alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Douglas WOO, an individual; Arthur Moore, an individual; Benson Lin, an individual; Juan Salcedo, an individual; John Araki, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-56992

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted November 10, 2016 Pasadena, California

Filed April 28, 2017

Carol S. Zaist, Esquire, Carol S. Zaist, Esquire, Newport Beach, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Douglas J. Collodel, Esquire, Sedgwick LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Valerie Rojas, Attorney, Cozen O’Connor, Los Angeles, CA, Defendant-Appellee

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MARQUEZ,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Rosemary Marquez, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs-Appellants Douglas Woo, Arthur Moore, Benson Lin, Juan Salcedo, and John Araki (“Insureds”) sought declaratory relief and alleged breaches of contract and the implied covenant of good *497faith and fair dealing after Defendant-Ap-pellee Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Insurance Company”) declined to defend against and provide coverage for a lawsuit brought against Insureds. The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the Insurance Company, and denied summary judgment in favor of Insureds. Insureds now appeal.

We review de novo. *Devereaux v. Abbey,*263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc); *Moran v. Washington,*147 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1998). “We determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.” *Oswalt v. Resolute Indus., Inc.,*642 F.3d 856, 860 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting *Wallis v. Princess Cruises, Inc.,*306 F.3d 827, 832 (9th Cir. 2002)); *see also*Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

The district court correctly granted the Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment and denied Insureds’ motion for summary judgment. At least two clauses included in the parties’ insurance contract namely the exclusions for prior knowledge and prior litigation expressly preclude coverage for the entirety of the Tatung lawsuit. The prior knowledge exclusion precludes coverage for the Tatung suit because an insured, albeit not necessarily the Insureds here seeking coverage, knew of the facts and circumstances from which the Tatung suit derived. Similarly, the pri- or litigation exclusion precludes coverage for the Tatung suit because the suit arose out of a demand letter issued before April 2010. Because these exclusions render coverage impossible for any of the claims raised in the Tatung lawsuit, Insurer has no duty to defend Insureds therein. *See Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Super. Ct.,*6 Cal.4th 287, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467, 861 P.2d 1153, 1157-59 (1993).

AFFIRMED.

**

 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. 6709 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6709

To eliminate certain requirements with respect to dredging and dredged 
                   material, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 11, 2023

  Mr. Moylan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To eliminate certain requirements with respect to dredging and dredged 
                   material, 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 ``Incentivizing the Expansion of U.S. 
Ports Act''.

SEC. 2. DREDGING; DREDGED MATERIAL.

    (a) Dredging.--Section 55109(a)(3) of title 46, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or is exempt'' and inserting ``, is 
        exempt''; and
            (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, or 
        is otherwise eligible for such a certificate and endorsement 
        without regard to the requirement under section 12112(a)(2)''.
    (b) Excluding Dredged Material From Transportation Requirements.--
            (1) In general.--Section 55110 of title 46, United States 
        Code, is amended--
                    (A) in the section heading, by striking ``or 
                dredged material''; and
                    (B) by striking ``or dredged material''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 551 of 
        title 46, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
        relating to section 55110 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 55110. Transportation of valueless material.''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6676 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the matters covered 

by the Armed Forces Workplace and Gender Relations Surveys. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2023 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. ESCOBAR) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the matters covered by the Armed Forces Workplace and Gender 

Relations Surveys. 

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 ‘‘Expanding Military 

5 Sexual Assault Data Collection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF MATTERS COVERED BY ARMED 

7 FORCES WORKPLACE AND GENDER RELA8 TIONS SURVEYS. 

9 Subsection (c) of section 481 of title 10, United 

10 States Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6676 IH

1 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and 

2 (5) as paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively; and 

3 (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol4 lowing new paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(3) Indicators of the assault (including un6 wanted sexual contact) that give reason to believe 

7 that the victim was targeted, or discriminated 

8 against, or both, for a status in a group.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Manuel MORALES-GUSCA, AKA Lenin Aparicio-Morales, AKA Rafa Hernandez Morales, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-73899

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 7, 2017

Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Attorney, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, OIL, Vanessa M. Otero, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

*617Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *617*See*Fed. R. App, P, 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM **

Manuel Morales-Gusca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding Morales-Gusca failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. *See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch,*816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016); *see also Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, we deny the petition as to his withholding of removal claim.

Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Morales-Gusca’s CAT claim because he did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### SOOK HEE JUNG, AKA Xianghua Shen, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73711

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 7, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed September 11, 2017

Elsa Ines Martinez, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Elsa Martinez, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Andrea Gevas, 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: CALLAHAN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and FABER,** 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 David A. Faber, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Sook Hee Jung, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We review questions of law de novo and the agency’s factual determinations for substantial evidence. *Cortez-Pineda v. Holder,*610 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jung did not meet her burden of demonstrating that she was “waved” into the United States at a port of entry and, therefore, “inspected and admitted” for the purpose of adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a); *Matter of Quilantan,*25 I *&*N Dec. 285, 286, 293 (BIA 2010). There were inconsistencies between Jung’s testimony and immigration documents submitted on her behalf. Jung did not explain those inconsistencies nor did she provide sufficient documentation to corroborate her testimony that her entry was procedurally regular for purposes of adjustment of status. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (stating that applicant bears the burden of establishing eligibility for relief from removal).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Jung’s unexhausted contentions that the IJ did not provide her sufficient notice and opportunity to produce corroborative evidence or to explain its unavailability and that the IJ failed to provide specific and cogent reasons for rejecting her explanations regarding the inconsistencies between her testimony and the documentary evidence. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA”).

*522PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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.
Exhibit 10.4


 


Summary of Supplemental Compensation for
Independent Directors


 


Each independent director will receive a supplemental $1,000
payment, payable at the end of the fourth quarter of each fiscal year.
#### Steve PARTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Blake DORNING, Steve Watson, Curtis Sanders, Chris Stephens, Charles Berry, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16563 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 29, 2017)

Henry F. Sherrod, III, Henry F. Sher-rod III, PC, Florence, AL, Adam Francois Watkins, Watkins Bradley LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant

George W. Royer, Jr., David J. Canupp, Lanier Ford Shaver *&*Payne, PC, Huntsville, AL, for Defendants-Appellees Blake Doming, Charles Berry, Brian Chaffin, T.A. Miller, Forrest Edde, Steve Finley

John Philip Burbach, Luther Franklin Corley, IV, Sirote & Permutt, PC, Huntsville, AL, for Defendants-Appellees Steve Watson, Curtis Sanders, Chris Stephens

Scott Burnett Smith, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Huntsville, AL, Jake Michael Gipson, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants-Appellees Robert L. Brous-sard, Marc Sandlin, Robert Becher

Luther Franklin Corley, IV, Sirote & Permutt, PC, Huntsville, AL, for Defendants-Appellees Kerry Phillips, Marion Bullock, Charles Zeissler, Robert Hayes

Before HULL, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Steve Parton appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his amended complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Parton, who was an officer with the Madison County, Alabama Sheriffs Department, filed his § 1983 action after he was arrested for, and charged with, the theft of a gun that he removed from a crime scene. The theft charge was later dismissed. Parton’s amended complaint alleged a Fourth Amendment claim of false arrest against thirteen officers with the Madison County Sheriffs Department and three Alabama district attorneys, all in their individual capacities.

The district court dismissed Parton’s claims against the sheriffs department defendants based on qualified immunity because the facts as alleged in the amended complaint showed they had at least argua*581ble probable cause to arrest Parton for either theft or tampering with physical evidence. Among other things, Parton’s amended complaint indicates that he gave the gun found by the fire department in the bed of the victim’s truck to a third person and did not turn it in as potential evidence. The district court dismissed Par-ton’s claims against the district attorney defendants based on absolute immunity.

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record, we find no reversible error in the district court’s June 29, 2016 order and. affirm the district court’s dismissal of Parton’s amended complaint with prejudice.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

                            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,  2005 (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 14, 2006

                                             /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.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-00-00620-CR

Derrick Dupree, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0975579, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

On September 1, 2000, Derrick Dupree perfected this appeal from an order

revoking community supervision. On October 17, 2000, appellant waived his appeal in writing

after being admonished by the trial court.

The appeal is dismissed.

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Yeakel and Patterson

Dismissed 

Filed: February 15, 2001 

Do Not Publish
<Page>

                                  Exhibit 99.1

                           ART TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.

                                 25 First Street
                               Cambridge MA 02141

               LETTER TO COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

                                 March 25, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549-0408

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, Art Technology
Group, Inc., has obtained a letter of representation addressed to the Company
from Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") stating that the December 31, 2001
audit of the Company's financial statements, that are included in the Form 10k
for which this letter is filed as an exhibit, was subject to their quality
control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen
personnel working on the audit and availability of national office
consultation and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen
to conduct the relevant portions of this audit.

                                            Very truly yours,

                                            Art Technology Group Inc.

                                            /s/ Edward Terino

                                            Edward Terino
                                            Senior Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04204]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, or TDD (202) 263-4869, not later 
than March 16, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Chris P. Wangen, Assistant 
Vice President), 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e0ada1a08d908c93ce869282ce8f9287"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c78a8687aab7abb4e9a1b5a5e9a8b5a0">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. The LeGare Revocable Trust dated July 23, 2018, Greg LeGare and 
Elaine LeGare, as trustees, all of Osseo, Wisconsin; Bradley LeGare and 
Sharon LeGare, both of St. Charles, Illinois; Jeffrey P. LeGare, Lucas, 
Texas; Jennifer LeGare, Eau Claire, Wisconsin; and Pamela LeGare-Van 
Hout, Appleton, Wisconsin; to become the LeGare Group, a group acting 
in concert, to retain voting shares of Platinum Bancorp, Inc., and 
thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Platinum Bank, both of 
Oakdale, Minnesota. This notice replaces FR Doc. 2022-03603, published 
on 02-18-2022 at 87 FR 9347.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 23, 
2022.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-04204 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.2

                                PN Med Group Inc
               San Isidro 250 depot 618 * Santiago, Chile 8240400
    Phone: 569.659.2350 * Fax: 775-981-9001 * www.pinnacleenterpriseinc.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dated: May 24, 2012

Written Description of the Oral Agreement between:

Mr. Niklitschek (the President)

PN Med Group Inc. (the Company)


Our officer and director, Mr. Niklitshcek informally agreed to advance funds to
allow us to pay for professional fees, including fees payable in connection with
the filing of this registration statement and operation expenses. However, Mr.
Niklitschek has made no formal commitment, arrangement or legal obligation to
advance or loan funds to the company.



/s/ Pedro Niklitschek
--------------------------------
by: Pedro Niklitschek
President
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-2096

_____________________________

KELCEY JONES,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus—Original Jurisdiction.

November 22, 2023

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003).

ROWE, BILBREY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Kelcey Jones, pro se, Petitioner.
2

No appearance for Respondent.