alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jasmina IVANKOVIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF WISCONSIN, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1127

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted May 4, 2017 *

Decided May 5, 2017

Rehearing Denied June 1, 2017

Jasmina Ivankovic, Pro Se

Thomas A. Cabush, Attorney, Dustin Todd Woehl, Attorney, Kasdorf, Lewis & Swietlik, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant-Appellee

Before MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge, DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

*

 We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. *See*Fed R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

ORDER

Jasmina Ivankovic filed this pro se litigation seeking to hold Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Inc. accountable for permanent injuries she sustained in a slip-and-fall while working at the facility in 1998. She asserted subject-matter jurisdiction under the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but both Ivankovic and the hospital are citizens of the same state, Wisconsin. And common citizenship aside, she did not allege an amount in controversy. The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

That decision is unassailable, prompting the hospital to argue in its brief that we should sanction Ivankovic under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for filing a frivolous appeal. But that rule says a litigant seeking sanctions must request them in a separate motion, which the hospital has not done. And, ironically, in the one opinion cited by the hospital in support of its request for sanctions, we not only pointed out Rule 38’s requirement of a “separately filed motion” but said we are “not inclined to award sanctions in favor of *582a party that cannot be bothered to follow the rules itself.” *Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp.,*671 F.3d 669, 671 (7th Cir. 2012). That inclination has not changed, though we do warn Ivankovic that this reprieve will not insulate her from sanctions if she pursues other frivolous litigation in the future.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 13 DB 2020 (No. 14 RST 2020)

:

RALPH W. LITZENBERGER : Attorney Registration No. 7938

: 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

 FROM RETIRED STATUS : (Out of State)

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2

nd day of March, 2020, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated February 25, 2020, is approved and it is ORDERED 

that Ralph W. Litzenberger, who has been on Retired Status, has never been suspended 

or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and 

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, 

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The 

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall 

be paid by the Petitioner.
EXHIBIT
13.1




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 Fuwei Films (Holdings) Co., Ltd. (the
“Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Xiaoan
He and Xiuyong Zhang, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, respectively certify, 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 our 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.




Pursuant
to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
certification is being furnished and not deemed filed.




March 31,
2009


/s/
      Xiaoan HeXiaoan
      He
                          Chief
      Executive Officer






/s/
      Xiuyong ZhangXiuyong
      Zhang
                              Chief
      Financial Officer




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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1998
<CASH>                                          64,142
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    117,949
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               219,606
<PP&E>                                         231,880
<DEPRECIATION>                                 110,456
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 380,620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          131,413
<BONDS>                                        269,004
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (31,769)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   380,620
<SALES>                                        441,422
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               441,422
<CGS>                                          339,021
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  339,021
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                91,059
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,531
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,811
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,524
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,287
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,287
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    45.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    45.74
        

</TABLE>
#### Niki-Alexander SHETTY, FKA Satish Shetty, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA; National Default Servicing Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56852

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

Niki-Alexander Shetty, Pro Se

Heather Stern, Parker Ibrahim & Berg, LLC, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee JP Morgan Chase Bank NA

Amy Sells, Attorney, Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee National Default Servicing Corporation

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Niki-Alexander Shetty, FKA Satish Shetty, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims related to foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we may affirm on an basis supported by the record. *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Shetty’s action was proper because Shetty failed to allege facts sufficient to “state a claim that is plausible on its face.” *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 677-78, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (explaining that “[a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions” or “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court <jid not abuse its discretion by taking judicial notice of certain public records and bankruptcy court documents, and considering documents referenced in Shetty’s complaint without converting defendants’ motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment. *See Lee v. City of Los Angeles,*250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review, and describing documents that a district court may take judicial notice of *600when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion). We reject as without merit Shetty’s related contentions that the district court violated his rights to due process and equal protection.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss without first holding a hearing. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (“By rule or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings,”); C.D. Cal. R. 7-15 (“The Court may dispense with oral argument on any motion except where an oral hearing is required by statute, the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or these Local Rules.”).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or 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).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00266

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellant

v.

JOSEPH A. PEREZ

, Appellee

From the 21st District Court

Burleson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14,911

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State of Texas appealed the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion

to suppress which was signed on August 1, 2016. The State has now filed a motion to

withdraw that notice of appeal and dismiss the appeal. The motion is granted, and this

appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a).

TOM GRAY

Chief JusticeState v. Perez Page 2

B efore Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 9 , 2016

Do not publish

[CR25]
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



 
 

EXHIBIT 10(ww)    
  


        [COMPAQ LOGO HERE] 


KEY
GRANT

CONFIDENTIAL 


 
 

RESTRICTED STOCK GRANT NOTICE
  1989 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN    
  



	OPTIONEE	 	GRANT DATE	 	SHARES GRANTED
	

PLAN NUMBER	
 	

VESTING CODE	
 	

PRICE AT DATE OF GRANT
	

SUB. CODE	
 	

COST CENTER	
 	

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER






        We
are pleased to inform you that you have been granted restricted shares of Compaq common stock. Your grant has been made under the Company's 1989 Equity Incentive Plan (the "1989
Plan"), which, together with the terms contained in this Notice, sets forth the terms and conditions of your grant and is incorporated herein by reference. A copy of the 1989 Plan is available on
Inline. Please review it carefully; capitalized terms in this Notice have the same meaning as the 1989 Plan. 



	1.
	Vesting:
Subject to the conditions set forth below and in the 1989 Plan, you will be vested in the Shares granted under this Award (i.e., the restrictions on such Shares will lapse) no
later than the fourth anniversary of the grant date above. However, if certain performance goals have been met as of the end of any calendar quarter during the first full eight quarters after the
grant date, which goals will be determined by the Company in its discretion prior to the beginning of the applicable calendar quarter and communicated to you, you will be vested in a number of Shares
under this Award (not including any number in which you were previously vested) equal to 12.5 percent of the number of Shares granted under this Award, rounded down to the nearest whole Share.



	2.
	Termination
or Suspension of Employment: The 1989 Plan sets forth the terms and conditions of this grant that apply in the event of your termination or suspension of employment.



	3.
	Restrictions
on Shares. Except to the extent that the Shares subject to this Award have become vested, (i) such Shares may not be sold, transferred, pledged, or assigned for any
reason, (ii) such Shares shall be non-voting Shares, and (iii) any cash dividends paid on such Shares shall inure to the benefit of the Company.



	4.
	Taxes
and Withholding: Shares of restricted stock are not subject to federal income tax until such time as the Shares become vested. You shall be required to make appropriate
arrangements with the Company for satisfaction of any applicable federal, state, or local income tax withholding requirements or like requirements, including the payment to the Company of all such
required amounts as the Shares become vested.



	5.
	Relevant
Documents on Compaq Inline: An electronic copy of the 1989 Plan and other information is available on Inline at http://inline.compaq.com/hr/stock/ options/index.asp. Requests
for paper copies of such documents may be made in writing to Employee Stock Services. 



1













QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10(ww)


RESTRICTED STOCK GRANT NOTICE 1989 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 10 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 10

To designate the visitors center at the Channel Islands National Park, 
     California, as the ``Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitors Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
    read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
To designate the visitors center at the Channel Islands National Park, 
     California, as the ``Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitors Center''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The visitors center at the Channel Islands National Park, 
California, is designated as the ``Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitors 
Center''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCE.

    Any reference in any law, regulation, document, record, map, or 
other paper of the United States to the visitors center referred to in 
section 1 is deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert J. Lagomarsino 
Visitors Center''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.51a




December 19, 2001

Mr. Burt August
AA&L Associates
c/o Monro Muffler/Brake
200 Holleder Parkway
Rochester, NY 14615

RE:      Agreement between AA&L Associates, L.P. (Landlord) and Monro Muffler/
         Brake, Inc. (Tenant) for premises situate at 3384 Delaware Avenue,
         Buffalo, NY [MMB #58]

Dear Burt:

Per our conversation, please be informed that Monro Muffler/Brake, Inc. and
AA&L Associates are interested in formalizing an agreement providing for a five
year option period to extend said term beyond its current expiration date of
June 30, 2007. The rent for said renewal period shall be $3,300.00 per month.

Tenant shall provide to Landlord six (6) months written notice of its intent to
exercise said renewal option. The option period, if exercised, shall run from
July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2012.

If this meets with your approval, please sign both copies and return one copy to
my attention.

If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 647-6400 ext. 384.

Yours truly,


Thomas M. Aspenleiter
VP Real Estate

TMA:mc

As evidenced by my signature, I agree to the above terms and conditions.

/s/ Burt August
--------------------------------------------                  -----------------
Burt August Sr.                                               Date
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 15428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05755]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel; (SEP)--CE22-005, ``Research Grants for Preventing 
Violence and Violence Related Injury (R01)''; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Disease, 
Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel; 
(SEP)--CE22-005, ``Research Grants for Preventing Violence and Violence 
Related Injury (R01),'' May 10-11, 2022, 8:30 a.m., EDT-5:30 p.m., EDT, 
Web Conference, in the original FRN. The meeting was published in the 
Federal Register on February 24, 2022, Volume 87, Number 37, page/s/
10366.
    The meeting is being amended to change the meeting date and should 
read as follows: CE22-005, ``Research Grants for Preventing Violence 
and Violence Related Injury (R01),'' May 10, 2022, 8:30 a.m., EDT-5:30 
p.m., EDT.
    The meeting is closed to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aisha L. Wilkes, M.P.H., Scientific 
Review Officer, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, 
4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop S106-9, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, 
Telephone (404) 639-6473, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f2e380603040a1c2f0c0b0c41080019"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3f2e4dadfd8d6c0f3d0d7d09dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-05755 Filed 3-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00344-CV

JESSICA CHANDLER AND SCULPT POD,

INC., Appellants

V.

KMCC ENTERPRISES, LLC; KENNETH 

WALL; AND MARIA WALL, Appellees

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 462nd District Court

of Denton County (17-10144-393)

October 14, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

trial court committed reversible error. We reverse the portions of the trial court’s 

January 25, 2019, August 21, 2019, and November 27, 2019 orders that disallowed any 

discovery by appellants Jessica Chandler and Sculpt Pod, Inc.; waived all objections to 

appellees KMCC Enterprises, LLC, Kenneth Wall, and Maria Wall’s discovery; and 

refused to allow Chandler and Sculpt Pod to support their defenses or oppose the 

claims against them. We affirm the remainder of these orders. We reverse the 
June 19, 2020 order and the July 31, 2020 damages judgment. We remand the case for 

further proceedings. 

It is further ordered that appellees KMCC Enterprises, LLC, Kenneth Wall, 

and Maria Wall, shall bear the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

 Justice Dabney Bassel
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Lunar Growth Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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:  November 24, 2009

/s/    Joseph R. Rozelle



JOSEPH R. ROZELLE

Principal Executive Officer

and Principal Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kimberly A. EDWARDS, also known as Kimberly Edwards Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1389

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 6, 2017

Filed: December 11, 2017

Clifford R. Cronk, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kimberly A. Edwards, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kimberly Edwards directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after she pled guilty to participating in a drug conspiracy. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Edwards’s sentence.

Having considered Edwards’s arguments, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (where district court varied downward from Guidelines range, it was “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying further). In addition, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. The judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Michael Melloy, United States Circuit Judge, sitting by designation as United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.