alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Julie Elice FONTAINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., DBA First Magnus Financial Corporation, AKA First Magnus Financial Corporation, a division of Bank of America, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56948

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

Julie Elice Fontaine, Pro Se

Kasey Curtis, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Elena O. Gekker, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Bank of America, N.A., The Bank of New York Mellon, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Re-contrust Company, N.A., for Defendants-Appellees

Timothy R. Pomeroy, Aldridge Pite, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Clear Recon Corporation

Ben Mohandesi, Yu Mohandesi LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Timothy R. Pomeroy, Aldridge Pite, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee, for Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing

*257Before: 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).

MEMORANDUM **

Julie Elice Fontaine appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging a Truth in Lending Act claim and other claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc.,*457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)); *Cervantes v. United States,*330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Fontaine’s action because Fontaine failed to include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [she] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); *see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (pleading must do more than offer-labels and conclusions); *McHenry v. Renne,*84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 requires that each averment of a pleading be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for each wrong).

We reject as unsupported by the record Fontaine’s contention that the district court did not provide her with adequate instructions on how to cure the deficiencies in her complaint.

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).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03285]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11:30 a.m., Thursday, February 17, 2022.

PLACE: Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the meeting will be open to the 
public via live webcast only. Visit the agency's homepage 
(www.ncua.gov) and access the provided webcast link.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Board Briefing, Share Insurance Fund Quarterly Report.
    2. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Asset Threshold for Determining the 
Appropriate Supervisory Office.
    3. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Prompt Corrective Action.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, 
Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-03285 Filed 2-11-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
J.L.G., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. J.P., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4195

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 02, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed because of the appellant's failure to satisfy this court's March 7, 2018 fee order.

CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Kyle POTTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-843

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
## DJI Phantom 3 Professional Pre
- Flight Inspection and Safe Operating Standards

Viewz From Above “LLC” John Mynster, Ow ner/Member Drafted 070115Aircraft Pre
- Flight Procedures

1. Conduct visual inspection of Phantom 3 Professional aircraft for broken or missing aircraft parts to include: airframe, propellers, aircraft indicator lights, motors, landing gear, camera and camera gimbal, visual positioning system and antennas. 2. Inspect aircraft flight batteries for obvious cracks and broken parts. 3. Ensure aircraft batteries are fully charged. 4. Calibrate Phantom 3 Professional compass 5. Conduct visual inspection of Phantom 3 flight controller for broken or missing pieces. 6. Ensure controller and visual monitoring device batteries are fully charged. 7. Ensure the visual monitor is positioned securely on the flight controller. 8. Remove Gimbal Clamp for aircraft gimbal. 9. Toggle the flight mode switch on remote controller to (P Mode) 10. Turn “on” the remote controller by pressing the power button for 2 seconds. 11. Insert flight battery into the Phantom 3 Professional and turn on by pressing the power button for 2 seconds. 12. Ensure the LED on your controller is green indicating it’s ready to be used. 13. Turn on the visual monitoring device and the DJ I App. In the DJI App, tap the camera icon and complete the on
-screen checklist.Establish Safe Flight Operation Standards

1. Ensure written permission is obtained by property owners prior to flite operations. 2. Conduct a pre
- mission brief with visual o bserver and establish UAS flight plan and objectives. 3. Contact property owner who has authorized UAS flight operation on their property. Contact adjacent property owners and notify them of impeding UAS flight operations. 3. Set out orange traffic cones o n both sides of the subject property. 4. Set out flight operations flag. 5. Conduct UAS flight operations during daylight hours, flying at 400 feet AGL or below, and observe all property and privacy rights. 6. Visual Safety Observer will monitor airspace for other aircraft and surrounding area for potential hazards. 7. Visual Safety Observer has the right to terminate flight if safety is jeopardized. 8. Power down all equipment and remove flight battery from UAS. 9. After flight operations are completed, notify property owners, secure traffic cones and flight operations flag.
Anthony Demetrious HART v. STATE

CR-16-0255

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE EX REL. Henry RANKIN v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-0373

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation (the“Company”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Donald P. Zima, ChiefFinancial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)           The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Date:  February 17, 2004 |   | /s/  Donald P. Zima                               |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | Donald  P. Zima                                   |
|                          |   | Chief  Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer |

 

1

----
Exhibit 23.1





ACCOUNTANTS CONSENT





The Board of Directors


NaviSite, Inc.:





We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos. 333-89987, 333-67786, 333-67774, 333-56454, 333-56452 and 333-56478 on Form S-8 of NaviSite,
Inc. of our report dated October 28, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of NaviSite, Inc. and subsidiary as of July 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related statements of operations, changes in stockholders equity (deficit) and cash
flows for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended July 31, 2002, and our report dated October 28, 2002 relating to the consolidated financial statement schedule, which reports are included in the July 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form
10-K of NaviSite, Inc.





The reports of KPMG LLP on the aforementioned consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule contain an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has incurred recurring losses from operations since inception and has an accumulated deficit, as well as other factors, that raise substantial doubt about the
entitys ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty





/s/ KPMG LLP





Boston, Massachusetts


October 28, 2002
MICHAEL JOSEPH NILIO

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 0022

Opinion filed March 20, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

-- Original Jurisdiction.

Michael Joseph Nilio, pro se

, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice to presenting the

argument set forth therein in the pending appeal of the order denying petitioner’s

motion for post

- conviction relief. See Noack v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida,

Inc.

, 872 So.2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (where a n adequate remedy can be afforded

on plenary appeal, mandamus relief is unwarranted).

THOMAS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Tavon HILTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6377

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 25, 2017

Decided: August 4, 2017

Tavon Hilton, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tavon Hilton seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 petition 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 Hilton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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*
Thomas Michael FANAKOS and Sandra Lee Fanakos, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2289

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 14, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's orders dated October 24, 2017, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and EMAS and LUCK, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David Antonio PAIZ-CORNEJO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41076 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

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

David Antonio Paiz-Cornejo, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent David Antonio Paiz-Cornejo 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). Paiz-Cornejo 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          178321
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   934295
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     168168
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1289687
<PP&E>                                           65963
<DEPRECIATION>                                   29033
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1326617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           696898
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          8370
<OTHER-SE>                                      621349
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1326617
<SALES>                                        3642948
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3642948
<CGS>                                          2207435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2207435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                699082
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 736431
<INCOME-TAX>                                    290102
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             446329
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    446329
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION
  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
  (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the accompanying  Quarterly Report of Genta  Incorporated  (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended March 31, 2004 (the  Report),  I,
William P. Keane,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

|(3) |  | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(4) |  | The
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the
financial  condition and  results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:                      |  | May 10, 2004           
|-------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                           |  |                        
|/s/
      WILLIAM P. KEANE
|Name:                      |  | WILLIAM P. KEANE       
|Title:                     |  | Chief Financial Officer

29

---
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Michael HART, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2304

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 14, 2017

ORDERED that appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed.
Exhibit








HEI Exhibit 10.14
	
			
	Nonemployee Directors Compensation Schedule
	 

	Effective January 1, 2019
	 

	 
	 
	 

	HEI Board - Annual Cash Retainers (paid quarterly)
	 
	 

	 
	 Effective 1/1/2019
	 

	HEI Chairman of the Board
	$250,000 
	 

	HEI Director
	$75,000 
	 

	HEI Audit Committee Chair
	$20,000 
	 

	HEI Audit Committee Member
	$10,000 
	 

	HEI Compensation Committee Chair
	$20,000 
	 

	HEI Compensation Committee Member
	$10,000 
	 

	HEI NCG Committee Chair
	$20,000 
	 

	HEI NCG Committee Member
	$10,000 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	ASB Board - Annual Cash Retainers (paid quarterly) ***
	 
	 

	ASB Directors who are not also HEI Directors
	$45,000
	 

	ASB Audit Committee Chair
	$15,000
	 

	ASB Audit Committee Member
	$7,500
	 

	ASB Risk Committee Chair
	$20,000
	 

	ASB Risk Committee Member
	$10,000
	 

	 
	 
	 

	HECO Board - Annual Cash Retainers (paid quarterly) ***
	 
	 

	HECO Directors who are not also HEI Directors
	$45,000 
	 

	HECO Audit Committee Chair
	$15,000 
	 

	HECO Audit Committee Member
	$7,500 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Extra Meeting Fees (per additional meeting) 
	 

	HEI Board Member
	$1,500
	(A)

	HEI Audit Committee Member
	$1,500
	(B)

	HEI Compensation Committee Member
	$1,500
	(C)

	HEI NCG Committee Member
	$1,500
	(C)

	HECO/ASB Board Member
	$1,000
	(A)

	ASB Audit Committee Member
	$1,000
	(B)

	HECO Audit Committee Member
	$1,000
	(C)

	ASB Risk Committee Member
	$1,000
	(C)

	(A) Earned per extra meeting, after attending 8 meetings during the calendar year
	 
	 

	(B) Earned per extra meeting, after attending 10 meetings during the calendar year
	 

	(C) Earned per extra meeting, after attending 6 meetings during the calendar year
	 

	 
	 
	 

	HEI, ASB and HECO Boards - Equity Compensation ***
	 

	HEI Director - annual grant (paid on last day of June)
	shares valued at $100K
	 

	HECO and ASB only Directors - annual grant (last day of June)
	shares valued at $55K
	 

	New Directors (one-time grant during first year of service -- prorated from start date to annual meeting)
	portion of annual grant, prorated  on start date
	 

	 
	 
	 

	*** For ASB and HECO directors who are also HEI directors, ASB and HECO pay
	 

	 a pro rata portion of each such director's total compensation (cash and equity value).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6246 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a provider of a report 

to the CyberTipline related to online sexual exploitation of children to 

preserve the contents of such report for one year, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 6, 2023 

Mrs. MCBATH (for herself, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, Mr. IVEY, Mr. VAN

DREW, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, and Mrs. WAGNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a provider 

of a report to the CyberTipline related to online sexual 

exploitation of children to preserve the contents of such 

report for one year, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eliminate Network 

5 Distribution of Child Exploitation Act’’ or the ‘‘END 

6 Child Exploitation Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6246 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF REPORTS TO CYBERTIPLINE RE2 LATED TO ONLINE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF 

3 CHILDREN. 

4 Section 2258A(h) of title 18, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘90 days’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘one year’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(5) EXTENSION OF PRESERVATION.—A pro10 vider of a report to the CyberTipline may voluntarily 

11 preserve the contents provided in the report (includ12 ing any comingled content described in paragraph 

13 (2)) for longer than one year after the submission to 

14 the CyberTipline for the purpose of reducing the 

15 proliferation of online child sexual exploitation or 

16 preventing the online sexual exploitation of chil17 dren.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Marshall E. MIKELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jan ESTEP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15602

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

FILED OCTOBER 4, 2017

Marshall Edward Mikels, Mount Shasta, CA, pro se.

Kaelee M. Gifford, Gwen Heather Ribar, Esquire, Jonathan M. Zak, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, Anthony Leung, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

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 *

Marshall E. Mikels appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion for relief from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and other claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. *Casey v. Albertson’s Inc.,*362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by construing Mikels’s motion to vacate as a Rule 60(b) motion and denying it because Mikels failed to file the motion “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); *Ashford v. Steuart,*657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981) (setting forth factors to determine whether a Rule 60(b) motion was filed within a “reasonable time”).

Appellees’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 50) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

*

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