alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sherrie JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16364

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 10, 2017

*944Sherrie Johnson, Pro Se

S. Scott Greenberg, Clark County School District, Office of the General Counsel, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee

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 **

Sherrie Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her federal employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision regarding the sufficiency of service of process. *Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink,*284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Johnson’s action for insufficient of service of process because, despite being given detailed instructions and multiple extensions of time, Johnson failed to serve defendant with a summons and complaint in a proper manner. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (“A summons must be served with a copy of the complaint ... within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) [and] [t]he plaintiff .., must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.”); *In re Sheehan,*253 F.3d 507, 512-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court has discretion to dismiss action for failure to effectuate proper service absent a showing of good cause).

We reject as unsupported by the record Johnson’s contentions concerning bias by the district court.

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).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Daniel MASTERSON; Bijou Masterson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP., formerly known as The Bank of New York as Trustee for CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2007-19, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-19; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55277

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 17, 2017

Daniel Masterson, Pro Se

Bijou Masterson, Pro Se

Jennifer A. Jackson, Esquire, Litigation Counsel, Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, CA, Douglas E. Winter, Attorney, Bryan Cave LLP, Washington, DC, for Defen*1006dant-Appellee Bank of New York Mellon Corp.

Jennifer A. Jackson, Esquire, Litigation Counsel, Bryan Cave LLP, Irvine, CA, Monica Kohles, Attorney, Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, CA, Douglas E. Winter, Attorney, Bryan Cave LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

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 **

Daniel Masterson and Bijou Masterson appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have an independent duty to determine whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. *Wash. Envtl. Council v. Bellon,*732 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Dismissal of the Mastersons’ action was proper because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as the Master-sons failed to allege an injury in fact to establish Article III standing. *See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC) Inc.,*528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) (the alleged injury must be “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical” to establish Article III standing); *Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,*504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (elements of Article III standing). Because a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice, *see Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc.,*377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004), we vacate the judgment in part and remand for the district court to dismiss the Mastersons’ action without prejudice.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04969]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Patent and Trademark Office

[Docket No. PTO-P-2022-0009]


Grant of Interim Extension of the Term of U.S. Patent No. 
8,858,612; Reducer[supreg]

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of interim patent term extension.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued an 
order granting a one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent 
No. 8,858,612.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ali Salimi, Senior Legal Advisor, 
Office of Patent Legal Administration, by telephone at 571-272-0909 or 
by email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#63020f0a4d10020f0a0e0a23161013170c4d040c15"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="83e2efeaadf0e2efeaeeeac3f6f0f3f7ecade4ecf5">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 156 of Title 35, United States Code, 
generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a 
period of up to five years if the patent claims a product, or a method 
of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined 
regulatory review, and that the patent may be extended for interim 
periods of up to one year if the regulatory review is anticipated to 
extend beyond the expiration date of the patent.
    On February 22, 2022, Neovasc Medical Ltd., the patent owner of 
record, timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a 
third interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 8,858,612. The 
patent claims methods of using a catheter delivered implantable device 
known by the tradename Reducer[supreg]. The application for patent term 
extension indicates that a Premarket Approval Application (PMA) P190035 
was submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 31, 
2019.
    Review of the patent term extension application indicates that, 
except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the 
subject patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term 
under 35 U.S.C. 156, and that the patent should be extended for one 
year as required by 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5)(B). Because the regulatory 
review period will continue beyond the extended expiration date of the 
patent, March 27, 2022, interim extension of the patent term under 35 
U.S.C. 156(d)(5) is appropriate.
    An interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. 
Patent No. 8,858,612 is granted for a period of one year from the 
extended expiration date of the '612 patent.

Robert Bahr,
Deputy Commissioner for Patents, United States Patent and Trademark 
Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-04969 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1 NO . 03-14-00402- CR REX ALLEN NISBETT § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS § v. § THIRD DISTRICT § STATE OF TEXAS § AUSTIN, TEXAS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF NOW COMES THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee, by and through her Assistant District Attorn ey , John C. Prezas, and moves the Court, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(d), to extend the deadli ne for filing the State’s brief

. In support of its motion, the State would show the Court the following:
1. The State’s Brief in this case i s due on June 8, 2015.
2. No previous extensions of time have been requested by the State or granted by this Court. 3. Appellant’s brief was filed in th is Court on May 8, 2015

. 4. Mr. Prezas filed a State’s brief in 03 -13-00794- CR , State v. Yazdi , on April 21, 2015. Mr. Prezas recently filed the State’s p roposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on May 21, 2015, in Ex Parte Rolando Bacon Lopez , 10-1053- K368A, a habeas corpus proceeding. Mr. Prezas has also recently filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the following other habeas corpus proceedings: Ex

Parte Robert Jesse Padilla , 06

- 937 -K368A; Ex Parte Robert Jesse ACCEPTED 03-14-00402-CR 5578386 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/8/2015 10:39:58 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2

Padilla, 06

- 921

- K368A; Ex Parte Daniel Robert Lock , 94

- 085

- K277A; Ex Parte Daniel Robert Lock 97

- 780

- K277A 5. Mr. Prezas f

iled a State’s brief on or before May 2 1 , 2015, in response to the Court of Criminal Appeals granting the State’s petition for discretionary review in John Alan Wachtendorf, PD

- 0280

- 15

. Mr. Prezas submitted a State ’ s Motion to Dismiss
in State vs. Gregory Michael Klapesky 03

- 15

- 00244

- CR on June 5, 2015.
6. Currently, Mr. Prezas is evaluating a request for DNA testing under Chapter 64 in
03

- 1063

- K277 State vs. Gregory Michael Klapesky and is working towards the July 1, 2015, due date for the State ’ s brief in State vs. James Alan Weatherford 03

- 14

- 00527

- CR.
7. Fo r the foregoing reasons, T he State respectfully request s that the deadline for filing its brief in the above stated cause be extended for an additional six ty (6 0) days from the current due date of J une 8 , 2015 , to A ugust 7 , 2015

.3

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDE RED, the State of Texa s respectfully requests that this Court grant its motio n for an exte nsion of time and extend the State’s deadline to file its brief to A ugust 7 , 2015

. Respectfully submitted, Jana Duty District Attorney Williamson County, Texas

/s/ John C. Prezas John C. Prezas Assistant District Attorney State Bar Number 24041722 405 Martin Luther King #1 Georgetown, Texas 78626 (512) 943

- 1248 (512) 943

- 1255 (fax) jprezas@wilco.org

Certificate of Servic e This is to certify that on J une 8 , 2015 , a copy of the foregoing mot ion ha s been s ent to A ppellant ’ s attorney of record , K risten , 2 07 S. Austin Ave. , Georgetown, TX 78626 , by eservice at Kristen @ txcrimapp.com

. /s/ John C. Prezas John C. Prezas
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-5707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ERIBERTO RAMOS, a/k/a Pedro Hernandez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-93-8)

Submitted: April 30, 1996 Decided: July 18, 1996

Before HALL, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven D. Benjamin, Betty Layne DesPortes, STEVEN D. BENJAMIN &

ASSOCIATES, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey,

United States Attorney, N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States

Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Eriberto Ramos appeals his convictions for various drug and

firearm offenses following a bench trial. Specifically, Ramos challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We

agree with the district court's assessment that the officers who

stopped Ramos and conducted a patdown search had reasonable suspicion for doing so. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 27 (1968). As

Ramos has raised no other objections to his conviction, we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Dewayne HALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-14921 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(May 10, 2017)

*907Michael B. Billingsley, Thomas E. Bor-tón, IV, Gregory R. Dimler, Eric W. Hunter, Praveen S. Krishna, Kathryn McHugh, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Joyce White Vance, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Birmingham, AL, Nicole Grosnoff, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

W. Scott Brower, appointed counsel for Patrick Hall in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Hall’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
#### Rowland *vs.*Wood *et als.*

Covenant,

[Mr. Turner for plaintiff: no appearance for defendant»]

From the Circuit Court for Madison County.-

*June 1*1.

Constables are andUd’byy their d°Udetur°r TMalie thelr process and precepts; and theplamtifl, or *the defendant*in an person injured by a failure of a con-a process,^aTM as relator, mainoThis bond?UP"

Judge'Ewiñg

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This is an action of covenant brought against Wood, as constable; and his sureti.es, on his official bond; and the 011^ involved is—can a defendant in an execution, as relator, sustain a suit on the official bond of a constable, for his failure to make due return of the pro-* „ *. r*, , , , . cess of execution, alter he- has made the money out ot the property?

We have no doubt hfe can. The law, as well as the condition of his bond, requires that he, “shall well and-“truly execute-and due return malte of all process and precepts to him directed and to him delivered;” and this covenant is as well for the benefit of defendants in-executions, as plaintiffs. And it has been-settled by this1 Court, that the action will lie at the instance of the plaintiff as relator. *5 J. J. Mar.*360. And we can perceive no reason why it may not lie in behalf of the defendant. The law authorizes *any person*who may be injured bj* a breach of the condition of his bond, to sue. The defendant has a deep interest in- the return of the execution, as furnishing him record' evidence of the discharge of his debt. The condition of the constable’s bond is- broken, by his failure to make *clue return*of the'writ, according to’ the command thereof, and he is subject, at least to nominal damages, to the defendant, and to more, if any special injury has accrued. And this also, has-been heretofore decided by this Court.

It is therefore the opinion of the Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and the cause re-man'ded,- that the demurrer to the declaration be overruled, and further proceedings had, not inconsistent with this opinion.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 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 Quarterly Report of IDT Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Bill Pereira, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
   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 Company.
  Date: March 17, 2010
 
 /s/    BILL PEREIRABill Pereira

Chief Financial Officer
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDT Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.4

                                                                    May 29, 2002




Salomon Smith Barney Inc.
390 Greenwich Street
New York, New York 10013

Re:      Underwriting Agreement for Franklin Auto Trust 2002-1, dated May 29,
2002 the "Underwriting Agreement") among Franklin Receivables LLC, Franklin
Capital Corporation ("Franklin Capital") and Salomon Smith Barney Inc. (the
"Underwriter").

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, Franklin Capital has undertaken
certain financial obligations with respect to the indemnification of the
Underwriter with respect to the Registration Statement, and the Prospectus
described in the Underwriting Agreement. Any financial obligations of Franklin
Capital under the Underwriting Agreement, whether or not specifically enumerated
in this paragraph, are hereinafter referred to as the "Joint and Several
Obligations;" provided, however, that "Joint and Several Obligations" shall mean
only the financial obligations of Franklin Capital under the Underwriting
Agreement (including the payment of money damages for a breach of any of
Franklin Capital's obligations under the Underwriting Agreement, whether
financial or otherwise) but shall not include any obligations not relating to
the payment of money.

         As a condition of its execution of the Underwriting Agreement, the
Underwriter has required the undersigned, Franklin Resources, Inc. ("Franklin
Resources"), the parent corporation of Franklin Capital, to acknowledge its
joint and several liability with Franklin Capital for the payment of the Joint
and Several Obligations under the Underwriting Agreement.

         Now, therefore, the Underwriter and Franklin Resources do hereby agree
that:

1.       Franklin Resources hereby agrees to be absolutely and unconditionally
jointly and severally liable with Franklin Capital to the Underwriter for the
payment of the Joint and Several Obligations under the Underwriting Agreement.

<PAGE>

2.       Franklin Resources may honor its obligations hereunder either by direct
payment of any Joint and Several Obligations or by causing any Joint and Several
Obligations to be paid to the Underwriter by Franklin Capital or another
affiliate of Franklin Resources.

         Capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have their
respective meanings as set forth in the Underwriting Agreement.

                                                    Very truly yours,


                                                    FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC.




                                                    By: /s/ Jennifer Bolt
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Name: Jennifer Bolt
                                                       Title: Vice President

SALOMON SMITH BARNEY INC.



By: /s/ Paul Humphrey
   ---------------------------
   Name:  Paul Humphrey
   Title:  Vice President

                                       -2-
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 of Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don A. Turkleson, Chief Financial Officer of Sabine Pass LNG-GP, Inc., the general partner of the Partnership, 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 result of operations of the Partnership.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 26, 2008



|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Don A. Turkleson                                                                         
|Don A. Turkleson                                                                             
|Chief Financial Officer of Sabine Pass LNG-GP, Inc., general partner of Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 660 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6186 

[Report No. 114–842] 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend certain protections against 

prohibited personnel practices, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 

Mr. DUFFY (for himself, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mr. COLE, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. 

MEADOWS, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Mr. GOHMERT, and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 

Additional sponsors: Mr. GROTHMAN and Mr. COFFMAN

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6186 RH

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend certain 

protections against prohibited personnel practices, and 

for other purposes. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6186 RH

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 ‘‘Follow the Rules Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROHIBITED PERSONNEL ACTION BASED ON OR6 DERING INDIVIDUAL TO VIOLATE RULE OR 

7 REGULATION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (D) of section 

9 2302(b)(9) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 

10 inserting ‘‘, rule, or regulation’’ after ‘‘law’’. 

11 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Such subparagraph 

12 is further amended by striking ‘‘for’’. 

13 (c) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by sub14 section (a) shall apply to any personnel action (as that 

15 term is defined in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of such title) oc16 curring after the date of enactment of this Act. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 660 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6186 

[Report No. 114–842] 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend 

practices, and for other purposes. certain protections against prohibited personnel 

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS