alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WALTER JOHNSON FAMILY TRUST, a Trust Organized under the Laws of Arizona, Defendant, and Kimberly Thompson; Edward Thompson, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 14-55668

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Hugh Balsam, Christopher R. Barth, Attorney, Locke Lord LLP, Chicago, IL, Kelly S. Biggins, Locke Lord LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kimberly Thompson, Pro Se

Edward Thompson, Pro Se

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Kimberly and Edward Thompson appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in a declaratory judgment and interpleader action brought by Star Insurance Company (“Star Insurance”) arising from a dispute about insurance coverage following'an airplane crash. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Trishan Air, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co.,*635 F.3d 422, 426 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted partial summary judgment in favor of Star Insurance on its first cause of action for declaratory relief because defendants failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the requirements of the insurance policy were satisfied and whether there was coverage. *See id.*at 433 (setting forth standard for determining whether policy language is ambiguous).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Thompsons’ request for additional discovery, made at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, *622because the Thompsons failed to show that the discovery they requested would have precluded summary judgment. *See Getz v. Boeing Co.,*654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a requesting party must show that the discovery sought would have precluded summary judgment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Thompsons’ request for sanctions because the Thompsons failed to establish grounds for sanctions. *See F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc.,*244 F.3d 1128, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review); *Fink v. Gomez,*239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that “sanctions are available if the court specifically finds bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith”).

We reject as meritless the Thompsons’ contentions that the district court erred by not ruling on their objection to the joint request to modify the scheduling order, not providing the relief requested in the motion for clarification, and entering a final judgment. We also reject as meritless the Thompsons’ contentions regarding confusion with respect to their status as parties, and violation of their due process rights.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

# loaqu¡n Valley 

# tHEATTHY

# AIR LIVINGAIR P(lLTUTIflI{ CflNTRflL DISTRICT 

### October 

### 14,2014 Mr. 

### Mike Guzzelta, Manager 

### Rule Evaluation Section California 

### Air Resources Board 

### P.O. Box 

### 2815 Sacramento, CA 

### 95812 Dear 

### Mr, Guzzelta Attached is

### the Rule

### Action Package 

### for Rule

### 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and

### Wood Burning Heaters) 

### adopted by

### the District's Governing Board on 

### September 

### 18,2014. We request 

### the California 

### Air Resources Board (ARB) 

### transmitthis rule and

### the appropriate documentation to

### the United States 

### Environmental Protection 

### Agency (EPA) as a 

### SIP revision. 

### lncluded in

### this Rule

### Action Package arethe 

### following attachments 

## 1. ARB SIP 

### Completeness Checklist 

## 2. ARB 

### APCD/AQMD Rule Evaluation Form 

## 3. Clean copy 

### of Rule 4901 

## 4. Underline/Strikeout Copy 

### of Rule4901 

## 5. Governing Board Resolution 

## 6. Governing Board Memo 

## 7. Evidence 

### of Public Hearing 

## 8. Final 

### Staff Report 

### with appendices 

### lfyou have any 

### questions, please contact 

### Anna Myers 

### at (559)230-6100 or by email at

### anna.myers@valleyair.org. The District

### thanksyou and your staff for your assistance.

Gilt Director 

### of Strategies 

### and lncentives 

### Attachments

Seyed Sadredin Executive Director/Air P0lluti0n C0ntrol 0ff¡cer

Northern ßegion 4800 Enterprise Way Modesto, CA 95358.871 I Tel: (209) 557.8400 FAX: (2091 557.64i5 Contral Region {Main Office}

1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue Fresno, CA 53726.0244 Tel: (5591 230-8000 FAX: 1559) 230.6061 Southern Region 34946 Flyover Court Bakersfield, CA S3308.9725 Tel: 881.392-5500 FAX: 861.392.5585 www.valleyair.org www.healthyairliving.com Pri¡rod on rocycl.d pop¡r O
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 on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Cognitive Systems Analysis and Aging.                    

*Date:*                         March 9, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kimberly Firth, Ph.D., National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7702,                         *firthkm@mail.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 18, 2022.

David W. Freeman, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-04004 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Thos. Adams & Co. (Limited), Resp’t, *v.*Saly I. Mayer, App’lt.

*W. W. MacFarland,*for resp’t; *David Leventritt,*for app’lt.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 86 N. Y. State Rep., 83.
Quantitative Non-Use Tables.v2.xls

Author: Abt Associates Inc.

Created: 1/31/11

Updated: 3/24/11

Purpose: Summary tables in support of the nonuse chapter and analysis

Worksheet Description

abun_increase tables

I&E reductions and estimated population size for

species evaluated as part of the nonuse benefits

transfer

WTP tables

summary of results under regulatory options 1

through 3

File Info 1of 3
Estimated Fish Population Increases in the Northeast from the Elimination of Baseline IM&E at CWIS

Species Baseline I&E Losses

(millions of A1E)

Estimated Fish Numbers

(millions)a

Winter Flounder 6.502 21.1 6,501,879.84

Striped Bass 1.399 14.3 1,398,700.91

Bluefish 0.001 116.1 667.78

Atlantic Butterfish 0.008 28.9 8,119.91

a

Estimated population size was calculated by applying a conversion factor (lbs per fish) to an

esitmate of spawning stock biomass.

abun_increase tables 2 of 3
Nonuse Benefits from Increases in Fish Numbers under 316(b) Regulatory Options

Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Reduction in Northeast IM&EM (millions of age-1

equivalents) 6.50 0.03 5.32 5.57

Maximum Population (millions of fish) 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0

Percentage Increase in Fish within Northeast

Waters 6.56% 0.03% 5.37% 5.63%

Household WTP per Percent Increase in Fish

Numbers (2009$) $0.76 $0.76 $0.76 $0.76

Annual WTP per Household (2009$) $4.99 $0.02 $4.08 $4.28

Number of Households (millions) 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4

Annual WTP (millions of 2009$) $26.9 $0.1 $22.0 $23.1

Annualized WTP (3% discount rate; millions

of 2009$) $26.3 $0.1 $14.8 $15.5

Annualized WTP (7% discount rate; millions

of 2009$) $26.8 $0.1 $11.5 $12.0

Number of Households (millions) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0

Annual WTP (millions of 2009$) $104.6 $0.5 $85.6 $89.7

Annualized WTP (3% discount rate; millions

of 2009$) $102.3 $0.4 $57.3 $60.0

Annualized WTP (7% discount rate; millions

of 2009$) $104.0 $0.4 $44.5 $46.5

North Atlantic

Mid-Atlantic

Scenarios: Baseline = Elimination of Baseline I&E Mortality losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I

Everywhere and E for Facilities with > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere

WTP tables 3 of 3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Douglas GILL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30217

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 6, 2017 * Portland, Oregon

Filed October 20, 2017

Leah K. Bolstad, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States District Court, Portland, OR, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Robert Warren Rainwater, Esquire, Rainwater Law Group, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and ANELLO,** 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 Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation,

MEMORANDUM ***

Mark Gill appeals the district court’s 97-month sentence. We affirm.

The district court’s determination of drug quantity is a factual issue reviewed for clear error. *See United States v. Dallman,*533 F.3d 755, 760 (9th Cir. 2008).

The district court did not err when it declined to consider the lab report’s margin of error on the amount of methamphetamine seized from Gill’s house. The forensic laboratory weighed the seized drugs and determined that the mixture consisted of 35.89 grams of actual or pure methamphetamine with a margin of error of 3.28 grams. Absent evidence challenging the reliability of the lab report, which Gill did not present, the district court was well within its discretion to calculate Gill’s base offense level based on 35.89 grams of actual methamphetamine seized.

Gill’s reliance on *United States v. Culps,*300 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2002), and *United**672*States v. Scheele,*231 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2000), is misplaced. We have required district courts to consider the margin of error only when “a drug quantity is arrived at in a manner that is inherently imprecise,” such as when there is an approximation of unseized drugs. *Scheele,*231 F.3d at 499. There is nothing inherently imprecise about a lab report’s analysis of seized drugs.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Mary Laventhall et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Fireman’s Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, et al., Defendants.

Submitted October 4, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

*658
      *Homer 1. Harris*for motion.

*John L. Fletcher*opposed.

Motion dismissed, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements, on the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

          Written Statement of Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief
          Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
          2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

          The undersigned, the Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief
Financial Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the "Authority"),
hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:

          (a)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Authority for the
               Quarter Ended June 30, 2001 filed on the date hereof with the
               Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies
               with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
               Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                          /s/ Jeffrey E. Hartmann
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Jeffrey E. Hartmann
                                          Executive Vice President, Finance and
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          November 12, 2002

                                       45
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,935,622
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,200,842
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (8,891)
<INVENTORY>                                    436,853
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,291,261
<PP&E>                                      18,764,734
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,105,893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              88,799,282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,933,175
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       112,296
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                88,799,282
<SALES>                                     28,275,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,275,210
<CGS>                                       19,680,310
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,680,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               785,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             621,835
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,728,136
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,189,046
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,539,090
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,539,090
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
#### Johnson, administrator, *v.*Johnson *et al.*

No. 13365.

June 12, 1940.

Gbice, Justice.

No substantial relief being prayed against tbe only defendant resident of the county where the equity suit was filed, thp demurrer raising-the question of jurisdiction should have been sustained and the action dismissed. *First National Bank of Atlanta*v. *Holderness,*189 *Ga.*819 (7 S. E. 2d, 682).

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*485
      *Milton A.*Carlton, for plaintiff in error.

*D. A. Bragg*and *Charles G. Reynolds,*contra.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO

AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY


 


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT
TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (this "Second Amendment"), is made this March 12, 2012,
by and among, AR CAPITAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, formerly known as American Realty Capital II, LLC, ("Buyer")
and THE PARTIES IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE "A" of the Agreement as hereinafter defined (individually a "Seller"
collectively, the "Sellers").


 


WHEREAS, Buyer and
Sellers entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property, with an Effective Date of February 8, 2012,
as amended by that certain First Amendment to Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property dated as of February 28, 2012 (collectively,
the "Agreement"), with regard to the Property, more particularly described in the Agreement. Buyer and
Seller wish to amend the Agreement as provided herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual promise contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree that the Agreement shall be amended as follows:


 


		1.	Buyer hereby approves of its due diligence investigation of the Property and desires to proceed to Closing.






 

		2.	Deferred Maintenance Credit.At Closing,
Seller shall provide Buyer with a credit

in the amount of Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-Six and No/100 Dollars ($13,596.00) for various deferred maintenance issues
at the Property.



 


		3.	Miscellaneous. Except as expressly modified hereby, the terms of the Agreement as previously
amended, shall remain in full force and effect as written. Any capitalized term used in this Second Amendment and not otherwise
defined herein, shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Agreement. This Second Amendment may be executed in any number
of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which, when taken together shall constitute on agreement.



 






    	 



    	 	



    
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have executed this Second Amendment as of the day and year first set forth above.


 


 


	 	SELLER:
	 	 
	 	THE PARTIES IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE "A"
	 	 
	 	By: DAVENPORT EXCHANGE, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company
	 	 
	 	By: INLAND PRIVATE CAPITAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, its sole member, as Attorney in Fact under written power or attorney which signs on their behalf
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Patricia DelRosso
	 	 	Name: Patricia DelRosso
	 	 	Title: President


 


 


 


	 	BUYER
	 	 
	 	
        AR CAPITAL, LLC,

        a Delaware limited liability company

	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Edward M. Weil, Jr.
	 	 	Name: Edward M. Weil, Jr.
	 	 	Title: President
#### Max Herring, as Administrator of the Estate of Pearl Herring, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*J. B. Slattery & Bros., Inc., Respondent, and New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

Argued November 29, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*795
      *Charles F. Bachmann, Robert H. Nix*and *J ohn P. Smith*for appellant.-

*Jacqitin Frank*and *Louis Sirota*for plaintiff-respondent.

*Robert L. Callahan*for defendant-respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 17, 2014

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-1891

Lower Tribunal No. 97-4142

________________



### Todrick Roberts

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Eric W. Hendon

, Judge.

Todrick Roberts

, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Todrick Roberts has filed numerous pro se motions and appeals

challenging his conviction and sentence after which this Court ordered him, on

October 29, 2014, to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing anyfurther pro se pleadings in this Court related to his conviction and sentence

imposed in case number F97-4142. 1 Upon consideration of Roberts’ response to

the order to show cause, we conclude that Roberts failed to demonstrate good

cause for his actions. It is therefore ordered that the Clerk of the Third District

Court of Appeal shall refuse to accept any further filings that relate to case number

F97-4142, unless they have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a

licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing.

1 See Roberts v. State

, No. 3d14-1891, 2014 WL 5462532 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 29,

2014).

2
#### Charlotte W. Wilke et al., Appellants, *v.*Arthur W. Britton et al., Defendants, and Harvey D. Gibson et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Submitted November 15, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*728
      *Robert Levine*and *Harold KorseniTc*for motion.

*Thomas Kiernan*opposed.

Motion dismissed, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements, on the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.