alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mark DARULIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. San Diego Police Officer GOTTS #6836; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55328

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 4, 2017

Mark Darulis, Spring Valley, CA, pro se.

Catherine Louise Turner, Deputy City, San Diego City Attorney’s Office Matthew L. Green, Best Best & Krieger LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mark Darulis appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims against judicial officers arising out of state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. *44412(b)(6). *Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court,*828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Darulis’s claims against defendant Mies-feld (erroneously sued as “Miefeld”) on the basis of judicial immunity because the challenged action was taken in Miesfeld’s judicial capacity. *See Duvall v. County of Kitsap,*260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that judges are immune from suit for money damages for judicial acts and setting forth factors “relevant to the determination of whether a particular act is judicial in nature”); *Franceschi v. Schwartz,*57 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (judicial immunity applies to municipal court commissioner).

The district court properly dismissed Darulis’s claims against defendant Banks on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity because the challenged actions were “an integral part of the judicial process.” *Mullis,*828 F.2d at 1390; *see Duvall,*260 F.3d at 1133.

Defendants Miesfeld’s and Banks’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9) 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Crystal COMPTON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11363

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 2, 2017

Crystal Compton, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Crystal Compton, federal prisoner # 28755-177, moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s order transferring her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to this court as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. The district court’s transfer order is an appealable collateral order over which this court has jurisdiction. *In re Bradford,*660 F.3d 226, 228-29 (5th Cir. 2011). However, because such a transfer order is completely separate from the merits of the action, it is not a final order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B), and a COA is not required. *See United States v. Fulton,*780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015). Therefore, Compton’s request for a COA is denied as unnecessary. *See id.*

On appeal, Compton reasserts the claims raised in her § 2255 motion and raises numerous issues for the first time on appeal. She does not identify any error in the district court’s order transferring her motion to this court as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. When an appellant fails to make any argument challenging the district court’s ruling, it “is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment.” *Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). By not identifying any error in the district court’s order, Compton has abandoned the only issue before this court. *See Brinkmann,*813 F.2d at 748. Because Compton’s § 2265 motion was indeed successive and filed without our authorization, the district court did not err in transferring it for lack of jurisdiction.1*See Fulton,*780 F.3d at 686, 689.

MOTION FOR COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; AFFIRMED.

*

 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

. In a previous case, we denied her request for permission to file a successive habeas petition. *In re Compton,*No. 16-10968 (5th Cir. Sept. 29, 2016).
Supreme Court—General Term—First Department.

Filed April 17, 1891.

#### Christian H. Schultheis v. Georgiana F. Webster *et al.*

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gaspar SANTANA-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11553 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 26, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Mark Glendon Parenti, Parenti Law, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gaspar Santana-Guzman appeals his 120-month prison sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He correctly acknowledges that his as-applied Sixth Amendment sentencing challenge is foreclosed by circuit precedent. *See United States v. Hernandez,*633 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we GRANT his motion for summary disposition and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

*

 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.
#### Preston M. BROWN and Ocean E. Campbell, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America and Ora Campbell and Mildred Campbell, Husband and Wife, Appellees.

No. 18367.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Nov. 22, 1966.

John A. Jarvis, Chariton, Iowa, for appellants.

James A. Lorentzen, of Patterson & Lorentzen, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellees Ora Campbell and Mildred Campbell. Theodore T. Duffield, Des Moines, Iowa, filed printed brief.

Before VOGEL, Chief Judge, MATTHES, Circuit Judge, and DUNCAN, Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves a question of Iowa law as applied to a joint and mutual last will and testament wherein the one dying first gave all his or her property to the other and the survivor gave all his or her property to a named beneficiary. In a well-reasoned opinion, published as United States v. 1,453.49 Acres of Land, etc., S.D.Iowa, 1965, 245 F.Supp. 582, Judge Hanson held the provisions of such mutual will to be binding. His holding is a permissible interpretation of the law of Iowa with which we are in complete accord. On the basis of his opinion as published, this case is affirmed.
#### R. SORRELS, Trustee of the other RCJS Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES INC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35007

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 18, 2017

R. Sorrels, Pro Se

Heidi E. Buck Morrison, Racine Olson Nye Budge <& Bailey, Chtd, Pocatello, ID, Joshua Schaer, Esquire, Attorney, Routh Crabtree Olsen, P.S., Bellevue, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Northwest Trustee Services Inc

Michael M.K. Hemphill, Esquire, Attorney, Roberts Johns and Hemphill PLLC, Gig Harbor, WA, for Defendant-Appellee U.S. Bank

Frederick B. Burnside, Esquire, Lauren Dorsett, Hugh Robert McCullough, Attorney, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee JPMorgan Chase *&*Co,

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

R. Sorrels appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims related to foreclosure proceedings. We review de novo questions of our own jurisdiction. *Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc,,*560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009).

Because the foreclosure sale of the property has already been completed, this court cannot grant the relief Sorrels requests and we dismiss the appeal as moot. *See Vegas Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC,*669 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he sale of the real properties prevents this Court from granting the requested relief and accordingly renders this appeal moot.”); *Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Baker,*22 F.3d 880, 896 (9th Cir. 1994) (a case is moot when there is no longer a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted).

DISMISSED.

**

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

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-2447

___________________________ 

Juan Raymundo-Velasquez

 Petitioner

v.

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

 Respondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

____________ 

Submitted: January 11, 2024

Filed: January 17, 2024

[Unpublished] 

____________ 

Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

 

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Juan Raymundo-Velasquez petitions for review of an 

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Having jurisdiction under 8 

U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.
-2- 

The BIA denied Raymundo-Velasquez’s request for termination of the 

proceedings under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and dismissed his 

appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying him asylum, withholding 

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on 

an adverse credibility determination. Raymundo-Velasquez’s challenge to the 

agency’s jurisdiction over his removal proceedings is foreclosed by this court’s 

precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019). See also Tino v. 

Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th Cir. 2021). 

Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility 

determination. See Yu An Li v. Holder, 745 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard 

of review). The immigration judge provided specific, cogent reasons for the 

credibility determination, including that Raymundo-Velasquez failed to adequately 

explain inconsistencies in his statements or provide sufficient corroborating 

evidence. See Shazi v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 441, 450-51 (8th Cir. 2021); Kegeh v. 

Sessions, 865 F.3d 990, 995-97 (8th Cir. 2017); Ezeagwu v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 836, 

839-40 (8th Cir. 2008). Because Raymundo-Velasquez based his asylum, 

withholding of removal, and CAT claims on the same discredited testimony, the 

adverse credibility determination disposed of his claims. See Ali v. Holder, 776 F.3d 

522, 528 (8th Cir. 2015).

The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### CITY OF PORTAGE v. TIMMERMAN. SAME *v.*WENKE.

1. Criminal Law — Appeal by Prosecutor.

Appeal by the people in a criminal case requires leave from the court and is restricted in the kind of question appealable by statutory provision (CL 1948, § 770.12).

2. Same — Right of Appeal — City Ordinance Violation.

A city has no right of apjieal from a decision of a circuit court dismissing a prosecution for a city ordinance violation, and a motion by the defendant in the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal will be granted (CL 1948, § 770.12).

References for Points in Headnotes

[1, 2] 4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 268.

Appeal from Kalamazoo, Yan Yalkenberg (Wade), J.

Submitted Division 3 April 4, 1968, at Grand Rapids.

(Docket Nos. 3,842, 3,843.)

Decided May 28, 1968.

Robert Timmerman and Dennis M. Wenke were convicted of being disorderly persons in violation *499of an ordinance of the city of Portage by the Portage municipal court. Defendants appealed. Dismissal granted by circuit court. City of Portage appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

*John T. Peters,*City Attorney, and *Michael C. Gergely,*Assistant City Attorney, for the City of Portage.

*Bauchham & Reed,*for defendant Timmerman.

*Ford, Kriehard, Brown & Staton,*for defendant Wenlre.

Per Curiam.

Defendants were convicted for violating an ordinance of the city of Portage and were sentenced therefor. They appealed to the circuit court for the county of Kalamazoo where their motions to dismiss were granted for a reason not pertinent to present decision. The city appealed to this Court as of right and defendants moved to dismiss the appeal because the city had no appeal of right. By orders dated October 27, 1967, defendants’ motions to dismiss were continued until hearing on the merits. Such hearing has been had.

Although Const 1963, art 1, § 20, removes the accused from the restrictions of CL 1948, § 770.3 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1100) and grants a right of appeal, appeals by the city still require leave and are restricted by the provisions of CL 1948, § 770.12 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1109). The city has no right of appeal and defendants’ motions to dismiss these appeals are granted.

This disposition obviates discussion of the other questions raised.

Burns, P. J., and Quinn and Ziem, JJ., concurred.
#### Mary A. Hall, Resp’t, *v.*Thomas Canary, App’lt.

*(City Court of New York, General Term,*

*Filed March 10, 1891.)*

Appeal—Verdict.

Where the issues were entirely issues of fact, the evidence conflicting, and the case fully and fairly submitted by the trial justice in his charge, the verdict should not be disturbed by the appellate court.

This action was brought to recover the sum of $548.46 for feed, etc.,’ alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiff to the defendant, between the 1st and 17tb days of May, 1890. The defendant, at fol. 16 of printed case, admits the delivery “of the goods mentioned in the complaint,” and sets up as a partial defense that the plaintiff charged more than the-market price for the goods; that the goods were not of the best quality, as agreed upon; that defendant suffered loss by reason of the inferior quality of the goods delivered, and asks for judgment on the counterclaim for the sum of $350.

The action came on for trial before Justice Van Wyck and a jury on the 14th day of November, 1890. Evidence was offered on the part of the plaintiff and defendant as to the value of the goods, and on this point the evidence was contradictory. The case was submitted to the jury under the charge of the trial justice, and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $500.

Defendant’s counsel moved for a new trial on the minutes, exceptions, etc., which motion was denied, and on the 17th day of November an order was entered on said motion denying said motion. From that order defendant appeals.

*Edward*Browne, for resp’t; *Albert L.*Sire, for app’lt.

McGown, J.

We have carefully examined the evidence herein and also the exceptions taken upon the trial, and we do not consider the exceptions well taken, but think they are without merit The issues raised were entirely issues of fact, the evidence thereon being contradictory, to be passed upon by the jury. Such issues *467were fully and fairly submitted to the jury by the trial justice in. his charge, and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $500.

. The amount claimed by the plaintiff was the sum of $548.46, with interest. Evidence was introduced on both sides as to the value of the goods, the defendant stating, on his cross-examination, that “ if the goods were all right as to quality, the prices would not be excessive.” The jury, in rendering their verdict for $500, instead of for the whole amount claimed, $548.46, evidently passed upon the evidence as to value, and made a deduction in favor of defendant for the sum of $48.46, thus finding on the question of the value of said goods only the sum of $500.

We do not find any reason for interfering with the verdict as rendered, and the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs to the appellant.

Ehrlich, Ch. J., concurs.
- 1 -

Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

October 23, 2014

via email and regulations.gov

Brett Kruger

Acting Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc.

For ATL-MTY Service

Dockets DOT-OST-2014-0182

Dear Mr. Kruger:

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all of the carriers on the service list to the above 

referenced application and there are no objections. In these circumstances, we urge that the 

application be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Brian Hedberg, DOT

 Bob Finamore, DOT

 info@airlineinfo.com
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11731-11732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04324]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-967]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Sterling 
Pharma USA, LLC

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Sterling Pharma USA, LLC has applied to be registered as a 
bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer 
to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to 
the issuance of the proposed registration on or before May 2, 2022. 
Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before May 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The DEA requires that all comments be submitted 
electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides 
the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on 
the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to 
https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions at that 
site for submitting comments. Upon submission of your comment, you will 
receive a Comment Tracking Number. Please be aware that submitted 
comments are not instantaneously available for public view on https://www.regulations.gov. If you have received a Comment Tracking Number, 
your comment has been successfully submitted and there is no need to 
resubmit the same comment.''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on January 12, 2022, Sterling Pharma USA, LLC, 1001 
Sheldon Drive, Suite 101, Cary, North Carolina 27513-2078, applied to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) 
of controlled substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled substance             code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrahydrocannabinols...................    7370  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reference to drug codes 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the 
company plans to bulk manufacture this drug exclusively from hemp 
extract for distribution and sale to its customer. No

[[Page 11732]]

other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this 
registration.

Matthew J. Strait,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-04324 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### Randall PITTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Lynn Bussey, Plaintiff, v. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 15-56335

16-55721

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 21, 2017

Randall Pittman, Pro Se

Karina Ann Layugan, Attorney, Marlene M. Nicolas, Attorney, Richard J. Simmons, Esquire, Senior Trial Attorney, Sheppard Mullin Richter *&*Hampton LLP, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Michael S. Burkhardt, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Patricia S. Riordan, Morgan, Lewis *&*Bockius LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Dell, Inc.

Michelle L. Steinhardt, Ronald Keith Al-berts, Gordon & Rees LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Aetna Life Insurance Company

Ian P. Culver, Booth LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Computer Professionals Unlimited, Inc.

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Randall Pittman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with local rules his employment action alleging federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Ghazali v. Moran,*46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Pittman’s claims because Pittman failed to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss. *See*C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 (“The failure to file any required document ... may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion....”); *Ghazali,*46 F.3d at 53-54 (setting forth factors to be considered before dismissing an action for failure to follow the local rules, affirming dismissal for failure to file opposition to motion to dismiss, and noting that pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pittman’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motions because Pittman failed to establish any basis for *296relief. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1146

(Serial No. 10/064,380)

IN RE MICHAEL L. BEIGE L, NATHANIEL POLISH,

STEVEN R. FRANK, and ROBERT E. MALM

Robert E. Malm , Robert E. Malm Law Offices, of Pa cific Palisades, California, for

appellant.

Nathan K. Kelley , Associate Solicitor, Solicitor’s Office, United States Patent and

Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, for appellee. With him on the briefs were

Stephen Walsh , Acting Solicitor, and Thomas W. Krause , Associate Solicitor.

Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals

and InterferencesNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1146

(Serial No. 10/064,380)

IN RE MICHAEL L. BEIGEL, NATHANIEL POLISH,

STEVEN R. FRANK, and ROBERT E. MALM



## JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL from the United Stat es Patent and Trademark Office

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

In CASE NO(S). Serial No. 10/064,380

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36

Per Curiam (NEWMAN, RADER, and DYK, Circuit Judges ).

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: October 18, 2007 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk