alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Benjamin W. ESPINOSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert BANNISTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16196

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 30, 2017

Benjamin W. Espinosa, Pro Se

D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV — -Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV — Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, 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 **

Benjamin W. Espinosa, a Nevada state prisoner, 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). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Espinosa failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical conditions. *See id.*at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment, medical malpractice, or negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Espinosa’s motions for appointment of counsel because Espinosa failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. *See Cano v. Taylor,*739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Espinosa’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint because the proposed amendment would have been futile. *See Johnson v. Buckley,*356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “[fjutility alone can justify the denial of a motion to amend” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *see also Toguchi,*391 F.3d at 1060 (“A showing of medi*839cal malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Espinosa’s argument that the district court erred by denying him an increase in the copywork limit.

Espinosa’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 33) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bridgeline Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended September 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Michael D. Prinn, Executive Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.



|Date:       January 28, 2014 |        | /s/ Michael Prinn                                                                            
|---------------------------- | ------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                             | Name:  | Michael D. Prinn                                                                             
|                             | Title: | Executive Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0083 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0083

**2003/83/EC: Commission Decision of 5 February 2003 amending Council Directive 95/70/EC introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain diseases affecting bivalve molluscs (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 432) **

*
Official Journal L 032 , 07/02/2003 P. 0013 - 0014 *

Commission Decision

of 5 February 2003

amending Council Directive 95/70/EC introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain diseases affecting bivalve molluscs

(notified under document number C(2003) 432)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2003/83/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 95/70/EC of 22 December 1995 introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain diseases affecting bivalve molluscs(1), as amended by Commission Decision 2001/293/EC(2), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 9 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Directive 95/70/EC lists serious mollusc diseases to which certain provisions for monitoring and disease control, as provided for in that Directive, are applicable.

(2) In order to take account of the developments of the disease situation in the Community and in third countries, as well as the scientific knowledge and practical experience gained during recent years, the list of molluscs diseases, pathogens and sensitive species in Annex D to Directive 95/70/EC should be updated.

(3) Particular attention should be paid to diseases which could cause serious damage to the mollusc stock if introduced into or spread within the Community, such as those notifiable to the International Office of Epizooties (OIE) and rare or exotic to the Community.

(4) The species referred to as susceptible host species for the diseases and pathogens in question should be at least those laid down in the OIE most recent edition of the International Aquatic Animal Heath Code.

(5) A period of time should be provided for the implementation of these new requirements.

(6) Directive 95/70/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex D to Directive 95/70/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 8 April 2003.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 February 2003.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 332, 30.12.1995, p. 33.

(2) OJ L 100, 11.4.2001, p. 30.

ANNEX

"ANNEX D

>TABLE>

Note:

Susceptible host species also includes any other species specified, for the pathogen in question, in the International Office of Epizooties' (OIE) most recent edition of the International Aquatic Animal Health Code."
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSE E. MORALES
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2003

[ June 17, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Ilona Maxine Holmes , Judge; L.T. Case No. 04

- 6537CF10B

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Christine C. Geraghty, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acu ń a, Assistant Attorn ey General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

On Confession of Error

M AY
, J.

The defendant appeals his sentence on a revocation of probation. The trial court orally pronounced a sentence of thirty years with a three

- year mandatory minimum and a $50,000 fine on count two

— trafficking in cocaine between 28 grams and 200 grams

— to run concurrent with the

other counts. But

, the sentencing order and order assessing charges reflect a $500,000 fine with a $25,000 surcharge for count two. In his Initial Brief, the defendant argues the $500,000 fine and surcharge imposed on count two are illegal and do not conform with the court’s oral
pronouncement . The State agrees.

First, the oral pronouncement of a $50,000 fine controls. See Briggs v.

State , 936 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). And second, the State agrees the $500,000 fine a nd $25,000 surcharge is illegal. We agree.2 We reverse and remand the case to the trial court for correction of the sentencing order and the Order Assessing Charges/Costs/Fees for count two to reflect a $50,000 fine

, plus the commensurate 5% surcharge. Because this is a scrivener’s error, the defendant agrees he need not be present for the correction of the sentencing orders. See Ali v. State , 215 So. 3d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Reversed and r emanded

.

W ARNER and G ROSS

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 31.3


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Aaron Coleman, certify that:





1.I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2017 of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.; and


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 report.





Date: April 25, 2018





/s/ Aaron ColemanAaron ColemanChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
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 Loreto Resources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Luis F. Saenz, Interim Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, 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.



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|/s/ Luis F. Saenz |                                
|----------------- | -------------------------------
|Name:             | Luis F. Saenz                  
|Title:            | Interim Chief Financial Officer
|Date:             | April 16, 2012                 
|                  |
#### The State v. Baker.

Intoxicating Liquors : nuisance : no argument : affirmed.

*Appeal from Wapello District Court.*

Filed, May *22,*1888.

Defendant was indicted for the .crime of nuisance, committed by-owning and keeping, and by being concerned, engaged and employed in owning and keeping, intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same within the state contrary to law. He entered a plea of guilty and was adjudged to pay a fine of three hundred dollars, an attorney fee of twenty-five dollars, and the costs of prosecution, and was adjudged, in case of default in the payment of the fine and costs, to be imprisoned at hard labor in the jail of Wapello county, for the term of one hundred and two days. The abatement of the nuisance, destruction of liquors and sale of the movable property used in carrying on the unlawful business were also ordered. Defendant appeals.

Robinson, J.

This cause was submitted in this court on a transcript of tbe record, and without argument for either party. We have examined the record but discover no material error.

Affirmed.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-14-0016 SAT Date: 11/1/2013 Print Date: 12/3/2013

Related cases : Health related cases : Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 2

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: Yes
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: LUNG; IRR-E,S,MM,L; AQUATOX Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-14-0012-3/5-6 FATE: Estimations for typical Liquid with MP < 25 C (E) log Kow = 4.21 (E) S = Dispersible / 6.57 mg/L at 25 C (ICB / E) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) log Koc = 5.66 (E) log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E) log Fish BAF = 2.55 (E)POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is poor from the skin, moderate from the GI tract, and good from the lung (analog). Concern for surfactant effects on the lung; irritation to eye, skin (chronic), mucous membranes and lung based on surfactant properties of the compound.

Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 11.2 green algal 96-h EC50 6.3 fish

_ chronic value 2.5 daphnid

_ chronic value 1.1
algal

_ chronic value 2.4
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for Aliphatic Amines-Acids; SAR chemical class = Aliphatic Amines; MW 528; S = dispersible (P); liquid with unknown mp (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; DW hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and DW TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 110

SARs Aliphatic Amines-Acid SAR Class Aliphatic Amines-Acid Ecotox Category Aliphatic Amines
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
Exhibit
      32





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, I, David M. Goldenberg, Interim Chief Financial Officer of Advanced
      ID Corporation (the “Company"), hereby certify, that to the best
      of
      my knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
      quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with
      the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:December
      6, 2006





/s/David
      M. Goldenberg


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


David
      M.
      Goldenberg, Interim Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Condensed
     Consolidated Balance Sheets and Condensed Consolidated Statements of
     Earnings as reported on the third quarter Form 10-Q and is qualified in
     its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000


<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-30-1999
<CASH>                                             297,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      170,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,101,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,700,000
<PP&E>                                           6,148,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,783,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,224,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,969,000
<BONDS>                                          1,240,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,447,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,224,000
<SALES>                                          6,835,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,835,000
<CGS>                                            4,731,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   203,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  64,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     70,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                        26,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 44,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        44,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                          .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .18


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00788-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R. and T.R., Children

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-00015

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order of termination is 

AFFIRMED. 

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant Father or appellant Mother because 

they are indigent. 

SIGNED May 6, 2015.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
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 Infrax Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Messineo, Principal 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 2001, that:





The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated: September 26, 2012








/s/ Peter Messineo


Peter Messineo, Principal Financial Officer and


Principal Accounting Officer and Director
H. R. 6983 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 15 South 

Valdosta Road in Lakeland, Georgia, as the ‘‘Nell Patten Roquemore Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. NELL PATTEN ROQUEMORE POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 15 South Valdosta Road in Lakeland, Georgia, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Nell Patten Roquemore 

Post Office’’. 

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

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

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Nell Patten Roquemore Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kwame Lawan VEREEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4830

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Mario A. Pacella, STROM LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kwame Lawan Vereen pled guilty, pursuant to a Fed. R, Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, to distributing cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012). The district court imposed the stipulated sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning whether Vereen’s sentence is reasonable. Although notified of his right to do so, Vereen has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Generally, we review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “However, not all sentences are subject to appellate review.” *United States v. Williams,*811 F.3d 621, 622-23 (4th Cir. 2016). In this case, we lack jurisdiction to review Vereen’s sentence of imprisonment because the district court sentenced Ver-een in accordance with the terms of his Rule 11(e)(1)(C) agreement, Vereen’s sen*813tence is not unlawful, nor was it expressly based on the Sentencing Guidelines. *See id.*at 623-25.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for review. We therefore dismiss Vereen’s challenge to his sentence of imprisonment and affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Vereen, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Vereen requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Vereen.

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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART*