alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas Lee AVERETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; Paul Penzone,* Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15352

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 **

Filed May 30, 2017

Thomas Lee Averett, Pro Se

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Paul Penzone has been substituted for his predecessor, Joseph Arpaio, as Maricopa County Sheriff under Fed. R, App. P. 43(c)(2),

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Thomas Lee Averett, an Arizona state prisoner and former pretrial detainee, ap*487peals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from defendants’ alleged policy of allowing female guards to observe male pretrial detainees showering and using the bathroom on a daily basis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A). *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We vacate and remand.

Averett alleged in his complaint that defendants’ policy of allowing female detention officers to view Averett while showering and performing bodily functions violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed Aver-ett’s deliberate indifference claim at the screening stage. However, the district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in *Byrd v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors,*845 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2017), which held that dismissal under § 1915(A) of a pretrial detainee’s action alleging constitutional claims arising from a similar policy was premature. We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.

We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Averett’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.

***

 xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not'precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.4(c)

                     SECOND AMENDMENT TO BMC SOFTWARE, INC.
                       2000 EMPLOYEE STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

         WHEREAS, BMC Software, Inc. (the "Company") has heretofore adopted the
BMC Software, Inc. 2000 Employee Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") for the
benefit of certain employees of the Company and its subsidiaries; and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows, effective as of
October 23, 2001:

         1.      Subparagraph (a) of Paragraph V of the Plan is hereby amended
                 so that it reads in its entirety as follows:

                 "(a) SHARES SUBJECT TO THE PLAN. Subject to adjustment in the
                 same manner as provided in Paragraph IX with respect to shares
                 of Common Stock subject to Options then outstanding, the
                 aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued
                 under the Plan shall not exceed 22,000,000 shares. Shares shall
                 be deemed to have been issued under the Plan only (i) to the
                 extent actually issued and delivered pursuant to an Award or
                 (ii) to the extent an Award is settled in cash. To the extent
                 that an Award lapses or the rights of its Holder terminate, any
                 shares of Common Stock subject to such Award shall again be
                 available for the grant of an Award under the Plan."

         2.      As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and
                 reaffirmed.
#### Ronald Satish EMRIT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Congressman Crescent HARDY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1471

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 30, 2017

Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint for improper venue. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. *See Buchanan v. Manley,*145 F.3d 386, 388-89 (D.C. Cir. 1998). It is apparent from Em-rit’s complaint that no conceivable basis exists for venue in- the District of Maryland. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) (2012) (describing venue and residency requirements); *O’Neill v. Battisti,*472 F.2d 789, *706791 (6th Cir. 1972) (describing “residency” of public official). Moreover, we are satisfied that the interests of justice did not require transferring, rather than dismissing, the action. See *Simpkins v. D.C. Gov’t,*108 F.3d 366, 370 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (recognizing that district court may dismiss action, despite improper venue, where complaint patently failed to state viable claim).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DIGITAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             335
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,306
<ALLOWANCES>                                       906
<INVENTORY>                                        737
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,472
<PP&E>                                           2,920
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,645
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,873
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,431
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,314
<COMMON>                                            47
<OTHER-SE>                                      (4,046)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,873
<SALES>                                          3,742
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,742
<CGS>                                            2,332
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 210
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (257)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (257)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.060)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Jack Leon CLARKE, Claimant-Appellant v. David J. SHULKIN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee

2016-2420

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 12, 2017

*687Rebecca Barker Duttry, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Washington, DC, argued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by Joshua David Rogaczewski.

Nathanael Yale, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civ-il Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by Chad A. Readler, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr„ Martin F. Hockey, Jr,; Samantha Ann Syvérson, Y. Ken Lee, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

(Lourie, Taranto, and Chen, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-21-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-12-1998
<CASH>                                           8,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,652
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    159,849
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               227,341
<PP&E>                                         647,558
<DEPRECIATION>                                 360,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 673,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          206,799
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           68,865
<PREFERRED>                                      9,695
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                   (205,531)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   673,099
<SALES>                                        474,371
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               474,371
<CGS>                                          343,789
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  474,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,083
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    171
<INCOME-TAX>                                        40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                131
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       131
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.76)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.3

SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB UNDER THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

|   | Re: | HSBC Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-3 |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------|

I, James F. Vacca, Vice President, Item Processing, of HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc., (the “Company”), pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB under the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 3.10(a) of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 26, 2006 (the “Agreement”), among HSBC Home Equity Loan Corporation I, as Depositor, HSBC Finance Corporation, as Servicer, HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Administrator, and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, and hereby certify that:

 

|   | 1. | A review of the activities of the Company from October 26, 2006 through December 31, 2006 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period referred to above except as set forth below: |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | NONE |
|--------|------|

 

|   | IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate this 5th day of March 2007. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc.

 

|   | By: | /s/ James F. Vacca |
|--------|-----|--------------------|

|   | Name: | James F. Vacca |
|--------|-------|----------------|

|   | Title: | Vice President, Item Processing |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------|
#### IN RE: Leonard Otto WALLACE; Pamela R. Wallace, Debtors. Leonard Otto Wallace, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norman Hayes; Rodney Hayes, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35791

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

*989Leonard Otto Wallace, Pro Se

Daniel J. Gibbons, Attorney, Wither-spoon Kelley, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Leonard Otto Wallace appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Wallace’s motion objecting to Norman and Rodney Hayes’s proof of claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court, and apply the same standard of review the district court applied to the bankruptcy court’s decision. *Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.),*912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

Assuming without deciding that Wallace had standing to object to the Hayes’s proof of claim, denial of Wallace’s motion was proper because Wallace failed to present evidence rebutting the proof of claim’s presumption of validity. *See Diamant v. Kasparian (In re S. Cal. Plastics, Inc.),*165 F.3d 1243, 1247-48 (9th Cir. 1999) (proof of claim is prima facie evidence of claim’s validity; “debtor must come forward with evidence to rebut the presumption of validity”).

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. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Wallace’s requests for judicial notice and remand (Docket Entry No. 21) are denied.

The Hayes’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied without prejudice to re-filing in compliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 and Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6883 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6883

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of 
  higher education to track and record additional information on hate 
                    crimes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 22, 2023

  Mr. Espaillat (for himself and Mrs. Watson Coleman) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of 
  higher education to track and record additional information on hate 
                    crimes, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Combating Hate Across Campus Act''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF CAMPUS SECURITY POLICY AND CAMPUS CRIME 
              STATISTICS.

    Section 485(f)(1)(F)(ii) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)(F)(ii)) is amended by striking ``which data shall be 
collected and reported according to category of prejudice; and'' and 
inserting ``which data shall--
                                    ``(I) be collected and reported 
                                according to category of prejudice; and
                                    ``(II) disaggregated by 
                                subcategories based on the identity of 
                                the targeted individual or group, 
                                including--
                                            ``(aa) anti-Semitism;
                                            ``(bb) Islamophobia;
                                            ``(cc) homophobia;
                                            ``(dd) biphobia;
                                            ``(ee) transphobia;
                                            ``(ff) disability bias;
                                            ``(gg) in the case of an 
                                        action targeting a particular 
                                        ethnic group, the identity of 
                                        the ethnic group; and
                                            ``(hh) such other 
                                        subcategories as the Secretary 
                                        determines appropriate; and''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1














CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the "Report") for the period ended June 30, 2010 of Dime Community Bancshares, Inc., (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Vincent F. Palagiano, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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









August 9, 2010


Date









By:  /s/ VINCENT F. PALAGIANO


Vincent F. Palagiano


Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 09-3071 September Term, 2014 1: 05-c r-003 67-RMC-1 Filed O n: Februa ry

6, 201 5 United Sta tes o f

Am erica, App ellee
v . Jaron Brice, a lso kno w n a s Jay Bird, also known as Da ddy, also known as B ird, also known as Ja y ,

App ellant
BEFORE: Garlan d, Ch ief Jud ge; Hend erson , Rogers, T ate l, Brown, Grif f ith, K avanau gh, Srinivasan, Millett, Pillard, a nd W ilkins, Circuit Judges; W illiams a nd Sen telle, Sen ior Circuit Judges

O R D E R App ellant ’s pet ition for rehe aring en ban c an d th e resp onse the reto were circulated to the f ull cou rt, an d a vote was requested . T here af ter, t he call for a v ote w as w ithdra w n. In light o f

the foregoing, an d in the ab sence of a re quest b y

an y m em ber o f the cou rt for a v ote , it is ORDERED tha t th e p etition be de nied

. Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Jenn ifer M. Clark Depu ty Cl erk
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74 -73

 39

 40

 41

 42

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

05/30

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). N C / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. G A RY L. A D A M S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 30105 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 6 -C R -0 0 2 5 3 -E JL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

I da ho E dw a r d J . L odge , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an d T A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. G a ry L . A da m s appe a l s f r om the s i x- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d upon r e v o c a t i o n o f

s u p e rv i s e d r e l e a s e . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f

f i rm. 

# FI LED DE C 14 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSN C/ Res ea r ch 09- 30105 2 A da m s c ont e nds tha tthe s e nt e nc e i s s ubs t a nt i ve l yunr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof hi s m i t i gat i ng ar gu m ent s, and thatthe di stri ctcourterroneou sl y c on si dere d d i sm i ssed b att ery ch arg es as an ag g rav at i n g fact o r atsen t en ci n g . A d am s’ cont ent i on thatthe di stri ctcourti m prop er l y w ei gh ed hi s di sm i ss ed batt ery c harges la c k s m e r it a n d is n o t s u p p o rte d b yth e r e c o r d . Se e U ni te d State s v . B arr aganEsp i n o za , 35 0 F . 3d 97 8, 98 3 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). T he re cord ref l ec t s thatthe di stri ct c ourtpr ope r l y c ons i de r e d the s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s unde r18 U . S . C . § 3583( e ) , a nd th a t th e s e n te n c e is r e a s o n ab le . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( e ) ; se e al so U ni ted Stat es v. Ca r ty , 5 2 0 F .3 d 9 8 4 , 9 9 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( e n b a n c ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. Mi qb el , 444 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 76 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). AF F I RME D.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7467

BILLY G. ASEMANI, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. KATHLEEN S. GREEN, ECI Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01591-RDB)

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Billy G. Asemani seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failing to exhaust state remedies. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Asemani 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED