alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Delano D. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35777

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 20, 2017

Delano D, Davis, Pro Se

Jacqueline Kamins, Deputy County Counsel, Multnomah County Attorney’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Ap-pellees

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 **

Oregon state prisoner Delano D, Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference and excessive force claims arising from his detention at Multnomah County Detention Center. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Sch, Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5*F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’s motion for reconsideration because Davis failed to establish any basis for such relief. *See id.*at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Davis’s contentions regarding the district court’s grant of summary judgment because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or a timely post-judgment tolling motion after the district court entered judgment on May 18, 2016. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the entry of judgment); *Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc.,*476 F.3d 701, 703 *525(9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”); *Fiester v. Turner,*783 F.2d 1474, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986) (under Rule 4(a)(4), an untimely post-judgment motion does not toll time to appeal from the judgment).

We reject as without merit Davis’s contention that the district court abused its discretion in denying Davis’s motion for leave to amend his complaint as moot.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, *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.
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0044 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0044

**2003/44/EC: Commission Decision of 17 January 2003 amending Decision 93/52/EEC recording the compliance by certain Member States or regions with the requirements relating to brucellosis (B. melitensis) and according them the status of a Member State or region officially free of the disease (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 20) **

*
Official Journal L 013 , 18/01/2003 P. 0037 - 0038 *

Commission Decision

of 17 January 2003

amending Decision 93/52/EEC recording the compliance by certain Member States or regions with the requirements relating to brucellosis (B. melitensis) and according them the status of a Member State or region officially free of the disease

(notified under document number C(2003) 20)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2003/44/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 2002/261/EC(2), and in particular Annex A, Chapter 1.II thereto,

Whereas:

(1) In Portugal, brucellosis has been a notifiable disease for at least five years.

(2) In the Autonomous Region of Azores at least 99,8 % of the ovine or caprine holdings are officially brucellosis-free holdings. This Region undertakes, furthermore, to comply with Annex A Chapter 1.II(2) to Directive 91/68/EEC.

(3) The Autonomous Region of Azores should consequently be recognised as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis).

(4) Commission Decision 93/52/EEC(3), as last amended by Decision 2002/482/EC(4), should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex II to Decision 93/52/EEC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 January 2003.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 19.

(2) OJ L 91, 6.4.2002, p. 31.

(3) OJ L 13, 21.1.1993, p. 14.

(4) OJ L 166, 25.6.2002, p. 23.

ANNEX

"ANNEX II

In France:

Ain, Aisne, Allier, Ardèche, Ardennes, Aube, Aveyron, Cantal, Charente, Charente-Maritime, Cher, Corrèze, Côte-d'Or, Côtes-d'Armor, Creuse, Deux-Sèvres, Dordogne, Doubs, Essonne, Eure, Eure-et-Loir, Finistère, Gers, Gironde, Hauts-de-Seine, Haute-Loire, Haute-Vienne, Ille-et-Vilaine, Indre, Indre-et-Loire, Jura, Loir-et-Cher, Loire, Loire-Atlantique, Loiret, Lot-et-Garonne, Lot, Lozère, Maine-et-Loire, Manche, Marne, Mayenne, Morbihan, Nièvre, Nord, Oise, Orne, Pas-de-Calais, Puy-de-Dôme, Rhône, Haute-Saône, Saône-et-Loire, Sarthe, Seine-Maritime, Seine-Saint-Denis, Territoire de Belfort, Val-de-Marne, Val-d'Oise, Vendée, Vienne, Yonne, Yvelines, Ville de Paris, Vosges.

In Italy:

Bolzano.

In Portugal:

Autonomous Region of Azores.

In Spain:

Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Las Palmas."
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 965 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 965

 To designate the United States Courthouse for the Eastern District of 
Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia, as the Albert V. Bryan United States 
                              Courthouse.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 26 (legislative day, June 19), 1995

  Mr. Warner introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States Courthouse for the Eastern District of 
Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia, as the Albert V. Bryan United States 
                              Courthouse.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ALBERT V. BRYAN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    (a) New Courthouse.--
            (1) In general.--The Federal building located at Courthouse 
        Square South and Jamieson Avenue in Alexandria, Virginia, shall 
        be known and designated as the ``Albert V. Bryan United States 
        Courthouse''.
            (2) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
        document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
        Federal building referred to in paragraph (1) shall be deemed 
        to be a reference to the ``Albert V. Bryan United States 
        Courthouse''.
    (b) Old Courthouse.--
            (1) In general.--The Federal building located at 200 South 
        Washington Street in Alexandria, Virginia, shall not be known 
        and designated as the ``Albert V. Bryan United States 
        Courthouse''.
            (2) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
        document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
        Federal building known and designated prior to the effective 
        date of this section as the ``Albert V. Bryan United States 
        Courthouse'' shall be deemed to be a reference to the Federal 
        building referred to in paragraph (1).
    (c) Effective Date.--This section shall become effective on the 
date of the completion of the construction of the Federal building 
referred to in subsection (a)(1).
                                 <all>
```
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 134 Received in Senate (RDS)]







105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 134


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 17, 1997

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
 Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol to allow Members of 
 Congress to greet and receive His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on October 21, 
1997, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, for a ceremony to allow Members of 
Congress to greet and receive His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew,
the 270th Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Physical preparations 
for the conduct of the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with 
such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 16, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.`
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6401 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6401

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend Public Law 94-241 with respect to the Northern Mariana 
                                Islands.

    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 ``Northern Mariana Islands Economic 
Expansion Act''.

SEC. 2. COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS: TRANSITIONAL 
              WORKERS.

    Section 6 of Public Law 94-241 (48 U.S.C. 1806) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(6), by striking ``$150'' and 
        inserting ``$200''; and
            (2) in subsection (d)(2)--
                    (A) by striking the period at the end of the first 
                sentence and inserting ``, except a permit for 
                construction occupations (as that term is defined by 
                the Department of Labor as Standard Occupational 
                Classification Group 47-0000 or any successor 
                provision) shall only be issued to extend a permit 
                first issued before October 1, 2015.''; and
                    (B) by striking the period at the end of the third 
                sentence and inserting ``, except that for fiscal year 
                2017 the number of permits issued shall not exceed 
                15,000.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 6, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6401

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend Public Law 94-241 with respect to the Northern Mariana 
                                Islands.
```
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 79

Designating March 25, 1995, as ‘‘Greek Independence Day: A National Day

of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 24 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1995

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. D’AMATO, and Mr. SIMON)

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating March 25, 1995, as ‘‘Greek Independence Day:

A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American

Democracy’’.

Whereas the ancient Greeks developed the concept of democracy, in which the supreme power to govern was invested

in the people;

Whereas the Founding Fathers of the United States of America drew heavily upon the political experience and philosophy of ancient Greece in forming our representative democracy;

Whereas these and other ideals have forged a close bond between our two nations and their peoples;
2

SRES 79 IS

Whereas March 25, 1995, marks the 174th anniversary of

the beginning of the revolution which freed the Greek

people from the Ottoman Empire; and

Whereas it is proper and desirable to celebrate with the

Greek people, and to reaffirm the democratic principles

from which our two great nations were born: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That March 25, 1995, is designated as

2 ‘‘Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration

3 of Greek and American Democracy’’. The President is re4 quested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people

5 of the United States to observe the day with appropriate

6 ceremonies and activities.

Æ
# EUR-Lex - 32003R1183 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32003R1183

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1183/2003 of 2 July 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms **

*
Official Journal L 165 , 03/07/2003 P. 0020 - 0020 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1183/2003

of 2 July 2003

amending Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003(2), and in particular Article 33 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Under the distillation of wine to produce potable alcohol, opened in the Community each year, producers are required to deliver their wine for distillation and distillers must distil the wine before a specified date.

(2) The public storage facilities in some Member States are full and consequently the public authorities can no longer accept deliveries of alcohol from the distillers, with the result that the storage facilities of certain distillers are also full. The lack of storage capacity prevents them from accepting delivery of new wine for distillation into potable alcohol before the date laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 625/2003(4).

(3) To rectify this situation, the date by which wine must be delivered for distillation and the date by which wine must be distilled should be postponed for one-and-a-half months.

(4) Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 should be amended accordingly.

(5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 63a of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 is hereby amended as follows:

(a) the following second subparagraph is added to paragraph 8:"For the 2002/03 wine year the date in the first subparagraph shall be 31 August of the following wine year.";

(b) the following second subparagraph is added to paragraph 10:"For the 2002/03 wine year the date in the first subparagraph shall be 15 November of the following wine year."

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 July 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 194, 31.7.2000, p. 45.

(4) OJ L 90, 8.4.2003, p. 4.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned executive officer of FirstFederal Bancshares of Arkansas, Inc. (the “Registrant”) hereby certifies thatthe Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2006 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.

 

 
|                  | /s/Sherri R.  Billings       |   |
|-----------------------|------------------------------|--------|
|                  | Sherri R.  Billings          |
|                  | EVP/Chief  Financial Officer |
|                  |                         |
| Date: April  25, 2006 |                         |

 

----
#### Chauncey BENNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden John WOLFE; Lieutenant Ruby White; Lieutenant Valerie Styles; Lieutenant Troxell; Stephen T. Moyer, Secretary, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-7168

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 20, 2017

Decided: January 11, 2018

*147Chauncey Demetrius Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Teresa Marie Kelly, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Ap-pellees.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Chauncey Demetrius Bennett appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendants and denying relief on 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. *Bennett v. Wolfe,*No. 1:17-cv-00302-JKB, 2017 WL 3581995 (D. Md. Aug. 18, 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*
#### James B. CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT; Scott S. Harris, Clerk of Court for Supreme Court of the United States, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-7064

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 28, 2017

James B. Curry, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,

*211Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James B. Curry seeks to appeal the district court’s order directing the district court clerk to again mail a copy of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to Curry and permitting Curry to file objections within 14 days of service. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral' orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial*Indus. *Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Curry seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.* Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Curry’s pending motions to subpoena a legal log report, for default or summary judgment, to expedite service and decision, for an investigation into misconduct, and to compel. 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*

*

 Although the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Curry's complaint without prejudice before we considered this appeal, the doctrine of cumulative finality does not cure the jurisdictional defect. *Equip. Fin. Grp. v. Traverse Comput. Brokers,*973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding that doctrine of cumulative finality only applies where order appealed from could have been certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)); *see In re Bryson,*406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting that “a premature notice of appeal from a clearly interlocutory decision" cannot be saved under doctrine of cumulative finality (internal quotation marks omitted)).
#### AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC, Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Appellees

2016-2022

2016-2023

2016-2024

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 17, 2017

Ryan Michael Schultz, Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for appellant. Also represented by Emily Elizabeth Niles.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellees. Also represented by Jon Steven Baughman; Gabrielle E. Higgins, Kathryn Hong, East Palo Alto, CA.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Mayer and Moore, Circuit Judges),

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**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 Quarterly Report of IDT Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James A. Courter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: March 11, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, 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 IDTCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.