alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7835 

KARIM JEHAD KAHLIL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LUIS HAYES; BETH ARTHUR,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00824-JCC)

Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 5, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karim Jehad KAHLIL, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Karim Jehad Kahlil appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to

state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Kahlil v. Hayes,

Case No. 1:06-cv-00824 (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
Sylvester SAFFORD v. STATE

CR-16-0363

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Shun L. SHORTRIDGE v. Latricia A. SHORTRIDGE

2160143

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Bambang SUGIHARTO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-70920

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner

*232David Nicholas Harling, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

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).

MEMORANDUM **

Bambang Sugiharto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sugiharto’s motion to reopen because he filed it more than five years after the BIA’s final order, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the motion failed to establish materially changed country conditions in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the limitations imposed on filing a motion to reopen, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), *see Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
## Before the United States Department of**Transport~~on,y** '!

### ~ /:•. 

# 50 Washington, DC May 15, 2012

Essential Air Service at HURON, SOUTH DAKOTA Docket OST-2000-7138 under49 U.S.C. 41731 et.seq.

This document contains Great LakesAviation, Ltd.'s response to Order Requesting Proposals 2012-4-27. Great LakesAviation, Ltd. is pleased to submit this proposal to provide essential airtransportation to Huron, South Dakota. Great LakesAviation, Ltd. has morethan 25 years ofhistoryof providing reliable Essential Air Service. This proposed service is being offered with local service marketed and priced utilizing the Great Lakes (ZK) Reservations system which includes customerticket purchasing capability on both Great Lakes web site and on all majorWeb Booking Engines (Orbitz, Travelocity, Expedia, etc.) Great Lakeswill be utilizing interline e-ticketing and baggage agreementswith American Airlines, Delta Airlines, FrontierAirlines, United Airlines and U.S. Airways. All ofwhich will offer passengers maxium access to the domestic and international airtransportation system atthe Minneapolis hub. All proposals contemplate the use of 19 seat Beechcraft 1900D airliner equipment. Questions and comments maybe referred to: Michael 

### 0. Matthews Chief Financial Officer Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 1022 Airport Parkway Cheyenne, WY 82001 (307) 432-7000

# Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. Annual Compensation Requirements for Essential Air Service at 

### Huron, South Dakota to Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) Two Round Trips - 81900

(at 98 percentcompletion) Departures: Block Hours: Revenue Passenger Miles: Available Seat Miles: Operating Revenues: Passenger: 6,000 psgrs at $102.17 $613,020

Other: (at 0.62% ofpassenger revenue) $3,801 Total Operating Revenues: Operating Expenses: Direct: Aircraft and Hull Insurance Fuel and Oil Flying Operations Maintenance $182,855 $862,754 $266,563 $385,110 Total Direct Expenses: Total Indirect Expenses: Total Operating Expenses: Operating Loss Profit Element (5.0% ofTotal Operating Expenses) Annual Compensation Requirement: Representative Schedule *** [HON] Huron, South Dakota ***

-------------------- D E P A R T U R E S -------------------- FLT TO OPT ARR EQP 7171 MSP 7:00 8:10 BE1 7316 MSP 13:06 14:16 BE1

-------------------- A R R IV A L S -------------------- FLT FROM OPT ARR EQP 7321 MSP 11:55 13:14 BE1 7268 MSP 19:55 21:14 BE1

No Upline Scheduling Restrictions FREQ 12345 1234567

FREQ 123456 123457 1,227 1,522 1,494,000 5,804,937

$616,821

$1,697,283

$727,641 $2,424,924 ($1.808, 103) $121,246 $1,929,349
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STEPHANIE CORREA,

Appellant,

v.

PATRICIA HONEY and EAST COAST BOBCAT SERVICES, INC. d/b/a

EAST COAST MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT,

Appellees.

No. 4D22-35

[December 15, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE17-

013038.

Stephanie, Correa, Deerfield Beach, pro se.

Eric J. Israel and David B. Israel of Israel, Israel & Associates, P.A., 

Davie, for appellee East Coast Bobcat Services, Inc. d/b/a East Coast 

Maintenance and Management.

No appearance for appellee Patricia Honey.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID MATLEAN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

RONALD P. PIERINI; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-16558

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00063-LRHVPC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

David Matlean appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of a traffic stop. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Luchtel v. Hagemann, 623 F.3d 975, 978 (9th

Cir. 2010) (summary judgment); Cholla Ready Mix., Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969,

FILED

OCT 07 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-16558

973 (9th Cir. 2004) (Eleventh Amendment immunity). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Matlean’s claims against the State of

Nevada under the Eleventh Amendment. See O’Connor v. Nevada, 686 F.2d 749,

750 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal suit against a

state without its consent).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Matlean’s claims

against the remaining defendants because Matlean failed to raise a genuine dispute

of material fact as to whether defendants violated his constitutional rights by

allegedly failing to obtain certain bonds required by Nevada law. See Villegas v.

City of Gilroy, 484 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2007) (under § 1983, the plaintiff

must show that he has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution); see

also Nev. Rev. Stat. § 282.163 (“A blanket fidelity bond or blanket position bond

may be furnished at county expense for all elected officers except the county

treasurer.”). 

Matlean’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT  (as amended and restated)
 THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT rd
 W I T N E S S E T H:
     WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 Section 1 Employment; Term
 Employment
 Term




---



##### 



Section 2 Position; Duties; Responsibilities
        Section 3 Compensation and Employee Benefits
 Base Salary
  2




---



##### 



Incentive Compensation
 Employee Benefits
 Other Policies (
 Acknowledgment by the Executive
 Taxes
  3




---



##### 



Section 4. Termination of Employment.
  Termination by the Company for Cause
    nolo contendere
     Termination by the Company without Cause
  4




---



##### 



Termination by the Executive for Good Reason
   Termination by the Executive without Good Reason
 Termination in the Event of Death or Disability
 Termination by the Executive in the Event of a Change in Control
       5




---



##### 



Continuing Obligations
 Limited Right to Cure
 By the Executive
 By the Company
  6




---



##### 



Section 5 Payment Upon Termination of Employment
 Termination by the Company for Cause or by the Executive without Good Reason
  Termination by the Company Without Cause or by the Executive for Good Reason
  Termination Upon Death of the Executive
  7




---



##### 



Termination Upon a Disability
  Termination Upon No Extension of Term
   8




---



##### 



Termination by the Executive following a Change in Control
  COBRA Coverage
 Certain Other Matters
   9




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 Exhibit
A
      10




---



##### 



Section 6 Non-Disclosure; Return of Confidential Information and Other
Property
 Confidential Information; Non-Disclosure
      Return of Confidential Information and Other Property
  11




---



##### 



Section 7 Non-Competition
          12




---



##### 



Section 8 Non-Solicitation
         13




---



##### 



Section 9 Intellectual Property
 Section 10 Periods of Noncompliance and Reasonableness of Periods
 Section 11 Certain Remedies
 Section 12 Miscellaneous
 Binding Effect; Assignment
  14




---



##### 



Waiver
 Amendment
 Headings
 Severability
 Counterparts
 Construction
 Voluntary Execution
 Entire Agreement
  15




---



##### 



Certain References
 Governing Law
  Notices
 If to the Company:
    
    c/o Chromcraft Revington, Inc.
Attention: Chairman
1330 Win Hentschel Boulevard, Suite 250
West Lafayette, Indiana 47906
Telephone: (765) 807-2640
Facsimile: (765) 807-2660
Electronic mail: rbutler@chromrev.comIf to the Executive:
    
    William B. Massengill
At such mailing address, telephone number,
facsimile number and electronic mail address
as may be in the Companys records
   Attorneys Fees
  16




---



##### 



Recitals
 Definition of Person
 Non-disparagement
 Cooperation
 Amended and Restated Agreement
  [Signature Page Follows This Page]
  17




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 /s/ William B. MassengillWilliam B. MassengillCHROMCRAFT REVINGTON, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Ronald H. Butler

Ronald H. ButlerChairman and Chief Executive Officer
  18
Sylvia HUBBARD, an individual, and Minority Alliance Advocating Community Awareness and Action, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, Petitioners, v. BIG BEND CARES, INC., a Florida nonprofit corporation, and Robert Renzi, an individual, Respondents.

No. 1D17-5427

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DENIED.
#### Kenneth BOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lt. CLARK, Lt. grcc; O’Donnell, c/o grcc; C/O Mills, c/o grcc, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7770

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2017

Decided: June 6, 2017

Kenneth Bond, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Bond appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment on his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012), dismissing his complaint, and denying his request for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Bond v. Clark,*No. 1:16-cv-00138-TSE-MSN, 2016 WL 6681167 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 10, 2016 *&*entered Nov. 11, 2016; Dec. 14, 2016). We deny Bond’s motion to appoint counsel. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwayne Gauze, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 749]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), rendered May 8, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court correctly refused to charge manslaughter in the first degree as a lesser-included offense of murder in the second degree, as there was no reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that the defendant intended to cause serious physical injury rather than death *(see*CPL 300.50 [1]; *People v Butler,*84 NY2d 627 [1994]; *cf. People v Martin,*59 NY2d 704 [1983]). The defendant smashed an 18-month-old child’s head against the pavement multiple times in a parking lot, and the child eventually died of complications resulting from blunt trauma to his head:-This evidence and the other circumstances surrounding the incident support the trial court’s conclusion that the submission of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter in the first degree to the jury was not warranted *(see e.g. People v Spears,*271 AD2d 464 [2000]; *People v Kelly,*221 AD2d 661 [1995]; *People v Evans,*192 AD2d 671 [1993]).

The trial court responded meaningfully to the jury’s request for a readback of the testimony of the People’s forensic psychiatrist. It was well within the trial court’s discretion to ask the jury if it had heard enough testimony after the conclusion of a readback of the witness’s direct testimony *(see People v Gadson,*161 AD2d 795 [1990]). Furthermore, the record does not demonstrate that the trial court expressed an unwillingness to abide by the jury’s readback request *(see People v Gadson, supra).*

While the prosecutor should have obtained a ruling from the *539trial court regarding the admissibility of testimony from the People’s forensic psychiatrist on rebuttal regarding the defendant’s uncharged crimes before the evidence was introduced into the case *(see People v Ventimiglia, 52*NY2d 350 [1981]), the error was harmless as this evidence was admissible *(see People v Santarelli,*49 NY2d 241 [1980]), and because the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

February 7, 2013

The Honorable Randy C. Huffman

Secretary, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Air Quality

601 57th Street, SE 

Charleston, WV 25304-2943

Dear Secretary Huffman:

On December 11, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a 

revision to the West Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Department of 

Environmental Protection. This SIP revision requests redesignations of the Charleston 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area to attainment and approval of the Area’s maintenance plans. 

EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is 

reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Rose Quinto, Office 

of Air Quality Planning, at (215) 814-2182. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. 

 Sincerely, 

/s/

Diana Esher, Director

 Air Protection Division 

cc: John Benedict, WVDEP

 Fred Durham, WVDEP
Amilcar MATIAS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Daniel JUNIOR, etc., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2643

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 08, 2017

Based upon the State's commendable confession of error, the trial court is directed to conduct a hearing on the matter of the petitioner's pretrial release pursuant to sections 907.041 and 903.046, Fla. Stat. (2017). The trial court shall conduct the hearing this afternoon, if possible. In light of the trial court's anticipated compliance with this order, we refrain from issuing the writ.

Petition granted.

LAGOA, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

I, Gary C. Parks, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Immtech International,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

   Date:  August 14, 2003

      /s/ Gary C. Parks
      --------------------
         Gary C. Parks
         Chief Financial Officer
STATE of Louisiana v. Jacqulyne Lynette SCOTT

NO. 2017-KO-1148

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PREET M. SINGH,

Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-2668

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0752-15-0629-I-1.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

CASSADY TOLES, Kern, Noda, Devine & Segal, San 

Francisco, CA, argued for petitioner.

MARK E. PORADA, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., 

ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD; MORGAN E. REHRIG, Office of 

General Counsel, United States Postal Service, Washington, DC.

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, REYNA and 

TARANTO, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 May 9, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Clerk of Court