alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Alphonso JAMES, Sr., Appellant, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3181

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 23, 2018

Alphonso James, Sr., pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wetherell, Makar, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
DFPIOFTBANS R nncKFT S :\ < M .'

X U : l i OST-2010-004 6 Secretar y o f th e DO T Dea r Sir : I f Mountai n time i s replace d wit h Centra l Tim e our count y wil l fail and it' s citizen s wil l b e miserable . Kee p Mountai n Time . Le t

u s vote . Rura l Merce r Count y Resident

iHrii i
#### Robert COLBURN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15532

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 25, 2017 *

Filed July 27, 2017

Robert Colburn, Jr., Pro Se

Ellinor R. Coder, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Alex G. Tse, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Colburn appeals *pro se*the district court’s decision affirming the denial of *583his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The ALJ did not err by concluding that nurse practitioner Esker Ligón was not an acceptable medical source. Under the operative social security regulations governing this appeal, nurse practitioners do not qualify as acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(d)(1) (effective until Mar. 27, 2017),1 Further, assuming without deciding that *Gomez v. Chater,*74 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 1996), remains good law following the repeal of 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a)(6) in 2000, the administrative record does not establish that NP Ligón worked closely enough with supervising psychiatrist Dr. Donald Tarver in order to trigger the interdisciplinary team exception in *Gomez. See Molina v. Astrue,*674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (declining to address whether *Gomez*remains good law but affirming the ALJ’s decision not to consider the opinion of a physician’s assistant as an acceptable medical source when “the record [did] not show that she worked under a physician’s close supervision”); *see also Gomez,*74 F.3d at 971 (applying interdisciplinary team exception when the record established that the “[nurse practitioner] consulted with [her supervising physician] regarding [the claimant’s] treatment numerous times over the course of her relationship with the [claimant]”).

2. Colburn’s remaining arguments on appeal are waived. Colburn did not raise these arguments below, and Colburn’s reason for failing to raise these arguments below—-failure to timely review the administrative record—does not by itself satisfy the Ninth Circuit’s exceptions to the general rules regarding waiver. *See Greger v. Barnhart,*464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

1

. 20 C.F.R. § 416.913 was amended effective March 27, 2017. Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844 (Jan. 18, 2017).
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, 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: May 10, 2004 |  | /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
32






CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(SUBSECTIONS
(a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,


UNITED
STATES CODE)





Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Trist
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify with
respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“10-KSB Report”) that:





(1)
            the
      10-KSB/A 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 10-KSB/A Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.














Date:  August
20,
2008                                                                   /s/ ERIC
STOPPENHAGEN


Eric Stoppenhagen


Interim President and Corporate
Secretary
#### Martha LOERA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73127

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 30, 2017

Steven Kiyoto Uejio, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*485MEMORANDUM **

Martha Loera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Loera is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)©, where she knowingly assisted another alien in seeking entry into the United States in violation of the law. *See Altamirano v. Gonzales,*427 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir. 2005) (requiring an affirmative act of assistance in order to establish alien smuggling).

Contrary to Loera’s contention, the agency did not err or violate her due process rights by admitting the Form 1-213, the United States Customs and Border Protection officer report, and the September 30, 2007, record of sworn statement into evidence, where the documents were probative and their admission was fundamentally fair, and Loera did not show that they contained inaccurate information or were obtained by coercion. *See Sanchez v. Holder,*704 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2012); *Espinoza v. INS,*45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[Ijnformation on an authenticated immigration form is presumed to be reliable in the absence of evidence to the contrary presented by .the alien.”); *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)- (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

We reject Loera’s contention that she was entitled to cross-examine the preparer of the Form 1-213 in court. *See Espinoza,*45 F.3d at 311 (the immigration judge was not required to permit cross-examination of the Form I-213’s preparer absent evidence of unreliability).

We also reject Loera’s contention that she was deprived of her right to examine the videotape of her September 30, 2007, interview, where her notice of objection and request for access to the videotape were untimely. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c).

We grant the motion to withdraw as counsel of record (Docket Entry No. 21) filed by Peter Duong.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6395 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.6395

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to require the Secretary of the Interior 
 to include the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultations 
 regarding designations of critical minerals, elements, substances, and 
                               materials.

    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 ``Recognizing the Importance of 
Critical Minerals in Healthcare Act of 2023''.
SEC. 2. REQUIRED CONSULTATION WITH THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
SERVICES.
    Paragraphs (4)(C) and (5)(A) of section 7002(c) of the Energy Act 
of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606(c)(4)(C) and (5)(A)) are each amended by 
inserting ``Health and Human Services,'' after ``Agriculture,''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### IN RE: Sally Jane BRANDENFELS, Debtor, Sally Jane Brandenfels, Appellant, v. Ticor Title Insurance Co., Appellee.

No. 15-60075

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 9, 2017 * Portland, Oregon

Filed June 13, 2017

James Dale Huffman, Attorney, James D. Huffman, Attorney at Law, St. Helens, OR, for Appellant

Jonathan Mark Radmacher, Attorney, McEwen Gisvold LLP, Portland, OR, for Appellee

Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RAYES,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Chapter 7 debtor Sally Brandenfels appeals a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision granting Ticor Title Insurance Company’s (“Ticor”) motion to deny a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) and affirm.

We conclude, contrary to Brandenfels’s argument, that the bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standard when addressing Ticor’s claim that Brandenfels did not keep adequate records. Under our case law, Section 727(a)(3) creates a burden-shifting framework. The creditor must first prove “(1) that the debtor failed to maintain and preserve adequate records, and (2) that such failure makes it impossible to ascertain the debtor’s financial condition and material business transactions.” *Caneva v. Sun Cmtys. Operating Ltd. P’ship (In re*Caneva), 550 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he burden of proof then shifts to the debtor to justify the inadequacy or nonexistence of the records.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the bankruptcy court properly concluded that Brandenfels unjustifiably failed to keep adequate records. The bankruptcy court identified three valid grounds for concluding that the records were inadequately kept: (1) that Brandenfels could not account for substantial cash withdrawals taken from her company’s corporate account; (2) that she failed to split her records by indicating which expenditures were personal and which were business related; and (3) that she failed to explain her payments of corporate funds to third parties. *See Stewart Enters., Inc. v. Horton (In re*Horton), 621 F.2d 968, 971-92 (9th Cir. 1980); *Caneva,*550 F.3d at 761-62. In light of Brandenfels’s own testimony that she took measures to avoid Ticor’s garnishments, the bankruptcy court prop*462erly found that the inadequacies in Bran-denfels’s records were unjustified.

Ticor did not abandon its claim under Section 727(a)(8). The bankruptcy court and the parties discussed the issue of Brandenfels’s recordkeeping at length at trial and the bankruptcy court expressly confirmed with Ticor’s counsel that Ticor was not withdrawing its Section 727(a)(3) claim.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### SHAME ON YOU PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elizabeth BANKS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56372

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 6, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed May 3, 2017

Charles M. Coate, Attorney, Abrams Coate LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

*520Stephen R. Mick, Esquire, Counsel, Devin J. Stone, Barnes *&*Thornburg LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees

Before: PLAGER,* CLIFTON, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable S. Jay Plager, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Shame on You Productions, Inc. (“SOYP”) appeals the district court’s order and judgment dismissing SOYP’s federal copyright infringement claim and California state law implied-in-fact contract claim. On the basis of the thorough and well-reasoned order of the district court, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### IN RE: Shmuel ERDE, Debtor, Shmuel Erde, Appellant, v. John H. Brink; et al., Appellees.

No. 16-55374

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 6, 2017

Shmuel Erde, Beverly Hills, CA, pro se

Barry Z. Brodsky, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appel-lees.

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). Erde’s request for oral argument, set forth -in the opening brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Shmuel Erde appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Erde’s motion to reopen his Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. To the extent Erde’s notice of appeal is timely, we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 168(d). We affirm.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Erde’s challenges to the bankruptcy court’s order denying Erde’s motion to reopen because Erde’s notice of appeal was timely only as *479to the bankruptcy court’s order denying Erde’s motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law. *See*Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002; *Swimmer v. IRS,*811 F.2d 1343, 1344-45 (9th Cir. 1987) (under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4), a second post-judgment motion does not toll time to appeal underlying judgment unless it was filed timely as to the underlying judgment); *see also Arrowhead Estates Dev. Co. v. U.S. Trustee (In re Arrowhead Estates Dev. Co.),*42 F.3d 1306, 1310-11 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 should be interpreted consistently with Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)).

The notice of appeal was timely as to the bankruptcy court’s order denying Erde’s request for findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052, but Erde does not address that order in his opening brief. As a result, he has waived any challenge to.the order. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[Ojn appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); *Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F,3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

Erde’s motions for leave to file supplemental briefing (Docket Entry Nos. 67 and 71) and request for ruling (Docket Entry No. 74) are denied.

Appellees’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 69) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

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



EXHIBIT 23.1 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
AirGate PCS, Inc.: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No. 333-34416, No.
333-56352, No. 333-75024, No. 333-85250, and No. 333-113956) on Form S-8 and the Registration
Statement (No. 333-109165) on Form S-4 of AirGate PCS, Inc. and subsidiaries, of our reports dated
December 13, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of AirGate PCS, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of September 30, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders deficit, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended September 30, 2004 and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the
September 30, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of AirGate PCS, Inc. and subsidiaries. /s/ KPMG LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
December 13, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of TOMBSTONE CARDS, INC. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, John H. Harris,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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.




Date: April 2, 2008



By:       /s/ John N. Harris
         -----------------------------
         John N. Harris
         Chief Executive Officer and President
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection  with  the   accompanying   Quarterly  Report  of  Concierge
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December
31,  2006 (the  "Report"),  I, Allen E.  Kahn,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  February 13, 2007

                                           /s/ Allen E. Kahn
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Allen E. Kahn
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


         The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.











                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
#### Jabez Field, Petitioner, &c.

The captain of a company in the militia has authority to accept the resignation of the cle^k of the company.

An order to a warning officer to warn a meeting of the company, signed “ by order of said commanding officer, A. B. clerk,” instead of being signed by the commanding officer himself, is in due form.

Upon a complaint against a soldier for neglecting to appear wilh his company “at F S.’s store,” it appeared, that the captain ordered that the «'•'mpany should be .uned to appear at that store, but that the soldier was warned to appear “at the usual place of parade of the company;” and further, that the store was the usual place, and known uy the soldier to be so, he having performed militia duty there before. *Held,*that the evidence sustained the complaint.

This was a petition for a writ of *certiorari*to a justice of the peace, by whom Field had been fined for neglecting to ap*42pear at a meeting of a militia company on the first Tuesday of May> 1829.

It was alleged for error, that neither at the time of the supposed delinquency, nor at the time of making the complaint to the justice, was Matthew Kingman, the complainant, the clerk of the company. One Packard testified, that in May 1828, he, Packard, was the clerk of the company ; and that in the autumn of that year he resigned his office and surrendered his sergeant’s warrant to the captain, who accepted the same, and that he then went into the ranks. Kingman was appointed clerk in April 1829. The objection was, that Packard could not make his resignation to the captain and go into the ranks, and consequently he continued still to be the clerk. But, *per*Curiam,, the captain had a right to appoint the clerk, and of course a right to accept his resignation.1

Another alleged error was, that the order to the warning officer to warn the company was signed, “ By order of said commanding officer, Matthew Kingman, Clerk; ” instead of being signed by the captain himself. But, *per*Curiam, the form pursued was correct.2

The order was, that the company should be warned to appear “ at Col. Edward Southworth’s store in North Bridgewater,” and the complaint against the petitioner was for neglecting to appear at that place ; but he was warned to appear “ at the usual place of parade of said company in North Bridgewater.” It was objected that he was not warned to appear at the place mentioned in the complaint. Evidence was produced before the justice, that Southworth’s store was, and for years had been, the usual place of parade of the company, and that the petitioner had been enrolled in the company in 1828, and had performed military duty therein. *Per Curiam.*This was sufficient to sustain the complaint, so far as regards this obje' tion.

A writ of *certiorari,*therefore, was not granted.

*Eddy,*for the petitioner.

*W. Baylies,*for the respondent.

1

 See Revised Stat. *c.*12, § 74.

2

 See Revised Stat. c. 12, § 88.