alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sanjeev BATRA, Doctor at Coalinga State Hospital, DefendantAppellee.

No. 17-15530

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*Submitted January 16, 2017

Filed January 25, 2018

*323Michael B. Williams, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. *Allen v.*Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Williams consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Williams’s action before the named defendant had been served. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, *Williams v. King,*875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further proceedings. To the extent that Williams requests appointment of counsel on remand (Docket Entry No. 4), the request is denied without prejudice to Williams requesting appointment of counsel by the district court.

Williams’s request that his pending appeals, Case Nos. 17-15530, 17-15834, and 17-16790, be assigned to the same merits panel (Docket Entry No. 4) is granted.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1731

FREDRIS SERRANO-RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Fredis Serrano-Rodriguez,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: December 13, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016

Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chris E. Greene, GREENE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director, 

Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Fredris Serrano-Rodriguez (Serrano), a native and citizen of 

Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his request for cancellation of 

removal.

As noted by the Board, Serrano did not argue that the IJ erred 

in finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal, but instead 

contended that “the Board should reconsider its interpretation of 

the alien smuggling provision under [8 U.S.C. § 1182](a)(6)(E)(i) 

[2012] of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act.” Serrano raises 

new arguments, however, before this court. He now argues that the 

agency erred in finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal, 

claiming that his case is distinguishable from our decision in 

Ramos v. Holder, 660 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2011), and that the record 

is inconclusive as to whether he engaged in alien smuggling. 

We lack jurisdiction over these new claims, which were not 

properly exhausted before the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) 

(2012) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . 

the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to 

the alien as of right.”); Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226 

(4th Cir. 2010) (“It is well established that an alien must raise 

each argument to the [Board] before we have jurisdiction to 

consider it.” (internal quotations omitted)). Accordingly, we 
3

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
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC, SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002





In connection with this annual report of Medicine Man Technologies,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 16, 2019 (the “Report”), we, the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of our knowledge:



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



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



|Dated: April 30, 2019 | /s/ Andrew Williams                                
|--------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|                      | Andrew Williams, Chief Executive Officer           
|                      | (Principal Executive Officer)                      
|                      |                                                    
|Dated: April 30, 2019 | /s/ Paul Dickman                                   
|                      | Paul Dickman, Chief Financial Officer              
|                      | (Principal/Interim Financial and Accounting Officer
No. 11-10330.

#### Hernandez-Servera *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 31



Certification Pursuant to Section 302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Randy Garutti, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Shake Shack 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;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: May 1, 2017 |                                                                                       
|----------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  | /s/ Randy Garutti                                                                     
|                  | Randy Garutti                                                                         
|                  |                                                                                       
|                  | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
 Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 82/2005

of 19 January 2005         

on the issue of import licences for sugar and sugar and cocoa mixtures with ACP/OCT or EC/OCT cumulation of origin

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 192/2002 of 31 January 2002 laying down detailed rules for issuing import licences for sugar and sugar and cocoa mixtures with ACP/OCT or EC/OCT cumulation of origin (2), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Import licences covered by applications submitted by 7 January 2005 under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 192/2002 shall be issued for 25 % of the quantity applied for.

Article 2

The submission of further applications for 2005 is hereby suspended.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of 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, 19 January 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 314, 30.11.2001, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 55. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 96/2004 (OJ L 15, 22.1.2004, p. 3).

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          14,196                  14,196
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      840                     840
<ALLOWANCES>                                       150                     150
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,979                  14,979
<PP&E>                                           2,857                   2,857
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,169                   2,169
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,667                  15,667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,027                   4,027
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        44,465                  44,465
<OTHER-SE>                                    (32,825)                (32,825)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,667                  15,667
<SALES>                                          1,910                   5,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,910                   5,906
<CGS>                                              896                   2,809
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      896                   2,809
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,165                  12,101
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (155)                   (676)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,996)                 (8,328)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,996)                 (8,328)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,996)                 (8,328)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.37)                  (1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.37)                  (1.04)


</TABLE>
No. 11-1345.

#### Hendrickson *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

2008 Lexus, TX Lic No KTD3353, * From the 244th District Court

VIN No 2T2HK31U48C095370 and of Ector County,

One Thousand Eight Dollars ($1008.00) Trial Court No. C-21-11-1248-CV.

United States Currency,

Vs. No. 11-22-00138-CV * March 16, 2023

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 2013** 

**- NM** 
**- 09**  **5**
**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### Rickey G. YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve DRAPER, Sheriff; Chief Sean Dunn, Martinsville Police Department; Sgt/Deputy Peters; Nancy Hylton, and others, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1184

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2017

Decided: June 9, 2017

Rickey G. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Nathan Henry Schnetzler, FRITH, ANDERSON *&*PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia; Jennifer Dillow Royer, GUYNN *&*WADDELL P.C., Salem, Virginia; Amy Miles Kowalski, Chad Allan Mooney, PETTY, LIVINGSTON, DAWSON & RICHARDS, Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rickey G. Young appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012). While this interlocutory appeal was pending, Young voluntarily dismissed his civil action in the district court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). We therefore dismiss Young’s appeal as moot. *See CVLR Performance Horses, Inc. v. Wynne,*792 F.3d 469, 474 (4th Cir. 2015) (“Litigation may become moot during the pendency of an appeal when an intervening event makes it impossible for the court to grant effective relief to the prevailing party.”). We also deny as moot Young’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s order denying injunctive relief pending appeal, and we deny Young’s motion to expedite decision. 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*
#### IN RE: Timothy D. WILLIAMS (Arkansas Bar ID #75140)

99-426

989 S.W.2d 922

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered May 20, 1999

*James A.*Neal, Executive Director, Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, by: *Lynn Williams.*

Per Curiam.

The Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct filed an original action in this court asking that the respondent, Mr. Timothy D. Williams, appear before this court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the procedures of this court in the regulation of professional conduct of attorneys at law. Williams’s alleged violations of supreme court procedures have been *542set out in the Committee’s petition and amended petition, which are attached to this order. Those alleged violations include (1) continuing the practice of law during a period of suspension, (2) fading to notify opposing counsel of record that the attorney had been suspended, (3) fading to file a copy of the notice of suspension with the court with pending cases of the suspended attorney, (4) fading to file a list of jurisdictions to which suspended attorney is admitted to practice, and (5) failing to file an affidavit of compliance with section 7 of the procedures for filing an affidavit explaining the attorney’s noncompliance.

Pursuant to the Professional Conduct Committee’s petition, as amended, we order Mr. Williams to appear before this court at 9:00 a.m. on June 24, 1999, to consider the relief requested in the Committee’s petition, including why Mr. Williams should not be held in contempt.
EX-4.4


 Exhibit 4.4 

OFFICERS’ CERTIFICATE TO TRUSTEE 

OF 
 AMERICAN MIDSTREAM
PARTNERS, LP 
 AND 

AMERICAN MIDSTREAM FINANCE CORPORATION 

December 19, 2017 

The undersigned, (i) President and Chief Executive Officer, and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of
American Midstream GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and the general partner (the “General Partner”) of American Midstream Partners, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”), and
(ii) President and Chief Executive Officer, and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of American Midstream Finance Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Finance Corp.” and, together with the
Partnership, the “Issuers”), hereby certify on behalf of the Partnership and Finance Corp. that: 
 1. This Certificate is
delivered to Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), pursuant to Section 2.13 of the Indenture dated as of December 28, 2016 (as amended or supplemented from time to time, the
“Indenture”), between the Issuers, the Guarantors named therein and the Trustee, in connection with the issuance, authentication and delivery (the “Authentication”) by the Trustee of $125,000,000 aggregate
principal amount of the Issuers’ 8.500% Senior Notes due 2021 (the “Additional Notes”). Terms used but not defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Indenture. 

2. The aggregate principal amount of the Additional Notes to be authenticated and delivered pursuant to the Indenture is $125,000,000. 

3. The issue price, issue date, CUSIP number and corresponding ISIN of such Additional Notes are as set forth on Schedule I, attached
hereto. 
 4. Such Additional Notes will be Transfer Restricted Securities and issued in the form of Initial Notes. 

5. Such Additional Notes shall not be subject to Section 3.10 of the Indenture. 

[Signature Page Follows] 






 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate as of the date first written
above. 
  

			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Lynn L. Bourdon III
		 	Lynn L. Bourdon III
		 	President and Chief Executive Officer of
		 	 AMERICAN MIDSTREAM GP, LLC, the sole general partner of American Midstream

		 	 Partners, LP



  

			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Eric T. Kalamaras
		 	Eric T. Kalamaras
		 	Senior Vice President and
		 	Chief Financial Officer of
		 	 AMERICAN MIDSTREAM GP, LLC, the sole general partner of American Midstream

		 	 Partners, LP



  

			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Lynn L. Bourdon III
		 	Lynn L. Bourdon III
		 	President and Chief Executive Officer of
		 	 AMERICAN MIDSTREAM FINANCE CORPORATION



  

			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Eric T. Kalamaras
		 	Eric T. Kalamaras
		 	Senior Vice President and
		 	Chief Financial Officer of
		 	 AMERICAN MIDSTREAM FINANCE

		 	 CORPORATION



 Signature Page to Officers’ Certificate to Trustee 






 Schedule I 

 

			
	Issue Price	  	102.375% plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon from December 15, 2017 to the Issue Date
		
	Issue Date	  	December 19, 2017
		
	CUSIP	  	Rule 144A: 02753GAA7
		
	ISIN	  	Rule 144A: US02753GAA76
October 2 7 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS L IMITED AND CHIEF TON Y UKASANYA , Appellant s
NO. 14

- 14

- 00684

- CV V.

JOLACO MARITIME SERV ICES , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on August 14, 2014. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we ord er the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Mechanical Systems Limited and Chief Tony Ukasanya.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 17269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06405]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-79-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 138--Columbus, Ohio; Authorization of 
Limited Production Activity; Fluvitex USA, Inc.; (Quilts, Comforters 
and Cushions); Groveport, Ohio

    On November 23, 2021, Fluvitex USA, Inc., submitted a notification 
of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility 
within FTZ 138, in Groveport, Ohio.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (86 FR 67903--67904, November 30, 
2021). On March 23, 2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that further review of part of the proposed activity is 
warranted. The FTZ Board authorized the production activity described 
in the notification on a limited basis, subject to the FTZ Act and the 
Board's regulations, including Section 400.14, and further subject to a 
restriction requiring all foreign-status materials be admitted to the 
zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) with the exception of 
foreign-status polybags.

    Dated: March 23, 2022.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06405 Filed 3-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
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 Ceramics Process Systems Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended April 1, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Grant C. Bennett, President and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:	May 15, 2006
/s/	Grant C. Bennett
Grant C. Bennett
President and Treasurer