alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William P. ZANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC.; Glen Palmer, Jason Jones, Shawn Bell, Kevin Prewitt, Michael Hitchcock, David Shobe, individually and as employees of Knight Transportation, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-3018

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

FILED April 18, 2017

*533William P. Zander, Pro se.

James C. Sullivan, Brian J. Zickefoose, Polsinelli, Kansas City, MO, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before MATHESON, McKAY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Terrence L. O’Brien Circuit Judge

William P. Zander has filed this frivolous pro se appeal challenging the district court’s dismissal of his employment action and imposition of $1,000.00 in attorney’s fees as a sanction for his noncompliance with discovery orders. The original discovery deadline was November 22, 2013, but via misconduct and dilatory tactics, Mr. Zander delayed the date of his deposition until May 27, 2015. On that date, he still failed to appear, despite multiple judicial directives to submit to a deposition, a previous sanction of $500.00, and repeated warnings that noncompliance with discovery could result in dismissal. Consequently, a magistrate judge issued a report evaluating the *Ehrenhaus*factors1 and recommending the case be dismissed with prejudice and attorney’s fees of $1,000.00 be imposed for Mr. Zander’s noncompliance. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v), (d)(3). On de novo review, the district court entered an order adopting the recommendation in its entirety.

Mr. Zander has now filed an incomprehensible brief on appeal, which is attached to this order and judgment. He indicates “the courts rigged everything,” and his “printer broke so [he] know[s] the corruption of the court.” Aplt. Br. at 1. He also says someone perpetrated a fraud on the court, and he concludes with vague political and race-based remarks. We afford these pro se comments a liberal construction, but Mr. Zander has forfeited appellate review by failing to articulate any coherent argument supported by adequate legal authority. *See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer,*425 F.3d 836, 840-41 (10th Cir. 2005); *see also Bronson v. Swensen,*500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[W]e routinely have declined to consider arguments that are not raised, or are inadequately presented, in an appellant’s opening brief.”). Therefore, the district court’s judgment is affirmed.

Attachment

*534

*535

*536

*537

*538

*539

*540

*541

*542

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 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.

1

. *See Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds,*965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992).
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1422 

To permit each of the territories of the United States to provide and furnish 

statues honoring their citizens for placement in Statuary Hall in the 

same manner as statues honoring citizens of the States are provided 

for placement in Statuary Hall. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2021 

Ms. PLASKETT (for herself and Mr. SAN NICOLAS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To permit each of the territories of the United States to 

provide and furnish statues honoring their citizens for 

placement in Statuary Hall in the same manner as statues honoring citizens of the States are provided for placement in Statuary Hall. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PLACEMENT OF STATUES OF CITIZENS OF TER4 RITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN STAT5 UARY HALL. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1814 of the Revised Stat7 utes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 2131) is amended by 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1422 IH

1 adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘For pur2 poses of this section, the term ‘State’ includes American 

3 Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mar4 iana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 

5 United States Virgin Islands, and the term ‘citizen’ in6 cludes a national of the United States, as defined in sec7 tion 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

8 (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT RELATING TO PRO10 CEDURES FOR REPLACEMENT OF STATUES.—Section 311 

11 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001 (2 

12 U.S.C. 2132) is amended by adding at the end the fol13 lowing new subsection: 

14 ‘‘(f) For purposes of this section, the term ‘State’ in15 cludes American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the 

16 Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

17 Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 21.1
                                Net2Phone, Inc.
                                  Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                                     State (or Jurisdiction) of Organization
----                                                     ---------------------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>
Net2Phone Global Servicos de Comunicacoes, S.A.          Madeira, Portugal
Sprewell Consultadorio e Projectos, Lda                  Madeira, Portugal
Net2Phone Global SP z.o.o.                               Poland
Net2Phone MEA Ltd.                                       Israel
Aplio, Ltd.                                              Israel
Aplio, S.A.                                              France
Aplio, Inc.                                              California
Allia B.V.                                               Netherlands
Net2Phone Japan, K.K.                                    Japan
Net2Phone Email, Inc.                                    New Jersey
Adir Technologies, Inc.                                  Delaware
NetSpeak Corporation                                     Florida
</TABLE>
`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 July 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:  September 18, 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.`
Amendment 2012-1 to the CSS Industries, Inc



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Amendment 2012-1 
 to the CSS Industries, Inc. Severance Pay Plan

 for Senior Management 
 WHEREAS, CSS Industries, Inc. (the “Company” or “CSS”) maintains the CSS Industries, Inc. Severance Pay Plan for Senior Management (the “Plan”)
for the benefit of certain of its executives, as specified in the Plan; 
 WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated for
and on behalf of the Company on December 29, 2008 by the Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Committee”); 
 WHEREAS, the Committee has authority to cause the Plan to be amended from time to time; and 
 WHEREAS, the Committee has determined to amend the Plan to revise the definition of “Senior Management Employee” under the Plan; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the foregoing, effective as of May 15, 2012, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

  

	 	1.	The definition of “Senior Management Employee” set forth in the “Definitions” section of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows: 

 Senior Management Employee: For purposes of this Plan, (A) any employee of CSS
who either (i) has the officer title of Chairman, President, Vice President, Treasurer or Secretary with such entity, or (ii) serves as the Managing Director of CSS Pacific Rim Limited; and (B) any employee of Berwick Offray LLC, C.R. Gibson, LLC or
Paper Magic Group, Inc. who either (i) has the officer title of President or Executive Vice President of such entity or (ii) has the officer title of Vice President with such entity and directly reports to a President or an Executive Vice President
(but excludes any such individual who directly reports to a President or an Executive Vice President on an interim basis as a result of a vacancy in an officer level position reporting directly to such President or Executive Vice President).

  

	 	2.	In all respects not amended, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, to record the adoption of this Amendment 2012-1 to the Plan, the Committee has caused the execution of this instrument on this 15th day of May 2012. 

 

			
	CSS INDUSTRIES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ William G. Kiesling

		 	William G. Kiesling
		 	Vice President – Legal and Human Resources and General Counsel
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: May 5, 2006 |  | /s/ Michael A. Baker                 
|                   |  | Michael A. Baker                     
|                   |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of the written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 21
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 Jurisdiction ofSubsidiary
    
    Incorporation/OrganizationAmerican Factoring, Inc.
    
    NevadaTween Brands Store Planning, Inc.
    
    OhioTween Brands Purchasing, Inc.
    
    OhioTween Brands Direct Services, Inc.
    
    OhioTween Brands Direct, LLC
    
    OhioTween Brands Agency, Inc.
    
    OhioFloret, LLC
    
    OhioMish Mash, LLC
    
    OhioTween Brands Investment, LLC
    
    OhioToo G.C., LLC
    
    OhioTween Brands Service Co.
    
    OhioToo Retail & Sales Puerto Rico, Inc.
    
    Puerto RicoTween Brands Sourcing Hong Kong, Ltd.
    
    Hong KongG Too, LLC
    
    Ohio
#### IN RE: YAN SUI, Debtor. *373Yan Sui; Pei-Yu Yang, Appellants, v. Richard A. Marshack; et al., Appellees.

No. 16-60081

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 18, 2017

Yan Sui, Pro Se

Pei-Yu Yang, Pro Se

David M. Goodrich, SulmeyerKupetz, Los Angeles, CA, Chad V. Haes, Attorney, Marshack Hays LLP, Irvine, CA, for Ap-pellee Richard A. Marshack

James Clement Harkins, Esquire, Attorney, Cane Walker *&*Harkins LLP, Tustin, CA, for Appellee Pacific Homeowners Association

Misty Vanarkel, Pro Se

Timothy James McFeely, Esquire, Mari-um Moore, Esquire, Selman Breitman LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Scottsdale Insurance Company

Jess Bressi, Dentons US LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Appellee Dentons US, LLP

Before: REINHARDT, LEAYY, 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 **

Chapter 7 debtor Yan Sui and non-debt- or Pei-Yu Yang appeal pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) dismissing Sui’s appeal for lack of standing. We must determine our own jurisdiction sua sponte. *Special Investments, Inc. v. Aero Air, Inc.,*360 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

On May 6, 2016, the bankruptcy court entered an order denying Sui’s motion challenging the validity of claims filed in his bankruptcy case. On May 19, 2016, Sui refiled his motion seeking identical relief. On July 8, 2016, the bankruptcy court entered an order denying' Sui’s second motion. Sui filed a notice of appeal on July 19, 2016.

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because Sui did not appeal from the bankruptcy court’s final order within the 14 days prescribed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). *See*28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (an appeal to the BAP or district court from a bankruptcy court must be taken within the time provided by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002); *Slimick v. Silva (In re Slimick),*928 F.2d 304, 307 (9th Cir. 1990) (the filing of an order or judgment after the entry of a final disposition resolving the issue at bar does not constitute a second final disposition or extend the appeal period); *see also Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick),*13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional; the untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s order.”).

Al pending motions are denied.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 29, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60089

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PETER HALAT, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (USDC No. 2:96-cr-030)

_________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* 1We dismiss the appeal for the following reason:

In Defendant’s direct appeal, this Court held that “Halat waived his right to appeal his sentence in exchange for the government’s agreement not to appeal a sentence imposed below the guideline range.” United States v. Sharpe , 193 F.3d 852, 871 (5th Cir. 1999). This waiver applies to a collateral attack on the sentence. In United States v. Baty , the Court explained, “We think that a defendant’s waiver of her right to appeal deserves and, indeed, requires the special attention of the district court. When a defendant waives her right to appeal, she gives up the very valuable right to correct a district court’s unknown and unannounced sentence.” 980 F.2d 977, 978 (5th Cir. 1992). The transcript reveals that the district court paid the requisite special attention. Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Chasnoff, stated, “There will be no appeal of the final sentence given by this Court...” (emphasis added). The bottom line is that the record from the district court unambiguously establishes that Defendant chose to forsake all avenues of appeal of his sentence. Dismissed.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT De WAYNE THOM PSON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. J. De POND, C o rre c tiona l Offic e r, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15993 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-00527-AW IB AM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for theEa ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. De W ayn e Thom

pson, a C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging a n Eighth Am e ndm e nt viola

tion. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Re

snic k v . Hay e s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th C ir. 2000) (dismissa l unde r 28



# F IL ED DEC 08 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).U.S.C . § 1915A); Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998)

(orde r) (dismi ssa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Thom

pson’ s a c tion be c a

use Thom pson fa ile d to a lle g e fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t he suffe re d e xtre m e de priva tions c onstituting a

n Eighth Ame ndm e nt viola t ion. Se eHudson v . Mc

Millian , 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (“ [E] xtre m e de priva tions a re re q uire d to m ake out a

c onditions-ofc onfine m e nt c l a im .” ); J

ohnson v . Le w is , 217 F.3d 726, 731-32 (9th C ir. 2000) (to de te rm i ne whe t

h e r a c onstitutiona

l viola tion ha s oc c urre d, thec irc um sta nc e s, nature , a nd dura tion of a de priva tion m ust bec onside re d; m ore m ode st de priva tions m u st bele ngthy

or ongoing). W e re je c t Thom

pson’ s c onte ntion tha

t thedistric t c ourt e rrone ously fa ile d to a ddre s s thesubje c tive c om pone nt of thea lle ge d Eighth Ame n dm e nt viola tion. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 5 9 9 3 2
#### The People *ex rel.*Solomon Sayles, App’lt, v. Frank T. Fitzgerald, Register of New York, Resp’t.

*Hess, Townsend & McClelland,*for app’lt; *David J. Dean,*for resp’t.

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

Affirming 37 N. Y. State Rep,, 540.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Harry E. Dubin, Appellant, and U. S. Vitamin Corporation, Respondent.

Argued April 16, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*789
      *Asher Blum*for appellant.

*Joseph R. Kelley, Arlen G. Swiger*and *Edwin J. Harragan*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 193 (Thursday, October 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 60741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24507]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8050]

In the Matter of the Designation of Mujahadin-e Khalq, Also Known 
as MEK, Also Known as Mujahadin-e Khalq Organization, Also Known as 
MKO, Also Known as Muslim Iranian Students' Society, Also Known as 
National Council of Resistance, Also Known as NCR, Also Known as 
Organization of the People's Holy Warriors of Iran, Also Known as the 
National Liberation Army of Iran, Also Known as NLA, Also Known as 
People's Mujahadin Organization of Iran, Also Known as PMOI, Also Known 
as National Council of Resistance of Iran, Also Known as NCRI, Also 
Known as Sazeman-e Mujahadin-e Khalq-e Iran, as a Specially Designated 
Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as 
Amended

    Acting under the authority of Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 
of September 23, 2001, as amended (``the Order''), I hereby revoke the 
designation of the entity known as the Mujahadin-e Khalq, and its 
aliases, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist pursuant to Section 
1(b) of the Order. This action takes effect September 28, 2012.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: September 21, 2012.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-24507 Filed 10-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```