alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T D EREK SY LV ESTER, P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. S C O T T P . R A W E R S , W ar den, A venal S t a t e P r i s o n ; AT T ORNE Y G E NE R AL OF T HE S T AT E OF C AL I F ORNI A, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 15781 D. C. No . 2 : 0 3 - CV- 0 1 3 0 1 - GEB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G a r l a nd E . B urr e l l , J r . , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C alifo rn ia state p riso n erD er ekS ylv es ter ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED OC T 27 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 15781 2 S y lv e s te rc o n te n d s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e dits d is c r e tio n ind e c lin in g to h o ld a n e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng on hi s c l a i m . A f t e rde novo r e vi e w , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on because the re cord revea l s S yl vest erw as n o t d ilig e n t in d e v e lo p in g th e e v id e n c e in h is s ta te c o u rt p r o c e e d in g s . See 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) ; B a j a v . Du c h a rme , 18 7 F . 3d 10 75 , 10 79 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). S y l ve s t e ra r gue s tha tthe S t a t e ha s br e a c he d hi s pl e aa gr e e m e ntbyc appi ng hi s c ust od y c re di tel i gi bi l i ty at15 % . T he st at e c ou rt ’ s r ej ec t i on of thi s c l ai m w as n e ith e rc o n tr a ryto , n o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , Sa n to b el lo v. N

ew Y o rk , 404 U . S . 257, 261- 62 ( 1971) , norba s e d on an unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c ts b a s e do n th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . A FFI R M ED .
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

PALM BEACH POLO, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D 2 02 3

- 1066

[ April 18, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County; G. Joseph Curley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502019CA001617.

Alexander L. Domb of Alexander L. Domb, P.A., Wellington, for

appellant.

Laurie Stilwell Cohen and Rachel R. Bausch of Village of Wellington,

Wellington, and Elliot B. Kul a and William D. Mueller of Kula & Associates,

P.A., Miami, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 208

Commending J. Keith Kennedy.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 3, 1996

Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. HATFIELD, and Mr. BYRD) submitted the

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Commending J. Keith Kennedy.

Whereas J. Keith Kennedy has served as majority or minority chief clerk and staff director of the Committee on Appropriations since January 3, 1981;

Whereas he has ably served the Senate in various other roles

since September of 1972;

Whereas he has served as clerk of the legislative branch Appropriations Subcommittee, in which capacity he has endeavored to provide for the welfare and benefit of the entire United States Senate and its employees;

Whereas he has overseen the modernization and streamlining

of the day-to-day operations of the Senate Appropriations

Committee;
2

SRES 208 ATS

Whereas he has ably represented the interests of the Appropriations Committee and the Senate in all budget negotiations since 1981;

Whereas he has upheld the high standards and traditions of

the Senate with abiding devotion; and

Whereas he has earned the respect, affection and esteem of

the United States Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That on this fifteenth anniversary of his

2 tenure, the Senate express its commendation, appreciation

3 and gratitude to J. Keith Kennedy for his continuing serv4 ice and for jobs well done.

Æ
EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>
              ARTERIAL VASCULAR ENGINEERING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)

<CAPTION>

                                                                     Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended
                                                                         December 31,      December 31,
                                                                     ------------------  ----------------
                                                                       1997      1996     1997      1996
                                                                     -------    ------   ------    ------
<S>                                                                  <C>       <C>      <C>       <C>    
Basic
Weighted average common shares outstanding                            31,215    30.959   31,140    30,910
                                                                     -------   -------  -------   -------
Shares used in calculation of net income per share - basic            31,215    30,959   31,140    30,910
                                                                     =======   =======  =======   =======
Net income                                                           $ 7,754   $ 4,606  $13,464   $12,371
                                                                     =======   =======  =======   =======
Net income per share - basic                                         $  0.25   $  0.15  $  0.43   $  0.40
                                                                     =======   =======  =======   =======
                                                                     
Diluted
Weighted average common shares outstanding                            31,215    30,959   31,140    30,910
Weighted average common equivalent shares assuming           
  conversion of stock options under the treasury             
  stock method                                                         1,288       631    1,230       701
                                                                     -------   -------  -------   -------
Shares used in calculation of net income per share - diluted          32,503    31,590   32,370    31,611
                                                                     =======   =======  =======   =======
Net income                                                           $ 7,754   $ 4,606  $13,464   $12,371
                                                                     =======   =======  =======   =======
Net income per share - diluted                                       $  0.24   $  0.15  $  0.42   $  0.39
                                                                     =======   =======  =======   =======
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel Angel GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11796 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

*247James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Miguel Angel Gutierrez, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Angel Gutierrez 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Gutierrez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents 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*6th Cir. 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.
#### BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nehemiah BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-2074

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 22, 2018

Nehemiah Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Edward Grimsley, GRIMSLEY LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina; Christina Rampey Hunoval, HUNOVAL LAW FIRM PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Jonathan McKey Milling, MILLING LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nehemiah Bryant seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and remanding this removed action to the state court. With certain exceptions not applicable here, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Court has limited the scope of § 1447(d) to prohibiting appellate review of remand orders based on a defect in the removal procedure or lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*517 U.S. 706, 711-12, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996); *see*28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012). Here, the remand was based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and defects in the removal procedure. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s order. We therefore 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*
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 228

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the primary objectives of

the process for preparing the Federal budget for fiscal year 1999.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 26, 1998

Mr. DAVIS of Florida submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the primary

objectives of the process for preparing the Federal budget for fiscal year 1999.

Whereas the Congress and the Clinton Administration have

worked diligently to reduce the Federal budget deficit

from an all-time high of $290,402,000,000 in 1992;

Whereas the Congress, by adopting spending caps and payas-you-go-rules, has exercised the fiscal discipline necessary to eliminate the massive Federal budget deficits

that began in the 1980’s;

Whereas the Federal Government’s unified budget for fiscal

year 1999 is projected to be in surplus, the first such

surplus since 1969;
2

•HCON 228 IH

Whereas, despite the progress in eliminating the Federal

budget deficit, the publicly held debt of the Federal Government remains $3,771,148,000,000;

Whereas, unless the Congress preserves projected budget surpluses and reduces the publicly held debt of the Federal

Government, this debt will be a legacy left to the Nation’s children and grandchildren;

Whereas economists and budget experts have raised questions

about the long term solvency of the Social Security System;

Whereas reducing Federal Government borrowing will encourage greater savings and investment; and

Whereas reducing the Federal Government’s debt burden will

increase economic growth, raise future standards of living, and prepare the Nation for the retirement of the

baby-boom generation: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) reducing the publicly held debt of the Fed4 eral Government and addressing the question of the

5 solvency of the Social Security System should be the

6 primary objectives of the process for preparing the

7 Federal budget for fiscal year 1999; and

8 (2) any new tax cuts or spending increases

9 must be compatible with these objectives, offset fully

10 within the budget, and in accordance with the 1997

11 Budget Agreement.

Æ
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                        SAFE HARBOR COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

         The Company believes that the following factors could cause actual
results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements set forth
in this Form 10-QSB.

1.       The Company's ability to grow through affiliations with additional
         orthodontic practices.

2.       The Company's ability to identify suitable affiliation candidates and
         to profitably manage or successfully integrate new Affiliated Practices
         with the Company and its existing Affiliated Practices.

3.       The level of competition in the orthodontic practice management
         industry.

4.       Regulatory development and changes in the United States healthcare
         system and dental and orthodontic professions that may affect the
         profitability of the Company or the enforceability of the Company's
         operative agreements with its Affiliated Practices and Affiliated
         Orthodontists.

5.       The Company's dependence on revenues generated by the Affiliated
         Orthodontists of the Affiliated Practices.

6.       The Company's ability to secure capital, and the related cost of such
         capital, needed to fund the future growth of the Company through
         affiliations with orthodontic practices as well as internal growth.

7.       The Company's ability to staff the Affiliated Practices with
         appropriate qualified personnel.

8.       The continued availability to the Company of adequate insurance.

9.       The Affiliated Practices' reputation for delivering high-quality
         patient care and their ability to attract and retain patients.

10.      The Company's dependence on key personnel and the ability to attract
         and retain skilled management.

11.      Liability risks associated with providing orthodontic services.

         The foregoing factors should not be construed as exhaustive or as an
admission regarding the adequacy of disclosures previously made by the Company.
All capitalized terms used in this Exhibit 99.1 not otherwise defined herein
have the same meanings as prescribed to such terms in the Form 10-QSB.
#### Anthony Gerard LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. COLVIN, Senior Librarian; K. J. Allen, Appeals Examiner; S. Miranda, L.T.A., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15501

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 22, 2017

Anthony Gerard Lewis, Pro Se

Michael James Quinn, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — -Office of the California *499Attorney General, San Francisco, 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 **

Anthony Gerard Lewis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants denied him access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Jones v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.,*968 F.2d 937, 940 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lewis’s access-to-courts claim because Lewis failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered any actual injury. *See Lewis v. Casey,*618 U.S. 343, 348-51, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 136 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (setting forth the elements of an access-to-courts claim and the actual injury requirement).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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-SSB of the Company for the quarter ended
June 30, 2004 (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

(3) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: August 13, 2004           By: /s/ JOHN D. STEPHENS
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    John D. Stephens
                                    Senior Vice President and Chief Operating
                                      Officer
                                    (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)

                                       23
#### Leon Eugene MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETERSEN, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Leon Eugene Morris, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ippolito, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15088, No. 16-15091

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Leon Eugene Morris, Pro Se

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

*

 The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Leon Eugene Morris appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under § 1915(g). *Andrews v. King,*398 F.3d 1113, 1118 & n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). We vacate and remand.

The district court denied Morris’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on the basis that Morris had brought at least three prior actions in federal court that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and Morris failed to show that he was “unddr imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time that he lodged his complaints. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However, at the time of its decisions, the district court did not have the benefit of *El-Shaddai v. Zamora,*833 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2016), in which this court concluded that an appeal dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee after the revocation of IFP status on appeal does not constitute a strike under § 1915(g) if this court makes no finding that the appeal falls within one of the grounds enumerated in § 1915(g). *See id.*at 1043. We vacate the judgments and remand for the district court to reconsider Morris’s IFP motions in light of this intervening opinion.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

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


Office
3305, Jumeirah Bay Tower X3,

Jumeirah Lake Towers,


Dubai,
UAE.


 


Delivered
by email


 


December
7, 2017


 


Dear
Mr. Taddei,


 


Further
to our earlier conversation today, I now write to confirm the delay in the funding/investment into Global Equity International
Inc.


 


As
you will know, William Marshal Plc. was expecting to receive funds this week from the AION SICAV-SIF, the SICAV-SIF itself sitting
within UK SIPP pension structures. It has become apparent that there have been some on-boarding errors between the AION fund and
the SIPP Providers, resulting in an incapacity for the SIPP providers to purchase the AION fund. One fundamental reason for the
issues has been traced back to incorrect ISIN numbers being applied during the on-boarding process.


 


We
are working very hard with the respective counter-parties to resolve these issues as quickly as possible, but it does mean that
the funding programme will not be able to commence this week. Due to the sometimes complex nature of the regulatory requirements,
it is very hard to give a precise time when these machinations will be resolved, but we do expect to commence the funding programme
in December.


 


It
is also worth reiterating that we are not solely reliant on the AION SICAV-SIF for inward investment, and given the above scenario
we will endeavour to ensure our other activities and routes to market can make up for the delay experienced with the AION fund.


 


I
remain available for your assistance should you require anything further and would like to apologise for the delay experienced.


 


Yours
Sincerely,


 


	/s/ Jonathan Blythe	 
	Jonathan Blythe
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1796

KATHERINE B. ROBINSON; DANA B. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

CHESAPEAKE BANK OF MARYLAND; PROCTOR FINANCIAL, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:16-cv-04119-CCB)

Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Katherine B. Robinson, Dana B. Williams, Appellants Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s February 2017 order dismissing 

without prejudice their civil complaint against Defendants after Appellants failed to 

comply with the district court’s previous order directing that the complaint be 

supplemented. However, Appellants previously appealed the district court’s dismissal

order to this court, and we dismissed that appeal. See Robinson v. Chesapeake Bank of 

Md., 691 F. App’x 782 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 17-1217). Because we have previously 

dismissed an appeal of this order, and since Appellants’ notice of appeal was filed 

beyond the 30-day appeal period, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (providing that in civil 

cases in which the United States is a not party, parties are accorded 30 days after the 

entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal), we dismiss this 

appeal as duplicative and untimely.* 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 * To the extent that the notice of appeal could be construed as attempting to 

challenge the district court’s February 21, 2017, return pleading order, the notice of 

appeal is untimely as to this order as well.