alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Guillermo Cruz TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RUIZ, C/O; Boyd, C/O, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15101

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*436Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Guillermo Cruz Trujillo, Pro Se

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Guillermo Cruz Trujillo, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising out of the unauthorized deprivation of his personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Trujillo’s federal due process claim because Trujillo had an adequate postdepri-vation remedy under California law. *See Hudson v. Palmer,*468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.”); *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.”).

The district court properly dismissed any state law claim because Trujillo failed to allege timely compliance with the California Tort Claims Act. *See Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n,*67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The California Tort Claims Act requires, as a condition precedent to suit against a public entity, the timely presentation of a written claim.... ”).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Maria Bertha MORALES-APARICIO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70665

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

OCTOBER 2, 2017

Timothy M. Greene, General, Law Offices of Timothy M. Greene, Puyallup, WA, for Petitioner.

*547Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Yanal H. You-sef, Trial, Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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 *

Maria Bertha Morales-Aparicio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, *Sembiring v. Gonzales,*499 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2007), we deny the petition for review. .

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Morales-Aparicio’s motion to reopen to rescind her deportation order where the hearing notice was sent by regular mail to the post office box provided by Morales-Aparicio, there is no evidence that mail sent there by DHS was ever returned as undeliverable, and her evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of delivery. *Cf. Sembiring v. Gonzales,*499 F.3d 981, 988-90 (9th Cir, 2007) (describing evidence sufficient to overcome presumption of effective service).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
#### Morris Goldstein, App’lt, *v.*Henry Parker, Resp’t.

*S. W. Bosendale,*for app’lt; *H. Joseph,*for resp’t.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 30 N. Y. State Rep., 345.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.23


                         TANNING TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
                                November 1, 1999



To:    Henry Skelsey

From:  Larry Tanning

Re:    Five Quarter Compensation Plan


    As we have discussed, Tanning has developed a compensation plan for certain
senior executives for the five-quarter period beginning October 1, 1999 and
ending December 31, 1999.  Your cash compensation for the period will be an
annual rate of $90,000 ($3,750 on  a semi-monthly basis).

    Your existing employment and related agreements with Tanning (including
provisions relating to non-competition, etc.) will remain in full force and
effect except to the extent related to cash compensation matters.  As to all
matters relating to cash compensation, including cash incentive compensation and
bonus arrangements, the cash compensation described above will govern, effective
October 1, 1999.

    We are extremely excited about our company's future, and look forward to
more success together. Please indicate your agreement with the provisions of
this memorandum by signing below.

                                     Very truly yours,

                                     TANNING TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

                                     By:  /s/ Larry G. Tanning



AGREED AND ACCEPTED


By:  /s/ Henry F. Skelsey
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward DIAZ, a.k.a. Bouncer, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50081

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*497Submitted April 7, 2017 *

Filed April 11, 2017

Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jeff P. Mitchell, Esquire, Assistant U.S, Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Diaz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 136-month sentence for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Diaz’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel. We have provided Diaz the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Diaz waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also waived the right to appeal his sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Diaz’s plea. We therefore affirm as to that issue. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal *waivers. See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Appellant, v. William E. BORDEN, Jr., Appellee.

No. 23554.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 28, 1966.

Herbert P. Benn, Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, Fla., Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for appellant.

Daniel S. Pearson, Miami, Fla., for appellee.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, GRIFFIN B. BELL and DYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court in a habeas corpus proceeding, granting appellee’s motion, under Rule 34 F.R.Civ.P., for discovery and conditional inspection of a state presentence investigation report.

The order is not a final decision within the contemplation of Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. The appeal is therefore

Dismissed.
#### Loring R. Millen *et al.,*Resp'ts, *v.*John C. Fogg *et al.,*App’lts.

See 37 N. Y. State Rep., 366.

*James G.*Janeway, for resp’ts; *L. J. Morrison,*for app’lts.

Appeal dismissed, with costs. All concur.
#### M. UELE of Faleniu, Plaintiff v. MAILEI of Vaitogi, Defendant

No. 11-1928

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Matai Name: “Alaia”]

May 23, 1929

JAMES W. FOXALL, LUTU, and PELE, *Judges*

To try the right of Mailei to register Matai Name “ALAIA”

JUDGMENT

The above case came on to be heard before the High Court with Judges Foxall, Lutu and Pele, sitting at Ili’ili, Tutuila, American Samoa, at 10:30 A. M. of May 23, 1929.

The Court inquired as to whether or not the parties to the controversy had been able to reach an agreement as to who should hold the Matai Name “Alaia.”

Magalei, representing Uele, and Vei, representing Mai-lei, both requested the Court to dismiss the case without decision.

It is therefore adjudged and decreed that the within case, *421to determine the right of Mailei of Vaitogi to register Matai Name “Alaia” be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
#### ATHENAHEALTH, INC., Appellant v. CARECLOUD CORPORATION, Appellee

2016-1622

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 10, 2017

Gregory F. Corbett, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, PC, Boston, MA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Justin Colanni-no. Richard Giunta.

Ozzie Farres, Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Yisun Song.

(Dyk, O’Malley, and Wallach, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04234]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 02/02-0699]

Oaktree SBIC Fund, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 
312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Oaktree SBIC Fund, L.P., 1301 Avenue of 
the Americas, New York, NY 10019, a Federal Licensee under the Small 
Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the Act''), in 
connection with the financing of three small concerns, has sought an 
exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings 
which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). 
Oaktree SBIC Fund, L.P. proposes to provide financing in an acquisition 
that will benefit an Associate, Oaktree Mezzanine Fund IV, L.P.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(4) 
of the Regulations because Oaktree SBIC Fund, L.P., will provide 
financing in a transaction to acquire a Small Business, Smart Care 
Equipment Solutions, 12539 S Holiday Drive, Alsip, IL 60803. This 
transaction is considered a conflict of interest requiring prior SBA 
approval because a portion of proceeds will be used to redeem 
outstanding debt held by an Associate of Oaktree SBIC Fund, L.P., 
Oaktree Mezzanine Fund IV, L.P.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of 
this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. 
Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 
20416.

Small Business Administration.
Bailey DeVries,
Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2022-04234 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
```
#### John Morehead *et al.,*Overseers, App’lts, v. Charles Brown, Resp’t.

Motion to go to court of appeals denied.
#### IN RE: Sean A. RAVIN, Appellant

2017-1112

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 12, 2017

Kenneth M. Carpenter, Law Offices of Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for appellant.

(Moore, Schall, and O’Malley, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of BellaVista  Capital,
Inc. (the  "Company") for the period ended  September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  Report"),  and
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I, Michael Rider, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  the
     Corporation.


/s/ MICHAEL RIDER

Michael Rider, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of BellaVista
Capital, Inc.
December 22, 2006
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the following Registration Statements:



| | (1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-83975) pertaining to the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1998 Stock Plan of drugstore.com, inc.;
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-58174) pertaining to 1998 Stock Plan of drugstore.com, inc.;
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-85468) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Plan of drugstore.com, inc.;
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-130097) and related prospectus of drugstore.com, inc.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated March 13, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of drugstore.com, inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of drugstore.com,
inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 30, 2007.

/s/ Ernst & Young
LLP

Seattle, Washington

March 13, 2008
#### John B. Devlin, Adm’r, Resp’t, v. The Mayor, etc., of New York, App’lt.

*T. C. Cronin,*for resp’t; *Franklin Bartlett,*for app’lt.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 37 N. Y. State Rep., 508.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
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 on
Form 10-K/A of Art Technology Group, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned,
Robert D. Burke, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies, 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 the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.



| |                                                 
| | ------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ EDWARD TERINO                               
| |                                                 
| | Edward Terino                                   
| | Senior Vice President, Finance and
    Chief    
| | Financial Officer                               
| | (principal financial and accounting
    officer)

Date: July 12, 2004

83
#### Henry C. Bowen, App’lt, *v.*Wm. L. Bull, Pres’t N. Y. Stock Ex., Resp’t.

*George C. Rolt,*for app’lt; *Lewis Cass Ledyard,*for resp’t.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 85 N. Y. State Rep., 480.
EX PARTE Joel Amos SPEARS

CR-16-0625

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6606 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6606

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 relating to the 
                          statement of policy.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

    Section 1752(2) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 
4811(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(H) To protect the trade secrets of the United 
                States, its people, and its industrial base either 
                related to items subject to control by the Secretary 
                pursuant to this part or when the subject of economic 
                espionage as described in section 1831 of title 18, 
                United States Code.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 9, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6606

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 relating to the 
                          statement of policy.
```
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frank Harris against the Estate of Carrie W. Harris, Deceased.

Dykman, J.

Frank Harris was the husband of Carrie W. Harris, who died in December, 1888. After her death he presented a claim against her estate of §2,170.89, which was disputed and referred to a referee under the statute. The referee after a trial before him decided against the claim and a judgment has been entered against the claimant for costs.

The claim was entirely destitute of merit and the finding of the referee is amply supported by the evidence, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William BACON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-35855

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 30, 2017

Timothy John Ohms, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alison K. Guernsey, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDWAID — Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, Defendant-Appellant

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 **

William Bacon appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

As Bacon concedes, all of his arguments on the three certified issues in this appeal are foreclosed. *See Beckeles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017) (holding that “the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause and that [U.S.S.G.] § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause is not void for vagueness”).

Bacon’s motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. *See*9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); *Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Willis Floyd WILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-20183 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 23, 2017

Willis Floyd Wiley, Pro Se

Ellen Mary Van Meir, Molly Raynor, Thompson, Coe, Cousins *&*Irons, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Willis Floyd Wiley filed a pro se civil rights complaint against the American Zurich Insurance Company (Zurich) alleging that Zurich violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to pay workers compensation death benefits for the death of his father. Zurich filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court ordered that the suit be dismissed because litigation of the alleged violation of Wiley’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by Zurich was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Wiley appealed.

*212“Claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars the litigation of claims that either have been litigated or should have been raised in an earlier suit.” *Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. Singh,*428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005). “The res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.” *Id.*Wiley has not shown that the district court’s order in his first case was not a final order on the merits of the federal claim he sought to raise in the suit now on appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(8); *United States v. Shanbaum,*10 F.3d 305, 310 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances s.et forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.