alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Peter Michael MABIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. HOGAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15856

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Peter Michael Mabie, McFarland, CA, pro se.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. 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 ***

California state prisoner Peter Michael Mabie appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force, retaliation, and free exercise claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

*438The district court properly dismissed Mabie’s excessive force claim because Ma-bie failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Hogan acted “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” *Hudson v. McMillian,*503 U.S. 1, 6-7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (explaining elements of excessive force claim in prison context).

The district court properly dismissed Mabie’s free exercise claim because Mabie failed to allege facts sufficient to show his practice of religion was substantially burdened. *See Jones v. Williams,*791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A person asserting a free exercise claim must show that the government action in question substantially burdens the person’s practice of [his] religion.”).

The district court properly dismissed Mabie’s retaliation claim because Mabie failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Hogan took adverse action against him because of his engagement in protected conduct, or that any such action by Hogan chilled Mabie’s exercise of his First Amendment rights. *See Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining elements of retaliation claim in prison context).

We do not consider Mabie’s arguments regarding defendant Perez because Mabie failed to replead claims against Perez in his second amended complaint. *See Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc.,*710 F.3d 946, 973 n.14, 974 n.15 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to replead claims after dismissal with leave to amend amounts to waiver).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
SCWC-13-0005233

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

________________________________________________________________

STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DAT MINH TRAN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-13-0005233; CR. NO. 95-0-002471)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Dat Minh Tran’s 

application for writ of certiorari filed on November 9, 2016, is 

hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 20, 2016.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0005233

20-DEC-2016

10:33 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          32,593
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,201
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    120,622
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          30,329
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            29,740
<LOANS>                                        323,366
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (6,016)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 549,315
<DEPOSITS>                                     472,500
<SHORT-TERM>                                    27,100
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,819
<LONG-TERM>                                      3,230
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,495
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,171
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  42,666
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 21,898
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,165
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   424
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                28,487
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,609
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,032
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,455
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,772
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 15,238
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,255
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,652
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,652
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.77
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.47
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,275
<LOANS-PAST>                                        46
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,775
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,367
<RECOVERIES>                                       836
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,016
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,016
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Rocketinfo, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Maria C. Maz
                                 ----------------------
                                 Maria C. Maz
                                 Chief Financial Officer

December 1, 2008
Seaion 61.113(a) and (b) prescribes that—



### (a) no person who holds a private pitot cenifioate may act as a pilot in oommand of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire: nor may that person, 

### for eompensation or hire, act as pitot in oommand of an aircraft. (b) a private pilot may. for compensation or hire, act as pilot in oommand of an aircraft in connection with any business or empbyment'rf: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment: and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensatfon or 

### hire.
Sm<t

~ tve 

### tvrl! no+ ne crtnyrng any passcrrrn7crs 

### or prop:rr,y ror compons•vron aro wo1 a p: rv:rto 1!dtx ean c,7n1V nalt tr;n o• prF' Pft" Section 91.7(a) prescribes that no person may operate a civit airoraft unless it is in an airworthy oondiUon.

Section 91.7(b) prescribes that the pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for 

### determining whether that aircraft is in oonditi0n for Safe flight and that the PIC shall discontinue the flight when un airworthy meehanical, eleottical, or structural oonditions occur.

3ection 91.9(b)(2) prohibits operation of U.S: registered clvit aireraft uniess there is avaftable 

### in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flfght Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.
Tfrere i.ti e:<r ! AA:rPl: , crr>d n:.rnu.a rr.r rhr !'hanram >..• ;.^..r• fu'r,ri,mn : i 

### rhnt wo fuo) wtl/ sutlico Flow hhnn• Vurck sfarl cher.k kyf. n.ser manua/ rmd adwux.•nd chnak li::t rn achlrhun wy hBvAr>repnrra7 n;rr own company opofatrng manu;tl 1tnJ turarly we have cieatevr a Q • iork 

### lr,:( ro nnsllre a sAfe 

### o{rt•rBhUn Sec4ion 91.1 p3(b) prescribes that a pilot shall for any flight, become familiar with runway lengths at airports of inlended use, and takeoff and larxiing distance information. 

### T+ro Phnn!om-: doe:r nof vse anY wnway 67r Sakr• oH arro th,v rnmpony polrar rs thaf ttre

....... .,..,.:.,. ,„r.
., ~ .•..

~ r...

~ •rr_ a:

~ rr, c;:•

~ uFU7r7. 

### Section 91.1 09(a) preseribes, in perUnent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balkwn) that is being used for flight instruction unless lhat aireraft has fully functioning dual conbols. The Phamom 2 does rxd Irdve tival ttight rnntrr• ,Is arxf all instnrction rs via tlre one Xruoller. Wr. Iherelnru roquost an exemption Irom this reqtnrerrterrt



# x
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERAND


CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18
      U.S.C.


SECTION
      1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
      SECTION


906
      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002





The
      undersigned officers eachcertify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that theAnnualReport
      ofAmerican Wenshen Steel
      Group, Inc.on Form 10-KSB
      for the fiscalyearendedSeptember
      30, 2007fully complies with the
      requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thattheinformation
      contained in suchAnnualReport
      on Form 10-KSB
      fairly presents in all material
      respects the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





February
      11,
      2008                                                                                   /s/
      Yang
      Kuidong


Yang
      Kuidong


ChiefExecutive
      Officer





February
      11,
      2008                                                                                  /s/ Zhang Liwei


Zhang
      Liwei


Chief
      FinancialOfficer








This
      certification accompanies the
      Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
      not
      be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.
# r-- o'ZO06- 0621 p.

Appendix 1-1 

## # Environmental Releases ofPFDAfrom Fluoropolymer Production ( Production 7 to all environmental Releases Operations ( Total PFOA volume of compartments fromF-polymer Used ) Fluoropolymer cture manufa Products Manufactured kes of PFOA using PFOA) ( PFOA ) tons of F-polymers (kgs) (tons/year) (kgs) 2000 2006 U .S. 2007

2008 2000 2006 ROW 2007

2008 

# TSCACBI - Sanitized ® Target Releases & Reduction %
kes of PFOA tons of F-polymers (Reduction %)



# illilfllllll!IIIIIIIIIVII~III!IIIIII'llllll'lll!III!I!i1li

Company Sanitized O 

# a _, J '4J N Cft

### Appendix 1-2" 

## # Environmental Releases ofPFOA, Precursors andHigher homologues from Telomer Production( Production Releases to all environmental Operations volume ofTelomer compartments fromF-telomer manufacture Products ) kes of moiety

Type of moiety tons of telomers (tons/year) (kgs)

PFOA 2000 Precursors and Higher homologues PFOA 2006 Precursors and U .S . Higher homologues PFOA 2007 Precursors and Higher homologues PFOA 2008 Precursors and Higher homologues PFOA 2000 Precursors and Higher homologues PFOA 2006 Precursors and ROW Higher homologues PFOA 2007 Precursors and Higher homologues PFOA 2008 Precursors and Higher homologues 

## ® Target Releases & Reduction % kt`a of moietv tons of telomers (Reduction %)



# TSCA CBI - SanitizedAppendix 1-3" 

## # Concentration ofPFOA in Fluoropolymer Products

Operations ( Sales volume of Fluoropolymer Products Manufactured Concentration of PFOA in Products 

# 7 using PFOA ) (tons/year) ( PFOA )

(kgs) kes of PFOA

tons of F-polymers Dispersion 2000 Elastomer

Others Dispersion 2006 Elastomer U .S. Others Dispersion 2007 Elastomer

Others Dispersion 2008 Elastomer

Others

2000 Dispersion

Others 2006 Dispersion ROW Others

2007 Dispersion

Others
2008 Dispersion I I r Others 

# TSCACBI - Sanitized ® Target Concentration & Reduction I kas of PFOA tons of F-polymers (Reduction %)



# Company SanitizedAppendix 1-4



## ~ Concentration ofPFOA, Precursors &Higher homologues in Telomer Products (PFOA, Alcohol, Olefin, Iodide) ( Sales volume of Operations Telomer Concentration of Moiety in Products



# 7 Products ) Type of moiety kes of moiety tons of telomers (tons/year) (kgs)

PFOA 2000 Precursors and Higher homologues PFOA 2006 Precursorsand U .S . Higher homologues PFOA 2007 Precursors and Higher homologues PFOA 2008 Precursors and Higher homologues PFOA 2000 Precursors and Higher homologues PFOA 2006 Precursors and ROW Hi g her homolog

ues PFOA 2007 Precursors and Hi g her homolog

ues PFOA 2008 Precursors and Hi g her homolog

ues 

# TSCA CBI - Sanitized Target Concentration &Reduction % kes of moi ety tons of telomers (Reduction %)



# Company Sanitized
Lee EAKINS v. Mark WILSON, Dolores Johnson, and Jefferson County Department of Public Health

2160398

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Allen BARZAK, Boater’s Aid Music Fest., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORCESTER COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2357

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2017

Decided: May 11, 2017

Allen Barzak, Appellant Pro Se. Michael B. Rynd, Victoria M. Shearer, KARPIN-SKI, COLARESI *&*KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Allen Barzak seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. *1804(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 24, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on November 28, 2016. Because Barzak failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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*
#### James Leroy HERRINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. HODGE, Medical Services Manager, S.R.C.I., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35802

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 1, 2017

James Leroy Herrington, Pro Se

Adam W. Holbrook, Assistant Attorney General, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees

*380Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

James Leroy Herrington, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. We-have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Toguohi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, *Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co.,*389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Dismissal of Herrington’s action was proper because Herrington failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his broken foot. *See Toguchi,*391 F.3d at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment, medical malpractice, or negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider Herring-ton’s unauthenticated documents as evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. *See Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA,*285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and stating that “unauthenticated documents cannot be. considered in a motion for summary judgment”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Herrington’s motions for appointment of counsel because Her-rington did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances. *See Palmer v. Valdez,*560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth “exceptional circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel).

We do not consider issues raised by Herrington in his brief, that are not supported by argument. See *Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle,*7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.

***

 Th.iS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                        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 Quarterly Report of Centerpoint Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies, that to the
best of his knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ David J. Mitchell
------------------------------------
David J. Mitchell
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2002
#### ZUCHAO HE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-73331

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 2, 2017

*391Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner

Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM *

Zuchao He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where He failed to show prejudice. *See Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir. 2004) (to establish prejudice for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an alien must demonstrate that counsel’s performance may have affected the outcome of the proceedings).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying He’s motion to reopen based on changed country conditions as untimely, where he failed to establish materially changed conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 987-89 (9th Cir. 2010) (new evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). Contrary to He’s contentions, the BIA did not improperly evaluate the evidence submitted with his motion to reopen. *See Bhasin v. Gonzales,*423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir. 2005) (An applicant must demonstrate that the new evidence, when considered together with the evidence presented at the original hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Curtis J. Parker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.



|Date: November 14, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/ Curtis J. Parker                                                 
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |     |  | Curtis J. Parker Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer