alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John H. TODD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gale A. MCMAHON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-36022

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 6, 2017

John H. Todd, Pro Se

Gerald L. Warren, Attorney, Law Office of Gerald Warren and Associates, Salem, OR, 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 H. Todd appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the seizure of neglected cats pursuant to a search warrant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 129L We review de novo. *United States v. Luk,*859 F.2d 667, 670 (9th Cir. 1988). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc.,*575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

Summary judgment on Todd’s Fourth Amendment claim was proper because Todd failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant McMahon was not authorized to obtain the warrant. *See*Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.345(2) (“[A] peace officer, after obtaining a search warrant ... may enter the premises or motor vehicle where the animal is located to provide the animal with food, water and emergency medical treatment and may impound the animal.”); Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.015 (defining a “[pjeace officer” as a member of the Oregon State Police, sheriff, or reserve officer); Or. Rev. Stat. § 204.635 (providing that sheriff may ap*536point deputies and may also by special written appointment authorize any other person to do any particular act).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Todd’s motions for sanctions and to strike because Todd failed to establish grounds for relief. *See Dunn v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,*589 F.2d 408, 415 (9th Cir. 1978) (“The sanctions available to a trial judge under [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] are discretionary and the imposition of such sanctions will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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. 6442 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to ensure full pool levels of Flathead 

Lake in Montana in accordance with certain requirements, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2023 

Mr. ZINKE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to ensure full pool 

levels of Flathead Lake in Montana in accordance with 

certain requirements, 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 ‘‘Fill the Lake Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REGULATION OF POOL LEVEL OF FLATHEAD LAKE. 

6 From June 15 through September 15 of each cal7 endar year, the Secretary of the Interior shall ensure— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6442 IH

1 (1) a minimum lake level in Flathead Lake of 

2 2892’ MSL by providing the water from Hungry 

3 Horse Reservoir; and 

4 (2) a maximum lake level in Flathead Lake of 

5 2893’ MSL by releasing excess water downstream. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Malika Junayevna ABDURAHMONOVA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73879

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 2, 2017 *

OCTOBER 06, 2017

Reynold E. Finnegan, II, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Finnegan *&*Diba a Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Sergio Sarkany, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: KLEINFELD, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Malika Junayevna Abdurah-monova, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, *482petitions for review of an adverse decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on her claims for asylum and withholding of removal. She does not challenge the BIA’s adverse decision with respect to her application for Convention Against Torture relief. We deny the petition.

1. The BIA’s finding that Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum is supported by substantial evidence. See Zhiqiang Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing standard of review). The BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s finding that Petitioner suffered retaliation not because of a political opinion or imputed political opinion, but instead because of her “interfer[ence] with criminal activity” by human traffickers.1 The record does not compel a contrary finding.

2. The BIA incorrectly applied the “one central reason” standard to the claim for withholding of removal, a standard that applies only to the claim for asylum. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358-59 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that a less-exacting standard applies to claims for withholding). But we need not remand this case to the BIA because doing so would be “an idle and useless formality.” N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 766 n.6, 89 S.Ct. 1426, 22 L.Ed.2d 709 (1969). Given the agency’s finding that there was no nexus between the harm and a protected ground, neither the BIA’s basic reasoning nor the result would change.

Petition DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*482ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Petitioner no longer asserts that she experienced persecution on account of membership in a particular social group.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6354 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the number of individuals 

from the District of Columbia who may be appointed to military service 

academies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2023 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the 

number of individuals from the District of Columbia 

who may be appointed to military service academies. 

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 ‘‘Service Academies Dis5 trict of Columbia Equality Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY. 

7 Section 7442(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, 

8 is amended by striking ‘‘Five’’ and inserting ‘‘Fifteen’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6354 IH

1 SEC. 3. UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY. 

2 Section 8454(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, 

3 is amended by striking ‘‘Five’’ and inserting ‘‘Fifteen’’. 

4 SEC. 4. UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY. 

5 Section 9442(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, 

6 is amended by striking ‘‘Five’’ and inserting ‘‘Fifteen’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT 8.1
 List of Subsidiaries
 Significant Subsidiaries:Home Inns & Hotels Management (Hong Kong) Limited  Incorporated in Hong KongHong Kong Ai Home Investment Company  Incorporated in Hong KongHemei Hotel Management Company  Incorporated in the PRCHome Inns & Hotels Management (Beijing) Co., Ltd.  Incorporated in the PRCHome Inns Hotel Management (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.  Incorporated in the PRCShanghai Chuwen Investment Holding Co., Ltd.  Incorporated in the PRCShanghai Top Star Hotel Management Co., Ltd.  Incorporated in the PRCShanghai Huiju Hotel Equipment Lease Co., Ltd.  Incorporated in the PRCShanghai Huiyi Hotel Equipment Lease Co., Ltd.  Incorporated in the PRCJiangsu Hotel Equipment Lease Co., Ltd.  Incorporated in the PRCSuzhou Home Inns Trading Co., Ltd.  Incorporated in the PRCShanghai Banli Software and Technology Co., Ltd.  Incorporated in the PRC
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6632 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6632

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to require the Secretary of 
  Agriculture to make timely decisions on applications of retail food 
  stores to accept benefits from recipients of supplemental nutrition 
    assistance through on-line transactions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2023

     Mr. Lieu (for himself, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Garcia of Illinois) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                              Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to require the Secretary of 
  Agriculture to make timely decisions on applications of retail food 
  stores to accept benefits from recipients of supplemental nutrition 
    assistance through on-line transactions, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Timely Review of SNAP Online 
Retailer Applications Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. DEADLINE FOR DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO ACCEPT BENEFITS 
              THROUGH ON-LINE TRANSACTIONS.

    Section 7(k) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
2016(k)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) Timely review of applications.--
                    ``(A) In general.--In implementing paragraph (1), 
                the Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, shall 
                make a determination of approval or non-approval of an 
                application of a retail food store to accept benefits 
                from recipients of supplemental nutrition assistance 
                through on-line transactions not later than 180 days 
                after the Secretary receives that application.
                    ``(B) Notification of congress.--If the Secretary 
                is not able to make a determination described in 
                subparagraph (A) by the deadline described in that 
                subparagraph, the Secretary shall submit to the 
                Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
                the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the 
                House of Representatives a written notification that 
                includes an explanation of the reasons why the 
                Secretary was not able to make the determination by the 
                applicable deadline.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### William Hovey *et al. versus*Rejoice Newton Administrator, &c.

Oct. *2d.*

In this action, which was *covenant*upon a lease of waterworks and buildings, with the whole control of the water in the pond, except the right which E. Bangs has to take water in logs to his garden, and a similar right reserved to the lessor, the Court *held,*that parol evidence was not admissible to prove that in the intention of the parties to the lease, there was likewise an exception of the right which the county of Worcester-had exercised for more than twenty year’s, of occasionally d. verting part of the water for the purpose of cleansing the county gaol, and which diversion was well known to the parties at the time of making the lease.1

*Davis*and *Mien,*for the plaintiffs,

to show that the evidence was inadmissible, cited *Paine*v. *M'Intier,*1 Mass. R. 69 ; *Revere*v. *Leonard,*ibid. 91 ; *Howe*v. *Bass,*2 Mass. R. 380.

*Newton, contra,*

cited *Leland*v. *Stone,*10 Mass. R 459.

1

 A pre-existing right to pass over land conveyed t; take water il-om a spring in it, is a breach of the covenant against incumbrances. *Harlow*v. *Thomas,*15 Pick. 68; *Mitchell*v. *Warner,*5 Connect. R. 497. So is the existence of a public highway. *Kellogg*v. *Ingersoll,*2 Mass. R. 97 ; *Hubbard*v *Norton,*10 Connect R. 431; *Pritchard*v. *Atkinson,*3 N. Hampsh. R. 335. And evidence is not admissible to show that the grantee knew of the existence of the easement. *Harlow*v. *Thomas,*15 Pick. 68; *Hubbard v Norton,*10 Connect. R. 431. See *Townsend*v. *Weld,*8 Mass. R. 146
English Translation of Power of Attorney signed by Mr. Qing Li and Mr. Qi Zhu



 Exhibit 4.42 
 Power of Attorney 
 The shareholders of Tianjin Trendsters Investment Co.,
Ltd. (“TT Co.”), Qing Li (ID No.: 13282119740504051X) and Qi Zhu (ID No.: 110101197208063019) (collectively “the Authorizers”) hereby irrevocably authorize Beijing Perfect World Software Co., Ltd. (Registration No.:
110000410295807) (“the Authorized”) to exercise the following rights within the valid term of this Power of Attorney: 

To authorize the Authorized to fully and completely represent the Authorizers to exercise all shareholder rights of the Authorizers as TT
Co.’s shareholders as specified in laws and articles of association, including but not limited to, propose shareholders’ general meetings, receive any notice about the convening and rules of procedure of shareholders’ general
meetings, attend TT Co.’s shareholders’ general meetings and exercise all voting rights (including, as the Authorizers’ authorized representative, designating and appointing TT Co.’s directors, general manager, chief financial
officer and other senior management members at TT Co.’s shareholders’ general meetings, deciding upon TT Co.’s dividend distribution and other issues, etc.), sell or transfer all or part of the Authorizers’ equities in TT Co.
etc.. 
 To further authorize the Authorized to designate any person appointed by its board of directors to exercise the rights
granted by the Authorizers in this Power of Attorney. 
 Unless the Business Operation Agreement signed by TT Co., Beijing
Perfect World Software Co., Ltd., Qing Li and Qi Zhu is terminated prematurely for whatsoever reason, this Power of Attorney shall be valid from the signing day until Beijing Perfect World Software Co., Ltd. is dissolved in accordance with the laws
of the People’s Republic of China. 
 (No text below) 







 (Signature page, with no text) 
 The Authorizers: 
  

	
	 Qing Li
 /s/ Qing
Li

	
	 Qi Zhu
 /s/ Qi
Zhu


 The Authorized: 

Beijing Perfect World Software Co., Ltd. (seal) 

Authorized Representative: /s/ [Authorized Signatory] 
 November 4, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David K. Spohr, Vice President and Director of Fund Administration of the Managing Owner, Preferred
Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing Owner), of Futures Strategic Trust (the Trust), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Trusts Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly
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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David K. Spohr                                
|David K. Spohr                                    
|Vice President and Director of Fund Administration
|May 15, 2006
Exhibit 99.1

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 Moving Bytes Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Erik Mustad, 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:

|(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
               aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of all the
Company.
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ 
J. Erik Mustad
J. Erik Mustad 
Chief Executive Officer
March 28, 2003
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 02/02-0699]

Notice is hereby given that Oaktree SBIC Fund, L.P., 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of three small concerns, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Oaktree SBIC Fund, L.P. proposes to provide financing in an acquisition that will benefit an Associate, Oaktree Mezzanine Fund IV, L.P.

The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(4) of the Regulations because Oaktree SBIC Fund, L.P., will provide financing in a transaction to acquire a Small Business, Smart Care Equipment Solutions, 12539 S Holiday Drive, Alsip, IL 60803. This transaction is considered a conflict of interest requiring prior SBA approval because a portion of proceeds will be used to redeem outstanding debt held by an Associate of Oaktree SBIC Fund, L.P., Oaktree Mezzanine Fund IV, L.P.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.

Small Business Administration.

Bailey DeVries,

Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2022-04234 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Lee SULLIVAN, a.k.a. Three Stacks, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10509

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

SEPTEMBER 29, 2017

Jonas Lerman, Assistant U.S., J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S., DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John J. Jordan, Law Offices of John J. Jordan, San Francisco, 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 **

Edward Lee Sullivan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges *417the 324-month sentence imposed upon remand for resentencing following his bench-trial conviction for production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sullivan contends that the district court erred by applying an.obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Contrary to Sullivan’s contention, the district court made sufficient factual findings to support the enhancement, including a finding that Sullivan willfully gave false testimony on a material matter at trial. *See United States v. Jimenez-Ortega,*472 F.3d 1102, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the required elements, for an obstruction of justice enhancement); *see also*U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(F) (enhancement is proper when defendant provides “materially false information to a judge”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Henry W. Flexner, Appellant, *v.*B. T. Babbitt, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Argued January 14, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*606
      *Harold H. Levin, C. Walter Randall*and *Monroe Percy Bloch*for appellant.

*Avrom M. Jacobs*and *Robert G. Poskanzer*for Jennie M. Mendleson et al., as executors of Jerome Mendleson, Deceased, respondents.

*Horace S. Manges, Frank L. Weil*and *Gabriel Kaslow*for B. T. Babbitt, Inc., respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.