alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Willie F. STEPHENS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jenny ESPINOZA, M.D. Phys Med.; Juliet Dela Cruz, R.N., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16255

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Willie F. Stephens, Sr., Pro Se

Robert Santos Sandoval, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

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 **

California state prisoner Willie F. Stephens, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Stephens failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his foot pain. *See id.*at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Stephens’ motions to compel discovery because Stephens failed to demonstrate that defendants failed to respond timely to his discovery requests. *See Hallett v. Morgan,*296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and stating that “[bjroad discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider 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.
For the Nine Months Ended
                                                              April 30
                                                        2001            2000
                                                  --------------   -------------

Shares outstanding                                     6,630,091      6,416,939
                                                     -----------   ------------
Weighted average shares outstanding                    6,298,590      5,438,450
Stock Options                                          1,412,675      1,357,178
Warrants                                               1,797,500      1,798,125
                                                     -----------   ------------
  Total weighted average shares outstanding            9,508,765      8,593,753
                                                     ===========   ============

Net income (loss)                                    $(1,484,415)   $  (914,427)

Cumulative effect of change
  in accounting principle                                     --         79,896
                                                     -----------   ------------
Net income (loss)                                    $(1,484,415)   $  (834,531)
                                                     ===========   ============
Basic Net Earnings (Loss) per share
  Net income (loss) per common share before change
      in accounting principle                        $     (0.24)    $    (0.17)
  Cumulative effect of change
      in accounting principle                                 --           0.02
                                                     -----------   ------------
  Net income (loss) per common share                 $     (0.24)    $    (0.15)
                                                     ===========  =============
Diluted Net Earnings (Loss) per share
  Net income (loss) per common share before change   $     (0.24)    $    (0.16)
      in accounting principal
  Cumulative effect of change
      in accounting principle                                 --           0.01
                                                     -----------   ------------
  Net income (loss) per common share                 $     (0.24)    $    (0.15)
                                                     ===========   ============
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13(a) OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of IRIDEX Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
  By: /s/ LARRY TANNENBAUMName: Larry TannenbaumTitle: Chief Financial Officer and Vice President,
Administration(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 687 

To prevent States and local jurisdictions from interfering with the production 

and distribution of agricultural products in interstate or foreign commerce. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2015 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. BLUM, Mr. HUELSKAMP, and Mr. YOUNG of Iowa) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To prevent States and local jurisdictions from interfering 

with the production and distribution of agricultural products in interstate or foreign commerce. 

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 ‘‘Protect Interstate 

5 Commerce Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 687 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST INTERFERENCE BY STATE 

2 AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH PRODUC3 TION OR MANUFACTURE OF ITEMS IN OTHER 

4 STATES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Consistent with article I, section 

6 8, clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States, the 

7 government of a State or locality therein shall not impose 

8 a standard or condition on the production or manufacture 

9 of any agricultural product sold or offered for sale in inter10 state commerce if— 

11 (1) such production or manufacture occurs in 

12 another State; and 

13 (2) the standard or condition is in addition to 

14 the standards and conditions applicable to such pro15 duction or manufacture pursuant to— 

16 (A) Federal law; and 

17 (B) the laws of the State and locality in 

18 which such production or manufacture occurs. 

19 (b) AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT DEFINED.—In this 

20 section, the term ‘‘agricultural product’’ has the meaning 

21 given such term in section 207 of the Agricultural Mar22 keting Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1626). 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

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

Certification of Chief
Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Pure Bioscience (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Michael L. Krall, Chief Executive Officer 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 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.

|              |                                                              
|------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|June 12, 2008 | /s/ Michael L. Krall
Michael L. Krall
Chief Executive Officer

---
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation
by reference in the following Registration Statements:



| | (1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 333-143179) pertaining to the 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan and the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.,
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 333-149973) pertaining to 2007 New Employee Incentive Plan and the 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.,
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 333-158224) pertaining to the 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc., and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (4) | Registration Statement (Form S-3/A 333-163811) pertaining to the Prospectus of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. for the registration of 2,500,000 shares of its common
stock.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our report dated March 12, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of U.S. Auto Parts Network,
Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 1, 2011.

/s/Ernst & Young
LLP

Los Angeles, California

March
16, 2011
75 Fifth St NW, Suite 1200, Atlanta Georgia 30308

Aerospace.georgiainnovation.org

June 29, 2015

Docket Operations M-30

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington DC 20590

Subject: Letter of Support for Area-I FAA Section 333 Exemption Request

To Whom It May Concern:

The Georgia Center of Innovation for Aerospace submits this letter in support of the Area-I, Inc. 

Section 333 petition to the FAA to expand its flight test capabilities in the state. The Center 

provides the technical industry expertise, collaborative research and partnerships to help the 

industry connect, compete and grow. The Center advances recognition of Georgia’s strength in 

the global aerospace industry and contributes to the entrepreneurial and educational ecosystems 

required for its continued growth.

As such, the Center supports a focused program within the state to expand the commercial 

operations of UAS with Georgia. The Center believes that enabling UAS operations through the 

Section 333 exemption is in line with our commitment to growing the local technology industry 

and providing an avenue for the UAS marketplace to thrive, further benefitting the state of 

Georgia by attracting talent in industry, academia, and business. 

The Center is proud to have facilitated the relationship between Area-I and Middle Georgia State 

College (MGSC), who acquired a COA from the FAA to enable multiple successful, safe, and 

legal flight tests by the MGSC/Area-I team over the last three years. Given our experience with 

Area-I and their record of professionalism, the Center supports Area-I’s petition to legally 

perform UAS operations under the Section 333 exemption and will continue to work with Area-I 

to help them connect, compete, and grow in the expanding UAS market.

Respectfully, 

R. Steven Justice

Director, Georgia Center of Innovation for Aerospace
#### Jesse HEMINGWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Miss CHATTMAN, H.S.A.; Mrs. Scott-Boston, H.S.A. (Trainee); Mrs. Francos, A.H.S.A.; Dr. Dicoco, Clinical Director; Dr. Piscitelli, Chronic Care Doctor; Andrage Yirga, Midlevel Provider; Mrs. McCafferthy, Nurse, Defendants-Appellees, and Dr. K. Prakash; Tonya Mcclellan, MLP/ PA-Health Care Provider; Debrah Winbush, MLP/PA-Health Care Provider; United States of America, Defendants.

No. 17-7269

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 21, 2017

*200Jesse Hemingway, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jesse Hemingway seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his claims against some of the Defendants in his civil action filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80 (2012). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Hemingway seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*
S. 965

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

An Act

To designate the United States Courthouse for the Eastern District of Virginia

in Alexandria, Virginia, as the Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ALBERT V. BRYAN UNITED STATES

COURTHOUSE.

(a) NEW COURTHOUSE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building located at Courthouse Square South and Jamieson Avenue in Alexandria, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan

United States Courthouse’’.

(2) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the

Federal building referred to in paragraph (1) shall be deemed

to be a reference to the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse’’.

(b) OLD COURTHOUSE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building located at 200 South

Washington Street in Alexandria, Virginia, shall not be known

and designated as the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse’’.

(2) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the

Federal building known and designated prior to the effective

date of this section as the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States

Courthouse’’ shall be deemed to be a reference to the Federal

building referred to in paragraph (1).
S. 965—2

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall become effective on

the date of the completion of the construction of the Federal building

referred to in subsection (a)(1).

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10657

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HUMBERTO RODRIGUEZ-LOZANO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:16-CR-17-1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Humberto Rodriguez-Lozano appeals the 48-month above-Guidelines 

sentence imposed in connection with his conviction for illegal reentry after 

deportation. Rodriguez-Lozano argues that the district court violated the Ex 

Post Facto Clause in applying the 2016 Guidelines Manual because the 2015 

Guidelines, which were in effect at the time he was found unlawfully present 

in the United States, would have resulted in a lower sentencing range. 

 

* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 8, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10657 Document: 00514716011 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2018
No. 17-10657

2

However, he concedes that his argument may be foreclosed by our recent 

decision in United States v. Godoy, 890 F.3d 531, 536-41 (5th Cir. 2018).

The district court must apply the version of the Sentencing Guidelines 

effective at the time of sentencing unless doing so would violate the Ex Post 

Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. United States v. RodarteVasquez, 488 F.3d 316, 322 (5th Cir. 2007); see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a), (b)(1). 

“Although the sentencing guidelines are now advisory, [an ex post facto] 

violation occurs when the application of the Guidelines in effect at sentencing 

results in a harsher penalty than would application of the Guidelines in effect 

when the offense was committed.” United States v. Myers, 772 F.3d 213, 219 

(5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Because Rodriguez-Lozano did not argue in the district court that 

application of the 2016 Guidelines was an ex post facto violation, review of this 

issue is limited to plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009). Though Rodriguez-Lozano’s prior burglary conviction no longer 

qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G § 2L1.2 (b)(1)(A)(ii) 

(2015), see United States v. Herrold, 883 F.3d 517, 520-23, 539-41 (5th Cir. 

2018) (en banc), petitions for cert. filed (Apr. 18, 2018) (No. 17-1445) and (May 

21, 2018) (No.17-9127), it qualifies as an aggravated felony for purposes of 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) (2015), see Godoy, 890 F.3d at 536-41. In the instant case, the 

Guidelines range is the same under either the 2015 or the 2016 Guidelines. 

Thus, there was no Ex Post Facto violation in the application of the 2016 

Guidelines and no plain error. See Godoy, 890 F.3d at 541; Puckett, 556 U.S. 

at 135.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-10657 Document: 00514716011 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2018
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 97 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 97

To amend the Job Training Partnership Act to provide authority for the 
   construction of vocational education and job training centers for 
 Native Hawaiians and Native American Samoans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Job Training Partnership Act to provide authority for the 
   construction of vocational education and job training centers for 
 Native Hawaiians and Native American Samoans, 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. CONSTRUCTION OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND JOB TRAINING 
              CENTERS FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS AND NATIVE AMERICAN SAMOANS.

    Title IV of the Job Training Partnership Act is amended by 
inserting after section 401 (29 U.S.C. 1671) the following new section:

``SEC. 401A. CONSTRUCTION OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND JOB TRAINING 
              CENTERS FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS AND NATIVE AMERICAN SAMOANS.

    ``(a) Definition.--As used in this section, the term `Native 
American Samoan' means a person who is a citizen or national of the 
United States and who is a lineal descendant of an inhabitant of the 
Samoan Islands on April 18, 1900. For purposes of this section, Swains 
Island shall be considered part of the Samoan Islands.
    ``(b) Contracts.--The Secretary shall enter into contracts with 
appropriate entities for the construction of education and training 
centers for Hawaiian Natives and Native American Samoans. Each such 
center shall provide comprehensive vocational education and employment 
and training services through programs authorized under other 
provisions of this Act and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied 
Technology Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.).''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 3(c)(2)(A)(i) of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 
U.S.C. 1502(c)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``section 401'' and 
inserting ``sections 401 and 401A, from which the Secretary shall 
reserve not less than $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1996 to carry out 
section 401A''.
                                 <all>
```