alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alexander JIGGETTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Lieutenant Michael Fries, Individual and Official Capacity; Detective Masters, Individual and Official Capacity; Sergeant Ronald Beverly, Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-7146

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 7, 2017

Decided: December 15, 2017

Alexander Jiggetts, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Jiggetts .appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Jiggetts v. Balt. City Police Dep’t,*No. 1:17-cv-01593-JFM (D. Md. June 30, 2017). 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, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Gary G. GAGE; Carrie Gage, Respondents-Appellants.

No. 17-35026

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*614Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

Norah Bringer, Attorney, Michael J. Haungs; DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Petitioner-Appellee

Gary G. Gage, Pro Se

Carrie Gage, Pro Se

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 **

Gary G. Gage and Carrie Gage appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment in favor of the United States in its petition for approval of a levy by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on the Gages’ principal residence to secure payment for tax liabilities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of statutory provisions, *Ponsford v. United States,*771 F.2d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir. 1985), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision regarding the sufficiency of service of process, *Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink,*284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Gages’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and their request to stay the levy action because the Gages failed to establish invalid service of process. *See SEC v. Internet Solutions for Bus. Inc.,*509 F.3d 1161, 1163 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A] signed return of service constitutes prima facie evidence of valid service which can -be overcome only by strong and convincing evidence.”).

The district court determined that the Gages failed to raise an appropriate objection to the United States’ prima facie showing in support of its petition. However, the Gages presented evidence that Carrie Gage received a notice from the Social Security Administration informing her that the IRS “will no longer take money out of your monthly payment because you no longer owe [the] IRS any money.” Thus, the Gages raised “a genuine issue of material fact demonstrating that the underlying tax liability has been satisfied.” 26 C.F.R. § 301.6334-1(d)(2). We reverse the district court’s judgment under 26 U.S.C. § 6334(e)(1) and remand for the district court to hold a hearing pursuant to 26 C.F.R. § 301.6334-1(d)(2) as to whether Carrie Gage’s tax liability has been satisfied.

We reject as without merit the Gages’ arguments regarding standing.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, 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. $17,980.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendant, Donna Dickson, Claimant-Appellant.

No. 14-36052

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 9, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

Julia Jarrett, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, Plaintiff-Appellee

Brian L. Michaels, Attorney, Brian Mi-chaels PC, Eugene, OR, for Claimant-Appellant

Before: BYBEE and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** Senior District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

After obtaining a search warrant, Oregon police officers seized $17,980 in cash from a package that a drug-sniffing dog had alerted to while it was offloaded from an airplane. Donna Dickson originally claimed a possessory interest in the seized cash in the ensuing forfeiture proceeding but, after the close of discovery, sought leave to amend her claim to assert an ownership interest. The district court denied leave to amend and granted summary judgment to the government, concluding that Dickson lacked standing to challenge the forfeiture. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. The district court did not err in finding probable cause to institute forfeiture proceedings against the $17,980 as proceeds traceable to an exchange for controlled substances or used or intended to be used to facilitate such a transaction. *See*21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). An experienced narcotics detective averred that a number of facts were consistent with drug trafficking, including a positive alert by a trained narcotics canine, suspicious packaging, and inaccurate and incomplete sender and recipient information. The government thus established more than a “mere suspicion” that the $17,980 was related to an illegal drug transaction. *See United States v. $493,850.00 in U.S. Currency,*518 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2008).

2. The district court did not err in holding that Dickson lacked standing to *987challenge the forfeiture. Dickson’s “bare assertion of an ownership or possessory interest, in the absence of some other evidence, is not enough to survive a motion for summary judgment.” *See United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency,*672 F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir. 2012). We therefore need not consider whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Dickson’s motion for leave to amend.

AFFIRMED.

***

 phis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3363

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Antonio Johnson, * Eastern District of Missouri. * Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED] *

___________ Submitted: April 22, 2004 Filed: May 10, 2004

___________ Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Antonio Johnson appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence-reduction motion. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that Johnson is not entitled to a sentence reduction based on Amendment 518 to the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a); Delgado v. United States , 162 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1998).-2- Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### Colleen SILVERMAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Richard SILVERMAN, Respondent-Appellant, and Nicholas Silverman, by and through his guardian ad litem, Maria Silverman; Jon Silverman, by and through his guardian ad litem, Maria Silverman, Real-party-in-interest-Appellants.

No. 16-55221

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 17, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed November 21, 2017

Patrick Jeffrey Kane, McGinnis' Wutscher Beiramee, San Diego, CA, Charles Wesley Kim, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Yelman & Associates, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee

Milton J, Silverman, Jr., Attorney, Law Offices of Milton Silverman, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellant

Milton J. Silverman, Jr,, Attorney, Law Offices of Milton Silverman, San Diego, CA, for Real-party-in-interest-Appellants

Before: KOZINSKI and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and GETTLEMAN,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

*597Respondents “cannot, merely by injecting a federal question into an action that asserts what is plainly a state-law claim, transform the action into one arising under federal law.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 399, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). Respondents justified their removal from state to federal court by claiming that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction applies. But “[t]he Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years.” Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction art. 4, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 89. Because Jon was 16 at the time of removal, respondents lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal. Respondents’ argument that the Hague Convention establishes the rule that minors older than 15 may not be returned to a foreign country is meritless. And their further argument that this alleged rule preempts state law does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction, because it is merely a defense to state law claims. See Opera Plaza Residential Parcel Homeowners Ass’n v. Hoang, 376 F.3d 831, 839 (9th Cir. 2004). The district court didn’t abuse its discretion in granting petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 136, 126 S.Ct. 704, 163 L.Ed.2d 547 (2005).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
EXHIBIT 32

   CERTIFICATIONS OF JOSEPH R. ROZELLE, PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
     PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pan Asian
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2007, 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. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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:  October 15, 2007                  /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
Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K 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.

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.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

  Banc of America Funding Corporation
  Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
  Series 2006-J

  I, Chris Regnier, a Vice-President of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the
  "Master Servicer"),
 certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
     on Form 10-K/A of the Banc of America Funding 2006-J Trust (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
     master servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review
     conducted in preparing the master servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
     in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the master servicer has fulfilled
     its obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement, 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/A.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
     Bank of America, National Association and Washington Mutual Bank.

     Dated:    May 30, 2008

     /s/ Chris Regnier
     Signature

     Vice President
     (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master servicer)
Date: 4/1 8 /11

SUBJECT: Follow

- up questions to GE’s Response to EPA’s request for ABMet® Costing Information
Verification of Equations (Part 1)

1. Installed Cost Factor

– We plugged in flow rates to the supplied equation for installed cost factor and compared the calculated factors to the curve provided. It appears that t he calculated factors a re slightly below what is represented in the diagram. Should we rely on the equation (or diagram) to determine the appropriate cost factor? 2. Nutrient Cost

– The cost equation indicates “Nutrient Consumption / 1000”, where nutrient consumption is defined as gallons of nutrients per 1,000 gallons treated. Is the 1000 in the equation redundant?
System Design ( Part 2, Section 1)

3. GE indicated the system desig n for lower FGD flows (i .e., 50 and 100 gpm) cannot be designed
to operate optimally. Why can’t the system be optimized at these lower flow rates? What other design factors need to be considered for flows in th e low end of the flow range to optimize perf ormance of the system ? 4. Can GE provide input on the expected sludge generation from the system based on the influent wastewater characteristics? Is there a recommended frequency for backflushing the bioreactors?
Open or Closed Reactors ( Part 2, Section 2)

5. Literature on the ABMet system suggests that the H 2 S emissions are minimal due to complexation with the metals in the wastewater. Does GE have any quantitative monitoring of H 2 S in past studies that would support use of open reactors in buildings? 6. E RG would like some clarification on the type of validation work conducted to establish an appropriate retention time for the bioreactors. How did GE identify the potential FGD installations in the US?
Heat Exchanger ( Part 2, Section 3)

7. GE previously indic ated that 105°F was the optimal temperature for the influent to the system

. What does GE consider the minimum and maximum influent temperatures that can enter the ABMet system before you would see a drop

- off in system performance?

Nutrient Consumption (Nutrient Dosage) ( Part 2, Section 4)

8. ERG would like some clarification on the nutrient consumption data provided. Is the highest nutrient dosage rate based on the minimum (or maximum) NO 2 +NO 3 - N concentration? Can the nutrient dosage be correlated to ave rage system operating temperature and NO 2 +NO 3 - N concentrations ? In other words, can an equation be developed to calculate the nutrient consumption based on the influent NO 2 +NO 3 - N concentration?
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 15

A resolution making majority party appointments to certain Senate

committees for the One Hundred Fourth Congress.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. LOTT (for Mr. DOLE) submitted the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

A resolution making majority party appointments to certain

Senate committees for the One Hundred Fourth Congress.

1 Resolved, That the following shall constitute the ma2 jority party’s membership on the following standing com3 mittees for the One Hundred Fourth Congress, or until

4 their successors are chosen:

5 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Thurmond,

6 Mr. Warner, Mr. Cohen, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lott, Mr.

7 Coats, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kempthorne, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.

8 Inhofe, and Mr. Santorum.

9 COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN

10 AFFAIRS: Mr. D’Amato, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Shelby, Mr.
2

SRES 15 ATS

1 Bond, Mr. Mack, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Grams,

2 and Mr. Frist.

3 COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANS4 PORTATION: Mr. Pressler, Mr. Packwood, Mr. Stevens,

5 Mr. McCain, Mr. Burns, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Lott, Mrs.

6 Hutchison, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Ashcroft.

7 COMMITTEE ON FINANCE: Mr. Packwood, Mr. Dole,

8 Mr. Roth, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr.

9 Simpson, Mr. Pressler, Mr. D’Amato, Mr. Murkowski, and

10 Mr. Nickles.

11 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Mr. Hatch, Mr.

12 Thurmond, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Specter, Mr.

13 Brown, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Kyl, Mr. DeWine, and Mr.

14 Abraham.

15 COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES:

16 Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Coats, Mr. Gregg, Mr.

17 Frist, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Abraham, and Mr.

18 Gorton.

Æ
II

Calendar No. 131

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 27

To grant the consent of the Congress to certain additional powers conferred

upon the Bi-State Development Agency by the States of Missouri and Illinois.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 23 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1995

Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. SIMON, Mr. ASHCROFT, and Ms. MOSELY-BRAUN)

introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JUNE 22 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment

JOINT RESOLUTION

To grant the consent of the Congress to certain additional

powers conferred upon the Bi-State Development Agency

by the States of Missouri and Illinois.

Whereas the Congress in consenting to the compact between

Missouri and Illinois creating the Bi-State Development

Agency and the Bi-State Metropolitan District provided

that no power shall be exercised by the Bi-State Agency

under the provisions of article III of such compact until

such power has been conferred upon the Bi-State Agency

by the legislatures of the States to the compact and approved by an Act of Congress; and
2

•SJ 27 RS

Whereas such States have now enacted certain legislation in

order to confer certain additional powers on such BiState Development Agency: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That—

4 (a) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to

5 the additional powers conferred on the Bi-State Develop6 ment Agency by Senate Bill 114, Laws of Missouri 1993

7 and Public Act 88–611 (Senate Bill 1670), Laws of Illi8 nois 1994.

9 (b) The powers conferred by the Acts consented to

10 in subsection (a) shall take effect on January 1, 1995.

11 SEC. 2. The provisions of the Act of August 31, 1950

12 (64 Stat. 568) shall apply to the additional powers ap13 proved under this joint resolution to the same extent as

14 if such additional powers were conferred under the provi15 sions of the compact consented to in such Act.

16 SEC. 3. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint

17 resolution is expressly reserved.

18 SEC. 4. The right is hereby reserved to the Congress

19 to require the disclosure and furnishings of such informa20 tion or data by the Bi-State Development Agency as is

21 deemed appropriate by the Congress.

Calendar No. 131

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 27

JOINT RESOLUTION

To grant the consent of the Congress to certain adIllinois. velopment Agency by the States of Missouri and ditional powers conferred upon the Bi-State DeJUNE 22 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Reported without amendment