alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael J. O’CONNELL, Relator; ex rel. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17528

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 22, 2016

Michael J. O’Connell, Law Office, Pro Se, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michael J. O’Connell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismiss*966ing his qui tam action alleging violations of the False Claims Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.,*813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed O’Connell’s action because the Regents of the University of California are a state entity and the False Claims Act does not provide a private right of action against state entities. *See Donald v. Univ. of Cal. Bd. of Regents,*329 F.3d 1040, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Because a state entity is not identified as a ‘person’ for purposes of § 3729, the relators can claim no statutory basis under § 3730(b)(1) to bring suit against the Regents.”); *see also Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens,*529 U.S. 765, 787-88, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000) (“We hold that a private individual has standing to bring suit in federal court on 'behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, but that the False Claims Act does not subject a State (or state agency) to liability in such actions.”).

Contrary to O’Connell’s contention, the district court did not err in dismissing O’Connell’s action prior to the issuance of a summons. *See Franklin v. Or., State Welfare Div.,*662 F.2d 1337, 1343 (9th Cir. 1981).

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-Appellant, v. David W. STEWART; Tara F. Stewart; Richard K. Plato; Tina M. Plato, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-20596

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/14/2016

Bethany Buck Hauser, Esq., Bridget Maria Rowan, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, David Gray Adams, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant

George William Connelly, Esq., Jessica Nicole Cory, Peter Andrew Lowy, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams *&*Aughtry, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Ap-pellees

Before DAVIS, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. As Appellees point out in the petition for panel rehearing, the opinion mistakenly referenced Ap-pellees’ tax returns in Part III and not the Odyssey partnership return. Part III of the opinion should have stated that *Odyssey’s*amended Form 1065 did not substan*938tially comply with the regulatory requirements of an AAR. *See Samueli v. C.I.R.,*132 T.C. 336, 346 (2009) (holding that an amended return did not substantially comply with the requirements of an AAR because, in part, it “did not include all information required to be provided on a Form 8082”). The rest of the opinion’s analysis, including its reliance on *Rigas v. United States,*486 Fed.Appx. 491 (5th Cir. 2012), remains unchanged.
#### In the Matter of First Central Insurance Company, Respondent. Aurello Malave, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 141]

*495In a liquidation proceeding pursuant to Insurance Law article 74, Aurelio Malave appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated October 11, 2002, which granted the motion of the Superintendent of Insurance, as liquidator of First Central Insurance Company, to confirm the referee’s report disallowing his claim and denied his cross motion to disaffirm the referee’s report.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Aurelio Malave, the claimant, challenges a notice of disclaimer of coverage sent by First Central Insurance Company (hereinafter FCIC) to, among others, its insured with a copy to him, who was the injured party, in accordance with Insurance Law § 3420 (d). FCIC first received notice of the accident approximately *41⁄2*years after the alleged injury occurred, and approximately two years after the claimant commenced a personal injury action against the insured, in which the insured was declared in default. The notice of accident, sent by the insured’s broker, was late as a matter of law *(see Deso v London & Lancashire Indem. Co. of Am.,*3 NY2d 127, 130 [1957]; *Matter of DeLeon v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.,*243 AD2d 475, 476 [1997]; *Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v Timm,*237 AD2d 586, 587 [1997]; *Town Bd. of Town of Poughkeepsie v Continental Ins. Co.,*213 AD2d 475, 477 [1995]; *Platsky v Government Empls. Ins. Co.,*181 AD2d 764, 765 [1992]).

Contrary to the claimant’s assertions, the notice the claimant provided to the insured’s insurance broker was not notice to the insurer *(see Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp.,*31 NY2d 436, 442 n 3 [1972]; *Serravillo v Sterling Ins. Co.,*261 AD2d 384, 385 [1999]; *Incorporated Vil. of Pleasantville v Calvert Ins. Co.,*204 AD2d 689 [1994]). The claimant did not exercise his right pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (3) to provide independent notification to FCIC. Consequently, the disclaimer letter, which stated untimely notice by the insured as the ground for disclaimer, without any reference to untimely notice by the claimant, was proper *(see Travelers Indem. Co. v Worthy,*281 AD2d 411, 412 [2001]; *Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v Harris,*193 F Supp 2d 674, 680 [2002]).

The claimant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of Mezabay International Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Thum May Yin,
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;
and








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





Dated
this 15th day of April, 2010








THUM MAY
YIN


Thum
May Yin


Chief Financial
Officer
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- ANSOL, Inc. Under ContractNo. NOO 178-05-D-4180 APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60160

Kevin J. Slattum, Esq.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Los Angeles, CA E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Joseph D. Keller, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Chantilly, VA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The appeal docketed as ASBCANo. 60160 duplicates the earlier docketed appeal ASBCA No. 60153. Appellant apparently submitted an original and a copy ofthe notice of appeal under separate cover. The Recorder's office docketed both filings. The latter appeal, ASBCANo. 60160, is administratively dismissed from the Board's docket. Dated: 24 September 2015

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60160, Appeal ofANSOL, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40797

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jose Santos Torres-Mata, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:21-CR-395-1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Santos 

Torres-Mata has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Torres-Mata has not filed a response. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 6, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40797 Document: 00516270055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2022
No. 21-40797

2

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.

Case: 21-40797 Document: 00516270055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2022
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30032

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE—-Office of the US Attorney, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brian K. Gallik, Esquire, Attorney, Gal-lik & Bremer, P.C., Bozeman, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Vincent Martinez appeals from the district court’s order granting in part his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 *604U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez contends that he is entitled to a further sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. In light of the nature of Martinez’s offense and the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing Martinez’s sentence to the high-end of' the amended Guidelines range. *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(i); *United States v. Dunn,*728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Moreover, contrary to Martinez’s contention, the district court adequately addressed his arguments for a further reduction and explained its sentencing decision. *See United States v. Trujillo,*713 F.3d 1003, 1009, 1011 (9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
Jason ALSTON v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY

2016-CT-01347-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 28, 2018 Closed: June 7, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
PFS PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Kristina M. Wittliff, and Doug W. Kaderly, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-437

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 25, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PERIODIC REPORT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, the undersigned, Richard N. Snyder, Chief Executive Officer ofForgent Networks, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       Thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended January 31,2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ RICHARD N. SNYDER   |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Richard N. Snyder       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | March 13, 2009     |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Forgent Networks, Inc. and will be retained by ForgentNetworks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.  The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,865
<INVENTORY>                                     35,731
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,133
<PP&E>                                          69,054
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,148
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            57
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,622
<SALES>                                        166,364
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               166,364
<CGS>                                          124,856
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  147,867
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 988
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,509
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,004
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,505
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,505
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.77
        

</TABLE>
Mark DUNIVAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-142

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2

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


         In reference to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ending June 30, 2002 (the "Report"), as filed today by 3CI Complete Compliance
Corporation (the "Company") with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, I,
John R. Weaver, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, certify as follows,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002):

                (a) 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

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


                                       /s/ John R. Weaver
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       John R. Weaver
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       3CI Complete Compliance Corporation

                                       August 14, 2002
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














In
      connection with the Report of Capital
      Corp of the West (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September
      30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Report"), I, Thomas T. Hawker, President and Chief Executive 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) or15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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














Date:  February
                4,
                2008
            By:  /s/  Thomas
                T. HawkerThomas
                T.
                HawkerPresident
                andChief
                Executive
                Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6340 

To direct the Under Secretary for Health of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs to provide certain information to Department of Veterans Affairs 

medical center staff and homelessness service providers regarding the 

Coordinated Entry program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2023 

Mr. HARDER of California (for himself and Mr. DONALDS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Under Secretary for Health of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs to provide certain information to 

Department of Veterans Affairs medical center staff and 

homelessness service providers regarding the Coordinated 

Entry program, 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 ‘‘Improving Housing 

5 Outcomes for Veterans Act of 2023’’. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6340 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS SHARING OF 

2 INFORMATION RELATED TO DEPARTMENT OF 

3 HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CO4 ORDINATED ENTRY PROGRAM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary for Health 

6 of the Department of Veterans Affairs shall— 

7 (1) provide to Department of Veterans Affairs 

8 medical center staff and homelessness service pro9 viders the information described in subsection (b); 

10 and 

11 (2) ensure that such information, and other re12 sources the Under Secretary determines are appro13 priate, are accessible to Department of Veterans Af14 fairs medical center staff and homelessness service 

15 providers. 

16 (b) INFORMATION DESCRIBED.—The information de17 scribed in this subsection is information related to best 

18 practices with respect to the collaboration between Depart19 ment of Veterans Affairs medical centers, homelessness 

20 service providers, and other local partners (including local 

21 Department of Housing and Urban Development offices 

22 or public housing agencies) on activities under the Coordi23 nated Entry program of the Department of Housing and 

24 Urban Development, including making referrals and shar25 ing data, as the Under Secretary determines appropriate. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6340 IH

1 SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMUNICA2 TION WITH EMPLOYEES RESPONSIBLE FOR 

3 HOMELESSNESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. 

4 The Under Secretary for Health of the Department 

5 of Veterans Affairs shall clearly communicate with em6 ployees of the Department of Veterans Affairs whose re7 sponsibilities are related to homelessness assistance pro8 grams regarding— 

9 (1) the measurement of performance by the 

10 Homeless Program Office of the Department; and 

11 (2) how to obtain and provide feedback about 

12 performance measures. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Morris C. Smith, Appellant. Charles W. Froessel, Individually and as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 17, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 290 N. Y. 693.)
#### TEUTUSI of Fita Fita, Plaintiff v. FAGA of Vailoatai, Defendant

No. 7-1936

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [MataiName: “Satele”]

March 19, 1937

*544Faga was represented in person and by counsel Ilaoa.

Teutusi was represented in person and by counsel Suitonu.

DECISION

This is the second time within ten years that this Court has had the duty of naming a Satele. The first was in the case of Moso’oi and Faga and this is the case of Faga and Teutusi, the brother of the last Satele — Moso’oi.

By the wish of the Samoan people expressed in two different Fonos this Court may take into consideration only the herditary rights of the parties and must base its decisions solely upon the determination of the question— which of them has the better hereditary right to the name.

Accordingly all testimony bearing on such questions as which of the contestants is best qualified to be the matai of the family by reason of his character, abilities and past services to former matais has been ruled out as irrelevant.

*545The Court has also ruled that all actual previous holders of the matai name are assumed to have held the name legally. Therefore that no testimony would be received attacking the validity of their titles.

Upon the uncontradicted testimony received in this case, the Court is bound to find:

1. That Faga, the proponent, is the own son of Satele Pili and the great grandson through his grandmother Lueina of Satele Laauletaupona.

2. Teutusi, the objector, is the brother of the last Satele Moso’oi, the son of Satele Uga, the grandson of Satele Moso’oi, and the great grandson of Satele Moasigiatu.

Upon this evidence, who has the better hereditary right to the name?

In the case of Moso’oi and Faga when the Court gave the name to Moso’oi, it was bound by the same rule of heredity as in this case, and in that case the decision of the Court was in favor of Moso’oi. How then can the Court reverse itself in this case, when the same Faga is a party and Teutusi is the half brother of Moso’oi by the same father Uga?

That Teutusi is the brother of Satele Moso’oi is compelling is [sic] only because Teutusi is the son of Uga as Moso’oi was. Therefore if Moso’oi was held by the Court to have a better hereditary right to the name Satele than Faga, why has not Teutusi the son of the same father not a better right than Faga ?

If it is contended that both Faga and Teutusi are own sons of a Satele then the answer must be that while Faga is descended through his father Pili in the female line from his great grandfather a Satele, Teutusi is descended through his father Uga through the male line from both his grandfather and greatgrandfather, all Sateles.

Under these circumstances and upon the evidence in the case the judgment of the Court must be in favor of *546Teutusi. The name Satele is accordingly awarded to Teutusi. Costs of $25.00 to be paid by Faga.