alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jeannette MARTELLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shelley ROUILLARD, In her official capacity as Director of the California Department of Managed Health Care; Kimberly Kirchmeyer, In her official capacity as Director of the Medical Board of California, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56185

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 25, 2017

Jeannette Martello, Pro Se

Christopher Benjamin Lee, California Department of Managed Health Care, Office of Enforcement, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Shelley Rouillard

Cindy M. Lopez, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Kimberly Kirchmeyer

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Martello’s request for oral argument set forth in her opening brief is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Jeannette Martello appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action challenging the constitutionality of California’s prohibition against balance billing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund,*754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Martello’s action under the *Younger*abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings where “the federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings.” *ReadyLink,*754 F.3d at 758-59 (setting forth requirements for *Younger*abstention in civil cases).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martello’s motion for *881reconsideration because Martello 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)).

Appellees’ motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 30 and 38) are granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Bridgette A. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA MEDICAL BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16824

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Bridgette A, Smith, Pro Se

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Bridgette A. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging claims against the Arizona Medical Board. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc.,*741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district 'court properly dismissed without prejudice Smith’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Smith failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in her complaint. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1); *Wander v. Kaus,*304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331); *Kuntz v. Lamar Corp.,*385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332).

We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Euro Group of Companies, Inc. (formerly ICT  Technologies,  Inc.), a Delaware  corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





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





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








/s/  Andrew EracleousAndrew Eracleous


May 23, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001006027
<NAME>                        Bacou USA, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5,411
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  48,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,185
<INVENTORY>                                    42,783
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               102,771
<PP&E>                                         78,012
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 373,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          49,959
<BONDS>                                        109,607
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       18
<OTHER-SE>                                     198,349
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   373,224
<SALES>                                        155,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               155,743
<CGS>                                          82,743
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  82,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,748
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                25,834
<INCOME-TAX>                                   9,397
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            16,437
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   16,437
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.93



</TABLE>
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2023-1242

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-

00574.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JOHN WITTENZELLNER, Williams Simons & Landis 

PLLC, Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellant. Also represented by FRED WILLIAMS, Austin, TX. 

 MICHAEL S. FORMAN, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, 

Case: 23-1242 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2024
argued for intervenor. Also represented by PETER J. AYERS,

WILLIAM LAMARCA, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, LINN, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

September 11, 2024

Date

Case: 23-1242 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2024
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6394 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2016 

Received 

AN ACT 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress a report on promoting broadband Internet access service for veterans. 

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


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6394 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Broadband 

3 Access for Veterans Act of 2016’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPORT ON PROMOTING BROADBAND INTERNET 

5 ACCESS SERVICE FOR VETERANS. 

6 (a) VETERAN DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

7 ‘‘veteran’’ has the meaning given the term in section 101 

8 of title 38, United States Code. 

9 (b) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 1 year after 

10 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Commu11 nications Commission shall submit to Congress a report 

12 on promoting broadband Internet access service for vet13 erans, in particular low-income veterans and veterans re14 siding in rural areas. In such report, the Commission 

15 shall— 

16 (1) examine such access and how to promote 

17 such access; and 

18 (2) provide findings and recommendations for 

19 Congress with respect to such access and how to 

20 promote such access. 

21 (c) PUBLIC NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO COM22 MENT.—In preparing the report required by subsection 

23 (b), the Commission shall provide the public with notice 

24 and an opportunity to comment on broadband Internet ac25 cess service for veterans, in particular low-income veterans 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 6394 RDS

1 and veterans residing in rural areas, and how to promote 

2 such access. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 6, 

2016. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Randel BRANSCUM Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4430

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 3, 2017

Filed: July 12, 2017

Thomas Chandler, Trial Attorney, Elizabeth Hecker, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, DC, Gabriel A. Davis, Samantha Trepel, U.S. De*802partment of Justice, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Julie Peters, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Randel Branscum, Pro Se

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Randel Branscum appeals after he pleaded guilty with a written plea agreement to a civil rights offense and the District Court1 imposed the agreed-upon sentence. Branscum’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning whether Branscum received effective assistance of counsel.

We decline to address the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that ineffective-assistance claims' “are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings” where the record can be properly developed). We have reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. We affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas,
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 781

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act to require Federal contracts debarment for persons who violate the Act’s provisions, and for

other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 9 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

Mr. SIMON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act to require

Federal contracts debarment for persons who violate the

Act’s provisions, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Contractor

5 Safety and Health Enforcement Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. DEBARMENT.

7 The Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C.

8 651 et seq.) is amended—
2

•S 781 IS

1 (1) by redesignating sections 33 and 34, as sec2 tions 34 and 35, respectively;

3 (2) by inserting after section 32 the following

4 new section:

5 ‘‘FEDERAL CONTRACTS DEBARMENT

6 ‘‘SEC. 33. (a) Any person or entity that, with a clear

7 pattern and practice, violates the provisions of this Act

8 shall be ineligible for all Federal contracts for a period

9 of 3 years.

10 ‘‘(b) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations re11 garding debarment provisions and procedures. The regula12 tions shall require that Federal contracting agencies shall

13 refrain from entering into further contracts, or extensions

14 or modifications of existing contracts, with any person or

15 entity described in subsection (a) during the 3-year period

16 immediately following a determination by the Secretary

17 that the person or entity is in violation (as described in

18 subsection (a)) of this Act.

19 ‘‘(c) A debarment may be removed, or the period of

20 debarment may be reduced, by the Secretary upon the

21 submission of an application to the Secretary that is sup22 ported by documentary evidence and that sets forth appro23 priate reasons for the granting of the debarment removal

24 or reduction, including reasons such as compliance with

25 the final orders that are found to have been willfully vio-
3

•S 781 IS

1 lated, a bona fide change of ownership or management,

2 or a fraud or misrepresentation of the charging party.’’.

Æ
#### Victor Antonio REYES-BONILLA, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60824 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 15, 2017

Arnedo Silvano Valera, Esq., Law Offices of Valera & Associates, Fairfax, VA, for Petitioner

Shahrzad Baghai, Leslie McKay, Esq., Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Victor Antonio Reyes-Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Reyes-Bonilla sought to reopen proceedings on the grounds that he was eligible for a provisional unlawful presence waiver (I-610A waiver) based on his wife’s approved immediate relative petition and that he should be allowed to pursue claims for asylum and withholding of removal based on a change in the conditions in El Salvador.

Reyes-Bonilla argues that the BIA’s decision not to sua sponte reopen the proceedings in light of his alleged eligibility for a waiver was based on an erroneous legal determination. However, the BIA expressly declined to sua sponte reopen on á discretionary basis, noting that “the potential availability of an I-610A waiver” did not constitute “an exceptional situation supporting sua sponte reopening.” We therefore lack jurisdiction over that decision. *See Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions,*866 F.3d 302, 306 & n.6 (5th Cir. 2017); *Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 246, 248-50 (5th Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Additionally, the BIA’s decision that Reyes-Bonilla failed to show that a material change occurred in El Salvador by failing to submit evidence of the relevant country conditions in existence at the time of his 2006 removal hearing was not “capricious, irrational, utterly without foundation in the evidence, based on legally erroneous interpretations of statutes or regulations, or based on unexplained departures from regulations or established policies.” *Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch,*831 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although Reyes-Bonilla’s evidence showed that violence has been bad in El Salvador in recent years, it did not allow the BIA to make a meaningful comparison between the current conditions and the conditions in the country in 2006. *See Ramos-Lopez v. Lynch,*823 F.3d 1024, 1026 (5th Cir. 2016). Reyes-Bonilla has not satisfied his heavy burden to show changed coun*395try conditions for purposes of reopening immigration proceedings. *See id.*

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction.

*

 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.
# EUR-Lex - 32002E0600 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002E0600

**Council Common Position of 22 July 2002 amending Common Position 2002/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe **

*
Official Journal L 195 , 24/07/2002 P. 0001 - 0003 *

Council Common Position

of 22 July 2002

amending Common Position 2002/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe

(2002/600/CFSP)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) On 18 February 2002, the Council adopted Common Position 2002/145/CFSP(1) which introduces restrictive measures against the Government of Zimbabwe and those who bear wide responsibility for serious violations of human rights and of the freedom of opinion, of association and of peaceful assembly.

(2) The Council has assessed that these violations continue and therefore deems it necessary to extend restrictive measures against the Government of Zimbabwe to further individuals who bear a wide responsibility for such violations.

(3) Common Position 2002/145/CFSP should therefore be amended,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

The list of persons set out in the Annex to Common Position 2002/145/CFSP is hereby replaced by the list set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Common Position shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 2002.

For the Council

The President

P. S. Møller

(1) OJ L 50, 21.2.2002, p. 1.

ANNEX

List of persons referred to in Article 1

>TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SE PTEMBER 2 5 , 2019

NO. 03

- 19

- 00517

- CV

Clyde Nubine, Appellant

v.

Texas Workforce Commission c/o, Mr. Paul Tabor; Travis County Shoe Hospital, Inc., c/o Mr. Carrol Kelly; Mr. Kaub Harper; and Mr. Raul, et al., Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on April 29, 2019

. Having reviewed the

record

, it appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the app e al

. There fore, the C ourt

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0257

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

PAUL KERMIT GYSLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 18, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 12 2024

02/12/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0257
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF RICHARD****H. BACHMANN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**OF DEP HOLDINGS, LLC, THE GENERAL PARTNER OF**

**DUNCAN ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.**

 

In connection with this annual report of Duncan Energy Partners L.P. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard H. Bachmann, Chief Executive Officer of DEP Holdings, LLC, the general partner of Duncan Energy Partners L.P., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Registrant. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

___/s/ Richard H. Bachmann_________________________________
| Name: | Richard H. Bachmann |  
Title:  

Chief Executive Officer of DEP Holdings, LLC

 
on behalf of Duncan Energy Partners L.P.

 
 

Date:  

April 2, 2007

 

 

 

  |
|-------|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|