alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. Michael YUEN, Court Executive Officer and Clerk of the San Francisco Court Superior Court, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16034

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 21, 2017

Michael B. Williams, Pro Se

*637Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michael B. Williams, a pre-trial civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (“SVPA”), appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 198B action alleging federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii), *Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca,*410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. *See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (setting forth pleading standard); *see also Jones v. Blanas,*393 F.3d 918, 936 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth elements of access-to-courts claim); *People v. Fraser,*138 Cal.App.4th 1430, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 424, 435 (2006) (no right to self-representation in civil commitment proceedings under the SVPA).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Williams’s state law claim after dismissing Williams’s federal claims. *See Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,*521 F.3d 1087, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Williams leave to amend because Williams cannot cure the deficiencies in his complaint. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “a district court may dismiss without leave where ... amendment would be futile”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Williams’s motion for reconsideration because Williams failed to state any grounds warranting relief. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

 

**Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 99-20036

_______________________

In the Matter of: JACOBO XACUR,

 Debtor.

FELIPE XACUR; JOSE MARIA XACUR; JACOBO XACUR,

Appellants,

versus

BANCO NACIONALE DE MEXICO SA; BANCOMER SA;

BANCO MEXICANO SA; BANCA SERFIN SA; BANCO

BILBAO VIZCAYA-MEXICO SA; CONFIA SA; BANCO

INVERLAT SA; CALIFORNIA COMMERCE BANK,

Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-3283)

_________________________________________________________________

March 8, 2000

Before DAVIS, JONES and MAGILL* Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:**

The court has carefully considered this appeal in light

of the oral arguments, briefs, and pertinent portions of the 

record. We are convinced that the district and bankruptcy courts

did not clearly err in determining that the debts owed by the
2

brothers were neither contingent nor subject to bona fide dispute.

There was no reversible error in the exercise of personal

jurisdiction over Jacobo Xacur, who lives, does business in and

owns property in the United States and Southern District of Texas.

This court lacks jurisdiction to consider the district court’s

denial of rehearing based on a request to abstain from hearing

these cases pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 305(c).

The judgment of the district and bankruptcy courts are

therefore AFFIRMED.
#### Commonwealth, Appellant, *v.*Matil.

*405Argued March 31, 1953.

Before Stern, C. J., Stearne, Jones, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

*Randolph C.*Ryder, Deputy Attorney General, with him *Robert B. Greer, Jr.,*and *Robert E. Woodside,*Attorney General, for appellant.

No argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.

April 22, 1953:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Allen M. Stearne,

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order of the court of common pleas setting aside a suspension by the Secretary of Revenue of an operator’s license for operating a motor vehicle. The offense charged was speed on a public highway at seventy miles per hour.

What we said in *Commonwealth v. Emerick,*373 Pa. 388, 96 A. 2d 370, relating to the legal principles and the construction of The Vehicle Code, has similar application to the facts in the present case.

*406Mike Matil, twenty years of age, unmarried, a truck driver, without dependents, on June 14, 1952, drove his passenger car at seventy miles per hour on the public highway where traffic was “moderate” at 7:30 p.m. on a dry, clear night. He has operated an automobile for three years; has been arrested before for fast driving; and has had one accident. He testified that his driving record is “fair.” The learned court below revoked the suspension and restored the license solely because of economic hardship. The court said in its order: “. . . it having been shown that the operator’s license of the petitioner is necessary to enable him to get to and from his place of employment at the plant of the National Tube Company in Ellwood City, Pennsylvania; further that his license is necessary in connection with his employment by the Steen Machine & Supply Company, Connoquenessing, Pennsylvania; that the testimony of the arresting officer being to the effect that the only offense committed was that of traveling in excess of the established speed limit and that no other provisions of the motor code were violated to the best of the officer’s knowledge; that the arrest occurred on a three-lane concrete surfaced highway where traffic and weather conditions were such as to not aggravate the offense; and the Court being satisfied that the deprivation of the petitioner’s operating privileges for three months would work an undue hardship upon him, the Order of the Secretary of Revenue suspending the petitioner’s license is hereby set aside and the operating privileges of Mike Matil are hereby restored.”

Such order constitutes an obvious abuse of discretion.

The order is reversed at the cost of the appellee.
Exhibit 32.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Buckeye Ventures, Inc. (the Corporation) on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul D. Hancock, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors and Finance Committee Chairman of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

(1)       
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Corporation.

|                                                                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paul D. Hancock
Paul D. Hancock
Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chairman of the Finance Committee
August 21, 2006
<PAGE>

                                     FORM 10-Q/A
                                           
                                    UNITED STATES
                          SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
                                           

                                  Amendment No. 1 to
                 Quarterly Report Pursuant To Section 13 or 15 (d) of
                       The Securities and Exchange Act of 1934



QUARTER ENDED  October 18, 1997        COMMISSION FILE NO. 33-80833

                        JITNEY-JUNGLE STORES OF AMERICA, INC.
                (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


STATE OF INCORPORATION                      I.R.S. EMPLOYER I.D. NO.
Mississippi                                 64-0280539


ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE
1770 Ellis Avenue, Suite 200, Jackson, MS  39204

REGISTRANT'S TELEPHONE NUMBER INCLUDING AREA CODE
601-965-8600

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
during the preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.     YES  (X)  NO

The number of shares of Registrant's Common Stock, par value one cent ($.01) per
share, outstanding at October 18, 1997, was 425,000.


<PAGE>

                                                                               2


    This Amendment amends and supplements the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
filed by Jitney-Jungle Stores of America, Inc, a Mississippi corporation (the
"Company"), with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 2, 1997.  

PART II.  OTHER INFORMATION


ITEM 4.  SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

The Company held its annual meeting of shareholders on September 24, 1997.  At
the meeting, the number of directors was set at ten.  The shareholders elected
W. H. Holman, Jr., Michael E. Julian, Roger P. Friou, Bruce C. Bruckmann, Harold
O. Rosser, II, Stephen C. Sherrill, John M. Moriarty, Jr., Ronald E. Johnson,
Bernard E. Ebbers and Donald D. Bennett to serve as directors until the date of
the next annual shareholders meeting.  Both the resolutions were approved by a
vote of 408,200.56 shares "For," none "Against" and 16,799.44 shares "Absent."



                                      SIGNATURES


    Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
    registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
    undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.



                                       JITNEY-JUNGLE STORES OF AMERICA, INC.
                                       (Registrant)

                                       /s/ David R. Black
                                       -----------------------
                                       David R. Black
                                       Senior Vice President - Finance,
                                       Chief Financial Officer



Dated: December 4, 1997
<PAGE>
Exhibit 3.88

                           ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                INTEGRATED SPECIALISTS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

                                  ARTICLE ONE

The name of the corporation shall be Integrated Specialists Management
Services, Inc.

                                  ARTICLE TWO

The purpose of the corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity for
which a corporation may be organized under the Corporations Code of the State
of California other than the banking business, the trust company business or the
practice of a professional permitted to be incorporated under the Corporations
Code of the State of California.

                                 ARTICLE THREE

The corporation's initial agent for service of process is Lesley A. Allison,
who may be served at 3626 Ruffin Road, San Diego, California 92123.

                                  ARTICLE FOUR

The total number of shares that the corporation is authorized to issue is one
million shares. Such shared shall be of a single class.

                                  ARTICLE FIVE

The liability of the directors of the corporation for monetary damages shall be
eliminated to the fullest extent permissible under California Law.


                                  ARTICLE SIX

The corporation is authorized to provide indemnification of agents (as defined
in section 317 of the Corporations Code) for breach of duty to the corporation
and its stockholders through bylaws provisions or through agreements with the
agents, or both, in excess of the indemnification otherwise permitted by
section 317 of the Corporations Code, subject to the limits on such excess
indemnification set forth in section 204 of the Corporations Code.

I declare that I am the Incorporator who has executed the foregoing Articles of
Incorporation and hereby declare that this instrument is the act and deed of
the undersigned.


Dated: 1/20/1994
      -------------

                                    /s/ James B. Wyland
                                   -------------------------------
Table 5 - depreciation in ES analysis

Column #: 1 2 3 4 5 6

BAU/SNCR/SCR cases Market cases

Year Rate base Depreciation NPV of depreciation Year Rate base

(YE) payments (2012$) (YE)

$540.67

2011 $ 1,084.0 2011 $ 1,084.0

2012 $ 1,040.6 43.36 2012 $ 1,040.6

2013 $ 997.3 43.36 2013 $ 997.3

2014 $ 953.9 43.36 2014 $ 953.9

2015 $ 910.6 43.36 2015 $ 910.6

2016 $ 867.2 43.36 2016 $ 867.2

2017 $ 823.8 43.36 2017 $ 838.3

2018 $ 780.5 43.36 2018 $ 823.8

2019 $ 737.1 43.36 2019 $ 823.8

2020 $ 693.8 43.36 2020 $ 823.8

2021 $ 650.4 43.36 2021 $ 823.8

2022 $ 607.0 43.36 2022 $ 823.8

2023 $ 563.7 43.36 2023 $ 823.8

2024 $ 520.3 43.36 2024 $ 823.8

2025 $ 477.0 43.36 2025 $ 823.8

2026 $ 433.6 43.36 2026 $ 823.8

2027 $ 390.2 43.36 2027 $ 823.8

2028 $ 346.9 43.36 2028 $ 823.8

2029 $ 303.5 43.36 2029 $ 823.8

2030 $ 260.2 43.36 2030 $ 823.8

2031 $ 216.8 43.36 2031 $ 823.8

2032 $ 173.4 43.36 2032 $ 823.8

2033 $ 130.1 43.36 2033 $ 823.8

2034 $ 86.7 43.36 2034 $ 823.8

2035 $ 43.4 43.36 2035 $ 823.8

2036 $ (0.0) 43.36 2036 $ 823.8

Sources: $1084 million ratebase in 2011 per Energy Strategies, 1/14/13, p. 26.

No post-shutdown depreciation in market cases per Energy Strategies, 1/14/13, p. 30.

$318 million ratebase in 2012 per Annual Reports and 10-Ks of NPC, TEP, SRP, APS

$363 million ratebase in 2011 per NREL, p. 17, sum of "Net Plant in Service" and "Construction Work in Progress" 

Discount rate of 7% per Energy Strategies, 1/14/13, p. 21.

Straight line depreciation through 2036 per Energy Strategies, 1/14/13, p. 26.
7 8 9 10 11 12

Market cases Effect of Corrected ES model with actual net p

discontinuing

DepreciationNPV of depreciation depreciation Rate base Depreciation NPV of depreciation

payments (2012$) in market cases: (YE) payments (2012$)

$220.47 ($320.20) $158.61

$ 330.7

43.36 $ 318.0 12.72

43.36 $ 305.3 12.72

43.36 $ 292.6 12.72

43.36 $ 279.8 12.72

43.36 $ 267.1 12.72

28.90667 $ 254.4 12.72

14.45333 $ 241.7 12.72

0 $ 229.0 12.72

0 $ 216.2 12.72

0 $ 203.5 12.72

0 $ 190.8 12.72

0 $ 178.1 12.72

0 $ 165.4 12.72

0 $ 152.6 12.72

0 $ 139.9 12.72

0 $ 127.2 12.72

0 $ 114.5 12.72

0 $ 101.8 12.72

0 $ 89.0 12.72

0 $ 76.3 12.72

0 $ 63.6 12.72

0 $ 50.9 12.72

0 $ 38.2 12.72

0 $ 25.4 12.72

0 $ 12.7 12.72

 "Construction Work in Progress" for SRP, LADWP, APS, NV Energy, and TEP
13 14 15

ES model with actual net plant data

Rate base DepreciationNPV of depreciation

per NREL payments (2012$)

$181.29

$ 363.5

$ 348.9 $ 14.5

$ 334.4 $ 14.5

$ 319.9 $ 14.5

$ 305.3 $ 14.5

$ 290.8 $ 14.5

$ 276.2 $ 14.5

$ 261.7 $ 14.5

$ 247.2 $ 14.5

$ 232.6 $ 14.5

$ 218.1 $ 14.5

$ 203.5 $ 14.5

$ 189.0 $ 14.5

$ 174.5 $ 14.5

$ 159.9 $ 14.5

$ 145.4 $ 14.5

$ 130.8 $ 14.5

$ 116.3 $ 14.5

$ 101.8 $ 14.5

$ 87.2 $ 14.5

$ 72.7 $ 14.5

$ 58.2 $ 14.5

$ 43.6 $ 14.5

$ 29.1 $ 14.5

$ 14.5 $ 14.5

$ 0.0 $ 14.5
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 00227

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 00227\00227_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00227\00227_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00227\00227_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00227\00227_Part D a.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00227\00227_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00227\00227_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00227\00227_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00227\00227_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00227\00227_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

00227\Certification Statement Plant ID 00227.pdf Plant certification statement

x 00227\Supplemental Documents\00227_PPLMartins Creek_F5-6_091610.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00227\Supplemental Documents\00227_PPLMartins Creek_WB-1_091410.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00227\Supplemental Documents\00227_PPLMartinsCreek_ClosurePlan_AshBasin1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00227\Supplemental Documents\00227_PPLMartinsCreek_CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00227\Supplemental Documents\00227_PPLMartinsCreek_EA_AshBasin1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00227\Supplemental Documents\00227_PPLMartinsCreek_EA_AshBasin4.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00227\Supplemental Documents\00227_PPLMartinsCreek_MAP-1_091110.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00227\Supplemental Documents\00227_PPLMartinsCreek_MC B4 Form18R Narrative - Closure Plan.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00227\Supplemental Documents\CBI Substantiation\Martins Creek_EIP FOIA.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00227\00227_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00227\00227_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damon Emanuel ELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6062

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se.

Lindsay Eyler Kaplan, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

*280We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott 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
Order entered July 27, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00096
- CV DONNELL HILL, Appellant
V. WELLS ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL. , Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. CC
- 14
- 01039
- B 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s July 23, 2015 second motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file a brief by AUGUST 25, 2015 . We caution appellant that no further extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Trusts Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Trust.
 /s/ Ashmead PringleAshmead PringleChief Executive OfficerDate: March 25, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended April
30, 2007 of Photomatica, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual
Report"), I, Alain Kardos, Chairman, President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
          and

     2.   The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operation of the Company.



Date: July 19, 2007



/s/ ALAIN KARDOS
_____________________________________________
Alain Kardos
President, Secretary Treasurer,
Principal Executive Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and sole Director