alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony Richardo TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.E. DUCART, Warden, Pelican Bay State Prison (C.D.C.R.—Agency); et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16914

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed November 1, 2017

*721Anthony Richardo Turner, Pro Se

Before: McKEOWN, 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 **

California state prisoner, Anthony Ri-chardo Turner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to file an amended complaint his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Ferdik v. Bonzelet,*963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We vacate and remand.

The district court dismissed Turner’s action with prejudice because Turner failed to file a timely amended complaint in compliance with its May 15, 2016 order. However, Turner submitted evidence showing that he failed to file a timely amended complaint because prison officials obstructed his access to the courts. *See Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv.,*231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth elements of excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and explaining that excusable neglect is a basis for reconsideration of a final order). We vacate and remand for the district court to consider Turner’s amended complaint in the first instance. We note that to the extent the district court’s October 27, 2016 order determined that Turner’s amended complaint could be dismissed for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2), that ruling was in error. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (“Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.”).

Turner’s claim that the district court ruled on summary judgment is incorrect.

We reject as without merit Turner’s contention that the district court denied Turner due process.

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal,”).

Turner’s motion for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tavis Labron HOUPE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6965

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

Tavis Labron Houpe, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Terry Michael Meinecke, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*277PER CURIAM:

Tavis Labron Houpe seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Houpe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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*
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 October 31, 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: December 15, 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.
Dedicated Service in Partnership with our Community 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Rules Docket, AGC-IO 

Office of Chief Counsel 

800 Independence Ave. SW. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Re: Request For Extension of F.A.R. 61.118(E) 

January 05, 2011 

Michael Haley 

Sheriff 

The Washoe County Sheriffs Office is again requesting an exemption from 61.118 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations to the extent necessary to permit those members afthe Sheriffs 

Air Squadron to be reimbursed for fuel, oil. and maintenance costs that occur during official 

search missions. 

We also request an amendment to exemption #6836. which would allow the Sheriff's Air 

Squadron to transport personnel and equipment to the scene of a rescue. Washoe County 

measures approximately 35 miles wide and 190 miles long, covering over 6,500 square miles. 

There is one paved road, which runs approximately two thirds of the length of the county. and 

the rest of the area is accessible either by improved din road or by air. Since rescues are 

emergencies. which are not planned, there is nonnally not enough time to locate a commercial 

transport and still conduct a rescue in time to save lives. The Sheriffs Office Air Squadron 

has the aircraft and availability to perform this emergency function in a timely manner. 

If you have any questions, please contact us at; 

(775) 742-3354 voice mail, or (775) 325-6912 fax. 

Mike Haley 

Sheriff- Washoe County 

By 

Donald S. Patch 

WCSO Search and Rescue Operations Deputy 

Washoe County Sheriffs Office· (775) 328-3001 

911 Parr Boulevard Reno, NY • 89512-1000 

www.washoesheriff.com
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.3.1

                                  ADDENDUM TWO

     The Lease made and entered into on September 1, 1999, by and between GORDON
A. CAMPBELL and MARIA LIGETI, TRUSTEES OF THE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED MARCH
23, 1987; HILLVIEW MANAGEMENT, INC.; AND IMPAC MEDICAL SYSTEMS AND SUBSIDIARY, a
California Corporation, is hereby Amended as follows:

Paragraph 2.01(b) shall be amended as follows:

     Tenant will pay full base rent of $118,201.40 effective as of May 7, 2000.

     Tenant will take occupancy on March 24, 2000.

     All other conditions remain.

TENANT:                     IMPAC MEDICAL SYSTEMS AND SUBSIDARY
                            A California Corporation


                            By    /s/ Joseph K. Jachinowski  3/23/00
                              --------------------------------------------------
                                  Joseph K. Jachinowski, President & CEO

LANDLORDS:                  GORDON CAMPBELL AND MARIA LIGETI,
                            TRUSTEES OF THE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
                            DATED MARCH 23, 1987


                            By    /s/ Maria Ligeti   3/23/00
                              --------------------------------------------------
                                  Maria Ligeti, Trustee

                            HILLVIEW MANAGEMENT, INC.
                            A California Corporation


                            By    /s/ George P. Eshoo  3/23/00
                              --------------------------------------------------
                                  George P. Eshoo
                                  Its: President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David SALGADO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10341

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Susan Cushman, Assistant Ú.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE— Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Mario D. Valencia, Esquire, Attorney, Mario D. Valencia, Attorney At Law, Henderson, NV, for Defendant-Appellant

David Salgado, Pro Se

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 **

David Salgado appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(viii), and 846. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Sal-gado’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Salgado the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Salgado waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 76, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed,2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. *See id.*at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                         CATSKILL FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                 (In thousands, except share and per share data)


                                                      Three Months Ended March 31,        Six Months Ended March 31,
                                                    --------------------------------     --------------------------------
                                                       2000                1999             2000                1999
                                                       ----                ----             ----                ----
<S>                                                  <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>
Net income per common share - basic

   Net income applicable to common shares            $    1,124        $    1,041        $    2,226        $    2,022

   Weighted average common shares outstanding         3,287,894         3,850,029         3,348,466         3,844,594

   Net income per common share - basic               $      .34        $      .27        $      .66        $      .53
                                                     ==========        ==========        ==========        ==========
Net income per common share - diluted

   Net income applicable to common shares            $    1,124        $    1,041        $    2,226        $    2,022

   Weighted average common shares outstanding         3,287,894         3,850,029         3,348,466         3,844,594

   Dilutive common stock options (1)                       --              66,727            29,809            53,526
                                                     ----------        ----------        ----------        ----------

   Weighted average common shares including
    potential dilution                                3,287,894         3,916,756         3,378,275         3,898,120
                                                     ==========        ==========        ==========        ==========

   Net income per common share - diluted             $      .34        $      .27        $      .66        $      .52
                                                     ==========        ==========        ==========        ==========
</TABLE>


(1) Dilutive common stock options  (includes  granted,  but unvested  restricted
stock under the Company's MRP plan and options  granted,  but unexercised  under
its stock  option plan) are based on the  treasury  stock  method using  average
market price.  The treasury stock method  recognizes the use of assumed proceeds
upon the exercise of options, and the amount of unearned compensation attributed
to future services under the Company"s  restricted stock plan, including any tax
benefits,  to purchase the  Company"s  common stock at the average  market price
during the period.
II

Calendar No. 171

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 734

To designate the United States courthouse and Federal building to be constructed at the southeastern corner of Liberty and South Virginia Streets

in Reno, Nevada, as the ‘‘Bruce R. Thompson United States Courthouse

and Federal Building’’, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 27 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1995

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. BRYAN) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public

Works

AUGUST 7 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse and Federal

building to be constructed at the southeastern corner

of Liberty and South Virginia Streets in Reno, Nevada,

as the ‘‘Bruce R. Thompson United States Courthouse

and Federal Building’’, 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 734 RS

1 SECTION 1 . DESIGNATION OF BRUCE R. THOMPSON

2 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL

3 BUILDING.

4 The United States courthouse and Federal building

5 to be constructed at the southeastern corner of Liberty

6 and South Virginia Streets in Reno, Nevada, shall be

7 known and designated as the ‘‘Bruce R. Thompson United

8 States Courthouse and Federal Building’’.

9 SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

10 Any reference in a law, regulation, document, record,

11 map, or other paper of the United States to the courthouse

12 and Federal building referred to in section 1 shall be

13 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Bruce R. Thompson

14 United States Courthouse and Federal Building’’.

Calendar No. 171

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 734

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse and

eral Building’’, and for other purposes.Thompson United States Courthouse and FedStreets in Reno, Nevada, as the ‘‘Bruce R.eastern corner of Liberty and South VirginiaFederal building to be constructed at the southAUGUST 7 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Reported without amendment
#### Rosa Elena Guzman SANCHEZ and Lizbeth Yuliana Alvarado Guzman, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70655

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

David T. Acalin, Attorney, Marks & Acalin, for Petitioners

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, David H. Wet-more, Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigra*868tion Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

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 **

Rosa Elena Guzman Sanchez, and Liz-beth Yuliana Alvarado Guzman, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo claims of due process violations. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen where they failed to offer evidence that was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); *Goel v. Gonzales,*490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (BIA did not abuse its discretion where evidence proffered was not previously unavailable).

We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA violated their due process rights by failing to consider evidence. *See Larita-Martinez v. INS,*220 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due process violation where there is no error).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen for consideration of humanitarian asylum. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983 at 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA does not abuse its discretion unless it acts “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                           NOTICE OF ENTIRE AGREEMENT

I. THIS NOTICE OF ENTIRE AGREEMENT, THE DOCUMENTS DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT A
ATTACHED HERETO AND ALL OTHER LOAN PAPERS RELATED THERETO EXECUTED SUBSTANTIALLY
CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH (COLLECTIVELY, THE "CREDIT DOCUMENTS") TOGETHER CONSTITUTE
A WRITTEN LOAN AGREEMENT WHICH REPRESENTS THE FINAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES HERETO AND MAY NOT BE CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR, CONTEMPORANEOUS
OR SUBSEQUENT ORAL AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES. THERE ARE NO UNWRITTEN ORAL
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

     This document may be executed in several counterparts, and by the parties
hereto in separate counterparts, and each counterpart, when executed and
delivered, shall constitute an original agreement enforceable against all who
signed it without production of or accounting for any other counterpart, and all
separate counterparts shall constitute the same agreement.

     Each of the undersigned agrees that if any of the foregoing provisions
shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity,
legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions will not be affected or
impaired.

     EXECUTED this 24th day of June, 2002.

                                EVANS SYSTEMS, INC.,
                                a Texas corporation

                                By:
                                   ---------------------------------
                                Name:
                                     -------------------------------
                                Title:
                                      ------------------------------
<PAGE>

                                JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

                                By:
                                   ---------------------------------
                                Name:
                                     -------------------------------
                                Title:
                                      ------------------------------

EXHIBIT A - Credit Documents


                                       2
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT A

1.   Promissory Note (the "Note") dated June ____, 2002 executed by EVANS
     SYSTEMS, INC., a Texas corporation, payable to the order of JPMorgan Chase
     Bank in the original principal amount of $2,000,000.00

2.   Each Credit Document (as such term is defined in the Note) executed prior
     to or substantially contemporaneously with the Note.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 21 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 21

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Whereas in 1995, women of America are celebrating the 75th anniversary of their 
        right to participate in our government through suffrage;
Whereas Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony were 
        pioneers in the movement for women suffrage and the pursuit of equal 
        rights; and
Whereas, the relocation of the ``Portrait Monument'' to a place of prominence 
        and esteem in the Capitol Rotunda would serve to honor and revere the 
        contribution of thousands of women: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol shall--
            (1) restore the ``Portrait Monument'' to its original state 
        and place it in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol; and
            (2) make all necessary arrangements for the rededication 
        ceremony of such statue in the Capitol Rotunda and procession 
        connected therewith, in cooperation with the 75th Anniversary 
        of Woman Suffrage Task Force.
    Sec. 2. The Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used from 7 
o'clock ante meridiem until 4 o'clock post meridiem on August 26, 1995, 
for such ceremony.

            Passed the Senate July 17 (legislative day, July 10), 1995.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 21

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Directing that the ``Portrait Monument'' carved in the likeness of 
Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, now in the 
 Crypt of the Capitol, be restored to its original state and be placed 
                        in the Capitol Rotunda.
```