alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ricardo MEDRANO-ARZATE, Eva Chavez-Medrano, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Hilda Medrando, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SHERIFF OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, Paul C. May, individually, Okeechobee County, Florida, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-14170 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(June 29, 2017)

Stephen F. Rosenthal, Podhurst Orseck, PA, Miami, FL, Michael Trent Lewenz, Edward H. Zebersky, Zebersky & Payne, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Bruce Wallace Jolly, Purdy Jolly Gi-uffreda & Barranco, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellee Sheriff of Okeechobee County

John Matthew Belcastro, Robert Christopher Shearman, Henderson Franklin Starnes & Holt, PA, Fort Myers, FL, for Defendant-Appellee Okeechobee County

Before HULL, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs Ricardo Medrano-Arzate and Eva Chavez Medrano,, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Hilda Medrano (Appellants), appeal the district court’s dis*604missal of their amended complaint against Paul C. May, individually and as Sheriff of Okeechobee County, and Okeechobee County (Appellees). The complaint arises out of the death of Hilda Medrano on December 1, 2013, when the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a vehicle driven by Deputy Joseph Anthony Gracie of the Okeechobee County Sheriffs Office. Appellants filed suit against May, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff, and Okeechobee County, but did not file suit against Deputy Gracie. Appellants alleged that certain policies implemented by the Appellees, pursuant to which Deputy Gracie was unable to operate his lights and sirens while responding to an emergency call, caused the collision and Hilda Medra-no’s death.

While we agree with the district court that Hilda Medrano’s death was tragic, we also agree that the Appellants have failed to state a claim against the Appellees under § 1983. As Appellants do not allege that Deputy Gracie’s conduct amounted to a deprivation of Hilda Medrano’s constitutional rights, Appellants cannot maintain an action against Appellees under § 1983 based upon the policies alleged to have caused Hilda Medrano’s death. Appellants concede their claim is foreclosed by *Rooney v. Watson,*101 F.3d 1378, 1381 (11th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n inquiry into a governmental entity’s custom or policy is relevant only when a constitutional deprivation has occurred.”). Thus, we affirm the district court’s dismissal. *See McKusick v. City of Melbourne,*96 F.3d 478, 482 (11th Cir. 1996) (reviewing *de novo*a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure state a claim).

AFFIRMED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6714

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RONNIE DOUGLAS BURR, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cr - 00362

- CCE

- 1; 1:17

- cv - 01032

- CCE

- LPA )

Submitted : November 15, 2022 Decided: November 18, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Ronnie Douglas Burr, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6714 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Ronnie Douglas Burr, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Burr’s 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or j udge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). 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). When the district court denies reli ef on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 4 1 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burr 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 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-6714 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statement of operations of the company as of and for the six months
ended September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety be referenced to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         135,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,884,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,655,000
<INVENTORY>                                    575,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,481,000
<PP&E>                                       6,364,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,911,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,574,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,344,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,213,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,574,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,671,000
<CGS>                                        3,624,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,338,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             230,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                103,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    45,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             58,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    58,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6826 

To designate the visitor and education center at Fort McHenry National 

Monument and Historic Shrine as the Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and 

Education Center. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. MFUME (for himself, Mr. HOYER, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. 

RASKIN, Mr. TRONE, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, and Mr. IVEY) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate the visitor and education center at Fort 

McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine as 

the Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and Education Center. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The visitor and education center 

5 at Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic 

6 Shrine, currently located at 2400 E Fort Ave, Baltimore, 

7 MD 21230, is designated as the ‘‘Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor 

8 and Education Center’’. 

2 

•HR 6826 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other document of the United 

3 States to the visitor center designated by subsection (a) 

4 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Paul S. Sarbanes 

5 Visitor and Education Center. 

Æ
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10188]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

Federal Register CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: Vol. 77, No. 77, 
Friday, April 20, 2012, page 23666.

ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 10 a.m.- 
11 a.m.

MEETING CANCELED. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of 
the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-
7923.

    Dated: April 24, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10188 Filed 4-24-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco MILLAN-MADRID, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10116 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 14, 2017

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

Francisco Millan-Madrid, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Francisco Millan-Madrid 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Millan-Madrid has not filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant portions of the record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the 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.
#### GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY PURDUE BLANKINSHIP & AUSTIN PLLC, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 14-35841, 15-35026

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 19, 2017 Seattle, Washington

Filed May 26, 2017

Kristin Beneski, Attorney, John Raymond Neeleman, Attorney, Lane Powell PC, Seattle, WA, Philip A. Talmadge, Esquire, Talmadge/Fitzpatrick/Tribe, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Charles Lemley, Richard A. Simpson, Attorney, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC, Bradley S. Keller, Keith D. Petrak, Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Global Enterprises, LLC (“Global”) appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment to Montgomery Purdue Blankinship & Austin PLLC (“Montgomery Purdue”) in its malpractice and breach of fiduciary *461duty action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. Global has not offered sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact whether Global and Montgomery Purdue formed an attorney-client relationship in the EVYA case. *See Bohn v. Cody,*119 Wash.2d 357, 832 P.2d 71, 75 (1992). While Global’s Frank Steuart avers he believed Montgomery Purdue represented Global in the EVYA case, that belief was not reasonable based on the attending circumstances at trial. *See id.*(explaining that the court considers the reasonableness of a client’s belief at the time of the allegedly tortious act). Accordingly, there was no error in granting summary judgment to Montgomery Purdue on this claim.

2. Global’s breach of fiduciary duty claim also fails. Although Montgomery Purdue did owe Global a fiduciary duty in the Stabbert case, *see In re Estate of Larson,*103 Wash.2d 517, 694 P.2d 1051, 1054 (1985), that duty did not require Montgomery Purdue to protect Global’s interests in the EVYA case. Additionally, Montgomery Purdue did not impermissibly limit the scope of its representation under Washington Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(c). Accordingly, there was no error in granting summary judgment to Montgomery Purdue on this claim.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Gregory HARRIS, Appellant v. Robert N. SCOLA, Judge, et al., Appellees.

No. 16-7023

September Term, 2015

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed: 07/28/2016

Rehearing En Banc Denied September 26, 2016

Gregory Harris, Carrabelle, FL, Pro Se,

BEFORE: Griffith, Srinivasan, and Millett, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 84(3). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered January 15, 2016 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed without prejudice appellant’s complaint for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41/
RECE\VED 

APR 0 8 20\5 

u.s. nEPART~~~o~: i~NsPoRTAnoN HEARiNG ooc\\<JEET 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the matter of 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

Respondent 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 2011 S0290032 

Administrative Law Judge 

J.E. Sullivan 

On March 30,2015, the Honorable J.E. Sullivan served in the above-captioned 

case an Order Denying Respondent's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (the "March 

30,2015 Order"). Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.233, Respondent Airborne Maintenance 

and Engineering Services ("AMES") hereby files with the FAA Decisionmaker this 

Notice of Appeal of the March 30,2015 Order. 

Also in connection with this matter, Judge Sullivan served on April!, 2015 an 

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment 

(the "April!, 2015 Order"). By a separate notice of appeal, AMES is seeking review of 

the April!, 2015 Order. As the Judge's Orders arise out of the same proceeding, AMES 

requests that the appeals be consolidated for consideration by the FAA Decisionmaker. 
Dated: April 7, 2015 

Respectfully submitted, 

SILVERBERG GOLDMAN, L.L.P. 

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

F.N'2RING SERVICES 

By~z:r~£~ 1101 301

h Street, N.W. 

Suite 300 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 

Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 

2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 7'h day of April2015, I caused a true copy of the foregoing 

Respondent's Notice of Appeal to be served upon the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

(Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) 

Tel: (202) 267-0377 

(original and one copy by FedEx) 

The Hon. J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

(one copy by First Class Mail and facsimile) 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

Fax: (404) 305-5223 

(one copy by First Class Mail and e-mail)
PRE­FLIGHT CHECKLIST*

EQUIPMENT CHECK

All hull screws are securely fastened to the body of the UAS.

All propellers are securely fastened to the motors.

Camera, gimbal, and accompanying wires are securely fastened to the hull.

There are no loose parts, wires, screws, or extremities that can fall from the UAS.

BEFORE TAKEOFF

The operator performed a visual review of the area of operation.

The operator is aware of aerial obstructions (poles, structures, utility wires, trees)

There operator is not within 3 miles of an airport.

The operator clearly marked a takeoff / landing zone.

The operator has clearly announced that a UAS is preparing for flight.

The operator has ensured that no personal or animals are near the takeoff / landing zone.

Weather permits the safe operation of the UAS.

If working in pairs, the second operator is in position to maintain visual contact of the UAS.

POWERING SYSTEM

The battery being placed into the UAS has a full capacity charge.

The batteries in the RC controller have a sufficient charge.

There is a spare UAS battery with a full charge.

The battery is securely fastened within the UAS hull.

The UAS powers up completely indicating normal operationality (audible and lights verification)

CONNECTIVITY

There is a steady connection between the RC controller and the UAS.

The UAS is responding accurately and efficiently to RC commands.

UAS is indicating full satellite / GPS connectivity.

UAS has set the “Home” location.

Following take­off, the UAS successfully completes a 10­second unassisted hover.

UAS Operator’s Signature _________________________________________ Date ___________________

*All UAS Operators MUST perform this pre­flight checklist prior to every flight.
December 16, 2009 Meeting with DuPont to Discuss Proposed Sulfometuron Methyl RED 

Amendments 9:00 am – 10:00 am 

Attendees: Jack Cain (DuPont), Jim Tompkins (RD), Rusty Wasem (PRD) 

The purpose of this meeting was for DuPont to discuss proposed label language for sulfometuron 

methyl products. The Agency requested DuPont submit additional information and comments via 

email so the Agency may add them to the docket.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.7.2  


 
 

Amendment No. 1 to
  
    Alliant Techsystems Inc.
  1990 Equity Incentive Plan
  Amendment and Restatement as of January 26, 1999    
  


        The Alliant Techsystems Inc. 1990 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended and restated as of January 26, 1999 (the "Plan") is hereby amended as follows,
effective May 8, 2001: 



	(1)
	Article 6(b)
is amended by adding thereto after the last sentence the following: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee in its discretion may determine a price per Share
of less than Fair Market Value if such grant is in substitution for a stock option granted by an entity merged with or acquired by the Company or an Affiliate." 




so
that Article 6(b), as so amended, reads in its entirety as follows: 


        "(b)
Grant of Options and Option Price. No later than the Grant Date of any option, the Committee shall determine the Option Price; provided that the Option (i) shall not be less
than 100% of the Fair Market Value of the Stock on the Grant Date and (ii) unless such option relates to treasury shares, shall not be less than the par value of the Stock. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Committee in its discretion may determine a price per Share of less than Fair Market Value if such grant is in substitution for a stock option granted by an entity merged with or
acquired by the Company or an Affiliate." 


        Capitalized
terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the Plan. 


        Except
as expressly amended herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms and provisions as in effect on the effective date of this Amendment
No. 1. 









QuickLinks


Amendment No. 1 to Alliant Techsystems Inc. 1990 Equity Incentive Plan Amendment and Restatement as of January 26, 1999
#### Mary McDonald, Respondent, *v.*The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of Albany, Appellants. Thomas Rhatigan, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellants. Mary Cullen, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellants. Andrew Kean, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellants. James Judge, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellants. Bartholomew Hannan, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellants. John Lysatt, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellants. Nelson W. Chamberlain, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellants. Bridget Welch, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellants. Patrick A. White, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellants. Michael Nolan, Respondent, v. The Same, Appellants. Michael McGrain, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellants. Thomas O’Hara, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellants. Thomas Tiernan, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellants. John Flanigan, Respondent, *v.*The Same, Appellants.

[These fifteen causes were argued and decided together.]

(Argued June 10, 1872;

decided June 20, 1872.)

*653
      *Samuel Sand*for the appellants.

*Amasa J. Parker*for the respondents.

All concur for affirmance. Ro opinion.

Judgment affirmed.
**EXHIBIT32.02**

**SECTION1350 CERTIFICATION**

In connection with thisquarterly report of ML JWH Strategic Allocation Fund L.P. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Michael L. Pungello,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 14, 2006                        |                     |
|----------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                                         |                     |
| By                                           | /s/ MICHAEL L.  PUNGELLO |   |
| Michael L. Pungello                          |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|                                              |                          |  |  |  |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Nicholas T. Rogers, as Administrator of the Estate of Bruno Burn, Deceased, Respondent, against Albert F. Coyle, Appellant.

Submitted October 4, 1943;

decided October 21, 1943,

*Seymour J. Wilner*for motion.

*Albert F. Coyle,*in person, opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs.