alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Casey, Jr., Respondent, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Submitted May 22, 1872;

decided May 28, 1872.)

Action to recover penalties for alleged taking of illegal fare; presenting the same question as in *Fisher*v. *The N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Go.*(46 N. Y., 644). Two actions were originally commenced, which were by order consolidated.

*A. P. Laming*for the appellant.

*George W. Oothram*for the respondent.

Agree to modify by reducing the judgment to two penalties and excess of fare, if paid, and as modified affirmed with costs in court below without costs to either party in this court.

Judgment accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Geronimo CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-11747 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 21, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brandon Elliott Beck, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, Lara Wynn, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN,’ and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gerónimo Cruz pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States and received a 33-month prison sentence to be followed by three years of supervised release. On appeal, Cruz argues that the district court violated his right to due process by imposing a prison term greater than the two-year maximum sentence authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) because his indictment did not allege that he had a prior conviction permitting a higher sentence under § 1326(b).

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, asserting that *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), forecloses Cruz’s argument. Cruz concedes that his argument is foreclosed and explains that he raises it only to preserve it for further review; thus, summary affirmance is appropriate. *See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED,

*

 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 set forth in 5th Cir. 47.5.4.
#### John DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KAWEAH DELTA HOSPITAL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16650

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

October 3, 2017

John Doe, Fresno, CA, pro se.

Richard Stephen Salinas, Esquire, Weiss-Salinas Law Group, Inc., Carey H. Johnson, Stammer McKnight Barnum & Bailey LLP, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

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 **

John Doe appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his privacy rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hernandez v. Spacelabs Med. Inc.,*343 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm..

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Doe’s § 1983 claims because Doe failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his alleged injury was caused by a policy or custom of Kaweah Delta Hospital or the Kaweah Delta Health Care District. *See Castro v. County of Los Angeles,*833 F.3d 1060, 1073 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“[A] municipality may not be held liable for a § 1983 violation under a theory of respon-deat superior for the actions of its subordinates. In order to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that a policy or custom led to the plaintiffs injury.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

To the extent Doe challenges the district court’s disposition of his claims against defendant Breseman, this court previously resolved this issue in *Doe v. Kaweah Delta Hospital,*478 Fed.Appx. 390 (9th Cir. May *45823, 2012), and we are bound by this determination. *See S. Or, Barter Fair v. Jackson County,*372 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The law of the case doctrine .,. precludes a court from reexamining an issue previously decided ... in the same case”).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Doe’s contentions concerning equitable tolling.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*687 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). '

Doe’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 29) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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


CERTIFICATIONS UNDER
SECTION 906





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), each of the undersigned officers of DropCar, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The
Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report for the year ended December 31,
2019 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of the Company fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form
10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated: April 9, 2020
By:
/s/ Spencer
RichardsonSpencer RichardsonChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)





Dated: April 9, 2020
By:
/s/ Mark CorraoMark CorraoChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [CERCLA-04-2022-2503; FRL-9476-01-R4]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed settlement.

# SUMMARY:

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to enter into an Administrative Settlement Agreement with The Feltman Family Trust of 2009. Concerning the Welch Group Environmental Fair Play Superfund Site located in Fair Play, South Carolina. The settlement addresses recovery of CERCLA costs for a cleanup action performed by the EPA at the Site.

# DATES:

The Agency will consider public comments on the proposed settlement until March 28, 2022. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlement, if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate.

# ADDRESSES:

Copies of the proposed settlement are available from the Agency by contacting  Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact information provided in this notice. Comments may also be submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:

*Internet: https://www.epa.gov/​aboutepa/​about-epa-region-4-southeast#r4-public-notices*.                    

*Email: Painter.Paula@EPA.gov*.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula V. Painter at (404) 562-8887.

Maurice L. Horsey, IV,

Chief, Enforcement Branch, Superfund & Emergency Management Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-03857 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Thomas T. Hawker, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Capital Corp of the West;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this annualreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this annual report,fairly present in all material respects, the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this annual report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e))) for the registrant and have:

 

a.               Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision,  to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b.              Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c.               Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe last fiscal quarter of 2003 that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting;

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

 

a.               All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b.              Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  August 9, 2004 | /s/ Thomas T. Hawker                  |   |
|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                            | Thomas T. Hawker                      |
|                            | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Richmond

#### Fawley Motor Lines, Incorporated v. Commonwealth of Virginia.

January 20, 1958.

Record No. 4745.

Present, All the Justices.

The opinion states the case.

*Oscar L. Shewmake, John C. Goddin*and *Shewmake, Gary, Goddin & Blackwell,*for the appellant.

*Kenneth C. Fatty, Attorney General*and *R. D. McIlwaine, III, Assistant Attorney General,*for the Commonwealth.

(Case submitted on briefs)

Hudgins, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Pursuant to Code, § 56-338.1 *et seq.,*Fawley Motor Lines, Incorporated, applied to the State Corporation Commission for an original certificate of convenience and necessity as a household goods carrier. By its order the Commission granted the certificate, but limited the holder to the transportation of household goods between *625Shenandoah county on the one hand, and all points in Virginia on the other hand. From this order Fawley Motor Lines, Incorporated, appealed.

The only issue presented is whether the State Corporation Commission has authority under the Household Goods Carriers Act, Code, §§ 56-338.1 through 56-338.18, to limit or restrict in an original certificate the transportation of household goods to, and from, a definite point within the State. This question was fully discussed and decided adversely to the holding of the Commission in *McDaniel*v. *Commonwealth,*(September 6, 1957), 199 Va. 287, 99 S. E. 2d 623, *and Cook Transfer*v. *Commonwealth,*196 Va. 384, 83 S. E. 2d 733, to which decisions we adhere.

The order of the Commission is reversed and annulled, and the case remanded for the entry of such other necessary order, or orders, not in conflict with the views herein expressed.

*Reversed and remanded.*
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco Guerrero HERNANDEZ Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3846

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Filed: August 1, 2017

Mikaela Jo Shotwell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Francisco Guerrero Hernandez, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Guerrero Hernandez (Guerrero) directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

As to counsel’s arguments, we find no error in the district court’s determination of the drug quantity attributable to Guerrero, and no other issues warranting relief. See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (this court reviews district court’s application of Guidelines de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error); United States v. Young, 689 F.3d 941, 945 (8th Cir. 2012) (in drug conspiracy case, attributable drug quantity includes quantities attributable directly to defendant as well as quantities attributable to reasonably foreseeable actions of others taken to further conspiracy). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment.

1

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
#### Dwayne Edward ABRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. 2575 Center st NE Salem Or 97301; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-35879

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 9, 2017 *

Filed June 14, 2017

Dwayne Edward Abraham, Pro Se

Denise Gale Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, . HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Dwayne Edward Abraham, a former Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment grant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims related to an early release program. Reviewing de novo, *Taylor v. List,*880 F.2d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 1989), we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*470There was no error in granting summary judgment on Abraham’s § 198B claims for damages against the Oregon Department of Corrections and state officials acting in their official capacities. The Eleventh Amendment bars those claims, *see Brown v. Or. Dep’t of Corr.,*751 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 2014), and Oregon did not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court by enacting the Oregon Tort Claims Act, *see Webber v. First Student, Inc.,*928 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1269 (D. Or. 2013).

Moreover, there was no error in granting summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to the state officials sued in their individual capacities. Qualified immunity protects “state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” *Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,*563 U.S. 731, 735, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (citation omitted). Because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that Oregon Administrative Rule 291-062-0140 (2005) was unlawful, the state officials here did not violate a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. *See id.; see also Shinault v. Hawks,*782 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[Pjrocedural due process requirements can rarely be considered clearly established at least in the absence of closely corresponding factual and legal precedent.”), (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Finally, there was no abuse of discretion in denying Abraham leave to file a second amended complaint. *See Chodos v. W. Publ’g Co.,*292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). Abraham’s motions for appointment of counsel, filed on August 10, 2015, August 28, 2015, and September 24, 2015, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Anna Welch, Respondent, *v.*Triple Cities Traction Corporation, Appellant.

Argued April 20, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*837
      *Harold S. Taylor*and *Edward F. Ronan*for appellant.

*Frank D. Morris*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Dissenting: Lehman, Ch. J. Taking no part: Finch, J.
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 AudioCodes Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shabtai Adlersberg, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




(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 result of operations of the Company.




Date: March 10, 2011/s/ SHABTAI ADLERSBERGShabtai AdlersbergChief Executive Officer
### NUMBER 13 - 18 - 004 63 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

EX PARTE CHRISTOPHER FLOYD

On a ppeal from the 28 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa Order Per Curiam Appellant ’ s brief was due on November 2 , 20 18 . Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2), on November 7 , 20 18 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant ’ s counsel that the brief had not been timely filed, requested counsel to file a response concerning the failure to file the brief by November 19, 2018 , and warned counsel that the Court would abate and remand this cause to the trial court for appropriate f indings if a response was not filed. Counsel has nevertheless failed to file either a response or an appellate brief in this matter.2 Accordingly, we now ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 38 .8(b)(2) and (3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to make appropriate findings and recommendations concerning the following: (1) whether appellant desires to prosecute this appe al; (2) why appellant's counsel has failed to file a brief and whether counsel has effectively abandoned the appeal; (3) whether appellant has been denied effective assistance of counsel; (4) whether appellant's counsel should be removed; and (5) whether a ppellant is indigent and entitled to court

- appointed counsel. If the trial court determines that appellant does want to continue the appeal, that present counsel should be removed, and that appellant is indigent and entitled to
court

- appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, email address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in an order appointing counsel. The trial court shall cause its finding s and recommendations, together with any orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record of a ny proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.3 It is so ORDERED. PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 10th day of December, 2018.
#### YAN SUI; Pei-Yu Yang, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 2176 PACIFIC HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California Corporation; Stephen D. Price, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55706

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 18, 2017

Yan Sui, Pro Se

Pei-Yu Yang, Pro Se

James Clement Harkins, Esquire, Attorney, Cane Walker *&*Harkins LLP, Tustin, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Yan Sui and Pei-Yu Yang appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their motions for sanctions and attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Holgate v. Baldwin,*425 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 2005) (sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11); *Richard S. v. Dep’t of Developmental Servs.,*317 F.3d 1080, 1085 (9th Cir. 2003) (attorney’s fees); *Barber v. Miller,*146 F.3d 707, 709 (9th Cir. 1998) (sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927). We affirm.

The district court properly denied plaintiffs’ untimely motion presented to the district court seeking costs and attorney’s fees incurred on appeal because plaintiffs failed to comply with the procedure set forth in Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1. *See Cummings v. Connell,*402 F.3d 936, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2005) (a request for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal must be filed with the court of appeals); *see also*9th Cir. R. 39-1.6 (setting time limits for a request for fees on appeal).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions against defendants because plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they were entitled to an award of sanctions. *See Holgate,*425 F.3d at 675-78 (setting forth requirements for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 *); Barber,*146 F.3d at 711 (set*377ting forth requirements for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927).

AFFIRMED.

**

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