alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FRILETTE et al., Appellants, v. KIMBERLIN et al., Appellees.

No. 22980.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 24, 1966.

Ellsworth H. Mosher, Washington, D. C. , Peter H. Beer, New Orleans, La., Raymond W. Barclay, New York, Montgomery, Barnett, Brown & Read, New Orleans, La., for Frilette, and others. Stevens, Davis, Miller & Mosher, Washington, D. C., of counsel.

Calvin E. Hardin, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., for Kimberlin and others. Robert D. Fier, Douglas G. Brace, New York City, Harry McCall, Jr., New Orleans, La., Kenyon & Kenyon, New York City, Durrett, Hardin, Hunter, Dameron & Fritchie, Baton Rouge, La., of counsel.

Before JONES, COLEMAN and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The appellant made a motion to produce documents under 35 U.S.C.A. § 24 in a proceeding collateral to a contested interference case then pending in the United States Patent Office. The district court denied the motion and from its order, this appeal is taken. It is the conclusion of this Court that the subpoena is too broad, that a present need for the production of the documents sought is not adequately demonstrated. There was no abuse of the discretion vested in the district judge. The order is

Affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SAR A E L MARTINEZ

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3359

[ March 14, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Geoffrey D. Cohen , Judge; L.T. Case No.

062015CF006729A88810

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B

. Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allan R. Geesey,

Assistant Attorney G eneral, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., T AYLOR and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Terrell D. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55654

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

Terrell D. Johnson, Pro Se

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Terrell D. Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with his arrest and conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because success on Johnson’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Johnson failed to show that his conviction had been invalidated. *See Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence ... the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”). Because the district court did not specify whether the dismissal of Johnson’s action was with or without prejudice, we treat the dismissal as being without prejudice. *See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,*49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissals under *Heck*are without prejudice).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Johnson’s amended complaint without leave to amend because Johnson was provided with one opportunity to amend and further amendment would be futile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal with*717out leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile); *see also Chodos v. West Publ'g Co., Inc.,*292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a district court has already granted a plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is particularly broad.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion for reconsideration because Johnson failed to demonstrate any, basis for relief. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

2016-2405

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 5, 2017

*993Charles H. Magnuson, Law Offices of Charles Magnuson, Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

Anthony T. Sheehan, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Richard Farber, Caroline D. Ciraolo.

(Dyk, Bryson, and Chen, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
|       (i)  | the      accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal      quarter ended January 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|       (ii)      | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |   |                                                                                  |
|--------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  March      11, 2010 | By:    | /s/      Andrew J. Buckland                                                           |   |
|                                 |   | Andrew      J. BucklandChief      Financial Officer(Principal      Financial Officer) |

----
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 26

To authorize the Newington-Cropsey Foundation to erect on the Capitol

Grounds and present to Congress and the people of the United States

a monument dedicated to the Bill of Rights.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 7 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 5), 1995

Mr. LOTT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Rules and Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To authorize the Newington-Cropsey Foundation to erect

on the Capitol Grounds and present to Congress and

the people of the United States a monument dedicated

to the Bill of Rights.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION.

4 The Newington-Cropsey Foundation is authorized to

5 erect on the Capitol Grounds and present to Congress and

6 the people of the United States a monument dedicated to

7 the Bill of Rights (referred to as the ‘‘monument’’). The
2

•SCON 26 IS

1 monument shall be erected without expense to the United

2 States.

3 SEC. 2. DESIGN AND REVIEW.

4 The design and plans for the monument shall be sub5 ject to review and approval by the Architect of the Capitol.

6 The monument shall be erected on a site to be determined

7 by the Architect of the Capitol, subject to the approval

8 of the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Sen9 ate and the Committee on House Oversight of the House

10 of Representatives and in consultation with the

11 Newington-Cropsey Foundation.

12 SEC. 3. ACCEPTANCE OF MONUMENT.

13 After the completion of the monument according to

14 the approved plans and specifications, the monument shall

15 be accepted by the Congress on behalf of the people of

16 the United States for permanent placement on the Capitol

17 Grounds.

Æ
505 A.2d 826

#### Alejandro Almirall ALVAREZ v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 97,

Sept. Term, 1985.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 10, 1986.

Michael R. Malloy, Asst. Public Defender (Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, on brief), Baltimore, for appellant.

Jillyn K. Schulze, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., on brief), Baltimore, for appellee.

Argued Before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.

ORDER

The petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case having been granted and heard, it is this 10th day of March, 1986

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the writ of certiorari be, and it is hereby, dismissed, petition having been improvidently granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,914
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,444
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,969
<INVENTORY>                                      3,542
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,242
<PP&E>                                         100,734
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 183,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,658
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           174
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,926
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   183,718
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,048
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,373
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (32,569)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (836)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (31,733)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (31,733)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.81)


</TABLE>
#### Aaron M. BURNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARK, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6860

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

Aaron M. Burns, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Aaron M. Burns seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certifícate of appealability 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 petition 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 Burns has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, *259we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Burns’ motion to reconsider the order deferring action on his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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*
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 38199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16329]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9021-7]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 06/22/2015 Through 06/26/2015
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20150179, Final Supplement, NMFS, FL, Programmatic--Fishery 
Management Plan for Regulating Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the Gulf 
of Mexico, Review Period Ends: 08/03/2015, Contact: Jess Beck-Stimpert 
727-551-5755.
EIS No. 20150180, Final, USFS, AZ, Flagstaff Watershed Protection 
Project, Review Period Ends: 08/05/2015, Contact: Erin Phelps 928-527-
8240.
EIS No. 20150181, Final, USACE, CA, Adoption--Interstate 5 North Coast 
Corridor Project, Contact: Stephanie J. Hall 213-452-3410.

    The U.S. Department of the Army's Corps of Engineers (USACE) has 
adopted the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway 
Administration's FEIS #20130332, filed 11/15/2013. The USACE was a 
cooperating agency on the project. Recirculation of the document is not 
necessary under 1506.3(b) of the CEQ Regulations.

    Dated: June 29, 2015.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-16329 Filed 7-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05220]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revised Amount of 
the Average Cost of a Health Insurance Policy

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HRSA is publishing an updated monetary amount of the average 
cost of a health insurance policy as it relates to the National Vaccine 
Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Reed Grimes, Director, Division 
of Injury Compensation Programs, Health Systems Bureau, HRSA, HHS by 
mail at 5600 Fishers Lane, 08N186B, Rockville, Maryland 20857; call 1-
800-338-2382 or email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 100.2 of the VICP's implementing 
regulation (42 CFR part 100) states that the revised amount of an 
average cost of a health insurance policy, as determined by the 
Secretary of HHS (the Secretary), is effective upon its delivery by the 
Secretary to the United States Court of Federal Claims (the Court), and 
will be published periodically in a notice in the Federal Register. The 
Secretary delegated this responsibility to the HRSA Administrator. This 
figure is calculated using the most recent Medical Expenditure Panel 
Survey-Insurance Component (MEPS-IC) data available as the baseline for 
the average monthly cost of a health insurance policy. This baseline is 
adjusted by the annual percentage increase/decrease obtained from the 
most recent annual Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) Employer Health 
Benefits Survey or other authoritative sources that may be more 
accurate or appropriate.
    In 2021, MEPS-IC, available at www.meps.ahrq.gov, published the 
annual 2020 average total single premium per enrolled employee at 
private-sector establishments that provide health insurance. The figure 
published was $7,149. This figure is divided by 12 to determine the 
cost per month of $595.75. The $595.75 figure is increased or decreased 
by the percentage change reported by the most recent KFF Employer 
Health Benefits Survey, available at www.kff.org. The increase from 
2020 to 2021 was 4.0 percent. By adding this percentage increase, the 
calculated average monthly cost of a health insurance policy for a 12-
month period is $619.58.
    Therefore, the revised average cost of a health insurance policy 
under the VICP is $619.58 per month. In accordance with Sec.  100.2, 
the revised amount was effective upon its delivery to the Court.

Carole Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-05220 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
```
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0754 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0754

**2002/754/CFSP: Council Decision of 13 September 2002 implementing Common Position 2002/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe **

*
Official Journal L 247 , 14/09/2002 P. 0056 - 0059 *

Council Decision

of 13 September 2002

implementing Common Position 2002/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe

(2002/754/CFSP)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Common Position 2002/145/CFSP of 18 February 2002 concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe(1), and in particular Article 5 thereof, in conjunction with Article 23(2) of the Treaty on European Union,

Whereas:

(1) By Common Position 2002/145/CFSP the Council imposed a visa ban and a freezing of funds on the Government of Zimbabwe and persons who bear a wide responsibility for serious violations of human rights and of the freedom of opinion, of association and of peaceful assembly.

(2) On 22 July 2002, Common Position 2002/145/CFSP was amended by Common Position 2002/600/CFSP(2).

(3) As a consequence of a Government reshuffle in Zimbabwe on 26 August 2002, the list of persons referred to above should be updated,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The list of persons set out in the Annex to Common Position 2002/145/CFSP, as amended by Common Position 2002/600/CFSP, is hereby replaced by the list set out in the Annex.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal.

Done at Brussels, 13 September 2002.

For the Council

The President

P. S. Møller

(1) OJ L 50, 21.2.2002, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 195, 24.7.2002, p. 1.

ANNEX

List of persons referred to in Article 1

>TABLE>
EXHIBIT 4.5

                              AMENDMENT NO. 1
              RIBAPHARM INC. 2002 STOCK OPTION AND AWARD PLAN


     WHEREAS, pursuant to the board resolution dated June __, 2002, the
board of directors of Ribapharm Inc. has amended the Ribapharm Inc. 2002
Stock Option and Award Plan (the "Option Plan") to change any references
therein to the term "The Nasdaq Stock Market" to the term "The New York
Stock Exchange."

     NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the adoption date of the Option Plan,
Section 2.21 of the Option Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to
replace the text thereof with the following:

          "2.21 "FAIR MARKET VALUE" on any date shall mean (a) with respect
          to any property other than Shares,  the fair market value of such
          property on such date as determined by such methods or procedures
          as shall be established  from time to time by the Committee,  and
          (b) with respect to the Shares, the reported closing price of the
          Shares as reported by The New York Stock Exchange at the close of
          the primary  trading  session on such date, or if the Shares were
          not traded on such date,  on the next  preceding day on which the
          Shares  were  traded.  In the event Fair Market  Value  cannot be
          determined in a manner  described  above,  then Fair Market Value
          shall be  determined  by the  Committee in good faith and, in the
          case of an Incentive Stock Option, in accordance with Section 422
          of the Code."


     Except as expressly amended hereby, the provisions of the Option Plan
are and shall remain in full force and effect.
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 Annual Report of A5 Laboratories Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Richard Azani, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2011, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: February 16, 2012By:/s/ Richard AzaniRichard AzaniPrincipal Financial Officer
A5 Laboratories Inc.
August 12, 2011

By Email

Mr. Robert Finamore, Acting Division Chief

Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Aeroenlaces Nacionales, S.A. de C.V. (vivaAerobus) Application for 

Amended Air Carrier Permit, Docket OST-2011-0148

Dear Mr. Finamore,

This will confirm our earlier email advising that vivaAerobus no longer provides 

any service to Austin, Texas, and the city may be deleted from viva’s foreign air carrier 

permit.

.

Respectfully submitted,

David M. Kirstein

cc: Dockets