behalf as directors of
the Company which said attorneys and agents, or either of them, may deem
necessary or advisable to enable the Company to comply with the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any rules, regulations or requirements of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any rules, regulations or
requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in connection with the
filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1997 including, without limitation, signing for us, or any of us,
in our names as directors of the Company, such Form 10-K and any and all
amendments thereto, and we hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorneys and
agents, or either of them, shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the rules and regulations thereunder, this Power of Attorney has
been signed below by the following persons in the capacities indicated as of the
31st day of March, 1998.




                                  Chairman of the Board
--------------------------
E. Thomas Arington         



/s/ George W. Baughman            Director
--------------------------
George W. Baughman 



                                  Director
--------------------------
Derek G. Layton



/s/ Stanley L. Morgan             Director
--------------------------
Stanley L. Morgan



/s/ S. Sundararaman               Director
--------------------------
S. Sundararaman
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7626** 

JEFFREY A. PLEASANT , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WENDELL W. PIXLEY, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:16

- cv - 00416

- REP

- RCY )

Submitted : March 30 , 2017 Decided: April 4, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (201 2) petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion , and dismissing it as successive
. W e dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Pleasant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil actions in which the federal government is not a party, p arties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “ [T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 15, 2016 . The notice of appeal was filed on Novembe r 10, 2016 . Although the district court erroneously informed Pleasant that he had 60 days to appeal, the ju risdictional nature of the filing requirement and Pleasant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprive this court of jurisdiction
. See id. at 2 14 ( “ [T] his Court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements
. ” ). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the3 facts and legal contention s are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Yves SAINTYL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-437

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joaquin Flores, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 897]

Kane, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (McGrath, J.), rendered October 1, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with various drug-related crimes arising from his possession of heroin in the City of Troy, Rensselaer County. He pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of the charges and waived his right to appeal. He was thereafter sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a prison term of 3 to 9 years to run consecutive to a 2 *789to 6 year prison term imposed by the Albany County Court in connection with other charges.

On appeal, defendant does not challenge the legality of the sentence, but argues that it is excessive because it was made to run consecutive, instead of concurrent, to the sentence imposed by the Albany County Court. Defendant, however, is precluded from raising this claim inasmuch as it is encompassed by his waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Howard,*1 AD3d 718, 719 [2003]; *People v Camp,*302 AD2d 629, 630 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 593 [2003]). Defendant’s claim that his counsel was ineffective is also encompassed by his waiver of the right to appeal inasmuch as it does not bear on the voluntariness of the plea *(see People v Bier,*307 AD2d 649, 650 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 618 [2003]; *People v Watkins,*304 AD2d 987, 987-988 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 588 [2003]).

Peters, J.P., Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Geologic Sequestration 

Meeting Documentation Interagency Meeting – Discuss Interagency Comments, February 24, 2010 

Date Staff Contact Information 

(Name, email, phone #) 

Name of 

Organization 

(Attach list of 

all attendees 

names and 

emails if 

possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting 

requirements, etc.)

Written Comments 

Provided? 

Did they also 

submit to Docket? 

Date sent to EPACCD 

2/24 Suzie Kocchi, 

Kocchi.suzanne@epa.gov

202-343-9387 

Agencies 

attending: 

EPA 

OMB 

DOE 

A conference call was held to discuss interagency 

comments on the geologic sequestration proposal 

 

Yes 1/11/10
E.C., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-924

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 11, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kayla H. McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SUAREZ and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We grant E.C.'s motion for rehearing, withdraw our opinion of March 7, 2018, and replace it with the following opinion.

E.C., a juvenile, was charged with burglary of an unoccupied structure and criminal mischief after having been caught at a closed school construction site. After an adjudicatory hearing, E.C. was found guilty of the lesser included offense of trespass and absolved of the criminal mischief charge. To have trespassed, as charged, E.C. had to have entered a "structure." § 810.08(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). A "structure" is defined as a building with "a roof over it." § 810.011(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). The facts in evidence indicate that E.C. entered the site at an early enough *518phase of construction that a building with a roof on it did not then exist. *See**I.L. v. State*, 3D17-1108 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 21, 2018).

Accordingly, we reverse E.C.'s conviction and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



(18 U.S.C. 1350)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Elephant Talk CommunicationsCorp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge and belief, that:



(1)           The
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|Date: April 25, 2013 | /s/ Mark Nije                                                                   | 
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                     | Mark Nije, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) | 



This certification shall not be deemed
“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange
Act.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 4, 2023

NO. 03-22-00699-CV

Philip Emiabata and Sylvia Emiabata, Appellants

v.

Shirley Borgmann, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, SMITH, AND JONES

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on October 20, 2022. Having reviewed 

the record, the Court holds that appellants have not prosecuted their appeal and did not 

comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for 

want of prosecution. Because appellants are indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of 

costs is made.
J.R., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2654

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Henry Clay SMITH III v. STATE

CR-16-0650

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# Gazzetta ufficiale C 182A/14 g

| | ISSN 1977-0944 |
| --- | --- |
| Gazzetta ufficiale
  dell’Unione europea | C 182A |
| | |
| Edizione in lingua italiana | Comunicazioni e informazioni | 57° anno14 giugno 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0944

Gazzetta ufficiale

dell’Unione europea

C 182A

Edizione in lingua italiana

Comunicazioni e informazioni

57° anno14 giugno 2014

---

| Numero d'informazione | Sommario | pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avvisi |
| | PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI |
| | Ufficio europeo di selezione del personale (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 182A/01 | Avviso di annullamento | 1 |

Numero d'informazione

Sommario

pagina

V   Avvisi

PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI

Ufficio europeo di selezione del personale (EPSO)

2014/C 182A/01

Avviso di annullamento

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 182A/02 | Cronistoria delle GU C A Concorsi | 2 |

2014/C 182A/02

Cronistoria delle GU C A Concorsi

2

| IT | |
| --- | --- |

IT

---

V Avvisi

PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI

Ufficio europeo di selezione del personale (EPSO)

| 14.6.2014 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea | CA 182/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2014

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea

CA 182/1

---

AVVISO DI ANNULLAMENTO

2014/C 182 A/01

I concorsi generali

| — | EPSO/AST/127/13 — Correttori di bozze (AST 3) di lingua greca (EL)

  e |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/127/13 — Correttori di bozze (AST 3) di lingua greca (EL)

e

| — | EPSO/AST/128/13 — Correttori di bozze (AST 3) di lingua portoghese (PT), |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/128/13 — Correttori di bozze (AST 3) di lingua portoghese (PT),

i cui bandi sono stati pubblicati nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea
   (1), sono annullati.

---

(1)  GU C 131 A dell’8.5.2013, pag. 1.

---

14.6.2014

| 14.6.2014 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea | CA 182/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea

CA 182/2

---

CRONISTORIA DELLE GU C A CONCORSI

2014/C 182 A/02

Si riporta qui di seguito l'elenco delle GU C A pubblicate nell'anno in corso.

Salvo indicazione contraria, le GU sono pubblicate in tutte le versioni linguistiche.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6119 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6119

To require the Secretary of State to notify Congress when the security 
  clearances of certain senior members of the Department of State are 
             suspended or revoked, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 30, 2023

    Mr. Mast (for himself, Mr. McCaul, and Mr. Issa) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of State to notify Congress when the security 
  clearances of certain senior members of the Department of State are 
             suspended or revoked, 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 ``State Department Security 
Notification Act''.

SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION OF SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF CLEARANCES.

    (a) In General.--With respect to each covered official whose 
security clearance is suspended or revoked, the Secretary of State 
shall--
            (1) submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
        notification, not later than 15 days after the suspension or 
        revocation of such clearance, that identifies the individual 
        whose clearance was so suspended or revoked; and
            (2) brief the appropriate congressional committees not 
        later than 30 days after such suspension or revocation on--
                    (A) the documentation notifying the individual of 
                the suspension or revocation of the clearance; and
                    (B) the present employment status and conditions of 
                such individual.
    (b) Covered Official Defined.--For purposes of the notification 
requirement under subsection (a), the term ``covered official'' means 
any of the following:
            (1) Any individual holding a position at or higher than the 
        level of Assistant Secretary or its equivalent in the 
        Department of State.
            (2) Any individual holding the position of chief of mission 
        or principal officer at any diplomatic or consular post.
            (3) Any individual holding the rank and status of an 
        ambassador or otherwise holding a position that reports 
        directly to the Secretary of State, such as a special envoy.
    (c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--For purposes of 
this section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 12/1/14

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with Tennessee Association of Manufacturers

SUMMARY: 

Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to the Tennessee Association of 

Manufacturers in Chattanooga, TN, on November 19, 2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Carol Kemker/EPA R4

External Stakeholders

Approximately 20 audience participants

ATTACHMENT