alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Candace S. WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN and Odyssey Healthcare Management Long Term Disability Plan Administrator, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-16930

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted November 14, 2016 San Francisco, California

Filed November 22, 2016

Randolph Bachrach, General Attorney, Law Office of R.G. Bachrach, Chandler, AZ, Kevin Koelbel, Ober & Pekas, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Caroline Larsen, Tracy Ann Miller, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak *&*Stewart, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Candace Walters appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Odyssey Healthcare Management, denying her cross-motion, and denying her motion to remand the matter to the plan *957administrator for further factual inquiry. We affirm.

An order granting summary judgment on cross-motions is reviewed de novo. *Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Conoco-Phillips Co.,*546 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment may be affirmed for any reason supported by the record. *Id.*

We may assume without deciding that the district court incorrectly disregarded Walters’ affidavit, which described her memory of submitting a claim for long-term disability benefits. Had the district court considered that affidavit, Odyssey would nonetheless be entitled to summary judgment. Under the undisputed provisions of the long-term disability plan, a participant who believes her claim was wrongly rejected must pursue an internal administrative appeal within 180 days. Likewise, federal law requires a claimant to “avail himself or herself of a plan’s own internal review procedures before bringing suit in federal court.” *Diaz v. United Agric. Emp. Welfare Benefit Plan & Trust,*50 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing *Amato v. Bernard,*618 F.2d 559, 566-68 (9th Cir. 1980)). Walters offered no evidence that she pursued an internal review of Odyssey’s decision. She therefore cannot proceed with a federal lawsuit, *see id.*and there is no need to remand the matter to the plan administrator for further factual development.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1



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, James R. Lavelle, 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 March 31, 2004 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: May 14, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ James R. Lavelle                             
|                   |  |     |  | James R. Lavelle                                 
|                   |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 13.1****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 Annual Report of Micromem Technologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form20-F, as amended by this Form 20-F/A, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Fuda, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, that:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.June 23, 2006         /s/ Joseph Fuda*   Joseph Fuda   Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,052,575
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,914,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,030,484
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,286,708
<PP&E>                                      16,291,951
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,054,065)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,156,638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,813,221
<BONDS>                                      2,501,587
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,698
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,787,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,156,638
<SALES>                                      4,271,004
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        3,862,033
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,037,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,356
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (626,416)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (230,246)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (396,170)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (396,170)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1



Independent Auditors Consent



The Board of Directors

Internet Capital Group, Inc.



We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Nos. 333-34736, 333-76870 and 333-76872) on Form S-8 of Internet Capital Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries of our reports dated March 9, 2004 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Internet Capital Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders equity (deficit), comprehensive loss and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003 and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2003 annual report
on Form 10-K of Internet Capital Group, Inc.



Our report dated March 9, 2004
contains an explanatory paragraph that describes Internet Capital Group, Inc.s change in its method of accounting for goodwill and accounting for notes receivable from stockholders in 2002 and derivatives in 2001.



|                          
|--------------------------
|                          
|/s/    KPMG               
|                          
|Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
|March 15, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6443
THERON JOHNNY MAXTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-97-3811-0-6-BD) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 10, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theron Johnny Maxton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The district court erroneously stated in its order that objections were filed on September 29, 1997, but this was well before the magistrate judge issued his report and recommendation. No objections were filed after Maxton received proper notice. 2 PER CURIAM:Theron Johnny Maxton appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). Maxton's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Maxton that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the r ecommendation. Despite this warning, Maxton failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. * The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Maxton has waived appellate review byfailing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Desean RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-1002

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed March 9, 2017

Robert Mark Russel, Jeremy S. Sibert, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Josh Lee, Robert W. Pepin, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

This matter is before us on the appel-lee’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (the “Motion”). The United States moves for summary affirmance of the district court’s order and separate judgment denying relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in light of the Supreme Court’s decisiqn in *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145, 2017 WL 855781 (March 6, 2017). The appellant Derrick *784Desean Richardson does not oppose the Motion.

Upon consideration, the Motion is granted. The' judgment of the district court is affirmed.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6395 

To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to require the Secretary of the Interior 

to include the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultations 

regarding designations of critical minerals, elements, substances, and 

materials. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. CURTIS (for himself and Ms. DEGETTE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to require the Secretary 

of the Interior to include the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services in consultations regarding designations 

of critical minerals, elements, substances, and materials. 

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 ‘‘Recognizing the Impor5 tance of Critical Minerals in Healthcare Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6395 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRED CONSULTATION WITH THE SECRETARY 

2 OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. 

3 Paragraphs (4)(C) and (5)(A) of section 7002(c) of 

4 the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606(c)(4)(C) and 

5 (5)(A)) are each amended by inserting ‘‘Health and 

6 Human Services,’’ after ‘‘Agriculture,’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
July 6, 2015

Civil-Post Trial Division Harris County District Clerk Attn: Ms. Phyllis Washington, Post-Trial 201 Caroline Street, Suite 250
Houston, Texas 77002

Re: Gemini Insurance Company vs. Denbury Resources, Inc.
Case No. 2012-10397, 270 th Judicial District Appeal No. 14-15-00041-CV, 14th Circuit Court of Appeals

Our File: 1782.18331

Dear Ms. Washington:

On April 23, 2015 we requested the Court supplement the record to include motions for summary judgment inadvertently omitted from the Clerk’s record to the 14 th Circuit Court of Appeals in the above-captioned litigation. However, the exhibits attached to those motions are still missing from the record :

1. Exhibit “A” to Denbury’s Consolidated Reply Memorandum in Support of Its “Plugged and Abandoned” and “Due Diligence” No Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment (image number 62463542);

2. Exhibit “B” to Denbury’s Consolidated Reply Memorandum in Support of Its “Plugged and Abandoned” and “Due Diligence” No Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment (image number 62463543) ; 3. Ex hibit “C” to Denbury’s Consolidated Reply Memorandum in Support of Its “Plugged and Abandoned” and “Due Diligence” No Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment (image number 62463544 ) ; 4. Exhibit “D” to Denbury’s Consolidated Reply Memorandum in Support of It s “Plugged and Abandoned” and “Due Diligence” No Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment (image number 62463545); and

5

. This correspondence.



## C ARVER, 

## D ARDEN, 

## K ORETZKY

, 

## T ESSIER

, 

## F INN

, 

## B LOSSMAN 

## & A REAUX LLC

S ARAH E. S TOGNER
A SSOCIATE

A (504) 585.3845

stogner@carverdarden.com

E N E R G Y C E N T R E $ 1 1 0 0 P O Y D R A S S T . $ S U I T E 3100 $ N E W O R L E A N S , L A 7 0 1 6 3

T E L E P H O N E ( 5 0 4 ) 5 8 5

- 3 8 0 0 $ F A C S I M I L E ( 5 0 4 ) 5 8 5

- 3 8 0 1 ACCEPTED
14-15-00041-CV
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS
7/6/2015 9:56:49 AM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKMs. Phyllis Washington

July 6 , 2015 Page 2 C ARVER , D ARDEN
, K ORETZKY , T ESSIER , F INN , B LOSSMAN & A REAUX LLC

Please prepare, certify, and file in the appellate court a supplement containing these

omitted items. The parties have completed their briefing, with Denbury ’ s Reply Brief being f iled today. Please expedite this request to ensure the Appellate Court has a full and compl e te record

for its determination. Shoul d you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to

contact me directly. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Sarah E. Stogner SES/daj

cc: 14 th Circuit Court of Appeals

4845

- 0013

- 4437, v. 1
**CERTIFICATE      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) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or                78o(d)) and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company                as of the dates and for the periods covered by the                Report. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November                14, 2008 |   |                          | /s/                David M. Bradley |
|----------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| Dated                            |   | David                M. Bradley              |
|                             |   | Chairman,                President & CEO |

----
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATIONS

I, E. Clinton Cain, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Regional Health Properties, Inc.; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|               |        |        |                                                                                     |
|---------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| June 22, 2020 |   | By     | /s/ E. Clinton Cain                                                                 |
|          |   |   | Interim Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer |
EPRI

TCLP Results

FGD Gypsum

Sample ID 213 216 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231

pH 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.4 6.6 5.9 6.4 6.0 4.9

Ag mg/L <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017

As mg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.023 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Ba mg/L 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Cd mg/L <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 0.00 0.01 <0.0037 <0.0037

Cr mg/L <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018

Pb mg/L <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062

Se mg/L <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 0.1

Hg ug/L 0.107 0.033 0.055 0.022 0.096 0.037 0.022 0.018 0.022 0.018 0.029
EPRI

TCLP Results

FGD Gypsum

Sample ID

pH

Ag mg/L

As mg/L

Ba mg/L

Cd mg/L

Cr mg/L

Pb mg/L

Se mg/L

Hg ug/L

232 233 234 235 237 238 239 240 244 245 247

5.3 5.1 5.0 6.4 5.9 6.0 6.3 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.9

<0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017

<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

0.03 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04

<0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 0.01 <0.0037 0.00 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037

<0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018

<0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062

0.3 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089

0.022 0.029 0.018 0.022 0.015 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.015
EPRI

TCLP Results

FGD Gypsum

Sample ID

pH

Ag mg/L

As mg/L

Ba mg/L

Cd mg/L

Cr mg/L

Pb mg/L

Se mg/L

Hg ug/L

248 251 253 255 260 269 270 296 298 304

5.3 5.6 5.7 4.9 5.4 6.4 7.2 7.3 5.0 6.4

<0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017 <0.017

<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

0.02 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.05

<0.0037 0.00 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 0.01

<0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018 <0.018

<0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062

<0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089 0.4 0.3 <0.089 <0.089 <0.089

0.022 0.022 0.022 0.011 NA 0.581 0.033 0.022 0.015 0.018
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.L.R., a child, * From the 326th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 8863-CX.

No. 11-20-00294-CV * June 24, 2021

* Memorandum Opinion by Trotter, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



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, James R. Lavelle, 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 June 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:    August 14, 2003 |  | By:
|                         |  |    
|                         |  |