alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 10


[MINDSPRING LOGO]

1430 West Peachtree Street
Suite 400
Atlanta, GA  30308

phone 404-815-0770
fax 404-815-8805


                           MindSpring and Monorail
                              Reseller Agreement


         1.  MindSpring will pay Monorail $660,000 the composition of which is
             $60,000 for expenses incurred by Monorail to include MindSpring
             software on the machine, and $600,000 prepay for 12,500 subscribers
             paid in advance 7 days after closing of secondary offer.  Actual
             payment to Monorail is $40 per subscriber for all Monorail signups
             who retain service for 60 days.  The $40 price is good through May
             31, 1997.  On January 6, 1997, this balance will be reviewed and
             trued up per actual signups.

          2. Monorail to announce MindSpring upon the announcement of the
             Monorail company.

          3. Monorail to provide build plan and launch locations to MindSpring  
             no later than November 1, 1996.

          4. If Monorail offers a featured provider to a multiple provider
             environment, MindSpring has the right of first refusal for such
             preferred provider through May 30, 1997.

          5. If additional providers are included by Monorail before the first
             12,500 subscribers are attained by MindSpring, Monorail will
             repay MindSpring any remaining balance with 7 days notice at
             MindSpring's written request through May 31, 1997.  In the event of
             12,500 subscribers not being reached by May 31, 1997, Monorail will
             repay to MindSpring any balance remaining on the $600,000 by July
             30, 1997.







            /s/ MICHAEL S. MCQUARY                          /s/ JEFF SIMPSON
          --------------------------                       ------------------
                Michael S. McQuary                              Jeff Simpson
                President and COO                               Co-Founder
                MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.                    Monorail
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 77 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 77

To restore the traditional observance of Memorial Day and Veterans Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To restore the traditional observance of Memorial Day and Veterans Day.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, (a) effective one 
year following the date of enactment of this Act--
            (1) section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 
        amended by striking out:
            ``Memorial Day, the last Monday in May;''. and inserting in 
        lieu thereof:
            ``Memorial Day, May 30.''; and
            (2) section 2(d) of the joint resolution entitled ``An Act 
        to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining 
        to the display and use of the flag of the United States of 
        America'', approved June 22, 1942 (36 U.S.C. 174(d)), is 
        amended by striking out:
            ``Memorial Day (half-staff until noon), the last Monday in 
        May;''
        and inserting in lieu thereof:
            ``Memorial Day (half-staff until noon), May 30;''.
    (b) The President is authorized and requested to issue a 
proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe 
Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies showing 
respect for American veterans of wars and other military conflicts.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 826 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 826

 To provide for a study by the Institute of Medicine on gaps in mental 
  health services and how these gaps can increase the risk of violent 
                                 acts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2015

  Mr. McKinley (for himself and Ms. Kaptur) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a study by the Institute of Medicine on gaps in mental 
  health services and how these gaps can increase the risk of violent 
                                 acts.

    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 ``Examining America's Mental Health 
Services Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. STUDY ON GAPS IN MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this 
section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall enter into an agreement 
with the Institute of Medicine (or, if the Institute declines to enter 
into such an arrangement, another appropriate entity) to conduct a 
comprehensive study on--
            (1) gaps in mental health services, including treatment 
        services, whether publicly or privately funded; and
            (2) how these gaps can increase the risk of violent acts.
    (b) Considerations.--The study under subsection (a) shall include 
consideration of--
            (1) gaps in mental health treatment services for adults and 
        children with severe and persistent mental illness;
            (2) barriers to receiving mental health services that 
        result in high rates of untreated mental illness; and
            (3) the availability of interventions such as assisted 
        outpatient treatment designed to reach individuals with 
        untreated severe mental illness.
    (c) Report.--The Secretary shall ensure that, not later than 12 
months after the date of enactment of this Act--
            (1) the study under subsection (a) is completed; and
            (2) a report on the findings and conclusions of such study 
        is submitted to the Congress.
                                 <all>
```
#### SPECIALTY FERTILIZER PRODUCTS, LLC, Appellant v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Appellee *1007Joseph Matal, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Intervenor

2016-2347

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

November 8, 2017

John M. Collins, Hovey Williams LLP, Overland Park, KS, argued for appellant. Also represented by Scott R. Brown, Matthew B. Walters.

Henry A. Petri, Jr,, Polsinelli PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Jason W. Bryan, Houston, TX.

Philip J. Warrick, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for interve-nor, Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed, Scott Weidenfeller.

(Moore, Chen, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL ALVAREZ NAVARRO and 

NORMA ABRICA SANCHEZ, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-72758 

Agency Nos. A096-061-021 

A096-061-022 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. 

Rafael Alvarez Navarro and Norma Abrica Sanchez, 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,

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 31 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-72758 

Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for 

review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to 

reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where they filed the motion 

nearly eleven years after the filing deadline, and failed to demonstrate the due 

diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(c)(2); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable 

tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from timely filing a motion to 

reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner exercises due 

diligence in discovering such circumstances). 

Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion 

to reopen where petitioners failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum,

withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture. See 

Najmabadi, v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA can deny a 

motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief 

sought).
3 17-72758 

Finally, we reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to properly 

analyze their claims.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Leon Parrish MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6914

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

Leon Parrish Marshall, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Leon Parrish Marshall appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (2012) petition, and denying it on that basis. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly determined that Marshall’s motion was not a “true 60(b) motion” but was, in substance, a successive § 2254 motion. *See United States v. McRae,*793 F.3d 392, 397-400 (4th Cir. 2015). We note that Marshall is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order, *see McRae,*793 F.3d at 400, and we conclude that the district court correctly determined that, in the absence of prefiling authorization, it lacked jurisdiction to consider the successive § 2254 motion, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Consistent with our decision in *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Marshall’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new, previously unavailable rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Marshall’s claims fail to satisfy either of these criteria. We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.

*264We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### IN RE: Robert Franklin VAN ZANDT, Debtor. Ronald Spencer Mazzaferro, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William Parisi; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15513

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 27, 2017

Ronald Spencer Mazzaferro, Pro Se

*542Lynn Searle, Attorney, Law Offices of Lynn Searle, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee William Parisi

Russell Dale Stanaland, Attorney, Sta-naland *&*Associates, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-appellee Edith Mazzaferri

Malcolm Leader-Picone, Barltett, Leader-picone & Young, LLP, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Lynn Searle, William Shea, Russell Dale Stanaland, Man-sueto Anthony Lend

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant's request for oral argument, set forth in his motion to consolidate, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Ronald Spencer Mazzaferro appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Mazzaferro’s adversary proceeding and the district court’s order denying Mazzafaerro’s motion to vacate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standard of review applied by the district court. *In re AFI Holding, Inc.,*525 F.3d 700, 702 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

We lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order because Mazzaferro filed his notice of appeal more than thirty days after entry of the order. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 6(b). Mazzaferro’s untimely motion to vacate filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) did not extend the appeal period. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 6(b)(1) (notice of appeal from district court decision must be filed within 30 days; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) does not apply in appeals governed by Fed. R. App. P. 6); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8022 (motion for rehearing must be filed within 14 days to toll appeal period); *see also Theodore v. Daglas (In re D.W.G.K Restaurants, Inc.),*42 F.3d 568, 569 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissing bankruptcy appeal because untimely motion for rehearing did not extend period to appeal district court’s final order).

Though the notice of appeal was timely as to the district court’s order denying Mazzaferro’s motion to vacate, Mazzaferro does not address the order in his opening brief. As a result, he has waived any challenges to the order. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); *Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

Mazzaferro’s motion to consolidate (Docket Entry No. 28) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rulé 36-3.
EXHIBIT 31.1
        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
            UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:
1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
  required  to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
  10-K of GMACM Home Equity Loan Trust  2006-HE5  (the  "Exchange  Act  periodic
  reports");
2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
  do not  contain  any untrue  statement  of a material  fact or omit to state a
  material  fact  necessary  to  make  the  statements  made,  in  light  of the
  circumstances  under which such  statements  were made,  not  misleading  with
  respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
  information  required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
  this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
  based on my knowledge and the  compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
  servicer  compliance  statements  required in this  report  under Item 1123 of
  Regulation  AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
  the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing  agreements
  in all material respects; and
5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
  asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
  compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed  securities required to be
  included  in this report in  accordance  with Item 1122 of  Regulation  AB and
  Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been  included as an exhibit to this
  report,  except as otherwise  disclosed in this report. Any material instances
  of noncompliance  described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
  on Form 10-K.

  In giving the  certifications  above, I have reasonably  relied on information
  provided to me by the  following  unaffiliated  parties:  The Bank of New York
  Trust Company, N.A.

Date:  March 26, 2007
By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      --------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Executive Vice President
#### Dawud RAHIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6825

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 21, 2017

Dawud Rahim, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dawud Rahim appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Rahim v. SC Dep’t of Prob.,*No. 0:16-cv-02440-JMC (D.S.C. June 7, 2017). We deny Rahim’s motion to amend. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerardo Rosales MARCIAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50011

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Lawrence Elliot Kole, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana,. CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

*849Before: 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 **

Gerardo Rosales Marcial appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Marcial contends that the district court erred by applying a 16-level enhancement to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) because his pri- or conviction for making a criminal threat, in violation of California Penal Code § 422, is not a “crime of violence.” As Marcial acknowledges, this argument is foreclosed. *See United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel,*608 F.3d 556, 563 (9th Cir. 2010). We remain bound by *Villavicencio-Burruel. See Miller v. Gammie,*335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7064 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to include 

the provision of tree nuts (including shelled tree nuts) under the seniors 

farmers’ market nutrition program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 22, 2024 

Mr. MOORE of Alabama (for himself and Mr. VASQUEZ) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

of 2002 to include the provision of tree nuts (including 

shelled tree nuts) under the seniors farmers’ market 

nutrition program, 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 ‘‘Farmers’ Market Ex5 pansion Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SENIORS FARMERS’ MARKET NUTRITION PROGRAM. 

7 Section 4402(b)(1) of the Farm Security and Rural 

8 Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3007(b)(1)) is amended 


tkelley on LAP7H3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7064 IH

1 by striking ‘‘and herbs’’ and inserting ‘‘herbs, and tree 

2 nuts (including shelled tree nuts)’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on LAP7H3WLY3PROD with BILLS