alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rupam SALUJA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADVANCE AMERICA CASH ADVANCE CENTERS OF NEVADA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-15709

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 13, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed March 15, 2017

Kirk Kennedy, Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Jill Garcia, Counsel, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: FERNANDEZ and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and STATON,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Josephine L. Staton, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

The district court did not err by granting defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did not file her discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) until more than two years after her termination—well beyond the 300-day statute of limitations. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); *Laquaglia v. Rio Hotel & Casino, Inc.,*186 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff argued below, and argues here, that she is entitled to equitable tolling because she was not aware of the filing deadline, she was without counsel, and the EEOC initially accepted her charge before ruling it untimely. None of these grounds, however, provides a basis for equitably tolling the statute of limitations. *See Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs,*498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct, 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990); *Ghazali v. Moran,*46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiffs request to amend her complaint. Plaintiff has offered no indication of what additional facts she would allege in an amended complaint to support her equitable tolling argument. *See Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.,*143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Lance WINDISCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-486

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Brandon FRAZIER v. Maranda C. FRAZIER

2160195

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 2, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Marvin FRANKLIN v. STATE

CR-16-0763

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Sup. Ct.
Jimmy Lee BOLDEN v. STATE

CR-16-0009

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### IN RE: Amr MOHSEN, Debtor. Amr Mohsen, Appellant, v. Carol Wu, Appellee.

No. 15-60071

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

Amr Mohsen, Pro Se

Elizabeth Berke-Dreyfuss, Attorney, Mark S. Bostick, Esquire, Attorney, Wen-del, Rosen, Black *&*Dean LLP, Oakland, CA, for Appellee

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 **

Chapter 7 debtor Amr Mohsen appeals pro se from the' Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing Mohsen’s appeal for lack of prosecution. We review de novo our own jurisdiction. *Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot Springs),*339 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

The bankruptcy court properly certified its March 25, 2014 order as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) (“Rule 54(b)”). *See*Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7054(a) (applying Rule 54(b) to adversary proceedings); *Ariz. State Carpenters Pension Tr. Fund v. Miller,*938 F.2d 1038, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 1991) (court of appeals must independently determine that the judgment is final). We lack jurisdiction because Mohsen did not file a timely notice of appeal after the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. *See*Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1), (b)(1) (notice of appeal must be filed within 14 days after entry of the order being appealed; time to file an appeal runs from entry of the order disposing of a timely post-judgment tolling motion); 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (an appeal to the BAP must be taken within the time provided by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002); *Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick),*13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s order.” (citations omitted)).

*295Mohsen’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Kenjay Albert BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Justin ANDREWS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-7973

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 11, 2017

Decided: June 1, 2017

Kenjay Albert Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

*106Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenjay Albert Brown, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Brown v. Andrews,*No. 5:15-hc-02200-F (E.D.N.C, Dec. 9, 2015). 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*
null

790.37787
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7784

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN L. STODDARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-93-437-DKC, CA-96-429-HNM) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin L. Stoddard, Appellant Pro Se. William Warren Hamel, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kevin L. Stoddard appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinionand find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Stoddard , Nos. CR93-437-DKC; CA-96-429-HNM (D. Md. Oct. 24, 1997); see also Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Donna SEALY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-226

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

**SHAWN HARRIS, Appellant** 

**v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**  **PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE,**  **Appellee :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **66 MAP 2014 Appeal from the Order of the**  **Commonwealth Court at No. 274 MD 2014, dated 5/22/14 (exited 5/23/14),**  **dismissing the Appellant’s Petition for Review** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 19th day of November, 2014, the direct appeal is QUASHED.** 

**The matter is treated as a Petition for Allowance of A ppeal, see McMahon v. Pa. Bd. of**  **Probation & Parole, 470 A.2d 1337 (Pa. 1983), and i s DENIED.**
Exhibit











Neeraj Gupta 


Re: Promotion to EVP, Engineering 


Dear Neeraj, 


Thank you for your continued commitment and contributions to Castlight. I am pleased to inform you that you have been promoted to the position of Executive Vice President, Engineering reporting to me, effective September 17, 2018. Upon the effective date, your annual base salary will increase to $360,000, less applicable withholdings. This represents an increase of 5.8%. This increase will appear in your September 30, 2018 paycheck. Your annual target bonus remains 50% of your base salary. 


In recognition of your promotion, you have been awarded 50,000 restricted stock units, to acquire shares of Company Class B Common Stock ("RSUs") under its 2014 Equity Incentive Plan (Plan). This grant vests in equal quarterly installments over a period of four years. Your first vesting will be November 16, 2018. Further details will be provided when the grant is issued to you. 


In your new role, you will be a Section 16 Officer. Also, with this promotion, you will be eligible for the EVP tier benefits as detailed in the Castlight Health Executive Severance Agreement. 


Please sign this letter accepting and return the signed letter to Christian Reed. 


Thank you again for your efforts at Castlight. We truly appreciate your dedication to the one team on a mission making things happen. 


Congratulations! 




/s/ John Doyle
John Doyle 




Accepted: 


	
					
	/s/ Neeraj Gupta
	 
	2/22/2019
	 
	 

	Neeraj Gupta
	 
	Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RESORTS
INTERNATIONAL HOTEL FINANCING, INC.'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO
INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                $4,244
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                $131,005
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           $4,244
<BONDS>                                       $126,761<F1>
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  $131,005
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             $18,071
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NET OF UNAMORTIZED DISCOUNTS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
OMB Control No. 2060 - 0336 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL OPERATING PERMIT, 40 CFR PART 71 **FORM PTE -**  **POTENTIAL TO EMIT SUMMARY**

INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this form once for the facility. You may find it helpful to complete form **EMISS** for each emissions unit before completing

this form. For each emissions unit with emissions that count towards applicability, list the emissions unit ID and the PTE f or the air pollutants listed below. If there are other air pollutants not listed below for which the source is a major source, provide attachments naming the air pollutant and showing calculation of the total for that pollutant. Round values to the nearest tenth of a ton . Add all values together in each column and enter the total in the space provided at the bottom of the table. Also report these totals in section **J** of form **GIS** .

Emissions Unit ID Regulated Air Pollutants and Pollutants for which the Source is Major NOx (tons/yr) VOC

(tons/yr) SO2

(tons/yr) PM10

(tons/yr) CO

(tons/yr) Lead

(tons/yr) HAP

(tons/yr) 

### Tank 60 0.0512 4.98 E- 05 

### Tank 300 0.0287 2.71E- 05 

### Tank 302 0.1894 1.84E- 04 

### Tank 304 0.05 67 5.45E- 05 

### Tank 306 0.0993 9.59E- 05 

### Tank 308 0.2218 2. 15E- 04 

### Tank 310 0.2569 2. 48E- 04 

### Tank 312 0.3517 3.42E- 04 

### Tank 314 0.2117 2.05 E- 04 

### Bulk Solids Storage 2.56 0.0188 

### Fugitive Equipment Leaks 0.0738 0.00 01 

### Boiler 1 4.51 0.248 0.027 0.343 3.79 0.00002 0.0037 Emergency Generator #1 0.441 0.035 0.029 0.031 0.095 0.00 71 Emergency Generator #2 0.441 0.035 0.029 0.031 0.095 0.0071TOTALS 74. 99 15.63 66. 25 12. 62 30.85 0. 0968 21.4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          20,739
<SECURITIES>                                    54,252
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,253
<PP&E>                                           5,399
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,273)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,840
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           222
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,686
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   826
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,771)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,771)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,771)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.62)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone Anthony HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6278

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Tyrone Anthony Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arlen Jagels, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Anthony Harrison seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motions for default judgment in his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. *135P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Harrison seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*
JPM OUTLOOK ONE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and Grande Park Limited Partnership, Appellants, v. FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION and HTG Hammock Ridge II, LLC, Appellees.

No. 1D17-3499

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Antonio ATWATER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-3174

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EX PARTE M.A.M.J.

(In re: M.A.M.J. v. M.P.W.)

2160726

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE  CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND THE CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS  OF OPERATIONS  FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 FOUND ON
PAGES 3-5 OF THE  COMPANY'S  FORM  10-QSB AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               1,345,740         
<SECURITIES>                                           520,334         
<RECEIVABLES>                                       3,274,044          
<ALLOWANCES>                                          (136,280)        
<INVENTORY>                                                  0         
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     5,522,874         
<PP&E>                                               1,437,250         
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (855,336)        
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       8,033,989         
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                3,452,474         
<BONDS>                                                      0         
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0         
<PREFERRED>                                                  0         
<COMMON>                                               884,289         
<OTHER-SE>                                          18,900,290         
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         8,033,989         
<SALES>                                              1,020,481         
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     6,435,979         
<CGS>                                                  868,277         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        3,950,213         
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     2,777,510         
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0         
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     124,450         
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (328,306)        
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (53,000)        
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (275,306)        
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0         
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0         
<CHANGES>                                                    0         
<NET-INCOME>                                          (275,306)        
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (.03)        
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (.03)        
                                                   


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2



        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul H. Schmitt, Chief Financial Officer of M-Wave, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

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





Dated:  August 12, 2003                      /s/ Paul H. Schmitt
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Paul H. Schmitt
                                             Chief Financial Officer

                                       30