alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LAULU, MAMA, and TASALI, Plaintiffs v. TUI-POI, Defendant

No. 2-1930

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Auta-Pini”]

February 12, 1930

JAMES W. FOXALL, *President of the High Court;*LUTU, *Associate Member;*and PELE, *Associate Member*

*423OPINION AND DECREE

The both parties to this proceeding came before the Court and agreed that the Court should take testimony and determine as to whether or not the land “AUTA-PINF was ever properly registered in the name of either Patea or Tui-Poi.

After a careful consideration of all the testimony and the records concerning the registration of this land it appears

That the land was offered for registration by Patea on March 10,1924 ;

That a notice of said offer was duly posted at the Administration Building according to practice;

That prior to the expiration of the sixty (60) day period, during which period everyone is given the opportunity to file objections to the registration, Tui-Poi came to the Registrar of Titles and made objection to the registration of the land by Patea;

That Patea agreed that the land should be registered in the name of Tui-Poi

That he accordingly registered the land in the name of Tui-Poi;

That the notice that the land had been offered for registration in the name of Tui-Poi was never posted;

That the registration of the land in the name of Patea was improper because of the objection of Tui-Poi and the agreement of Patea, and further because the matter of the objection should have either been withdrawn by Tui-Poi or the High Court should have heard the case and determined the real ownership.

And now, therefore, this 12th day of February, A.D. 1930, it is decreed that the registration, now appearing in the books of the Registrar of Titles, of the land “AUTA-PINF in the name of Tui-Poi be, and it is hereby decreed null and void; it is further decreed that the land be posted *424for the usual 60 day period as offered by the heirs of Patea for registration in the name of Patea, and that Tui-Poi may file formal objections to said registration if he so desires, and the usual procedure for registration of lands be otherwise followed in this case.
Donald WALKER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3225

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
The UAS(s) I will be operating are small rotorcraft aircraft,

weighing 60oz including sensor payload. I will operate the

rotorcraft, under normal conditions at a speed of no more 

than 17 knots, usually 3-5 knots, and have the capability to 

hover, and move in the vertical and horizontal plane 

simultaneously. I will manually operate only in Visual 

Line of Sight and will operate only within the operating 

parameters as described in the Operating Manual attached 

as Attachment1.

Adherence to the Operating Manual will insure that the sUAS 

will “not create a hazard to the national airspace system or 

the public.”

Given the small size and weight of the sUAS involved and 

the restricted sterile environment within which they will 

operate, the applicant falls squarely within that zone of 

safety (an equivalent level of safety) in which Congress 

envisioned that the FAA must, by exemption, allow 

commercial operations of UASs to commence immediately. 

Also due to the size of the UASs and the areas in which the 

relevant sUAS will operate, approval of the application 

presents no national security issue. Given the clear direction 

in Section 333 of the Reform Act, the authority contained in 

the Federal Aviation Act, as amended; the strong equivalent 

level of safety, surrounding the proposed operations, and 

significant public benefit, including enhanced safety, 

reduction in environmental impact, including reduced 

emissions associated with allowing UASs for educational 

and marketing operations, (as opposed to full scale aircraft), 

the granting of the requested exemptions is in the public 

interest. Accordingly, the applicant respectfully requests that 

the FAA grant the requested exemption without delay.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                           COHR INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                     COMPUTATION OF INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                 (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED             NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                     DECEMBER 31,                   DECEMBER 31,
                                              --------------------------     --------------------------
                                                1997           1996            1997           1996
                                              --------     -------------     --------     -------------
                                                           (AS RESTATED,                  (AS RESTATED,
                                                            SEE NOTE 4)                    SEE NOTE 4)
<S>                                           <C>          <C>               <C>          <C>
Net income (loss) attributable to common
  stock.....................................  $(10,655)       $   574        $(11,409)       $ 2,571
                                              ========        =======        ========        =======
Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding used for basic calculations...     6,433          5,162           6,429          4,765
Dilutive effect of stock options and
  warrants after application of treasury
  stock method..............................        --            377              --            385
                                              --------        -------        --------        -------
Number of shares used to compute diluted
  income per share..........................     6,433          5,539           6,429          5,150
                                              ========        =======        ========        =======
Net income (loss) per share -- basic........  $  (1.66)       $  0.11        $  (1.77)       $  0.54
                                              ========        =======        ========        =======
Net income (loss) per share -- diluted......  $  (1.66)       $  0.10        $  (1.77)       $  0.50
                                              ========        =======        ========        =======
</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

April 3, 2018

s0326

Order 

Clerk

April 3, 2018

155440 & (38)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155440

COA: 335712

Wayne CC: 12-000953-FC;

12-005075-FC

MARK CARTER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of February 20, 2018, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer 

the application for leave to appeal the January 4, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered, and it is DENIED as moot. Because the defendant did not file a motion 

for relief from judgment, the Wayne Circuit Court order that the defendant seeks leave to 

appeal has now been set aside in the June 29, 2017 order of that court, and the defendant 

has already received the hearing on remand that this Court ordered on March 8, 2016. 

The motion to amend the application for leave to appeal is DENIED, without prejudice to 

the defendant pursuing appellate relief from the Wayne Circuit Court order of December 

21, 2016.
#### IN RE: YAN SUI, Debtor. Yan Sui, Appellant, v. Richard A. Marshack, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee.

No. 16-60049

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 18, 2017

Yan Sui, Pro Se

Chad V. Haes, Attorney, Marshack Hays LLP, Irvine, CA, for Ap'pelleel7-1489

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 **

Chapter 7 debtor Yan Sui appeals pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Sui’s claimed homestead exemption. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review-decisions of the BAP de novo and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. *Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Penrod (In re Penrod),*611 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly denied Sui’s claimed homestead exemption because the record shows that Sui voluntarily transferred the property prior to filing his bankruptcy petition and failed to disclose any interest in the property or schedule secured claims that might have alerted the chapter 7 trustee to the transfer. *See*11 U.S.C. § 522(g)(1) (allowing a debtor to exempt property recovered by a trustee if the debtor did not voluntarily transfer or conceal the property); *Glass v. Hitt (In re Glass),*60 F.3d 565, 568-69 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining requirements for 11 U.S.C. § 522(g)(1) to apply).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Sui’s motion for leave to file a late filed reply brief (Docket Entry No. 12) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 11.

Sui’s motion to consolidate this case with Appeal Nos. 16-60065 and 15-60066 (Docket Entry No. 12) 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**

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS OFCHIEF 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, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Liore Alroy, 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 12, 2005

               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 12, 2005

----
##### 



DEFERRAL AGREEMENT
Tommy D. Kilgore
  Annual deferred compensation credits:
    
    $300,000
    
    
    Vesting Date(s)
    
    Vesting AmountDuration of deferral agreement:
    
    4 years and 7 monthsFirst compensation credit:
    
    $300,000 (03/31/2005)
    
    
    03/31/2005
    
    $300,000Second compensation credit:
    
    $300,000(10/01/2005)
    
    
    09/30/2009
    
    Balance of accountThird
compensation credit:
    
    $300,000(10/01/2006)
    
    
    09/30/2009
    
    Balance of accountFourth compensation credit:
    
    $300,000 (10/01/2007)
    
    
    09/30/2009
    
    Balance of accountFifth and final compensation credit:
    
    $300,000 (10/01/2008)
    
    
    09/30/2009
    
    Balance of accountTotal credits over deferral period:
    
    $1,500,000Expiration date:
    
    09/30/2009
       o Balance of account to be paid to me in a lump sumü Balance of account to be transferred to TVA MISRIP account
  /s/
Tommy D. Kilgore
Participant
    
    
    
    3/29/05
Date/s/
John E. Long, Jr.
EVP, Human Resources
    
    
    
    3/29/05
Date
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

               STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         The undersigned, Robert C. White, is the President and Chief Executive
Officer and Principal Executive and Financial Officer of Wake Forest Bancshares,
Inc. (the "Company"). This statement is being furnished in connection with the
filing by the Company of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report").

         By execution of this statement, I certify that:

         A)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
              or 78o(d)) and

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

         This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report
so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that
this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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 21, 2006          /S/ ROBERT C. WHITE
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  ROBERT C. WHITE

                                  PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                                  PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER
#### Paula SUTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ryan ZINKE, Department of Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs), agency,* Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35511

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017**

Filed July 6, 2017

Steven L. Herrickk, Tully Rinckey PLLC, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Edward Bryan Wilson, III, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 Ryan Zinke has been substituted for his predecessor, Sally Jewell, as Secretary of the Interi- or under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2),

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Paula Sutton appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging sex, age, and disability discrimination in violation of Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and the Rehabilitation Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles,*349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sutton’s sex and age discrimination claims because Sutton failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring Sutton were pretextual. *See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc.,*281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth framework for Title VII sex discrimination claim and explaining that summary judgment is appropriate where plaintiff did not establish “a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or ... that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); *Sanghvi v. City of Claremont,*328 F.3d 532, 536 n.3 (9th Cir. 2003) (Title VII and ADEA claims are analyzed under the same burden-shifting framework).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sutton’s disability discrimination claim because Sutton failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether her hearing loss constituted a disability. *See*42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) (defining “disability” under the Americans with *613Disabilities Act (“ADA”)); *Walton v. U.S. Marshals Serv.,*492 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (standards provided by ADA apply to claims brought under the Rehabilitation Act).

The parties’ joint motion to submit the case on the briefs (Docket Entry No. 30) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

***

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

Responses per Party Total Number

of Responses Time per

Response Cost per

Response (Dollars)Total HoursTotal Cost (Dollars) 80.1416 - New renewable fuels and pathways (petitions) 150 1 150 8 824 1200 85200 80.1450 - Registration

(b)(1) at $103/hour 1010 1 1010 8 824 8080 832240 (b)(2) at $206/hour 1010 1 1010 24 4944 24240 4993440 CDX Registration 1010 1 1010 2 206 2020 208060

**TOTA LS**  **3180 3180**  **35540 6118940**  **Information Collection Burden by Type of Party**

Table I: Producers of Renewable Fuel
#### ALE of Faleasoa, Plaintiff v. TAULAFOGA of Faleasoa, Defendant

No. 4-1928

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

February 6, 1929

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

To try the right of Taulafoga of Faleasoa to register Matai Name “SIVA”

JUDGMENT

The above case came on to be heard before the High *415Court, with Judges Foxall, Lutu and Pele sitting, at Tau on Tuesday, February 5,1929 at 10:00 A.M.

The Court inquired as to whether or not the parties to the controversy were willing to have the case continued for twenty-four hours, during which time they would go into conference and attempt to amicably agree upon a holder of the name. It was explained that all those who were interested in the name, no doubt, knew who was entitled to hold the name, but if they could not come to an amicable settlement of the matter the Court would decide the issue.

Both sides agreed to retire and discuss the question, reporting to the Court the following morning, February 6, 1929.

At 10:00 A.M., Feb. 6, 1929, the Court again convened. Asoau, counsel for Taulafoga who offered the name for registration, then informed the court that at his suggestion both sides agreed that Ale, the objector, should hold the name.

It is therefore adjudged and decreed that the Matai Name “Siva” be given to Ale, and that the Court costs of this action, amounting to $25.00, be divided between Taulafoga and Ale, the parties hereto.
#### MITSUI O.S.K. LINES, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEAMASTER LOGISTICS, INC.; Toll Global Forwarding (Americas) Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17295

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 15, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed May 23, 2017

James Barton Nebel, Attorney, Flynn, Delich & Wise LLP, San Francisco, CA, Conte C. Cicala, Clyde *&*Co LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Eric Danoff, Attorney, Katharine Es-sick, Sedgwick LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and HUCK,* District Judge.

*

The Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Southern Florida, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-Appellant Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, LTD. (“MOL”) appeals the dismissal of its Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claims against Sea-Master Logistics, Inc. (“SeaMaster”) and Toll Global Forwarding (Americas) Inc. (“Summit”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

MOL alleges that Summit and SeaMas-ter’s fraudulent wire and mail transmissions proximately caused its domestic injuries. To show proximate cause, MOL must prove “some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.” *Holmes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp.,*503 U.S. 258, 268, 112 S.Ct. 1311, 117 L.Ed.2d 532 (1992). Mere “but-for” or factual causation is insufficient. *Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York,*559 U.S. 1, 9, 130 S.Ct. 983, 175 L.Ed.2d 943 (2010). So too is “[a] link that is too remote, purely contingent, or indirect.” *Id.*(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Defendants’ use of U.S. mails and wires did not proximately cause MOL’s injuries. Those injuries were the direct result of Summit and SeaMaster’s false Shenzhen door declaratipns, which induced MOL to issue payments to Rainbow and forego the *417higher origin receiving charges and space protection premiums to which it otherwise would have been entitled. The false wire and mail transmissions at issue may have facilitated the overall arrangement, but their role in the scheme was insufficiently direct to constitute a proximate cause of MOL’s injuries. *See Oki Semiconductor Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank,*298 F.3d 768, 774 (9th Cir. 2002).

Because MOL cannot show proximate cause, we need not address whether it suffered “domestic injury” within the meaning of *RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty.,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2090, 2106-11, 195 L.Ed.2d 476 (2016). Defendants’ Motion for Judicial Notice is accordingly denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6564 

To allow the Farm Credit Administration the option to examine low-risk 

Farm Credit System institutions under a 24-month cycle. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2023 

Ms. SPANBERGER (for herself and Mr. LAMALFA) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To allow the Farm Credit Administration the option to examine low-risk Farm Credit System institutions under a 

24-month cycle. 

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 ‘‘Farm Credit Adjust5 ment Act’’. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6564 IH

1 SEC. 2. FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION OPTION TO EXAM2 INE LOW RISK FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSTI3 TUTIONS ON A 24-MONTH CYCLE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5.19(a) of the Farm 

5 Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2254(a)) is amended in 

6 the 1st sentence— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘in no event’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘not’’; and 

9 (2) by inserting ‘‘, except that the Farm Credit 

10 Administration, in its sole discretion, may extend the 

11 time period between mandatory examinations of in12 stitutions deemed by the Farm Credit Administra13 tion to be low-risk institutions to not more than 24 

14 months’’ before the period. 

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

16 subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2024. 

Æ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS