alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Douglas A. NIXON; Piaowaka C. Windwolf Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CREDIT CARS, an Arkansas Corporation Defendant Brent Manning’s Quality Preowned, Inc., doing business as Brent Manning’s Credit Cars, Inc. Defendant-Appellee Brett Tharp Defendant Truity Federal Credit Union Defendant-Appellee Kelly Diven, individually and as owner and an officer of Trudity Federal Credit Union, doing business as Trudity Credit Union Affiliated, Springdale, AR, also known as Trudity Credit Union, Bartlesville, OK; Brent Manning Defendants

No. 16-4120

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 6, 2017

Filed: July 17, 2017

Douglas A. Nixon, Pro Se

*464Piaowaka C. Windwolf, Pro Se

Bryan Steve Vemetti, Vernetti Law Group, Bentonville, AR, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Brent Manning’s Quality Preowned, Inc.

Robert L. Henry, III, Samuel Brent Wakefield, Barber Law Firm, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee Truity Federal Credit Union

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas residents Douglas Nixon and Piaowaka Windwolf appeal the district court’s1 order granting summary judgment to one defendant and dismissing the claims against other defendants in their pro se action arising out of a used car purchase. Upon careful de novo review, see Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (dismissal for failure to state a claim reviewed de novo); Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo), we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q
FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1997
<CASH>                                           9,846
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  219,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,754
<INVENTORY>                                    137,061
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               368,378
<PP&E>                                         206,098
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,961
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 765,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          329,945
<BONDS>                                        162,336
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           250
<OTHER-SE>                                     204,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   765,312
<SALES>                                        688,748
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               688,748
<CGS>                                          509,894
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  509,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,975
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,455
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,596
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                694
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       694
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      23.1




To
      the
      Board of Directors of


Asian
      Financial Inc. and Subsidiaries





Consent
      of Independent Accountants Asian Financial Inc. and Subsidiaries


Audited
      Consolidated Financial Statements June 30, 2007, and 2006





We
      consent to the incorporation in the Annual Report of Asian Financial Inc. and
      Subsidiaries on Form 10-K of our report dated September 13, 2007 on our audits
      of the consolidated financial statements of Asian Financial Inc. and
      Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2007 and 2006 and for each of the years in the
      three-year period ended June 30, 2007, which our reports are incorporated in
      the
      Form 10-K.





/s/
      Moore
      Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP





Walnut,
      California


September
      28, 2007
#### TEXAS AND PACIFIC R'Y CO. VS. MITCHEL.

Appeal from Grayson county.

*Negligence*— Railroad *Company*— Liability.—When an animal (stock) is shown to have been killed by the cars of a railroad company, the owner is entitled to the value thereof, negligence or no, negligence, unless the company has its road fenced, if it be not unlawful to fence it at that place. A failure to fence is, of itself, such negligence as will make the company liable for the stock without proof of other negligence. To defeat this liability the company must show that the company has built and maintained, on both sides of the road, wherever it may lawfully do so, a fence sufficient to turn stock. The fact that the killing occurs within the limits of an incorporated city or town does not alter this rüle.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.
Apstead Joy FONG, et al., Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee.

No. 3D17-931

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018.

Jonathan Kline, P.A., and Jonathan Kline (Weston), for appellants.

Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and Michele L. Stocker (Ft. Lauderdale); Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and M. Hope Keating and Karusha Y. Sharpe (Tallahassee), for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, SALTER, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Karen CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDEX EXPRESS, Erroneously Sued As Federal Express Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-55365

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 3, 2017

Karen Cunningham, Pro Se

Emily Christin Pera, Attorney, Federal Express Corporation, Legal Department, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

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

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Karen Cunningham appeals pro se from the district, court’s summary judgment in her diversity action alleging wrongful termination in violation of an implied contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Yart*
      *562
      *zoff v. Thomas,*809 F.2d 1371, 1373 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cunningham’s wrongful termination claim because Cunningham was an at-will employee, and Cunningham failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether' an implied-in-fact employment contract was created. *See Tomlinson v. Qualcomm, Inc.,*97 Cal.App.4th 934, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 829-31 (2002) (explaining that California “courts will not imply an agreement if doing so necessarily varies the terms of an express at-will employment agreement signed by the employee”).

The district court properly dismissed Cunningham’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because it is preempted by California’s workers’ compensation scheme. *See Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Prot. Dist.,*43 Cal.3d 148, 233 Cal.Rptr. 308, 729 P.2d 743, 750 (1987) (intentional infliction of emotional distress claims predicated on alleged misconduct that occurs within the normal scope of an employment relationship are preempted by the Workers’ Compensation Act).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, including Cunningham’s contentions that FedEx Express or its counsel falsified drug results or that Cunningham received ineffective assistance of counsel. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Because we do not rely on the portions of record that FedEx challenges in its motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 15), the motion 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.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04605]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-006]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed February 18, 2022 10 a.m. EST Through February 28, 2022 10 a.m. 
EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20220021, Draft, USFS, AK, Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Facility 
Improvements, Comment Period Ends: 04/18/2022, Contact: Monique Nelson 
907-209-4090.
EIS No. 20220022, Draft, USFS, OR, Ellis Integrated Vegetation Project, 
Comment Period Ends: 04/18/2022, Contact: Leslie Taylor 541-427-5324.
EIS No. 20220023, Final, USAF, TX, T-7A Recapitalization at Joint Base 
San Antonio, Texas, Review Period Ends: 04/04/2022, Contact: Nolan 
Swick 210-925-3392.
EIS No. 20220024, Draft, BIA, NV, Chuckwalla Solar Projects, Comment 
Period Ends: 04/18/2022, Contact: Chip Lewis 602-379-6750.
EIS No. 20220025, Draft, FERC, OR, Lower Klamath Project, Comment 
Period Ends: 04/18/2022, Contact: Office of External Affairs 866-208-
3372.
EIS No. 20220026, Final, FERC, UT, Delta Lateral Project, Review Period 
Ends: 04/04/2022, Contact: Office of External Affairs 866-208-3372.
EIS No. 20220027, Draft, RUS, WI, Badger State Solar Project, Comment 
Period Ends: 04/18/2022, Contact: Peter Steinour 202-961-6140.
EIS No. 20220028, Final Supplement, FHWA, NH, Newington-Dover, General 
Sullivan Bridge Spaulding Turnpike Improvements Project, Contact: 
Jamison Sikora 603-410-4870.

    Under 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), FHWA has issued a single document that 
consists of a final supplemental environmental impact statement and 
supplemental record of decision. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review 
period under NEPA does not apply to this action.

    Dated: February 28, 2022.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2022-04605 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### Andrew CIESLA Plaintiff-Appellant v. C. B. CHRISTIAN, Trooper Defendant-Appellee D. McDaniel, Officer; Pemiscot County, Missouri; City of Hayti, Missouri Defendants

No. 16-2107

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 28, 2017

Filed: June 8, 2017

Scott T, Kamin, I, Law Office of Scott T. Kamin, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant

*457Elad J. Gross, Henry F. Luepke, III, Attorney General’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellee

Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Ciesla appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court entered its separate judgment on March 30, 2016, and Ciesla filed his notice of appeal on Saturday, April 30, 2016—more than 30 days later. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (in civil case, notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment or order appealed from). This court therefore lacks appellate jurisdiction over this untimely appeal. See Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional; federal court will raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

1

, The Honorable Abbie Crites-Leoni, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2499
JEFFREY COX, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUST SCAFFORD RENTAL & ERECTION, INCORPORATED; MIKE FREIMULLER, employee, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United St ates District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Dennis Raymond Knapp, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-186-2) Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Albert F. Sebok, JACKSON & KELLY,Charleston, West Virginia; John E. Lutz, RICCARDI & LUTZ, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summaryjudgment to Appellees in his civil action in which he alleged various claims in relation to termination of his employment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cox v. Rust Scaffold Rental & Erection, Inc. , No. CA-96-186-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 25, 1997). Appellant asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. A litigant in a civilaction, however, has no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel; thus, Cox is not entitled to relief onthis claim. Appellant's contentions regarding the conduct of Appellees' counsel during criminal proceedings are not properly beforethis Court because Appellant did not raise them below. Finally, Appellant did not move to remand his complaint once it was removed tofederal court. Accordingly, we will not review Appellant's contention that the removal was against his wishes. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Phebe Langrick et al., Plaintiffs, and Mary J. L. Frank, Plaintiff-Appellant, *v.*Richard Rowe et al., Defendants, and Thomas F. Rowe et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Argued October 14, 1943;

decided December 8, 1943.

*757
      *Jay Leo Rothschild*and *Samuel F. Frank*for appellant.

*Milton W. Levy*and *Joseph T. Arenson*for respondents.

Order affirmed, without costs, upon the ground that when the appellant applied at Special Term for an order authorizing her to withdraw the fund deposited with the City Treasurer pursuant to the terms of the partition judgment in the above captioned action, she failed to give notice of such application, as required by rule 32 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to the attorneys for all parties who had appeared therein or filed notice of claim to such fund. We do not pass upon the merits of the controversy. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property Required for the Whitestone Bridge Approach in the Borough of Queens. Hy-Dor Realty Associates, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Submitted July 20, 1943;

decided October 7, 1943.

*Charles P. Kramer*for motion.

*Ignatius M. Wilkinson, Corporation Counsel (Reuben Levy*of counsel), opposed.

Motion dismissed, without costs, on the ground that the application was not made within the time specified in section 592, *650subdivision 3, of the Civil Practice Act. *(Poliak*v. *Port Morris Bank,*257 N. Y. 287, 288; *Low*v. *Bankers Trust Co.,*265 N. Y. 264, 265; *Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co.*v. *Public Nat. Bank & Trust Co.,*262 N. Y. 614.)
Exhibit 32.2



Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350)



The undersigned, the 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 of the Authority for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 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/    LEO M. CHUPASKALeo M. ChupaskaChief Financial OfficerMohegan Tribal Gaming AuthorityFebruary 14, 2005
#### Mary E. Bolen, Resp’t, v. George F. Bolen, App’lt.

*Jacob F. Miller,*for resp’t; *A. J. Perry,*for app’lt.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 25 N. Y. State Rep., 165.
United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 17-2068 

LAURA LEMUS; MANUEL M. LEMUS, 

Petitioners, 

v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent. 

ERRATA SHEET

 The opinion of this Court, issued on August 14, 2018, is 

amended as follows: 

 On page 5, line 7, replace "Lemuses" with "Lemuses'".
#### Marcus Deshawn WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. T. SHARTLE; et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 16-17033

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 27, 2017

Marcus Deshawn Wright, Pro Se

Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Marcus Deshawn Wright appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a section 2241 petition, *see Alaimalo v. United States,*645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

Wright claims that Bureau of Prisons officials have unconstitutionally prevented him from litigating his criminal conviction by seizing his mail and sanctioning him with the loss of phone, visitation, and email correspondence privileges. These claims are not cognizable under section 2241 because they do not concern the manner, location, or conditions of his sentence’s execution. *See Hernandez v. Campbell,*204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). Rather, as the district court concluded, the appropriate remedy for Wright’s claims lies in a civil rights action under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). *See Bounds v. Smith,*430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977) (recognizing right of prisoners to seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of access to the courts); *Gibson v. United States,*781 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1986) *(Bivens*is “the judicially crafted counterpart to section 1983”). Moreover, to the extent that Wright claims that he has been improperly housed in the Special Housing Unit (“SHU”), this claim is moot because Wright is no longer housed in the SHU. *See Munoz v. Rowland,*104 F.3d 1096, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 1997).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The Same v. A. L. Schermerhorn.

Same as above.

See 38 N. Y. State Rep., 1018
January 28, 2015 

Docket FAA-2010-1254 

Docket Management Facility 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor - Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear, Sir or Madam, 

Re: Exemption 10208 ; FAA-2010-1254 Extension Request 

Endeavor Airlines Inc., (formally Pinnacle Airlines), certificate REXA257A petitions pursuant to Sections 

11.61 and 11.63 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) for an extension of Exemption No. 10208, 

Docket FAA-2010-1254. This exemption expires on 3/31/2015. 

Subject to certain conditions and limitations, Exemption 10208 provides relief from §121.619 of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) by permitting Endeavor Air, its certificated dispatchers, and its 

pilots in command (PIC) to dispatch aircraft to domestic airports without designating an alternate for the 

destination airport where for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival at the 

destination airport the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate the 

ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet above the airport elevation and visibility may be reduced 

from at least 3 statute miles to 2 statute miles for Category (CAT) I approaches and 2 statute miles for 

CAT II approaches.

The conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that formed the basis for granting the 

original exemption have not changed. Furthermore, the renewal of this exemption is not a controversial 

issue. For these reasons, and because granting the requested relief will not set precedent, Endeavor Air 

requests that a finding of good cause exists for waiving publication in the Federal Register. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. 

Respectfully submitted, 

David Wilson 

Director, Flight Operations 

612-801-6331 

david.wilson@endeavorair.com

Endeavor Air, Inc. 

7500 Airline Drive | M.S. 01P 

Minneapolis, MN 55450-1101 

www.EndeavorAir.com