alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ZACHARY EDMUND STACEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D21-1344

September 23, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Laura E. 

Ward, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Mark J. O'Brien, 

Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cynthia 

Richards, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 14, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 05-41618 Summary Calendar

_______________________ MINERVA G. ZAMORA, also known as Minnie Zamora, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus HIDALGO COUNTY, et al., Defendants-Appellants, HIDALGO COUNTY, Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. 7:04–CV–130–RC)

__________________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *2

Hidalgo County appeals the district court’s judgment entered on a jury verdict that awarded Zamora damages in her lawsuit under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “Act”). We affirm for the following reasons: 1. There is legally sufficient evidence in the record of a causal connection between Zamora’s decision to take leave under the Act and the County’s decision to terminate Zamora’s employment. There is also sufficient evidence that the County’s given
reason for terminating Zamora was pretextual. Faced with the inconsistencies in Ms. Cedillo’s testimony and the conflicting and contrary testimony of advisory board members Casarez and Quintanilla, the jury was free to disbelieve the County’s proffered explanation, and in the absence of that explanation to conclude that the only basis for Zamora’s termination was the exercise ofher rights under the Act. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , 530 U.S. 133, 148, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 2109 (2000) ("a plaintiff's prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer's asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated.") 2. Fairly read, Zamora’s First Amended Complaint included a claim of retaliation. 3. The jury’s finding that the County did not act in good faith is not clearly
erroneous. See Nero v. Indus. Molding Corp. , 167 F.3d 921, 928-29 (5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2



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/A of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2004 (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: November 22, 2004 |  | /s/ Fernando Sanchez                    
|                         |  | Fernando Sanchez Chief Financial 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.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Resource Related Research Projects (R24 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         March 22, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G33B, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         John C. Pugh, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G33B, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 435-2398,                         *pughjohn@csr.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 23, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-04161 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6520 

To exclude individuals who are not citizens of the United States from the 

number of persons used to determine the apportionment of Representatives and the number of electoral votes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2023 

Mr. EDWARDS (for himself, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. VAN DREW, Mr. NEHLS, Mr. 

MOORE of Alabama, Mr. PALMER, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. JACKSON of 

Texas, Mr. WEBER of Texas, and Mr. ROSE) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To exclude individuals who are not citizens of the United 

States from the number of persons used to determine 

the apportionment of Representatives and the number 

of electoral votes. 

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 ‘‘No Representation 

5 Without Legal Immigration Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6520 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF NONCITIZENS FROM NUMBER OF 

2 PERSONS USED TO DETERMINE APPORTION3 MENT OF REPRESENTATIVES AND NUMBER 

4 OF ELECTORAL VOTES. 

5 (a) EXCLUSION.—Section 22(a) of the Act entitled 

6 ‘‘An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decen7 nial censuses and to provide for an apportionment of Rep8 resentatives in Congress’’, approved June 18, 1929 (2 

9 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is amended by striking ‘‘not taxed’’ and in10 serting ‘‘not taxed and individuals who are not citizens 

11 of the United States’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to the apportion14 ment of Representatives carried out pursuant to the de15 cennial census conducted during 2030 and any succeeding 

16 decennial census. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### IN RE: Robert W. HUNT, M.D., a Medical Corporation, Debtor. Peli Popovich Hunt, an individual and trustee, Appellant, v. David M. Goodrich, Chapter 7 Trustee; Peter C. Anderson, United States Trustee, Appellees.

No. 15-56225

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 5, 2017

Peli Popovich Hunt, Pro Se

David Gould, Esquire, Gould & Gould LLP, Calabasas, CA, for Appellee David M. Goodrich

*596Hatty Yip, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Peter 0. Anderson

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s orders imposing pre-filing restrictions on Hunt after declaring her a vexatious litigant, and dismissing Hunt’s bankruptcy appeal as moot. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a pre-filing order entered against a vexatious litigant. *Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.,*500 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007). We review de novo a district court’s determination that a bankruptcy appeal is moot. *Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.),*152 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring Hunt a vexatious litigant and imposing pre-filing restrictions because the court gave Hunt notice and the opportunity to oppose the order, created a record adequate for review, made substantive findings of frivolousness, and tailored the order narrowly to prevent the abusive conduct. *See Molski,*500 F.3d at 1057.

The district court properly dismissed Hunt’s appeal as moot because the property was conveyed to third parties, which prevented the district court from granting effective relief. *See Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.,*152 F.3d at 1180-81 (affirming dismissal on the basis of mootness where the sale of the property to a non-party prevented the court from granting effective relief).

Because Hunt’s appeal to the district court is moot, we do not consider her arguments addressing the underlying merits of the appeal

To the extent Hunt challenges the bankruptcy court’s order as the representative of a separate legal entity, the appeal is dismissed because “a non-lawyer ‘has no authority to appear as an attorney for others'than himself.’” *Johns v. County of San Diego,*114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting *C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States,*818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by .Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
exhibit10-8.htm




Exhibit 10.8


 










	  	  	  
	
Notice of Grant of

	  	
LSI CORPORATION


	
Restricted Stock Unit Award

	  	
ID: 94-2712976


	
Under the

	  	
1621 BARBER LANE


	
LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan

	  	
MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035







 










	  	  	  	  
	
GRANTEE NAME

	  	
Award Number:

	  
	
Address

	  	
Grant Date:

	  
	
Address

	  	
Number of Restricted Stock Units:

	  





 









 


On the grant date shown above, LSI Corporation granted you the number of restricted stock units shown above under the LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan.  If and when it vests, each restricted stock unit entitles you to receive one share of LSI common stock.  


 


 


Your award will vest according to the vesting schedule shown below. Vesting will occur only if [any applicable performance requirements indicated below have been met and] you have not incurred a Termination of Service prior to the vesting date. 


 



	  	  	  	  	  
	
Shares

	  	
Vesting Date

	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  





 









 


By your signature below, you agree that this award is governed by this Notice of Grant, the attached Restricted Stock Unit Agreement and the LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan. You acknowledge that you have received, read and understand this Notice of Grant, the attached agreement and the plan. You agree to accept as binding all decisions or interpretations of the Board of Directors of LSI or its delegate regarding any questions relating to the plan, this Notice of Grant or the attached agreement. 


 










	  	  	  
	
________________________________________________

	  	  
	
GRANTEE NAME

	  	  
	
Date:
#### Nauful Corporation, Appellant, *v.*F. G. Adams Company, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted April 5, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*741
      *Milton S. Gould, Isidore A. Seltzer*and *Alvin J. Bernstein*for motion.

*Hyman Herman*opposed.

Motion dismissed, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements, on the ground that the Court of Appeals is without power to grant leave.
#### Paul Morse Richards, App’lt, *v.*Charles H. Ludington, Resp’t.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,*

*Filed May 15, 1891.)*

Usury—Parties—Assignee of borrower.

The light to maintain an action to annul a contract for the loan of *402money at an unlawful rate and to recover the securities given therefor is restricted to the borrower, and his assignee for the benefit of creditors is not a necessary or proper party thereto, either as plaintiff or defendant.

Appeal by the plaintiff and his assignee from an order directing Edgar A. Tredwell, as assignee, to be made a defendant in this action, and that the summons and complaint and all proceedings be so amended as to make him a defendant herein.

*Thos. J. Keighorn,*for app’lt; Amasa. *Richard*Angell, for resp’t.

Daniels, J.

The plaintiff has brought this action to set aside an agreement made by him with the defendant for the loan of money and to obtain a return of collaterals held by way of security for the loan, on the ground that it was made for a usurious rate and reservation of interest. Two days after the action was begun the plaintiff made a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors, and soon afterwards the defendant made the motion resulting in this order. Its object was to substitute the assignee as plaintiff, but that was denied, and he was directed to be joined' as a defendant From that order both himself and the plaintiff have appealed.

This action has been brought under a statute of this state, authorizing the borrower of money at an unlawful rate of interest to maintain an action to annul the contract for the loan, and to recover money, goods, or things in action, received by the lender as security for the loan in violation of the act And that action may be maintained by the borrower without the payment or the offer to pay any part of the principal or interest of the loan. 2 R. S., 6th ed., 116-5.

The right to maintain it has been specially restricted to the borrower. Wheelock *v. Lee,*64 N. Y., 242. The controversy is wholly, therefore, between himself and the lender. And no other person can, as this action is presented by the pleadings, be either a necessary or proper party to it To substitute the assignee for the borrower would at once have defeated the suit, and to add him as a defendant would be of not the least service to the defendant in the way of aiding him in his defense to it The effect would be to delay its progress, by requiring the complaint to be framed anew, and a further and useless attribute added to the action, which could be of no benefit to the plaintiff or the defendant. In this respect the case is within the principle followed in *Chapman*v. *Forbes,*123 N. Y., 532; 34 N. Y. State Rep., 351. No beneficial result to any one can legally follow from the order, and as both the assignee and the plaintiff object to it, the order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and the disbursements, and the motion denied.

Van Brunt, P. J., and Lawrence, J., concur.
#### Harry H. Lang, Appellant, *v.*Mildred H. Hexter et al., as Executors of Percy K. Hexter, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Argued February 24, 1943;

decided April 8, 1943.

*682
      *Charles J. Herson*for appellant.

*Albert Levine*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis and Conway, JJ. Taking no part: Desmond, J.
#### Cameron G. ROUPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James STRICKLAND and Adam Veach, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35063

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 19, 2017 Seattle, Washington

Filed June 08, 2017

Tomas A. Gahan, Esquire, Trial Attorney, PWRLK, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

John Turner Kugler, Turner Kugler Law PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Cameron Roupe appeals the adverse summary judgment grant to Officers James Strickland and Adam Veach. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1.Summary judgment was correctly granted to Officer Strickland on Roupe’s excessive force claim. Despite a liberal construction of his filings, Roupe did not show that the circumstances of the tasing were genuinely in dispute for summary judgment purposes. *See Thomas v. Ponder,*611 F.3d 1144, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 2010). Based' on the undisputed material facts, Officer Strickland’s use of force was objectively reasonable, and he was thus entitled to qualified immunity. *See Kingsley v. Hendrickson,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2472-73, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015); *Bryan v. MacPherson,*630 F.3d 805, 823 (9th Cir. 2010).

2. Officer Veach was also entitled to qualified immunity because Roupe did not allege or show facts that Officer Veach violated Roupe’s constitutional rights by not reporting the tasing. *See Bryan,*630 F.3d at 823. Accordingly, summary judgment was correctly granted to Officer Veach.

3. As for Roupe’s claim that Officers Strickland and Veach unlawfully failed to seek medical attention for him after the tasing, Roupe did not present evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact that the Officers were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. *See Castro v. County of Los Angeles,*833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc); *Jett v. Penner,*439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, this claim fails as well.

4. The panel deems abandoned Roupe’s claim that the district court erroneously ruled on the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as if it were a motion to dismiss. *See United States v. Loya,*807 F.2d 1483, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Issues raised in a brief which are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). Finally, Roupe waived his remaining Washington state law claims by not renewing them on appeal. *See Miller v. Fairchild*
      *445
      *Indus., Inc.,*797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Alan Lewis DOERING Plaintiff-Appellant v. Bill HOLLENBECK, Sheriff Defendant-Appellee Jane Does, Head Nurse and Nurse located at Sebastian County Jail Defendant Officer John Devane; William Hayes, Dr.; Tim Grant; Director of Nurses Cindy Moore Defendants-Appellees Ana Bazar Defendant Officer John Schuch Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-3880

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 27, 2017

Filed: June 30, 2017

Alan Lewis Doering, Pro Se

JaNan A. Davis, Thomas J. Diaz, Jason E. Owens, Michael R. Rainwater, Rainwater & Holt, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees Bill Hollenbeck, Sheriff, Officer John Devane, William Hayes, Dr., Director of Nurses Cindy Moore, Officer John Schuch

Constance G. Clark, William F. Clark, Don A. Taylor, Davis & Clark, Fayette-*303ville, AR, for Defendant-Appellee Tim Grant

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Alan Lewis Doering appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from his pretrial detention at the Sebastian County Detention Center. Upon de novo review of the record, we find no basis for overturning the district court’s disposition of Mr. Doering’s claims. See Cullor v. Baldwin, 830 F.3d 830, 836 (8th Cir. 2016) (in considering summary judgment, viewing record in light most favorable to non-moving party and drawing all reasonable inferences from it in his favor). The judgment of the district court is affirmed, but we amend the dismissal of the claims that the district court found had not been administratively exhausted, to be without prejudice. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

, The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Mark E, Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas,
#### CHONG PARK *v.*KYE JA CHOI ET AL.

*Michael J. Belzer,*assistant attorney general, in support of the petition.

*James D. Moran,*in opposition.

Decided November 6, 1997

The petition by the second injury fund for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 46 Conn. App. 596 (AC 16458), is denied.
#### Dennis W. Moran, Resp’t, *v.*George Conoma *et al. In re*Mayer & Simon Loeb, Purchasers, App’lts.

*James Kearney,*for resp’t; *F. J. Myers*and *S. F. Riggins,*for app’lts.

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

Affirming 36 N. Y. State Rep., 680.