alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### David Jerold SHANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES, Health Services Provider at A.S.P.C. Florence—East Unit; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16773

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 5, 2017

David Jerold Shank, Pro Se

Jennifer B. Anderson, Brandi Christine Blair, Esquire, Attorney, Edward G. Ho-chuli, Esquire, Attorney, Jones, Skelton *&*Hochuli, P.L.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Neil Fisher

Justin Dean Holm, Esquire, Attorney, Daniel J. O’Connor, Jr., Attorney, O’Con-nor *&*Campbell, P.C., Tempe, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Charles L. Ryan

Brandi Christine Blair, Esquire, Attorney, Edward G. Hochuli, Esquire, Attorney, Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Fisher

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).

*415MEMORANDUM **

David Jerold Shank, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Shank failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his prostate condition. *See Crowley v. Bannister,*734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013) (supervisors can only be' hable under § 1983 if they are personally involved in a constitutional deprivation or if they implement a constitutionally deficient policy); *Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.,*698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (municipal liability applies to suits against private entities under § 1983 if the entity acts under color of state law and the violation is caused by a policy, practice, or custom of the entity); *Jett v. Penner,*439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference entails a purposeful act or failure to respond and harm caused by the act or failure to respond).

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 reject as unsupported by the record Shank’s contentions that defendant Ryan perjured himself, that defendant Ryan’s attorney perpetrated perjury, and that Judge Rosenblatt was biased and prejudiced against Shank.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Samuel W. Fuller *et al.,*App’lts, v. Owen W. Humphrey, Impl’d, Resp’t.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ismael MAYA-PIZANO, AKA Ismael Maya Pizano, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10130

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 12, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed October 17, 2017

Katherine Lydon, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Noa Eva Oren, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Sacramento) Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, and O’MALLEY,** Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Kathleen M. O'Malley, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Ismael Maya-Pizano appealed the district court’s sentence prior to our decision in *United States v. Martinez-Lopez,*864 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2017). Maya-Pizano concedes that *Martinez-Lopez*forecloses his appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.

AFFIRMED.

***

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

                                                                      Exhibit 32

         SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         In connection with the Report of Net2Phone, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen M.
Greenberg, the Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the Report 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 Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: October 29, 2003

                                                        /s/ Stephen M. Greenberg
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Stephen M. Greenberg
                                                        Chief Executive Officer

         In connection with the Report, I, Arthur Dubroff, the Chief Financial
Officer, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge, the Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: October 29, 2003


                                                        /s/ Arthur Dubroff
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Arthur Dubroff
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of American Wagering, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended October 31, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of us certifies as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, to our respective knowledge,
that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written
statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, 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.



|                        |  |                          |  |                                                                                                   
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        | 
|Date: December 15, 2005 |  | /s/ Victor J. Salerno   
|                        |  | By:                      |  | Victor J. Salerno                                                                                 
|                        |  | Title:                   |  | President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
|                        | 
|Date: December 15, 2005 |  | /s/ Timothy F. Lockinger
|                        |  | By:                      |  | Timothy F. Lockinger                                                                              
|                        |  | Title:                   |  | Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and
Director
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2157

ANDREW E. ZUPKO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; K. CROSSLEY, Official Capacities - Family 

Nurse Practitioner; R. ENGEL, Mr., Individual Capacities/Associate Warden/

Overseer of Medical; M. DICOCCO, Dr., Individual Capacities/Clinical Director; K. 

LAYBOURN, Medical Administrator; J. POSEY, Individual Capacities/SHU 

Correctional Officer; A. CHATMAN, Individual Capacities/Health Service 

Administrator,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

A. ZAYAS, Individual Capacities/Mid Level Practitioner/Now Retired,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00493-MHL-RCY)

Submitted: February 23, 2021 Decided: February 25, 2021

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2157 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2021 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Andrew E. Zupko, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2157 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2021 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Andrew E. Zupko appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint 

filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 

U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Zupko v. United States, No. 3:18-cv-00493-MHL-RCY

(E.D. Va. Oct. 14, 2020). 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2157 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2021 Pg: 3 of 3
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6343 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to provide a plot allowance for spouses and children of veterans 

buried in State cemeteries, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2023 

Mr. KIM of New Jersey (for himself and Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide a plot allowance 

for spouses and children of veterans buried in State 

cemeteries, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Protecting our Vet5 erans’ Memories Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6343 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PLOT ALLOW2 ANCE FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN OF VET3 ERANS BURIED IN STATE CEMETERIES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2303 of title 38, United 

5 States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (e) 

7 as subsections (d) through (f), repectively; 

8 (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol9 lowing new subsection (c): 

10 ‘‘(c)(1) In the case of an individual described in para11 graph (2) who is buried in a cemetery that is owned by 

12 a State or by an agency or political subdivision of a State, 

13 the Secretary shall pay to such State, agency, or political 

14 subdivision the sum of $525 as a plot or interment allow15 ance for such individual. 

16 ‘‘(2) An individual described in this paragraph is a 

17 spouse, surviving spouse (which for purposes of this sub18 section includes a surviving spouse who had a subsequent 

19 remarriage), minor child (which for purposes of this sub20 section includes a child under 21 years of age, or under 

21 23 years of age if pursuing a course of instruction at an 

22 approved educational institution), or, in the discretion of 

23 the Secretary, unmarried adult child of any of person de24 scribed in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (7) of section 

25 2402 of this title.’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6343 IH

1 (3) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, by 

2 striking ‘‘subsection (b)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections 

3 (b) and (c)’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact6 ment of this Act and apply with respect to a death occur7 ring on or after such date. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Albert HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Marsha MOBERLY; Charles Shipman; James Lafavers, Defendants-Appellees

No. 15-20075 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 19, 2017

Albert Harris, Pro Se

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Albert Harris, Texas prisoner # 677922, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The district court did not err.in dismissing the complaint, as Harris’s claims surrounding his initial parole interview lacked an arguable basis in law or contained insufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief. *See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Sam*281
      *ford v. Dretke,*562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

The dismissal of Harris’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted counts as a strike under § 1915(g). *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); *Coleman v. Tollefson,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763-64, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015); *Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Harris is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

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

EXHIBIT 32.2

                                   iDNA, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of iDNA, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Registrant"), in connection with the Registrant's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), do hereby
represent, warrant and certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (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 results of operations of the
Registrant.

/s/ Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
----------------------------------------
Name: Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
Title: Chief Financial Officer
(principal accounting and financial
officer)

Date: December 14, 2006

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 iDNA, Inc. and will be retained by
iDNA, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

                                       41
```
**Attachment D**  **.1**

**Work Sheets used to Calculate EPA and Federal Government Labor Costs**  This attachment is available as part of the electronic **docket EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OPP -**  **2011 -**  **0 766**  and is part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement **NAICS: 999100 Federal Executive Branch**  Labor Category : Formula Managerial Technical Clerical Unloaded Hourl y Rate 1 = W $55.64 $33.23 $20.06 Benefits Percentage 2 Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44% Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $24.26 $14.49 $8.75 Loaded Hourl y Rate Wb = W + B = W(1+Lb) $79.90 $47.72 $28.81 Overhead Percentage 3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50% Overhead per hour OH = Wb*L o $39.95 $23.86 $14.40 Fully L oaded Hourly

Rate Wf = Wb + OH $119.85 $71.58 $43.21

= W + B + OH 1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm May 2010 data NAI CS 999100
- Federal Executive Branch Standard Occupational Codes: Management: 11
- 0000, Management Occupations Technical: 19
- 0000, Life, Phy sical, and Social Science Occupations Clerical: 43
- 0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations 2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. 3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency , EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition , EPA
- 452
- 02
- 001, January 2002, pg. 2
- 34. The loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20
- 70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST FOR 2014 Minor Updates to 1997 8

- Hour Ozone Standard SIPs

Planning Area: Coachella Valley and Western Mojave Desert Ozone Nonattainment Areas

Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V

– Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Pla n Submissions Enclosed Notes

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

2.1(a) Submittal Letter from Governor's Designee YES See letter from Richard Corey

, ARB Executive Officer

.
2.1(b) Evidence of Adoption YES See enclosed ARB Resolution 1 4

- 2 9

. 2.1(c) Legal Au thority Citation YES See ARB Resolution 1 4

- 2 9

. 2.1(d) Copy of :

a. Attainment Plan for ozone

c. C ontingency measures, d. T ransportation control conformity budgets

c. V ehicle Miles T raveled offset demonstration d. Reason ably Available Control Measu re analysis YES See ARB Staff Report a nalysis

, 2007 South Coast and Coachella Valley AQMP, and 2008 Western Mojave Desert Attainment Plan

.

2.1(e) Evidence of Compliance with State's Procedural Requirements YES See ARB Resolution 1 4

- 2 9

.

2.1(f) Evidenc e of Public Notice Consistent with 40 CFR part 51.102 YES See public noti ce and proof of publication in the ARB public notice published to web on September 22 , 201 4 at http://www.ar b.ca.gov/lispub/rss/displa ypost.php?pno=7940 2.1(g) Certification of Public Hearing in Accordance with Notice YES See A R B Resolution 1 4

- 2 9

.

2.1(h) Compilation of Public Comments and Responses NO T he re were no public comments for the ARB B oard adoptio n

.

2.2(a) Identification of Regulated Pollutant YES See ARB Staff Report analysis

.

2.2(b) Identification of Attainment Area/Status YES See ARB Staff Report analysis

.

2.2(c) Estimate of Plan's Impact on Emissions YES See attainment demonstration i n Appendix B of ARB Staff Report.

2.2(d) Demonstra tion that Plan Approval/Implementation Protects NAAQS YES See attainment demonstration in Appendix B of ARB Staff Report

.

2.2(e) Modeling Support NO Not applicable.
2.2(f)

- Compliance/Enforcement an d 2.2(i) Justification NO Not applicable.

X: \ 2014 SIP updates for CV and MD \ USEPA Submittal Package \ SIP Submittal CompletenessChecklist.doc
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Jude BLAUVELT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6552

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 29, 2017

James Harold Feldman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF JAMES H. FELDMAN, JR., Ardmore, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Patricia Corwin McLane, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Jude Blauvelt seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Blauvelt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Manuel COTA-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50438

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed September 29, 2017

Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Shital Thakkar, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Benjamin P. Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Matthew W. Fleming, Attorney, Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

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 **

Juan Manuel Cota-Chavez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed upon remand for resentencing following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We dismiss.

Cota-Chavez contends that the district court erred by denying him a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Because Cota-Chavez has been released from custody and is not subject to a term of supervised release, we dismiss the appeal as moot. *See United States v. Palomba,*182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999).

DISMISSED.

**

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