alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BILLY DRIVER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MARTEL, Warden; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-17309

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-1910-GEB-EFB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 23, 2010** 

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 

Billy Driver, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a

claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

FILED

SEP 07 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-17309

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.

2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Driver’s action because he failed to

allege facts to state a section 1983 claim, and failed to file an amended complaint

curing the deficiencies despite detailed directions on multiple occasions on how to

do so. See Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006)

(listing elements of section 1983 claim); see also Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (liberal interpretation of a pro se civil rights complaint

may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled).

We deny Driver’s motion for injunctive relief in the form of release from

prison as beyond the scope of this appeal. Liberally construing Driver’s recent

letter as a motion for access to the prison library, we also deny this request because

the failure to allege sufficient facts cannot be cured through legal research.

AFFIRMED.
PVC Survey – Examples of Selected Completed Forms 

Figure 1. Completing Production Campaign Number and Resin Grade on Form B-1 

PVC Section 114 Survey Completed Forms Examples – Page 1 

08/14/2009 
Figure 2. Completing Form C-1-a for Process Equipment Shown on the 

Process Flow Diagram 

PVC Section 114 Survey Completed Forms Examples – Page 2 

08/14/2009 
Figure 3. Completing Form C-2-a for Control Equipment Shown on the 

Process Flow Diagram 

PVC Section 114 Survey Completed Forms Examples – Page 3 

08/14/2009
### Water Management Strategies in the Niobrara Shale & Piceance Basin s

By

Dick Wolfe, M.S., P.E.

State Engineer, Director

Colorado Division of Water Resources

Water Management for Shale Plays West 2014

Denver, Colorado

May 28, 2014

1. Water Sources and Demand for the Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas Wells in

Colorado (see attached document)

2. Petitions to the State E n gineer to Make Determinations of Nontri b u tary Ground

W ater (see attached Policy 2010

- 4 )
#### Jamsheed GHORBANI, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1406

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 18, 2017

Decided: January 10, 2018

Jason A. Dzubow, DZUBOW & PIL-CHER, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Andrew O’Malley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brendan P. Hogan, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamsheed Ghorbani, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his asylum application as time-barred. The agency granted Ghorbani’s request for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2012).

On appeal, Ghorbani challenges the agency’s determination that he failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D) (2012). We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that Ghorbani does not raise a constitutional claim or question of law that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). *See Mulyani v. Holder,*771 F.3d 190, 196-97 (4th Cir. 2014); *Gomis v. Holder,*571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). We therefore dismiss the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DISMISSED*
Rental Agreement




 

 

 

 

 

 

Rental Agreement

 


THIS AGREEMENT made the
1st day of May 2002.

 

BETWEEN Wood Products,
Inc. ("the tenant") AND Bernardo Yau ("the landlord").

 


1. Address of Premises

 


The address of the
premises to be rented is located at Suite 210, 186-8120 No. 2 Road, Richmond,
British Columbia, V7C 5J8.

 


2. Description of
Property

 


The property to be
rented is an office of approximately 50 square feet within the 1,000 square foot
office of the above address.

 


3. Term of Agreement

 


The term of this
agreement will be month-to-month rental, which will begin on May 1st,
2002.

 


4. Rent

 


The rent will be
US$150.00 per month, and must be paid on or before the 1st day of
each month. The first month's rent will be payable on May 1st 2002.

 

The tenant must pay the
rent on time. If the rent is late, the landlord may issue a Notice to End a
Rental Tenancy to the tenant, which may take effect not earlier than 10 days
after the date the Notice is given.

 


5. Ending the Tenancy

 


The tenant may end a
month-to-month tenancy by giving the landlord at least one month's written
notice. The landlord must receive the written notice before the day the rent is
due, for the tenant to move out at the end of the following month.

 

The landlord and tenant
may mutually agree in writing to end this rental agreement at any time.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned have caused these presents to be signed this 1st day of
May, 2002.

 

Wood Products, Inc.:

 

By: Gordon Watts

 

Signature: /s/ Gordon
Watts


 

By: Bernardo Yau

 

 

Signature: /s/
Bernardo Yau
EXHIBIT
31.1


CERTIFICATIONS





I, James W, Morgon, certify
that:





I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Deerfield Resources, Ltd.





Based on
my knowledge, this annual report does 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;





Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;





I am
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have;





Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;





Designed
such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;





Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and





Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





All
significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report
financial information; and





Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.








Date:  December 24,
      2009
              /s/James W.
      MorgonJames
      W. MorgonPrincipal
      Executive and Principal Financial
Officer
# OAR Box 

# 1828

Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 67 ) ll-K - (B ) -5 5 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7 p. i

Printed 11/12/200811:12:50AM Sheet 67 of 325P. 2 

# W a II-K-(B)-5 5

REVISE D FG D AND PARTICULAT E CONTRO L CAPITA L AND OPERATIN G COSTS . Lette r fro

m T . Hogan , EE

A t o R . Short , EPArSASD . Augus t 26 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-5 5
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1661

WINFRIED P. RUGGIA; EUN HUI RUGGIA,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL, a division of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; 

JPMC SPECIALTY MORTGAGE, LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INCORPORATED; EQUITY TRUSTEES, LLC,

Defendants – Appellees,

and 

ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS, INCORPORATED; JOE DOE; JOHN & JANE 

DOE, Certificate Holders I-M; JACK & JILL DOE, Certificate 

Holders I-M; QUI & CHI DOE.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:09-cv-01067-LO-TRJ)

Submitted: August 3, 2011 Decided: August 11, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Edwin Brown, BROWN, BROWN & BROWN, PC, Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellants. John C. Lynch, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, 

Virginia Beach, Virginia; Jonathan S. Hubbard, TROUTMAN SANDERS, 
2

LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Winfried and Eun Hui Ruggia appeal the district 

court’s order granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) 

motion to dismiss their state law claims for declaratory 

judgment, quiet title, and fraud, as well as their claim under 

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1692-

1692p (West 2009 & Supp. 2011). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. See Ruggia v. Washington Mutual, No. 1:09-cv01067-LO-TRJ (E.D. Va. May 13, 2010); see also Horvath v. Bank 

of N.Y., N.A., 641 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2011). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2013-1027; Dir ID 2013-NM-121-AD
Exhibit 4.27

Melco PBL Investments Limited

Walker House

Mary Street

PO Box 908GT

George Town

Grand
Cayman

The Directors

PBL Asia Limited

Walker House

Mary Street

PO Box 908GT

George Town

Grand Cayman

The Directors

Melco PBL Gaming (Macau) Limited

Avenida Dr. Mario Soares No. 25

Edificio Montepio 1 andar

Comp. 13

Macau SAR

Ms. Manuela Antonio

Avenida Dr. Mario Soares No. 25

Edificio Montepio 1 andar

Comp. 13

Macau SAR

15 December 2006

Dear Sirs / Madam,

Shareholders Agreement relating to Melco PBL Gaming (Macau) Limited dated 22 November 2006 (the Agreement)

We refer to the Agreement and to our recent discussions and hereby confirm that we have agreed to terminate the Agreement with effect from 15 December 2006.

To signify your agreement to terminate the Agreement, please sign below and return a copy of this letter to us.

Yours sincerely



|        
|--------
|/s/     
|Director



---

For and on behalf of Melco PBL Investments Limited

We, PBL Asia Limited, hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this letter.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/                                  
|Director                             
|For and on behalf of PBL Asia Limited
|Date: 15 December 2006               

We, Melco PBL Gaming (Macau) Limited, hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this letter.



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/                                                  
|Director                                             
|For and on behalf of Melco PBL Gaming (Macau) Limited
|Date: 15 December 2006                               

I, Manuela Antonio, hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this letter.



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ Manuela Antonio   
|Manuela Antonio       
|Date: 15 December 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6536 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6536

 To prohibit the employment of school bus drivers with serious moving 
                              violations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 30, 2016

   Ms. Meng introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the employment of school bus drivers with serious moving 
                              violations.

    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 ``No School Bus Drivers with DUIs Act 
of 2016''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITED EMPLOYMENT OF SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS WITH SERIOUS MOVING 
              VIOLATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Subpart 2 of part F of title VIII of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 8549D. PROHIBITED EMPLOYMENT OF SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS WITH SERIOUS 
              MOVING VIOLATIONS.

    ``(a) In General.--No State, State educational agency, or local 
educational agency that receives funds made available by this Act may 
employ an individual as a school bus driver if that individual has been 
convicted of, or pled guilty to, drunk driving or a driving violation 
that is a felony under State law.
    ``(b) Prohibition.--The Secretary shall not have the authority to 
mandate, direct, or control the specific measures adopted by a State, 
State educational agency, or local educational agency pursuant to this 
section.
    ``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to prevent a State, State educational agency, or local 
education agency from adopting a law, regulation, or policy that 
provides greater or additional protections prohibiting the employment 
of a school employee, contractor, or agent.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--The table of contents in section 2 of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by 
inserting after the item related to section 8549C the following:

``Sec. 8549D. Prohibited employment of school bus drivers with serious 
                            moving violations.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall take 
effect on the date that is 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Sergio Magistri, Chief Executive Officer of InVision
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), and Ross Mulholland, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 12th day of November, 2002.

| |  | /s/ Sergio MagistriSergio Magistri
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Ross MulhollandRoss Mulholland
Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.18



STOCK OPTION GRANT
 
 
Dear Arvind Agrawal (the “Option Holder”),
 
As per the Letter Agreement dated November 12, 2014 between Lightlake Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company”) and you, you have been granted options (the “Options”) to purchase common stock (the “Common Stock”) of the Company (with each share of Common Stock of the Company, a “Share”) as follows:
	
		
	 
	 

	 
	 

	Date of Grant:
	November 12, 2014

	 
	 

	Exercise Price per Share:
	US$0.10

	 
	 

	Total Number of Shares Granted:
	3,000,000

	 
	 

	Total Exercise Price:
	Cashless exercise

	 
	 

	Type of Options:
	Non-Qualified Stock Options

	 
	 

	Expiration Date:
	November 11, 2019

	 
	 

	Termination Period:
	These Options may be exercised for a period of five (5) years from the Date of Grant.  You are responsible for keeping track of this exercise period. The Company will not provide further notice of such period.

	 
	 

	Transferability:
	These Options may not be transferred, except as permitted by applicable laws and regulations.

	 
	 

	Restriction on Exercise:
	Your ability to exercise these Options is contingent on your and your officers, agents, and representatives keeping confidential information shared with you and your officers, agent, and representatives confidential and complying with all applicable laws and regulations.

	 
	 

	Vesting:
	250,000 at the end of each calendar quarter for each of the next 12 calendar quarters.




 
 
Following receipt by the Company of evidence and/or an indemnity from you to the Company in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Company of the loss, theft, destruction or mutilation of these Options or any certificates for representing the Shares underlying these Options and, in the event of mutilation, following the surrender and cancellation of such Options or stock certificate, the Company will make and deliver replacement Options or stock certificate of like tenor and dated as of such cancellation, in lieu of these Options or stock certificates, without any charge therefor, it being understood that the making and/or delivery of such replacement Options or stock certificates by the Company will not be unreasonably withheld.  Any such replacement Options or stock certificates shall be subject to the same terms, conditions, and restrictions as these Options and any Shares underlying these Options. Proportionate adjustments shall automatically be made to both the Exercise Price and number of these Options in the event of a stock split, recapitalization, change of control and fundamental transaction.  Upon the exercise of these Options, the fair market value per Share shall be equal to the closing price of the Shares on the day prior to such exercise.




Exhibit 10.18





By your signature and the signature of the Company’s representative below, you and the Company agree to the terms of these Options.
 
 
	
			
	 ARVIND AGRAWAL
	 
	LIGHTLAKE THERAPEUTICS INC.

	 
	 
	 

	 /s/ Arvind Agrawal
	 
	 /s/ Kevin Pollack

	Optionee
	 
	Name: Kevin Pollack 
Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kunta Kenta REDD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7426

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 23, 2018

Kunta Kenta Redd, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Scott Andrew Lemmon, Timothy Severo, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kunta Kenta Redd appeals from the district court’s order denying his motions to reduce his sentence and transfer his case. On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Redd’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s disposition, Redd has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Redd’s motion to appoint counsel and 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. Erscell Julius WORLDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7016

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 22, 2018

Erscell Julius Worlds, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Erscell Julius Worlds seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 motion 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 Worlds has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Worlds’ motion to hold this appeal in abeyance pending decision in *United States v. Oliver,*878 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately *196presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*