alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
On appeal, appellant argues that granting summary judgment

to LVMPD was improper for a variety of reasons. But in this case we are compelled to affirm the district court's summary judgment based on appellant's failure to provide this court with an adequate record to support the arguments that he raises on appeal.

It is well established that an appellant has a duty to provide this court with an adequate record on appeal and that we "generally cannot consider matters not contained in the record." Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007); see also NRAP 30(b)(3) (providing that appellant's appendix "shall include those . . . portions of the record essential to determination of issues raised in appellant's appeal"). Here, while appellant has provided this court with a copy of the district court's order, the minutes pertaining to that order, and a transcript of the hearing on the summary judgment motion, he has failed to provide copies of respondent's motion for summary judgment, his opposition to that motion, or respondent's reply to the opposition.

To oppose a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 732, 121 P.3d 1026, 1031 (2005). Absent copies of the parties' summary judgment motion practice, especially appellant's opposition to that motion, this court cannot determine whether appellant demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgment because, among other things, it is not clear what, if any, evidence appellant relied on for this purpose. While appellant's appendix includes certain responses to interrogatories, deposition transcripts, and administrative hearing documents, without appellant's opposition to the

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1.947A eaJ.

summary judgment motion, we cannot assess whether these documents were relied on in opposing summary judgment and, if so, what arguments appellant may have presented based on these materials. Thus, because appellant has failed to provide this court with any of the pertinent motion practice pertaining to the district court's grant of summary judgment, "we necessarily presume that the missing portion[s of the district court record] support[ ] the district court's decision" that appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment and that summary judgment was warranted on this basis. Cuzze, 123 Nev. at 603, 172 P.3d at 135; see also Wood, 121 Nev. at 732, 121 P.3d at 1031. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre 

### J.

Saitta

cc: Hon. Jennifer P. Togliatti, District Judge Israel Kunin, Settlement Judge Kirk T. Kennedy Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A
Exhibit
        31: Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification
  
  Re:  Morgan
        Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14SL (the “ Trust ”)
 
 I,
        Valerie Kay, Vice President of Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. certify
        that:
   1.  I
        have
        reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to
        be
        filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the
        Trust
        (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
   2.  Based
        on
        my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not
        contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
        fact
        necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
        which
        such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered
        by
        this report;
   3.  Based
        on
        my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required
        to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included
        in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
   4.  Based
        on
        my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report
        under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange
        Act
        periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the
        servicing agreements; and
   5.  All
        of
        the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
        securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
        with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
        in
        this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act
        Rules
        13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except
        as
        otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
        described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
        10-K.
  In
        giving
        the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
        to me
        by the following unaffiliated parties: GMAC Mortgage Corporation and LaSalle
        Bank.
  
  Date:  March
        30,
        2007
  /s/
        Valerie Kay
 By:
        Valerie Kay
 Title:
        Vice President
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

        Written Statement of Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief
     Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
                         2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

       The undersigned, the Executive Vice President, Finance and 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/A of the Authority for the
              Quarter Ended June 30, 2002 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/ Jeffrey E. Hartmann
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      Jeffrey E. Hartmann
                                      Executive Vice President, Finance and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                      November 12, 2002

                                       49
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 1998
FIRST QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,647
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          13,313
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,450
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    428,046
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        333,850
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 818,091
<DEPOSITS>                                     469,862
<SHORT-TERM>                                   120,031
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             17,848
<LONG-TERM>                                     95,760
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,501
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 818,091
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,558
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,481
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,737
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,614
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,123
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,302
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       90
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 162
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,972
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,972
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,930
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.24
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,749
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,322
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       28
<RECOVERIES>                                        33
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,417
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,417
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

                             TERMINATION AGREEMENT

Agere Systems Inc. ("Agere") and Lucent Technologies Inc. ("Lucent") are
parties to a Joint Design Center Operating Agreement dated as of February 1,
2001, relating to Micro Electro Mechanical Systems ("MEMS"). An important
element in the success of the activities performed under that Agreement is the
operation of Agere's SFRL facility located in Lucent's Murray Hill offices.

In view of changes contemplated with respect to the future operation of the SFRL
facility in Murray Hill, Agere and Lucent have agreed that the arrangements set
forth in the Joint Design Center Operating Agreement will be difficult to
implement.

Agere and Lucent further agree that it is desirable to continue certain
development activities related to optical MEMS, and that those activities
should be governed by individually negotiated development agreements (including
joint development agreements where appropriate) specific to each development
activity.

In view of the foregoing, Agere and Lucent hereby agree, pursuant to Section
15.1(i) of the Joint Design Center Operating Agreement, to terminate that
Agreement effective June 30, 2002. Article 15 of the Agreement shall govern the
rights and obligations of the parties in connection with the termination of the
Agreement.

Notwithstanding anything above to the contrary and so that Parties may act with
a common understanding, the Parties hereto acknowledge that the equipment
currently located in the SFRL facility in Murray Hill may play a critical role
in the future operations of such SFRL facility, currently under discussion
amongst the Parties and others. To that end, Agere and Lucent agree that the
rights and obligations in Section 9.5(ii) of Joint Design Center Operating
Agreement shall survive the termination of such Agreement.

AGERE SYSTEMS INC.

By: /s/ Gerard deBlasi
    ______________________________
    Gerard deBlasi
    Vice President

Date: March 29, 2002


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.

By: /s/ Frederico Capasso
    ______________________________
    Frederico Capasso
    Physical Research VP

Date: 3/29/02
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 1999
THIRD QUARTER 10-Q 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>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,730
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          14,334
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    477,475
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        346,188
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 885,221
<DEPOSITS>                                     482,607
<SHORT-TERM>                                   147,160
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,973
<LONG-TERM>                                    160,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 885,221
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 18,869
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               23,096
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                41,965
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,307
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,564
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,401
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      240
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 213
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,670
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,443
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       7,443
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,608
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .94
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.94
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,823
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,604
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      219
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,627
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,627
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Memo to: EPA Docket (EPA-EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788)

Subject: Meeting on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for “Health and Environmental Protection Standards

for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings,” Subpart W o f 40 CFR Part 192

On April 14, 2015 EPA staff members met with repres entatives of the uranium recovery industry at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Corpus Christi, Texas, to d iscuss the proposed rulemaking that would revise "H ealth

and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings” (40 CFR 192).

The following persons participated in the meeting:

Industry representatives:

Harry Anthony, Uranium Energy Corp

Ches Blevins, Texas Mining and Reclamation Associat ion

George Bokorney, Signal Equities, LLC

Troupe Brewer, Texas Mining and Reclamation Associa tion-UC

Bruce Darling, Geosyntec Consultants

Robert Gaston, Uranium Energy Corp

Peter Luthiger, Mestena Uranium LLC

Michael Maxson, Mestena Uranium LLC

Mark S. Pelizza, M.S. Pelizza and Associates

Charles Salsman, Signal Equities, LLC

Craig Wall, Uranium Energy Corp

EPA Representatives:

Tom Peake, Director, Center for Waste Management an d Regulations, EPA Radiation Protection

Division

Ingrid Rosencrantz, Center for Waste Management and Regulations, EPA Radiation Protection Division

In this meeting, industry representatives discussed the US Geological Survey (USGS) data that was used in the development of the rule (Hall, 2009 Open-File Repor t 2009–1143). The industry representatives conducte d an analysis of the USGS data which showed that target concentration values were being met. The representa tives also discussed the determination of background conc entrations and the availability of existing backgro und concentration data. They spoke about the proposed g roundwater restoration requirements, with some sayi ng that they believe some of language on the statistical re quirements was not clear. EPA representatives encou raged industry representatives to submit comments and dat a pertinent to the proposed rule.
#### Sabrina Renee BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The WALT DISNEY STUDIOS; Disney Music Group, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1313

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Sabrina Renee Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sabrina Renee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012) without prejudice for failure to state a claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, *81828 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because it is possible that Brown could cure the defects in her complaint through amendment, the order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-25, 628-30 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Brown to file an amended complaint. 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 AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 701 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 701

To restrict the appointment of certain military personnel to diversity, 
                    equity, and inclusion positions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2023

  Mr. Banks introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Accountability, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To restrict the appointment of certain military personnel to diversity, 
                    equity, and inclusion positions.

    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 ``DEI Pay Cap Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION PERSONNEL GRADE CAP.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense may not appoint to, or 
otherwise employ in, any position with duties as described in 
subsection (b) a military or civilian employee with a rank or grade in 
excess of E-5 base pay or GS-5 not adjusted for locality.
    (b) Covered Duties.--The duties referred to in subsection (a) are 
as follows:
            (1) Developing, refining, and implementing diversity, 
        equity, and inclusion policy.
            (2) Leading working groups and councils to developing 
        diversity, equity, and inclusion goals and objectives to 
        measure performance and outcomes.
            (3) Creating and implementing diversity, equity, and 
        inclusion education, training courses, and workshops for 
        military and civilian personnel.
    (c) Applicability to Current Employees.--Any military or civilian 
employee appointed to a position with duties described in subsection 
(b) who holds a rank or grade in excess of that allowed under 
subsection (a) shall be reassigned to another position not later than 
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Juan Ramon CARCAMO-CRUZ, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 15-60850 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 11, 2017

Gino Mario Mesa, Esq,, Law Office of Gino M. Mesa, Houston, TX, for Petitioner

Justin Robert Markel, Trial Attorney, Virginia M. Lum, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges,

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Ramon Carcamo-Cruz petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for statutory withholding of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). He does not brief any challenge to the denial of withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, this issue is waived. *See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (issues not briefed are considered abandoned).

In his petition, Carcamo-Cruz contends that he is eligible for statutory withholding based on his membership in a particular social group (PSG), to wit, individuals who were part of a crowd of persons being robbed but were singled out, shot, and subsequently threatened by the MS-18 gang. He does not point to any evidence in the record or to any relevant legal authority that shows that his proposed PSG has a common immutable characteristic, particularity, or social distinction within the Salvadoran community. *See Orellana-Monson v. Holder,*685 F.3d 511, 517-22 (5th Cir. 2012), *as modified by Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch,*819 F.3d 784, 786-87 & n.1 *302(5th Cir. 2016); *see Bouchikhi v. Holder,*676 F.3d 173, 181 (5th Cir. 2012).

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.