alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nathan SESSING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stuart SHERMAN, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16079

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 28, 2017

Nathan Sessing, Pro Se

Arthur B. Mark, III, Esquire, Attorney, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nathan Sessing, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an equal protection claim relating to Sessing’s request for an outdoor worship area. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of an action as moot. *418*Alvarez v. Hill,*667 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Sessing’s action was moot because Sessing was transferred to another prison, and he was no longer subject to the prison policies that he challenged in the fourth amended complaint. *See Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles,*279 F.3d 862, 871 (9th Cir. 2002) (“An actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”); *see also Walker v. Beard,*789 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir. 2015) (a prisoner’s claim is not moot where the policy under which the alleged violation occurred is still effective).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sessing’s motion to supplement his fourth amended complaint because supplemental pleadings cannot be used to introduce a “separate, distinct and new cause of action.” *Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Neely,*130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for supplementing a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sessing’s motion to file a fifth amended complaint because the relevant factors weighed against granting leave to amend. *See Chodos v. West Publ’g Co.,*292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and factors relevant to a motion to amend and explaining that “when a district court has already granted a plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in denying subsequent motions to amend is particularly broad” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as without merit Sessing’s contentions that he was entitled to protective relief from transfer.

AFFIRMED.

**

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












Exhibit 10.1


December 4, 2017


____________
____________


Dear ___________:
It is my pleasure to inform you that you will be a participant in the 2018 Knoll, Inc. Incentive Compensation Program.
We are counting on you to help us build on the positive momentum we created in 2017 across each of our business segments.  We must strive to continue to gain share, improve our profitability, target under-penetrated markets, expand our reach into consumer and decorator channels and build a responsible and technologically efficient infrastructure across all our businesses to position Knoll for success in 2018 and beyond.
Your 2018 incentive payout will be based on your achievement of your individual goals and Knoll’s achievement of its 2018 operating profit plan as follows:
--If Knoll achieves at least seventy-five percent (75%) of its 2018 operating profit plan, you will qualify for a total target incentive payout of fifty percent (50%) of your base salary.
--If Knoll achieves its 2018 operating profit plan but does not achieve one hundred ten (110%) of plan, you will qualify for a total target incentive payout of one hundred percent (100%) of your base salary.
--If Knoll exceeds its 2018 operating profit plan by one hundred ten percent (110%), you will qualify for a total target incentive payout of one hundred twenty percent (120%) of your base salary.
This award is subject to the approval of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors), which may exercise discretion in adjusting your award up or down based on factors the Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors) deems appropriate, including Knoll’s performance relative to the industry, other macroeconomic factors and your individual performance, but such award cannot exceed one hundred twenty percent (120%) of your base salary in any event.  You must be employed by Knoll on the date this award is distributed in order to receive this incentive.
I have great confidence in your ability to contribute to our success in 2018 and look forward to being able to present you with your award in early 2019.
Thank you for all that you do for Knoll.
Sincerely,
__________________
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Joseph P. Mullaney, certify that:
     1.  I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Workgroup Technology
         Corporation.

     2.  I have read the quarterly report of Workgroup Technology Corporation
         filed on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending December 31, 2002 (the
         "Report"), including the financial statements contained in the Report.

     3.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
         contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         Workgroup Technology Corporation for and as of the period described.


Date:  February 14, 2003                  /s/ Joseph P. Mullaney
      ------------------                  -----------------------------------
                                          Joseph P. Mullaney
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at                     *https://www.federalreserve.gov/​foia/​request.htm.*                     Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.                

Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than April 12, 2022.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas*                     (Karen Smith, Director, Applications) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:                

                    1.                     *Christy A. Morris, Gainesville, Texas;*                     to join the Morris Family control group, a group acting in concert, to acquire voting shares of Red River Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First State Bank, both of Gainesville, Texas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 22, 2022.

Michele Taylor Fennell,

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2022-06363 Filed 3-25-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronnie Gerald BELT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7170

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 23, 2018

*222Ronnie Gerald Belt, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Gerald Belt seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(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. § 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 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 Belt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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*
Exhibit 32.2

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, John Stephens, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Biofield
Corp. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); 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: December 16, 2003                By: /s/ John D. Stephens
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John D. Stephens
                                           Senior Vice President and Chief
                                           Operating Officer
                                           (Principal Accounting and Financial
                                           Officer)


                                       25
# Official Journal C 131A/23 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 131A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5823 April 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 131A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5823 April 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2015/C 131A/01 | Notice of open competition — EPSO/AST-SC/04/15 — Parliamentary ushers (AST SC 1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2015/C 131A/01

Notice of open competition — EPSO/AST-SC/04/15 — Parliamentary ushers (AST SC 1)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.1**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

The certification set forth below is beingsubmitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose ofcomplying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode.

 

May10, 2006

 

CharlesT. Chrietzberg, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of Northern CaliforniaBancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

a.               thatthis periodic report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b.              thatinformation contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of NorthernCalifornia Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ Charles T.  Chrietzberg, Jr.       |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Charles T. Chrietzberg,  Jr.           |
|   | Chief Executive Officer  and President |

 

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-20779

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LUIS RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-94-249

- - - - - - - - - -

July 1, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rodriguez appeals his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy

to possess, and possession with intent to distribute in excess of

five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He

contends the search of the vehicle he was driving violated his

rights under the Fourth Amendment. However, Rodriguez’s

unconditional plea of guilty constitutes a waiver of any
No. 95-20779

- 2 -

objections to nonjurisdictional errors, including Fourth

Amendment caims. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93

S.Ct. 1602, 1608, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973); United States v.

Smallwood, 920 F.2d 1231, 1240 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S.

1238, 111 S.Ct. 2870, 115 L.Ed.2d 1035 (1991). 

The appeal is frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION



I, J. Michael Lawrie, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Siebel Systems, Inc.;

2. 	Based on my knowledge, this 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;

3. 	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;

4. 	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

b) 	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. 	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) 	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses 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

b) 	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: November 5, 2004



| |     |                      
| | --- | ---------------------
| | By: | /s/ J. Michael Lawrie

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | J. Michael Lawrie      
| | Chief Executive Officer

---
Exhibit 35.1



|     |                        |                              
|---- | ---------------------- | -----------------------------
|LOGO |                        | Commercial Mortgage Servicing
|     | D1050-084, 8th Floor  
|     | 401 South Tryon Street
|     | Charlotte, NC 28202   
|     | 1-800-326-1334        

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2014, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor, and
CITIBANK N.A., as Certificate Administrator and DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-GC25 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not
otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober,
Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such
period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of
February 2017.



|                        
|------------------------
|LOGO                    
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
No. 11-9513.

#### Lezdey et ux. *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaceyon EVANS, a.k.a. Curtis Wilson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-12788 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(December 14, 2017)

Nancy Greenwood, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Augusta, GA, R. Brian Tanner, U.S. Attorney Service—Southern District of Georgia, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Beau A. Worthington, Coxen Worthing-ton, LLC, Covington, GA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. *See United States v. Bushert,*997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); *United States v. Bascomb,*451 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006) (appeal waiver “cannot be vitiated or altered by comments the court makes during sentencing”); *United States v. Grinard-Henry,*399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error).

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roel Daniel GALVAN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40499 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 10, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Roel Daniel Galvan, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Roel Daniel Galvan has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gal-van has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Galvan’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal pres*208ents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.