alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICKY RIVERA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DAVE DAVEY, Warden; M. 

ROBICHEAUX; ED CRIANE; S.M.V. 

CHAPOLEUN, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-15853 

D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01817-AWI-BAM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Ricky Rivera appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 action alleging violation of his free-exercise rights. We have jurisdiction 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 28 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-15853

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 

1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (legal rulings on exhaustion); Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 

1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Rivera’s action because it was clear 

from the face of Rivera’s operative complaint that Rivera failed to exhaust 

available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 

U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies . . . means 

using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency 

addresses the issues on the merits).” (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted)); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1169 (where a failure to exhaust is clear from the 

face of the complaint, a district court may dismiss for failure to state a claim).

The motion to file a late reply brief is denied as unnecessary. The reply 

brief has been filed and considered.

AFFIRMED.
Jimmie C. CAMPBELL v. Joseph R. CAMPBELL and Marilyn Campbell

2160285

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Fred Grano, Appellant.

Argued April 15, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*772
      *Harry G. Anderson*for appellant.

*Fred J. Munder, District Attorney (Harry C. Brenner*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgments reversed and a new trial ordered, on the ground that the admitted error is too serious to be disregarded under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
- 1

- Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

s ascha.vanderbellen@ delta .com

October 23 , 201 4

via email and regulations.gov

Brett Kruger

Acting Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc.

For ATL

- MTY Service

Docket s DOT

- OST

- 2014

- 0182

Dear Mr. Kruger :

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all of the carrier s on the service list to the above

referenced application and t here are no objec tions. In these circumstances, we urge that the

application be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Brian Hedberg, DOT

Bob Finamore , DOT

info@airlineinfo.com
#### Robert Magaw, Respondent, v. William D. Field et al., Appellants.

(Argued September 23, 1871;

decided January term, 1872.)

Action of ejectment. The question presented was as to the construction of the following clause of the will of John S. Gerritsen:

*“*I give, devise and bequeath to the children of Yan Brund Magaw, late of Gravesend, deceased, all that certain piece or parcel of land * * * to have and to hold the same to the said children, their heirs and assigns forever.” The will was-executed in 1833; the testator died in 1864. At the time of the execution of the will there were seven children of Yan Brund Magaw living. All had died but two before the testator’s death. The two living claimed the whole estate, and brought this action against the children of the deceased children. Held, that the devise was to a class, and only the two surviving children took under it.

*669
      *H. B. Hubba/rd*for the appellants.

*P. S. GrooTee*for the respondent.

Leonard and Earl, CC., read for affirmance.

All concur, Lott, Ch. C., not sitting. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
##### 



Exhibit 99.8 Deloitte & Touche LLPBCE Place181 Bay StreetSuite 1400Toronto ON M5J 2V1CanadaTel: 416-601-6150(DELOITTE LOGO)
    
    www.deloitte.ca
 INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS CONSENT We consent to the use of our reports dated February 9, 2005, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 40-F of Brookfield Properties Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2004. (DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP) Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
February 9, 2005 COMMENTS BY INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ON CANADA  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REPORTING DIFFERENCES The standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) require the
addition of an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when there are changes in
accounting principles that have a material effect on the comparability of the Companys financial
statements, such as the changes described in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements. Our
report to the shareholders, dated February 9, 2005, is expressed in accordance with Canadian
reporting standards which do not require a reference to such changes in accounting principles in
the auditors report when the change is properly accounted for and adequately disclosed in the
financial statements. As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company changed its method of
accounting for the recognition of revenue for operating leases and its method of depreciating
certain assets to conform to the new Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook
recommendations Section 1100, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Also, as discussed in
Note 2, the Company adopted CICA Handbook recommendation Section 3063, Impairment of Long-Lived
Assets in connection with the recognition, measurement and disclosure of the impairment of
long-lived assets; CICA Handbook recommendation Section 3110, Asset Retirement Obligations in
connection with the recognition and remeasurement of obligations associated with the retirement of
a tangible long-lived asset; Accounting Standards Board Accounting Guideline 13, Hedging
Relationships in connection with the designation of hedging relationships for the purposes of
applying hedge accounting; and CICA Emerging Issues Committee Abstract 140, Accounting for
Operating Leases Acquired in Either an Asset Acquisition or Business Combination in connection
with the allocation of the purchase price of operating leases to intangible assets. Our report to
the shareholders of the Company dated February 9, 2005 is expressed in accordance with Canadian
reporting standards, which do not require a reference to such changes in accounting principles in
the auditors report when the changes are properly accounted for and adequately disclosed in the
financial statements. (DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP) Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
February 9, 2005
Appeal Nos. 2019AP820

2019AP821

Cir. Ct. Nos. 2018TP91

2018TP92

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT IV

NO. 2019AP820

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO K. T.,

A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18:

DANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

 PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

 V.

J. R.,

 RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

FILED

January 15, 2020

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NO. 2019AP821

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO J. T.,

A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18:

DANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

 PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

 V.

J. R.,

 RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ERRATA SHEET
Nos. 2019AP820

2019AP821

2

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 1688

Madison, WI 53701-1688

Jenny Andrews, Sarah Motiff

Court of Appeals

Ten East Doty Street, Suite 700

Madison, WI 53703

Court of Appeals District I

330 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 1020

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-3161

Court of Appeals District II

2727 N. Grandview Blvd.

Waukesha, WI 53188-1672

Court of Appeals District III

2100 Stewart Ave., Suite 310

Wausau, WI 54401

Court of Appeals District IV

Ten East Doty Street, Suite 700

Madison, WI 53703

Hon. Everett Mitchell

215 S. Hamilton St.

Madison, WI 53703

Colleen Marion

Assistant State Public Defender

P.O. Box 7862

Madison, WI 53707-7862

Eve M. Dorman

Dane County Corporation Counsel

210 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., #419

Madison, WI 53703-3345

Evelyn J. Mazack

P.O. Box 930244

Verona, WI 53593

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that corrections were made to the abovecaptioned opinion (footnote 11 on page 23 has been removed, and the publication 

recommendation on page 25 has been changed), which was released on 

November 27, 2019. A corrected electronic version in its entirety is available on 

the court's website at www.wicourts.gov. 
Nos. 2019AP820

2019AP821

3
#### METRO MOBILE CTS OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, INC., ET AL *v.*DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL ET AL. METRO MOBILE CTS OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, INC., ET AL. *v.*DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL ET AL.

(SC 15609)

Callahan, C. J., and Berdon, Norcott, Katz and Peters, Js.

Argued September 24

officially released November 4, 1997

*236
      *Mark F. Kohler,*assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was *Richard Blumenthal,*attorney general, for the appellant (named defendant).

*David W. Bogan,*with whom were *Dina S. Fisher*and, on the brief, *Steven R. Humphrey,*for the appellees (named plaintiff et al.).

*Peter J. Tyrrell,*with whom, on the brief, were *Jean L. Kiddoo,*pro hac vice, and *Robert V. Zener,*pro hac vice, for the appellee (plaintiff Springwich Cellular Limited Partnership).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

This consolidated appeal arises out of decisions of the named defendant, the department of public utility control (department), ordering intrastate cellular mobile communications providers to participate in the funding of the department’s Universal Service and Lifeline Programs.1 The plaintiffs, cellular mobile telecommunications providers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, appealed from those decisions to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes §§ 16-35 and 4-183 and § 16-1-17 (c) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. The trial court reversed both decisions, and the department appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court. The appeal was transferred to this *237court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).

Subsequent to the trial court’s rendering of its judgment, General Statutes § 16-247e, which was the basis for the department’s orders that are at issue in this appeal, was amended by the legislature. See Public Acts 1997, No. 97-121, § 1. The department subsequently initiated a new proceeding to address issues related to the Universal Service and Lifeline Programs. At oral argument before this court, the department indicated that it will not seek contributions from the plaintiffs pursuant to the challenged orders. This court therefore can afford the plaintiffs no relief. “[I]t is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) *Ayala*v. *Smith,*236 Conn. 89, 93, 671 A.2d 345 (1996). The plaintiffs’ appeal therefore must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

See Department of Public Utility Control, Exploration of Universal Service Policy Issues, Docket No. 94-07-08 (March 31, 1995), and Department of Public Utility Control, Exploration of Lifeline Program Policy Issues, Docket No. 94-07-09 (May 3, 1995).
STATE of Louisiana v. Roosevelt D. LEE

NO. 2017-KO-1498

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                     REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON
                         FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE


To the Board of Directors of
Voyager.net, Inc.:

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our report
dated February 10, 2000 (except for Note 18 for which the date is March 12,
2000) of Voyager.net, Inc. also included an audit of the financial statement
schedule listed in Item 14(a)(2) herein. In our opinion, the financial statement
schedule presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth
therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial
statements.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Grand Rapids, Michigan
February 10, 2000
Exhibit 1011



		

			Exhibit 10.11

		


		

			 

		




		
			 
		

		
			ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc.
		

		
			Schedule of Signatories* to a Director Indemnification Agreement
		

		
			 
		

		
			Mark E. Tomkins
		

		
			John B. Corness 
		

		
			Laurie Ann Goldman
		

		
			Naren K. Gursahaney 
		

		
			Steven B. Hochhauser 
		

		
			Stephen J. Sedita
		

		
			Nikhil M. Varty
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			*   Peter L. Cella, William C. Cobb, Richard P. Fox, Jerri L. DeVard, Robert J. Gillette, Thomas C. Tiller, Jr.,  John Krenicki, Jr.,  David H. Wasserman, Darren M. Friedman, Sarah Kim and Curtis D. Hecht each previously signed a Director Indemnification Agreement, but they are no longer serving on our Board of Directors.
		

		
			The form of Director Indemnification Agreement was filed with the SEC on June 19, 2014 as Exhibit 10.71 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 of ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6246 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6246

   To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a provider of a 
  report to the CyberTipline related to online sexual exploitation of 
children to preserve the contents of such report for one year, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 6, 2023

Mrs. McBath (for herself, Mr. Moore of Alabama, Mr. Ivey, Mr. Van Drew, 
 Ms. Garcia of Texas, and Mrs. Wagner) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a provider of a 
  report to the CyberTipline related to online sexual exploitation of 
children to preserve the contents of such report for one year, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Eliminate Network Distribution of 
Child Exploitation Act'' or the ``END Child Exploitation Act''.

SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF REPORTS TO CYBERTIPLINE RELATED TO ONLINE 
              SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN.

    Section 2258A(h) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``90 days'' and inserting 
        ``one year''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) Extension of preservation.--A provider of a report to 
        the CyberTipline may voluntarily preserve the contents provided 
        in the report (including any comingled content described in 
        paragraph (2)) for longer than one year after the submission to 
        the CyberTipline for the purpose of reducing the proliferation 
        of online child sexual exploitation or preventing the online 
        sexual exploitation of children.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6449 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6449

 To amend the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 to 
 reauthorize the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2023

 Mr. Menendez (for himself, Ms. Sherrill, and Mr. Pascrell) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 to 
 reauthorize the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production.

    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 ``Providing Robust Organics and Diets 
for Urban Communities Everywhere Act'' or the ``PRODUCE Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF OFFICE OF URBAN AGRICULTURE AND INNOVATIVE 
              PRODUCTION.

    Section 222 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 
1994 (7 U.S.C. 6923) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(5)(B), by striking ``2023'' and 
        inserting ``2028'';
            (2) in subsection (d)(1)(C), by striking ``2023'' and 
        inserting ``2028''; and
            (3) in subsection (e), by striking ``$25,000,000 for each 
        of fiscal years 2019 through 2023'' and inserting ``$50,000,000 
        for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2028''.
                                 <all>
```
[Civ. No. 2064.

Third Appellate District.

February 2, 1920.]

#### WILLIAM L. BUNDY, Petitioner, v. M. P. BARNES, Guardian, etc., et al., Respondents.

[1] Supersedeas—Restraint of Guardian from Acting Pending Appeal from Order Appointing—Affirmance of Order—Dismissal of Petitions for Restraining Orders.—A petition by a person adjudged incompetent to secure a restraining order restraining the person appointed guardian of his person and estate from intervening in and the superior court from proceeding further with a certain action pending ip said court, pending the hearing of an appeal from the order appointing such guardian, will be dismissed where the order appointing such guardian has been affirmed.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Supersedeas. Petitions dismissed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

A. J. Mitchell and Mattison B. Jones for Petitioner.

Benjamin E.- Page, Arthur C. Hurt, Arthur F. Coe and Thomas B. Leeper for Respondents.

*747PBEWETT, J., *pro*tem.

This proceeding, although entitled as a separate matter, is, in fact, ancillary to the matter .of the *Estate of Bundy,*44 Cal. App. 466, [186 Pac. 811].

The purpose of the petitioner was to secure a restraining order restraining said guardian and said superior court from proceeding further with an action,- pending in said court, entitled Heilman Commercial Trust and Savings Bank against Security Trust and Savings Bank, pending the hearing of above estate matter on appeal.

The supreme court issued the temporary restraining order as prayed for and the matter was subsequently transferred to this court.

On December 13, 1919, the above-named guardian filed his cross-petition asking that said superior court be further restrained and this court issued its additional restraining order in conformity with the prayer of said cross-petition.

[1] This court affirmed the order of the lower court in appointing a guardian for the person and estate of said incompetent *(Estate of Bundy, supra),*and this rendered unimportant all the questions involved in this auxiliary proceeding.

The return filed by the superior court of the county of Los Angeles shows that.the orders complained of have been vacated and set aside, hence it is unnecessary to determine whether or not an appeal court can issue its *supersedeas*to a lower court that is a stranger to the appeal.

Likewise, the action of this court in upholding the power of the guardian to represent the incompetent makes it profitless to determine to what extent, if any, he might have intervened in said Heilman suit.

The petitions herein are dismissed.

Ellison, P. J., *pro tem.,*and Burnett, J., concurred.
1 The Hon. Richard S. Arnold stepped down as Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals at the close of business on April 17, 1998. He is succeeded by the Hon. Pasco M. Boman II.
2 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit

______________ Nos. 97-3582/97-3907

______________ Walz Masonry, Inc., * * Appellant/Cross-Appellee, * * Appeal from the National * Labor Relations Board v. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * National Labor Relations Board, * * Appellee/Cross-Appellant. * *

__________________ Submitted: April 16, 1998 Filed: May 4, 1998 Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, LOKEN, Circuit 1 Judge, and PRATT , District Judge. 2 PER CURIAM.-2-

Walz Masonry, Inc., (Walz) appeals the final decisio n of the National Labor-3-

Rel ations Board (Board) finding that Walz committe d unfair lab or practices. The Board cross-appeals seeking an o rder of enforcement. After carefully reviewing th e record and the briefs of the parties, we find the Board’s deci sion is supported by substantial evidence on th e record as a whole, affirm the Board’s decisio n, and grant the Board’s request for enforcement. As we stated in Pace Industries, Inc. v. NLRB , 11 8 F3d 585, 590 (8th Cir. 1997):

We afford “great deference to th e Bo ard’s affirmation of the ALJ’ s findings.” Town & Country Elec. Inc. v
. NLRB , 106 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 1997)
. Th e Board’s order will be enforced “i f the Board has c orrectly applied the law and its factual findings are supporte d by substantial evidence on the record a s a whol e, even if we might have reache d a different decision had the matter bee n before us de novo.” Id. Although i n the pa st we have applied a “shock th e conscience” standard of review to a n ALJ’s credibility determinations, w e have recently indicated a preference fo r considering credibility determination s “with the rest of the NLRB’s factua l findings under the general substantia l ev idence test derived from Universa l Camera Corp. v. NLRB , 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951).” Id.

We conclude that the record reveals that the Board’s findings and its credibility determinations a re supported by substantial evidence. We therefore affirm the Boar d on Walz’s appeal and grant the Board’s request fo r enforcement.-4-

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
IT IS SO ORDERED. A true copy.-5- Attest: CL ERK, U.S. COURT O F APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.