alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas John HEILMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Todd WASKO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17549

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 25, 2017

Thomas John Heilman, Pro Se

David Charles Goodwin, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Thomas John Heilman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego,*670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Heilman’s retaliation claim against defendant Wasko stemming from the filing of a rules violation report *879because Heilman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Was-ko’s action was taken with a retaliatory motive or did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. *See Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth the elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

The district court properly dismissed Heilman’s retaliation claims against Wasko regarding the three 128-B general chronos because Heilman did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies by submitting a timely grievance regarding the general chronos. *See Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 93, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that the “PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); *see also Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.... ”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

2D SESSION S. 739

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

SISU, 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,
2

S 739 ES

1 SECTION 1. VESSEL DOCUMENTATION.

2 Notwithstanding sections 12106 through 12108 of

3 title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer4 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica5 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

6 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

7 with appropriate endorsement for employment in the

8 coastwise trade for the vessel SISU, United States official

9 number 293648.

Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 739

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

purposes.wise trade for the vessel SISU, and for otherpriate endorsement for employment in the coastissue a certificate of documentation with appro-
### CMP-2

Revised: May 16, 2005 

## Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District Supplemental Application Form



# Conservation Management Practices: FIELD AND ROW CROPS

Farm Name: CMP Plan Years: to

Maximum Crop Acreage:

Fallow Acreage Last Pl anted in Field/Row Crops:

Land Preparation/

Cultivation Select at least one of the following CMPs. Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs.
Bed/row size or spacing, ac Equipmt change/tech. imprvmnts, ac Cessation of activities, ac Multiple CMPs in another category Chemigation/fertigation, ac Mulching, ac Combined operations, ac Night farming, ac Conservation irrigation, ac Non-tillage/chemical tillage, ac Conservation tillage, ac Transplanting, ac Cross wind stripcropping, ac Other (special approval reqd.), ac Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above:



### Harvest Select at least one of the following CMPs. Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs.
Combined operations, ac Pre-harvest soil preparation, ac Equipment change/tech. improvements, ac Shed packing, ac Hand harvesting, ac Shuttle system, ac Multiple CMPs in another category Other (special approval reqd), ac Night harvesting, ac Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above:



### Other Select at least one of the following CMPs. Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs.
Cover crops, ac Soil moisture management, ac Fallowing land, ac Surface roughening, ac Multiple CMPs in another category Time of disturbance/planting, ac Non-tillage/chemical tillage, ac Wind barrier, ac Organic practices, ac Other (special approval reqd), ac Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above: CMP

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10005

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 27, 2017

Timothy H. Delgado, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Shari Rusk, Law Office of Shari Rusk, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLÁND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Armando Solis appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the revocation of supervised release following a contested evidentiary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Solis contends that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his supervised release because there was insufficient evidence to establish the violations. In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a supervised *732release revocation, “we ask whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” *United States v. King,*608 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence was sufficient to support the district court’s finding that Solis violated the terms of his supervised release by committing the new crimes of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute and unlawful use of a communication device and by associating with a person engaged in criminal activity. *See id.*Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Solis’s supervised release. *See United States v. Perez,*526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 16

- 4114

_____________________________
T IMYSHA D EVONDRA S IMPO , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Marianne L. Aho , Judge

. August 15, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. O STERHAUS , W INOKUR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Joe Hamrick, Rick A. Sichta, Susanne K. Sichta, The Sichta Firm, LLC , Jacksonville
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Ba rbara Debelius, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6960 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6960

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 16, 2024

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Emergency 
                 Medical Services for Children program.

    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 ``Emergency Medical Services for 
Children Reauthorization Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR 
              CHILDREN.

    Section 1910(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300w-
9(d)) is amended by striking ``and $22,334,000 for each of fiscal years 
2020 through 2024'' and inserting ``$22,334,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2020 through 2024, and $24,334,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 
through 2029''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 32.2
 Certification Pursuant to
 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 (as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002)
  In connection with the Quarterly Report of IDT Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Bill Pereira, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
   1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: June 14, 2010
 
 /s/    BILL PEREIRABill Pereira

Chief Financial Officer
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDT Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### VOGUE INTERNATIONAL, LLC, DBA Vogue International, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-56394

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 2, 2016 Pasadena, California

Filed March 21, 2017

David A. Gauntlett, Attorney, James A. Lowe, Esquire, Gauntlett & Associates, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Linda Tai Hoshide, Esquire, Wilson El-ser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Los Angeles, CA, David Simantob, Tres-sler LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

We remanded this appeal to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether there is federal jurisdiction. The district court concluded that there is no jurisdiction and dismissed the case. Because no timely appeal has been filed from that determination, this appeal is DISMISSED.

Appellee’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice, Dkt- #42, and Appellant’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal, Dkt #45, are GRANTED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") by SmartServ Online, Inc.
("Registrant"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

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

                                         /s/ Robert M. Pons
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         Robert M. Pons
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         Dated:  November 15, 2004


                                         /s/ Len von Vital
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         Len von Vital
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         Dated:  November 15, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SmartServ Online, Inc. and will be retained by SmartServ Online,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 14 - 00049 - CV

________________________ BRIAN KERN , O.D., PETER M. HO, M.D., D/B/A TEXAS VISION ASSOCIATES, P.A. AND MING

- TAO HO, M.D., A/K

/ A “PETER” M. HO, M.D. , APPELLANT S V. THE TEXAS OPTOMETRY BOARD, ET AL. , APPELLEE S

On Appeal from the 99th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013 - 508,829 ; Honorable William C. Sowder , Presiding December 1 , 2014 

### ORDER OF DISMISSAL Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant s, Brian Kern, O.D. and Peter M. Ho, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Texas Vision Associates, P.A., and Ming - Tao Ho, M.D., a/k/a “Peter” M. Ho, M.D., filed Appellants’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of this appeal on November 25 , 201 4 . The motion includes a certificate of conference indicating that counsel for Appellees does not oppose the relief requested . Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted and t he2

appeal is dismissed. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.1(a)(1). The motion does not indicate an agreement of the parties with regard to the allocation of costs of the appeal. We therefore tax costs of the appeal against Appellants . See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.1(d). Having dismissed the appeal at the request of Appellants , we will not entertain a motion for rehearing, and our mandate will issue forthwith. Patrick A. Pirtle Justice
Exhibit 32.1  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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of AgriSolar Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 (the "Report"), I, Liang Chao Wei, Chief Executive 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations. /s/Liang Chao WeiLiang Chao Wei, Chief Executive Officer June 15, 2010
#### Eleazar NOVOA-DIAZ, AKA Eleazar Diaz Novoa, AKA Eleazor Novoa, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71659

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed November 3, 2017

Miguel Angel Olano, Miguel Olano, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Eleazar Novoa-Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal for failure to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, and Novoa-Diaz does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. *See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder,*688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable, legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary hardship determination); *Larita-Martinez v. INS,*220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioners must overcome presumption that agency reviewed all evidence); *Najmabadi v. Holder, 597*F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency adequately considered evi*750dence and sufficiently announced its decision).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 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 the Annual Report of Triangle Capital Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven C. Lilly, 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.





/s/ STEVEN C. LILLYSteven C. LillyChief Financial OfficerMarch 2, 2015
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*N. Sumergrade & Sons, Inc., Appellant. (3 cases.)

Argued November 17, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*785
      *Alexander'-Stone, Murry G. Beeher*and *Dmiel G. Boss*for appellant.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Orrin G. Judd*and *Henry S. Manley*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7067 

To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to allow the District 

of Columbia to receive Federal funding under such Act, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 22, 2024 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to 

allow the District of Columbia to receive Federal funding 

under such Act, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Flood Prevention Act 

5 of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7067 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR FED2 ERAL FUNDING UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE 

3 MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972. 

4 Section 304(4) of the Coastal Zone Management Act 

5 of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453(4)) is amended by inserting ‘‘the 

6 District of Columbia,’’ after ‘‘the term also includes’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
6/3/2016

Grant	Leaverton

Advanced	Aerial	Inspection	Resources,	Inc.

32628	Decker	Prairie	Rd,	Suite	1

Magnolia,	TX	77355

gleaverton@aairteam. com

832

- 500

- 3171

Exemption	No.	11277

Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA

- 2014

- 0873

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation,	Docket	Operations

AT TN:	Federal	Aviation	Administration	(FAA)	Administra tor

West	Building	Ground	Floor,	Room	W12

- 140

1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	SE

Washington,	DC	20590

Dear	Administrator,

This	letter	serves	to	request	that	the	FAA	approve the	below	prop osed	amendment	to	the

exemption	number referenced	above

. Advanced	Aerial	Inspection	Resources,	Inc.	(AAIR)	is

requesting	that	its	current	333	exemption	by	amended	to	allow	the compan y	to	operate	any

small UA S	platform	already	previously	approved	by	the	FAA.		All	flight	operations	will

continue	to	be	conducted pursuant to	the	operation al restrictions outlined	in our	current

exemption	and	COA. We	thank	the	Department	in advance for	its	response to t his	petition.

Should	any	further	information	by	required	from	AAIR	please	do	not hesitate to contact	our

team.

Respectfully,

Grant	Leaverton

Vice	President

Advanced	Aerial	Inspection	Resources,	Inc.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**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 II Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2007 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
                Executive Officer
              August
                24, 2007