alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### 4^^]?0^S3m02S ^ T H ECIT Y O F 

# DoTHAN , ALABAM A POS T OFFIC E BO

X 212 8 • DOTHAN , ALABAM A 3630 2 • 334-615-311 0
MIK E SCHMTT

Z MAYO R inayoi@dotliaa.or g C= 5 d J

>

—• , - m2: 5 -HCO ^ ^—^r^ ^ rn-H mNTOFfATIONRATION C O Augus t 23 , 201 0 Th e Honorabl e Raymon d H . LaHoo d Secretar yo f Transportatio n U.S
. Departur e o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jerse yAve. , S E Washington . D C 2059 0 Dea rSecretar

yLaHood : Th e Cityo f Dothan , Alabanoa i s please d t o submi t ou rlette ro f suppor t fo rth e Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Gran t applicatio n submitte d byth e Dotha n Regiona l Airpor t locate d i n Dothan , Alabama . Th e $750,00 0 gran t wil l hel p fun d a pla n t o establis h daily , direct servic e betwee n Dotha n Regiona l Airpor t an d th e Dallas/Ft : Wort h hub . Acces s t o th e Dallas/Ft
. Wort h hu b i s critica l a s i t i s a to p destinatio n fo rbusines s an d militar ytraveler s i n th e are a an d als o provide s a gatewayt o th e wes t whic h i s vita l fo rth e continue d economi c developmen t o f ou rregion . Openin g o f th e Dallas/F t Wort h hu b woul d improv e th e abilityt o attract ne w businesses , increas e th e amoun t o f investmen t o f existin g businesse s an d grow th e econom yo f Southeaste m Alabama . Th e Cit yoffers it s ful l suppor

t fo rth e Smal l Communit yAi r Developmen t Gran t applicatio n an d asks tha t yo u strongl yconside r thi s request . Additionally , w e wil l b e supportin g thes e effort s i n th e amoun t o f $100,000
. Than k yo u i n advanc e fo ryou rassistanc e i n thi s matter . Sincerely ,
Mike Schmit z \ J Mayo r MS/j s
#### Walter Schwartz, Appellant, *v.*Bausch and Lomb Optical Company, Respondent.

Argued November 15, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*766
      *Leo G. Hosenfeld*and *William L. Clay*for appellant.

*Morgan F. Bisselle*and *Warren G. Tucker*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of *Scherim*v. *Titanium Alloy Co.*(286 N. Y. 531). No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronda L. EASTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4461

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 31, 2017

Filed: September 6, 2017

Robert D. Lewis, Springfield, MO, for . appellant.

Nhan Due Nguyen, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ronda Easton directly appeals after she pleaded guilty to drug, firearm, and money-laundering charges, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, and the district court1 imposed a below-Guidelines-range prison term. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

*771We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### Gerald L. FLUNDER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, a public entity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-15906

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Gerald L. Flunder, Jr., Pro Se

Michael Goodwin, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees Arizona Board of Regents, Michael M. Crow, Lisa L. Love, Steve Patterson, Steven M. Erickson, Bill Martin, Tom Kleinlein

Jonathan Barnes, Jr., John Thomas Masterson, Attorney, Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees Peter Dean Cummings, Unknown Cummings, Anikar Chhabra, Unknown Chhabra

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 **

Gerald L. Flunder, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985 action alleging racial discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc.,*653 F.3d 1000, 1005 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations); *Romano v. Bible,*169 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Flunder’s claims under §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985, other than his § 1981 retaliation claim, on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations because the claims accrued more than two years before Flunder filed this action. *See TwoRivers v. Lewis,*174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating that a § 1983 claim is subject to Arizona’s two-years statute of limitations for personal injury claims and “accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action”); *Taylor v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.,*993 F.2d 710, 711-12 (9th Cir. 1993) (the limitations period that governs § 1983 claims also governs claims under §§ 1981 and 1985); *see also Johnson,*653 F.3d at 1007 (recognizing that “some § 1981 claims con*615tinue to be subject to the most analogous state statute of limitations”).

Dismissal of Flunder’s retaliation claim under § 1981 was proper because Flunder failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. *See Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); *Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA,*339 F.3d 792, 800 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of a § 1981 retaliation claim).

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.
#### Adrienne A. BURCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLAGIO HOTEL AND CASINO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17303

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed December 22, 2016

Adrienne A. Burch, Pro Se

Lisa A. McClane, Jackson Lewis P.C., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Adrienne A. Burch appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her employment action alleging Title VII and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of res judicata, *Stewart v. U.S. Ban-corp,*297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Burch’s action as barred by the doctrine of *1004res judicata because Burch could have raised her claims in her prior action, which resulted in a final judgment. *See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,*244 F.3d 708, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating elements of the doctrine of res judicata and noting that it bars subsequent litigation of both claims that were raised and claims that could have been raised in the prior action).

The district court did not. abuse its discretion in concluding that Burch failed to establish that her June 23, 2015 attempt to serve defendant Bellagio, LLC was proper. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; Nev. R. Civ. P. 4; *see also Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink,*284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard of review).

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).

We reject as without merit Burch’s contentions regarding discovery and submission of evidence.

Burch’s motion to waive the right to file a reply brief, filed September 26, 2016, 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.
[LETTERHEAD OF SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.]


GMAC-RFC
2255 N. Ontario Street, Ste 400
Burbank, CA  91504
Attention: Compliance Officer


        Re: Annual Compliance Statement for RAMP SERIES 2006-RS6 TRUST

        In connection  with the loans serviced by SunTrust  Mortgage,  Inc. (the
"Company")  pursuant to the Company's Servicing  Agreement(s)/Purchase  and Sale
Agreement(s)  with  GMAC-RFC  and  any  applicable  Reconstitution  Agreement(s)
(together,  the "Transaction  Agreements"),  I, the undersigned officer,  hereby
certify the following as of December 31, 2006:

(i)  The Company  conducted a review of its  activities  during the  immediately
     preceding  calendar  year  (or  applicable  portion  thereof)  and  of  its
     performance  under the Transaction  Agreements  during such period has been
     made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the  best  of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Company  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations  under the  Transaction  Agreements in all
     material  respects  throughout  such calendar year (or  applicable  portion
     thereof),  except  that as of  January 1, 2006,  the  Company  did not have
     procedures for monitoring  compliance with requirements as specified in the
     applicable transaction agreements governing SEC Regulation AB transactions.
     To address the absence of such  procedures,  the Company's  management  has
     undertaken and completed the following  actions:  (a) completed a review of
     each  Transaction  Agreement and identified if there was specific  language
     affecting any of the Servicing  Criteria  outlined in Section 1122;  (b) to
     the degree that the Transaction  Agreements  required  specific  procedures
     related to the servicing  criteria,  the Company's  Reference Point Library
     (where all  policies and  procedures  are  maintained)  was updated to this
     effect;  (c)  for  each  pool,  a  Control  Matrix  was  completed  (and is
     maintained on a current basis)  identifying  which  Transaction  Agreements
     control each pool;  and (d)  established a monthly review process where the
     Company's  managers  review key factors of  performance  under  Transaction
     Agreements and respond to a questionnaire  indicating  compliance with such
     factors.



        IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I do hereby  certify the  foregoing as of the date
hereof.

        /s/ John R. Purcell, Jr.

        John R. Purcell, Jr.
        Senior Vice President - Manager, Servicing Division

        Date:  February 27, 2007
#### Keven HUTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ME CAPITAL LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15101

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 16, 2017

Keven Hutson, Pro Se

Stephen Brower, Attorney, Brentwood Law Group, PLLC, Tempe, AZ, Joshua T. *332Greer, Esquire, Attorney, Moyes Sellers & Hendricks, Ltd., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. 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 **

Keven Hutson appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging federal claims arising out of a foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. *Pagtalunan v. Galaza,*291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hutson’s action without prejudice after Hutson failed to comply with the district court’s orders regarding preparation for the pre-trial conference, and failed to appear at the pretrial conference, despite being warned that failure to comply with court orders may result in dismissal. *See id.*at 642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order and noting that dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hutson’s motion for reconsideration because Hutson failed to establish any basis for reconsideration. *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).

We reject as meritless Hutson’s contentions that the district court was required to first address the issue of personal jurisdiction and had no authority to act until service was complete.

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. Jorge Arturo CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11779 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

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

Jorge Arturo Contreras, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Arturo, Contreras has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Contreras has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is- excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Month __, 201X

Firstname Lastname

Title

Address

Street Address

City, ST ZIP

Dear Dr./Mr./Ms. Lastname:

We are writing to let you know of an important study sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences 

(IES) of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) focused on the development and implementation of 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (TQRIS) under the Race to the Top – Early Learning 

Challenge (RTT-ELC) program. 

The RTT-ELC Descriptive Study of TQRIS will include all nine Round One RTT-ELC grantees. The first 

phase of the study will describe the components and indicators used in States’ TQRIS and assess the 

feasibility of relating TQRIS ratings to child outcomes using state data. The first phase, which is currently 

in process, will be informed by reviews of existing state documents and targeted interviews with 

representatives from all Round One RTT-ELC grantees. If feasible, the second phase of the study will 

examine the relationship between TQRIS ratings and child outcomes as measured by kindergarten entry 

assessments in two to three of the Phase One RTT-ELC states (or districts within those states). 

IES has contracted with Mathematica Policy Research to conduct this study, which will provide important 

information for States as they continue to develop and refine their TQRIS. The enclosed information 

sheet provides more details.

Your partnership and support are important to the success of the study. 

A member of the Mathematica research team will contact you soon to discuss the study and answer 

questions you may have about the process and your district’s participation. If you have any questions in 

the meantime, please contact the Project Director, Irma Perez-Johnson of Mathematica Policy Research at 

(609) 275-2339 or iperez-johnson@mathematica-mpr.com. You may also contact the IES project officer, 

Tracy Rimdzius at (202) 208-7154 or Tracy.Rimdzius@ed.gov. 

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. We hope that this study will be a useful source of 

information for policymakers and educators.

Sincerely,

Libby Doggett 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Early

Learning Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education/Office of Early Learning

U.S. Department of Education

Linda K. Smith 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Early Childhood 

Development

Administration for Children and Families

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6467** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RAYMOND ROGER SURRATT, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 3:04

- cr - 00250

- RJC

- CH

- 19; 3:08

- cv 00181

- RJC )

Submitted : August 30, 2011 Decided: September 7, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Raymond Roger Surratt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Raymond Roger Surratt, Jr. , seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U .S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Surratt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 conte ntions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6827 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6827

 To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to increase 
      commodity assistance under the summer food service program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 14, 2023

 Mr. Molinaro (for himself and Ms. Clarke of New York) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to increase 
      commodity assistance under the summer food service program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COMMODITY ASSISTANCE UNDER THE SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM.

    Section 13(h) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1761(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
``The value of donated foods distributed to service institutions 
pursuant to this subsection shall be equal to the national average 
value of donated foods determined under section 6(c)(1)(A).''
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In connection with the Quarterly Report of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David W. Neibert, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Date:  May 17, 2011
By:
/s/David W. NeibertDavid W. NeibertChief Executive Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Concierge Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Concierge Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.