alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cherie PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HSL PROPERTIES INCORPORATED; HSL Asset Management LLC, doing business as Canyon Oaks Apartment Homes, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15251

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 20, 2017

Cherie Phillips, Pro Se

Erline Phillips, Pro Se

Matthew D. Koglmeier, Esquire, Ko-glmeier Smith PLC, Mesa, AZ, 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 **

Cherie Phillips appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment order granting defendants’ motion to strike Phillips’s response to their motion for attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to strike documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. *Islamic Shura Council of S. Cal. v. FBI,*757 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking portions of Phillips’s response to defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees because the stricken statements were harassing and unnecessary to a determination of attorney’s fees. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1). Contrary to Phillips’s contention, the district court retained jurisdiction to rule on defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and related matters. *See Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co.,*718 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1983) (the district court retains jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees after the decision on the merits had been filed).

To the extent that Phillips is attempting to appeal the dismissal of her action, we lack jurisdiction to consider this issue because Phillips failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the judgment. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (in a civil case, the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from); *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 209, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (“This Court has long held that the taking of an appeal within the prescribed time is mandatory and jurisdictional.” (citation omitted)).

We reject as without merit Phillips’s contention that the district court was biased.

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

Defendants’ request, set forth in the answering brief, to strike Phillips’s opening *600brief for noncompliance with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a), is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. .
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Dwayne OLIVER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10045

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 2, 2017 *

Filed March 06, 2017

Justin Lee, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US-SAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kenneth Dwayne Oliver, FCI—Federal Correctional Institution—Victorville, Ade-lanto, CA, Defendant-Appellant

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges,

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth Dwayne Oliver appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 130-month sentence for distribution of cocaine base, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, and possession with intent to distribute heroin, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Oliver’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Oliver the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. He has filed a pro se brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Oliver has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

We remand to the district court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect that the conviction on count 6 is for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and the conviction on count 7 is for possession with intent to distribute heroin. *See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to correct the judgment).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED; Remanded to correct the judgment.

**

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

REGION Ill 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

The Honorable Benjamin H. Grumbles 

Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment 

1800 Washington Boulevard 

Baltimore, Maryland 21230 

Dear Secretary Grumbles: 

JUL 2 9 2015 

On July 15,2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision 

to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP), SIP revision #15-03, from the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE). The SIP revision consists of a negative declaration for 

the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings Control Techniques Guidelines 

(CTG). EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and 

is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

If members of your staffhave any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Irene Shandruk, 

at (215) 814-2166. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. 

cc: George S. Aburn, Director, MDE 

Brian Hug, MDE 

Diana Esher, Director 

Air Protection Division 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
Michael GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC d/b/a LA Fitness, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-83

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1998
<CASH>                                       1,595,000
<SECURITIES>                                13,359,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,231,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,069,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,720,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               521,000
<PP&E>                                      18,072,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,328,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              68,890,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,859,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       120,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,234,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                68,890,000
<SALES>                                     33,699,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            33,699,000
<CGS>                                       24,395,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,455,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               160,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,438,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   963,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,475,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,475,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rory Hines, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 164]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered November 29, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in making its *Sandoval*ruling *(see People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371, 374-375 [1974]). The trial court balanced the probative value of the evidence and its possible prejudice to the defendant, and considered factors such as whether the defendant was a necessary witness, the similarity of the prior crime, and the time that had elapsed between the incidents before reaching its determination to permit certain testimony concerning a prior conviction and the underlying facts if the defendant chose to testify *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203, 208 [2002]; *People v Mattiace,*77 NY2d 269, 274-276 [1990]; *People v Bennette,*56 NY2d 142 [1982]; *People v Murray,*122 AD2d 81 [1986]).

The defendant’s contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Harris,*98 NY2d 452, 492 n 18 [2002]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 20-21 [1995]). In any event, the prosecutor’s comments were within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, were a fair response to the defense counsel’s summation *(see People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396 [1981]; *People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976]), or were harmless under the circumstances of this case.

*581The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence *(see People v Gray, supra*at 20-21). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that it was the defendant, and not another person, who shot the victim in the chest at close range, killing him. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/ Robert I. ChenDate: March 16, 2007
    Robert I. Chen
President, Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0 645 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 052 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 23, 2009

d1116 

# Order

November 23, 2009

139106

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139106 COA: 289264 Ingham CC: 05-000286-FH TIMOTHY PAUL BAY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 27, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1998, 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-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          18,241
<SECURITIES>                                    22,022
<RECEIVABLES>                                      869
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,955
<PP&E>                                           7,674
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,157)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,183
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           233
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,718
<SALES>                                          3,277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,999
<CGS>                                              331
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,359
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,531)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,531)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,531)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.91)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 624 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 624

To amend the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 to authorize compensation for 
     victims of illicit fentanyl poisoning, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2023

Mr. Carter of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 to authorize compensation for 
     victims of illicit fentanyl poisoning, 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 ``Recognizing Victims of Illicit 
Fentanyl Poisoning Act''.

SEC. 2. RECOGNIZING VICTIMS OF ILLICIT FENTANYL POISONING.

    Section 1403(d) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (34 U.S.C. 
20102) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and domestic violence'' 
        and inserting ``domestic violence, and illicit fentanyl 
        poisoning resulting in death'';
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (3) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting 
        ``; and''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) the term `illicit fentanyl' means fentanyl and any 
        analogue thereof that is manufactured, distributed, or 
        dispensed, or possessed with intent to manufacture, distribute, 
        or dispense, in violation of section 401, 406, or 416 of the 
        Controlled Substances Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 59 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 59

To prohibit the sale of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum 
          Reserve to certain entities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

 Mrs. Bice (for herself, Mr. Waltz, Mr. Posey, Ms. Salazar, Mr. Baird, 
 Mr. Allen, and Mr. Valadao) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the sale of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum 
          Reserve to certain entities, 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 ``Save America's Valuable Energy Act'' 
or the ``SAVE Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST SELLING SPR PETROLEUM PRODUCTS TO CERTAIN 
              ENTITIES.

    (a) Prohibition.--The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended 
by inserting after section 169 (42 U.S.C. 6247b) the following:

``SEC. 170. PROHIBITION ON SALES TO CERTAIN ENTITIES.

    ``The Secretary shall prohibit the sale of petroleum products drawn 
down from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, under any provision of law, 
to any entity headquartered in--
            ``(1) a country listed in table 1 to paragraph (d)(1) under 
        section 126.1 of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, as in 
        effect on the date of enactment of this section; or
            ``(2) Russia.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Drawdown and sale of petroleum products.--Section 
        161(a) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
        6241(a)) is amended by inserting ``and section 170'' before the 
        period at the end.
            (2) Table of contents.--The table of contents for the 
        Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended by inserting 
        after the item relating to section 169 the following:

``Sec. 170. Prohibition on sales to certain entities.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Cardtrend International Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas CL Wong, 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:

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

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

By: /s/ Thomas CL WongThomas CL Wong(Principal Financial Officer)April 15th, 2008


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.































---
Jacqueline Shaw JOHNSON, Appellant, v. SPACE COAST CREDIT UNION, FOR FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF AMERICA, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1293

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Gregory Bernard HOOTEN v. STATE

CR-16-0276

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 03, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 03, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24I0170. ROBERT K. MYERS, M.D. et al v. DEBORAH CAPRON et al.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

STCV1900293