alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Roger LEVANS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

16-2964-cv

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 2, 2017

*679FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: Alexander T. Coleman, (Caitlin A, McNaughton, Michael J. Borrelli, on the brief), Bor-relli & Associates, P.L.L.C., Great Neck, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Michael Crowley, (Brian P. Morrissey, on the brief), Connell Foley LLP, New York, NY.

PRESENT: Jon 0. Newman, José A. Cabranes, Gerard E, Lynch, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) appeals the judgment of the district court. On that appeal Delta seeks review of the district court’s denial of Delta’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and the granting of Delta’s motion for remittitur.

On appeal, Delta argues, among other things: (1) that Plaintiff failed to establish a *prima facie*case of negligence as a matter of law; (2) that the district court should not have allowed the case to go to the jury on a theory of *res ipsa loquitur*because Delta’s contractor did not have sufficiently exclusive control over the luggage; (3) that the district court improperly instructed the jury on *res ipsa loquitur*and failed to instruct the jury that Delta could not be liable for criminal acts of its employees; (4) that certain news articles and deposition testimony were improperly admitted and that Plaintiffs counsel commented improperly during summation; and (5) that the district court did not sufficiently reduce the jury’s award for pain and suffering, as reduced after Plaintiffs acceptance of re-mittitur, because it deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

For substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough opinion, we hold these claims to be without merit. We have considered all of the arguments raised by Delta and, upon our independent review of the record, we hold that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### H. G. N. R. R. CO. v. GOLDSTEIN.

Appeal from Williamson county.

*Common Carrier*— Regulation.—A regulation by a railroad company requiring a passscnger to exhibit a- ticket before boarding a train is a reasonable one, and not in conflict with the law of this state. When' a passenger refuses to yield obedience to this regulation, the company has the right to exclude or eject him from its train, and to use such force as was reasonably necessary to accomplish that end. Reversed and remanded.

Opinion by

Willson, J.
#### ESTATE OF Fernando SAUCEDA; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS and North Las Vegas Police Department, Defendants, and Jeffrey Pollard, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-17518

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 9, 2017*****San Francisco, California

Filed July 11, 2017

*636Eckley Martin Reach, Trial Attorney, Eckley M. Reach, Chtd., Las Vegas, NV, Robert Ellis Murdock, Esquire, Murdock & Associates, Chtd., Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellees

Robert Wilson Freeman, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants

Robert Wilson Freeman, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

ORDER **

The district court’s summary judgment orders are VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court so that the court can consider the summary judgment issues in light of *County of Los Angeles v. Mendez,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1539, 198 L.Ed.2d 52 (2017).

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 84

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER, 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. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

4 Notwithstanding sections 12106 through 12108 of

5 title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer6 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), the Sec7 retary of Transportation may issue a certificate of docu8 mentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel

9 BAGGER, hull identification number 3121125, and State

10 of Hawaii registration number HA1809E.

Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 84

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

and for other purposes.wise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER,issue a certificate of documentation and coast-
T H EODORE 

### R. KULONCOS K! GoVE RN O R 

### September 21. 20 I0

Dennis McLerran, Regional Administrator U.S. Envirorunentall>rotection Agency, Regi o n 10 

### 1200 6th A 

### ven ue, Suite 900 Seatt le , W A 9810 I RE : Pl aceme nt of Asto ri a Marine Construc ti o n on Natio nal Pri ori ties Li s t
- Concurrence Dear Me. McLerran: We have been inf o nned of U.S. Environmental Protection Agcncy (EPA) Region I O's p lan to place Astoria Marine Construction on th e National Pri o ritie s Li s t. Oregon Department of En viron mental Quality (DEQ) sta fT, after rcviewing the facts and communi cating with l oca l stakeholders, ha ve recommended our concurrence. I agree with th i s recommendation. Therefore, purs uant to 40 CFR 300.425(2), this letter serv e s a s official documentation of Orego n 's conc urren ce w ith placement of Astoria Marine Construction on the Nationa l Priorities Li s t. The Astoria Marine Constru ction s ite is a boal refurbishment and maintenance yard located approximately three mile s south ofthc C it y of Astoria in Clatsop Co unty , Oregon
. This facility

- which si ts on the east bank of the Lew is and Clark Rivcr, abo ut o nc mile upstream of its confluence wi th Young's Bay - ha s bee n in operati on s ince th e 19 20's and employed as many as 100 worker s durin g it s peak production in**th~** 1940

- 50' s . The facility st ill provides s hip re pair and refurbi shm e nt s erv ices and clIm: nll y c mpl oys about 10 wo rkers. EPA's recent inspections show that contamination from hi sto ri c industrial activities is present in s ite soi l s and groundwater on the facility s ite and ha s accumulated in Lcwi s and C lark River sedim ents s urrounding the facility. Elevated c oncentration s of petroleum co nst ituent s , heavy metals and marine pe s ticide s on and ncar the s it e pose a threat to human health and eco logica l spec ie s. D EQ's reco rd s s how so me minor re moval work was performed b y the s ite owners in th e mid-1 990's, but the mo st recent data sh ow that remed i al action i s needed.

STATE (APITOL,SAlE. M 9730 !-4047 (503) 378 - 3 !! 1 FAX (503) 3 78-4863 T1Y {503) 378-4859 WWW.GOVERNOR.STATE.O R
. USDennis McLerran, Regional Administrator September 21, 2010 Page Two

I fully support listing the Astoria Marine Construction site on the National Priorities List. Placing this site on the National Priorities List is a criticill step to protect the health of local residents, threatened and endangt::red fish s pecie s, and recreational water users.

TRK : m e:j b c: Dan Opalski , USEPA Region 10 Dick Pedersen, Director, Oregon DEQ
#### Gordon BEASLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Janet Beasley, Plaintiff, v. RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; Red Rock Virginia, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-1063

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 28, 2017

Decided: April 5, 2017

Ernest P. Francis, ERNEST P. FRANCIS, LTD., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Virginia M. Sadler, Padraic K. Keane, JORDAN COYNE LLP, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gordon Beasley appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees on some of his claims, denying his motion for summary judgment on one of the Appellees’ defenses, and granting judgment as a matter' of law for the Appellees pursuant to *296Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) after Beasley's presentation of his remaining claims to the jury. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04700]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Engineering; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: Advisory Committee for Engineering #1170.
    Date and Time: April 6, 2022: 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; April 7, 
2022: 10:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 [bond] Virtual.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Evette Rollins, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85e0f7eae9e9ecebf6c5ebf6e3abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e88d9a87848481869ba8869b8ec68f879e">[email protected]</span></a>; 703-292-8300; NSF 
2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
    The forthcoming virtual meeting information and an updated agenda 
will be posted at https://www.nsf.gov/eng/advisory.jsp.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations and counsel 
on major goals and policies pertaining to engineering programs and 
activities.

Agenda

Wednesday, April 6, 2022

<bullet> Directorate for Engineering Report
<bullet> NSF Budget Update
<bullet> NSF Strategic Plan
<bullet> ENG Strategic Planning
<bullet> Reports from Advisory Committee Liaisons

Thursday, April 7, 2022

<bullet> Diversity in Engineering: Current Data Trends
<bullet> Panel and Discussion on Diversity in Engineering
<bullet> Preparation for Discussion with the Director's Office
<bullet> Prospective from the Director's Office
<bullet> Strategic Recommendations for ENG

    Dated: March 1, 2022.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-04700 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit
32.2







CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 on Form 10-K of Targa Resources Partners LP (the
“Partnership”) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Jeffrey J. McParland,
as Chief Financial Officer of Targa Resources GP LLC, the general partner of the
Partnership, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
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
Partnership.





By: /s/ Jeffrey J. McParland


Name: Jeffrey J.
McParland


Title: Executive
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer


of Targa Resources
GP LLC, the general partner of


Targa Resources
Partners LP




Date:
March 3, 2010




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 the
Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23
- 11263 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Calvin Ace Guerette,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:05
- CR
- 44 - 2

**__________________ ____________**  Before **Elrod, Oldham,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Calvin Ace Guerette has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Guerette has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 23, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-11263 Document: 44-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2024No. 23
- 11263

2 therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further re sponsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.**  42.2 . Case: 23-11263 Document: 44-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                  0
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                   2,376,863
<ALLOWANCES>                       10,000
<INVENTORY>                     8,524,077
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               11,164,079
<PP&E>                             79,482
<DEPRECIATION>                     22,792
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 12,222,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           8,144,699
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                           550
<COMMON>                              420
<OTHER-SE>                      3,701,899
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   12,222,568
<SALES>                        22,687,943
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               22,687,943
<CGS>                          17,926,096
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  17,926,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  1,076
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (107,459)
<INCOME-TAX>                        5,326
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (112,785)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (112,785)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.04)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 767 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 767

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform and reset the 
              excise tax on beer, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2015

  Mr. Womack (for himself, Mr. Kind, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Westerman, Mr. 
  Young of Indiana, Mr. Marino, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Bost, Mr. 
 Luetkemeyer, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr. Buck, Mr. Jolly, Mr. Amodei, 
 Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Zinke, Mr. Welch, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Caardenas, Mrs. 
 Napolitano, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Moore, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, 
  and Mr. Smith of Missouri) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform and reset the 
              excise tax on beer, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Brewers Excise and Economic 
Relief Act'' or the ``Fair BEER Act''.

SEC. 2. RATE OF TAX ON BEER.

    (a) In General.--Section 5051(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) In general.--A tax is hereby imposed on all beer 
        brewed or produced, and removed for consumption or sale, within 
        the United States, or imported into the United States during 
        the calendar year. Such tax shall be--
                    ``(A) $0 on so much of such beer as does not exceed 
                7,143 barrels,
                    ``(B) $3.50 per barrel on so much of such beer as 
                exceeds 7,143 barrels but does not exceed 60,000 
                barrels,
                    ``(C) $16 per barrel on so much of such beer as 
                exceeds 60,000 barrels but does not exceed 2,000,000 
                barrels, and
                    ``(D) $18 per barrel on so much of such beer as 
                exceeds 2,000,000 barrels.
        Such tax shall be imposed with respect to every barrel 
        containing not more than 31 gallons and at a like rate for any 
        other quantity or for fractional parts of a barrel.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5051(a) of such Code is amended 
by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph 
(2).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on January 1, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                         387,130
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               36,084,564
<ALLOWANCES>                                   499,175
<INVENTORY>                                    514,470
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,282,722
<PP&E>                                      33,869,783
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,010,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             143,833,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,341,682
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       246,726
<OTHER-SE>                                  55,113,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               143,833,390
<SALES>                                     73,521,569
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            73,521,569
<CGS>                                       50,732,974
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               50,732,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,066,622
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,700,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,509,009
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,512,964
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,125,962
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,387,002
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,387,002
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
#### Dominic DINISH; Princilla Johnson Dinish, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ELAN REAL ESTATE GROUP; Bryson Square Apts, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-36016

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed June 30, 2017

Dominie Dinish, Pro Se

Princilla Johnson Dinish, Pro Se

Gregory S. Latendresse, Preg O’Donnell & Gillett, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Dominic Dinish and Princilla Johnson Dinish appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in their action alleging racial discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Seventh Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

*900The Dinishes have failed to address in their opening brief any of the grounds for summary judgment, and have therefore waived their challenge to the district court’s order. *See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,*350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); *Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle,*7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

We reject as without merit the Dinishes’ contentions that the district court improperly relied on false statements made by defendants and that the Dinishes were improperly denied the ability to proceed with their lawsuit.

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); *see also 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.