alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sohrab HAROONIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56035

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 26, 2017

Sohrab Haroonian, Pro Se

Destie Overpeck, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel, State Bar of California, Office of the General Counsel, 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 **

Sohrab Haroonian appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising out of his failure to pass the California Bar Exam. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Carmona v. Carmona,*603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010) (application of the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine); *Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish,*382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Haroonian’s claims for damages against the State Bar of California and the Committee of Bar Examiners because those defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. *See Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Cal.,*67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 1995) (the State Bar of California is an arm of the state and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); *Lupert v. Cal. State Bar,*761 F.2d 1325, 1327 (9th Cir. 1985) (suit against the Board of Governors of the California Bar and the Committee of Bar Examiners is barred by the Eleventh Amendment).

*839The. district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine over Haroonian’s declaratory relief claim because his claim amounted to a “forbidden de facto appeal” of the California Supreme Court’s denial of Haroonian’s application for admission to the state bar. *See Noel v.*Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine); *see also Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 486, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983) (district court lacks jurisdiction over challenge to denial of bar admission, which is a challenge to a state court decision).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Fw: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS

Michael Stewart to: Crabtree.Tricia 04/30/2010 10:57 AM

Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Health and Environmental Impacts Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541-7524

stewart.michael@epa.gov

----- Forwarded by Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/30/2010 10:57 AM -----

From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

To: Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, James 

Hemby/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/30/2010 10:39 AM

Subject: RE: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS

Chet, that sounds like a good idea. Thank you for suggesting it.

Let me know if there is a time Thu 5/6 that works for your folks -- that

looks like a good day on our calendars.

Best regards,

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From: Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov

[mailto:Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:36 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov; Stewart.Michael@epamail.epa.gov;

Hemby.James@epamail.epa.gov; Mathias.Scott@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS

Heidi,

Thanks for the call today. With regards to next weeks follow-up call,

it might be beneficial to have a first call on the science and standard

aspects and then a second call on any monitoring/implementation

questions. As you can imagine, the monitoring and implementation parts

are complex. If that approach works for you, let me know and we can

coordinate with you on the second call while Lydia's folks handle the

first call. We'll obviously have everyone on both calls, but since my

folks are more critical on the second call, we'd like to make sure we

schedule around their schedules as much as we can. Let me know if you

think this approach works for you.

Thanks,

Chet

________________________________________

Richard A. "Chet" Wayland

Director, Air Quality Assessment Division U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning & Standards

(919) 541-4603
#### KARR *v.*DOWSETT.

Appeal and Error — Findings of Pact — Ejectment.

Judgment for plaintiffs in action for ejectment is affirmed where a review of the record does not show that the findings of the trial court on which the judgment was based are clearly erroneous (GCR 1968, 517.1).

Reference for Points in Headnote

5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 839 *et seq.*

Appeal from Wayne, Weideman (Carl M.), J.

Submitted Division 1 June 4, 1968, at Detroit.

(Docket No. 4,327.)

Decided June 10, 1968.

Complaint by Lester Karr and Florence Karr against Lucille Dowsett, Gladys T. Fisb, Harold R. Thornton, Kenneth Bruce, Richard Bruce and Edward Bruce, for ejectment. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

*Steve Polgar,*for plaintiffs.

*Dunbar Davis,*for defendants Dowsett, Fish, and Thornton.

*Brashear, Brashear & Mies,*for defendants Bruce.

Per Curiam.

Defendants appeal from a judgment for plaintiffs in this action of ejectment. A review of the record does not indicate the findings of the *654trial court on which the judgment was based are clearly erroneous. GrCR, 1963, 517.1 See, also, *Schneider*v. *Pomerville*(1957), 348 Mich 49; *Northwest Auto Company*v. *Mulligan Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.*(1957), 348 Mich 279; *Barnes*v. *Beck*(1957), 348 Mich 286.

Affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs.

Quinn, P. J., and Fitzgerald and J. H. Gillis, JJ., concurred.
**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 Annual Report of GCA I Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael M. Membrado,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.




/s/
                Michael M. MembradoMichael
                M. Membrado
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              August
                29, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar Lamar MIMS Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-2975

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 19, 2017

Filed: May 1, 2017

*594Tiffany Gulley Becker, Kenneth Tihen, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Oscar Lamar Mims, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Oscar Lamar Mims guilty of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court,1 sentenced Mims to 120 months in prison. Mims’s counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing the sufficiency of the evidence, the reasonableness of the sentence, and the effectiveness of counsel. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

The challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails in part because the. jury heard numerous recorded telephone conversations related to a network of individuals involved in the distribution of heroin, and some of the calls established Mims’s knowing participation in purchasing heroin for redistribution. *See United States v. Ramirez,*362 F.3d 521, 524 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review); *United States v. Peeler,*779 F.3d 773, 776 (8th Cir. 2015) (evidence of multiple sales of drugs sufficient to establish conspiracy where defendant was a party to one or more wiretapped conversations discussing aspects of heroin business, and indicating speaker’s knowledge and involvement in common drug-distribution scheme). Mims received the statutory minimum sentence, and there is no indication in the record that the sentence is unreasonable. *See United States v. Feemster,*572 F.3d 455, 461-64 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Ineffective-assistance claims are usually best left for proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, where the record can be developed as needed. *See United States v. Davis,*583 F.3d 1081, 1091 (8th Cir. 2009). An independent review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous issue for review. *See Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988).

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
#### ZAGG INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY HOLDING CO., INC., Appellant v. TECH 21 UK LTD., Appellee

2016-1976

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 11, 2017

Peter M. De Jonge, Thorpe North & Western, Salt Lake City, UT, argued for appellant. Also represented by Jed H. Hansen.

Brewster Taylor, Stites & Harbison PLLC, Alexandria, VA, argued for appel-lee. Also represented by MICHAEL K. KIM.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Dyk and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

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

No. 204 SSM 21

The People &c.,

 Appellant,

 v.

Tyson Sydoriak, 

 Respondent.

Submitted by Christopher Blira-Koessler, for appellant.

Submitted by Alexis A. Ascher, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed

and the case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second

Department, for consideration of the facts and issues raised but

not determined on the appeal to that court, for reasons stated in

People v Nealon (___ NY3d ___, 2015 NY Slip Op ___ [decided

- 1 -
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antione BOYCE, a/k/a Dallas, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6051

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Antione Boyce, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Antione Boyce appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Although Amendment 782 to the Guidelines lowered offense levels applicable to drug offenses by two levels and is retroactively applicable, *see*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § lB1.10(d), p.s. (2016); USSG app. C, *279amend. 782, it “does not have the effect of lowering [Boyce’s] applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision.” USSG § 1B1.10, p.s., cmt. n.l(A). Accordingly, Boyce was not entitled to a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), and the district court thus did not reversibly err in denying Boyce’s motion. *See*USSG § lB1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s.; *United States v. Munn,*595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010), *abrogation on other grounds recognized in United States v. Muldrow,*844 F.3d 434, 438-42 (4th Cir. 2016).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial order. *United States v. Boyce,*No. 1:07-cr-00383-CCB-3 (D. Md. Dec. 13,2016). 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*
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, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Matthew J. Meloy , 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/ Matthew J. Meloy


Name: Matthew J. Meloy


Title: Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


of Targa Resources GP LLC, the general partner of


Targa Resources Partners LP





Date: February 25, 2011





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.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6007 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6007

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 22, 2016

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend title 49, United States Code, to include consideration of 
certain impacts on commercial space launch and reentry activities in a 
          navigable airspace analysis, 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. NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH SITE 
              RUNWAYS.

    (a) In General.--Section 44718(b)(1) of title 49, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``air navigation facilities and equipment'' 
        and inserting ``air or space navigation facilities and 
        equipment'';
            (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``; and'' and 
        inserting a semicolon;
            (3) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(F) the impact on launch and reentry for launch and 
        reentry vehicles arriving or departing from a launch site or 
        reentry site licensed by the Secretary.''.
    (b) Rulemaking.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration shall initiate a 

              

rulemaking to implement the amendments made by subsection (a).

            Passed the House of Representatives September 21, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 857

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide waiver authority

for the requirement to provide a written justification for the exact

grounds for the denial of a visa, except in cases of intent to immigrate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide

waiver authority for the requirement to provide a written

justification for the exact grounds for the denial of a

visa, except in cases of intent to immigrate.

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 ‘‘Law Enforcement and

5 Intelligence Sources Protection Act of 1995’’.
2

S 857 IS

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER AUTHORITY CONCERNING NOTICE OF DE2 NIAL OF APPLICATION FOR VISAS.

3 Section 212(b) of the Immigration and Nationality

4 Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(b)) is amended—

5 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as

6 subparagraphs (A) and (B);

7 (2) by striking ‘‘If’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) Subject

8 to paragraph (2), if’; and

9 (3) by inserting at the end the following para10 graph:

11 ‘‘(2) With respect to applications for visas, the Sec12 retary of State may waive the application of paragraph

13 (1) in the case of a particular alien or any class or classes

14 of excludable aliens, except in cases of intent to

15 immigrate.’’.

Æ
# EUR-Lex - 32001R1098 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R1098

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1098/2001 of 5 June 2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community **

*
Official Journal L 150 , 06/06/2001 P. 0037 - 0037 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1098/2001

of 5 June 2001

amending Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 of 10 December 1987 laying down the general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks to designated organisations for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2535/95(2), and in particular Article 6 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Under Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2760/1999(4), implementation of the annual distribution plan, as defined in Article 2(1) of that Regulation, runs from 1 October to 30 September of the following year. In the light of experience, and to take account of the particular requirements of distribution to the beneficiaries of the measure, the most deprived persons in the Community, distribution to charitable organisations should be allowed to continue until 31 October of the year of implementation. This will also make it possible to reduce the interim stage between the implementation of two successive plans.

(2) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinions of the Management Committees concerned,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 is replaced by the following: "1. Implementation of the plan shall run from 1 October to 30 September of the following year. However, distribution to charitable organisations may continue until 31 October of the year of implementation."

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 June 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 352, 15.12.1987, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 260, 31.10.1995, p. 3.

(3) OJ L 313, 30.10.1992, p. 50.

(4) OJ L 331, 23.12.1999, p. 55.
Equipment Manuals
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 
 FORM
10-K/A
 
 þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007
 or
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For
the transition period from to
 Commission File Number: 001-33909
 
 GREENHAVEN CONTINUOUS COMMODITY INDEX FUND
 (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 
 Delaware
    
    26-0151234(State or Other Jurisdiction of
    
    (I.R.S. EmployerIncorporation or Organization)
    
    Identification No.)c/o GreenHaven Commodity Services, LLC3340 Peachtree Rd, Suite 1910Atlanta, Georgia
    
    30326(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code: (404) 239-7942
 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 Title of Each Class
    
    Name of Each Exchange on Which RegisteredCommon Units of Beneficial Interest
    
    American Stock Exchange
 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
 
 o þ
 o þ
 þ o
 þ
  Large accelerated filer o
    
    Accelerated filer o
    
    Non-accelerated filer   þ
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
    
    Smaller Reporting Company o
 o þ
    DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE




---



##### 








---



##### 



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
    
 
 29




---



##### 



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
    
 
 35
#### PETTER INVESTMENTS, DBA Riveer, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HYDRO ENGINEERING, Defendant-Appellee California Cleaning Systems, Defendant

2016-2634

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

September 11, 2017

*699Stephen M. Lobbin, One LLP, Newport Beach, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

Mark A. Miller, Holland & Hart LLP, Salt Lake City, UT, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Brett L. Foster.

(Dyk, Linn, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.