alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Keith L. NASH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Garry E. LUCAS, Defendant, and Richard J. Bishop, sued in his individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35537

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 29, 2018

Keith L. Nash, Pro Se

William Paul Richardson, Esquire, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Vancouver, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

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 **

Keith L. Nash appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to the courts while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Szajer v. City of Los Angeles,*632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, *Thompson v. Pend,*547 F.3d 1065, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nash’s claim regarding the denial of a public notary because Nash failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants deprived him of an opportunity to challenge his sentence or conditions of confinement. *See Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 355, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 136 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (prison officials must provide an inmate the tools to challenge his sentence or conditions of confinement, but the loss of any other litigating capacity is constitutional).

Summary judgment on Nash’s claim regarding the denial of access to the law library and legal supplies was proper because Nash was represented by court-appointed counsel in his state court proceeding at the time of the alleged deprivations. *See Storseth v. Spellman,*654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981) (availability of court-appointed counsel satisfies the constitutional obligation to provide meaningful access to the courts).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Nash’s motion for reconsideration because Nash failed to establish any basis for relief. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)).

We reject as meritless Nash’s contentions regarding the district court’s treatment of his complaint and denial of his motions to file a surreply, for an extension of time, to compel, and to amend his complaint.

*333We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 144 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 144

 Expressing the sense of the Congress that former Secretary General of 
   the United Nations Kurt Waldheim should not receive a retirement 
                   allowance from the United Nations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 4, 1997

   Mrs. Maloney of New York (for herself, Mr. Horn, Mr. Bartlett of 
Maryland, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Ms. Dunn, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Slaughter, 
Mr. Calvert, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. Gutierrez) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
                the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Congress that former Secretary General of 
   the United Nations Kurt Waldheim should not receive a retirement 
                   allowance from the United Nations.

Whereas former Secretary General of the United Nations Kurt Waldheim currently 
        receives an annual pension of $102,000 from that body;
Whereas in 1986 Waldheim was exposed for his collaboration in the Nazi 
        extermination campaign in southern Europe during World War II and he was 
        barred from the United States;
Whereas Waldheim is a known Nazi war criminal who obtained his position at the 
        United Nations under false pretenses;
Whereas because of this, the United Nations should no longer be obligated to 
        fund a retirement allowance for Kurt Waldheim: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the President should instruct 
the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations 
to act to amend the 1998-99 Regular Program Budget of the United 
Nations to eliminate funding of Kurt Waldheim's retirement allowance 
and to act to deny Kurt Waldheim a retirement allowance in all future 
budgets of the United Nations.
                                 <all>
```
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
  

			
	 Number
	  	 Shares

	 SPECIMEN
	  	SPECIMEN

 ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS, INC. 

Common Stock 
 $0.001 Par Value Per
Share 
 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER 

This certifies that SPECIMEN is the owner of SPECIMEN (XXXXX) shares, fully paid and nonassessable, of the Common Stock of ALDEYRA
THERAPEUTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. 

This certificate and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the State of Delaware and to the Certificate of Incorporation
and the By-laws of the Corporation, in each case as from time to time amended. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS, INC., has
caused this certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers as of this         day of             , 20    . 

 

					
	   
	 		 	   

	 President
	 		 	Secretary or Treasurer

 [seal] 







 Restrictions on Transfer 

The corporation has more than one class of stock authorized to be issued. The corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder
upon written request a copy of the full text of the preferences, voting powers, qualifications and special and relative rights of the shares of each class of stock (and any series thereof) authorized to be issued by the corporation as set forth in
the Certificate of Incorporation of the corporation and amendments thereto filed with the Secretary of the state of Delaware. 

Assignment 
 For value
received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers to                     shares of the capital stock represented by this certificate, and
hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints                     attorney to transfer such stock on the books of the Corporation with full power of
substitution in the premises. 
 Dated
                    , 
  

					
		 		 	  

		 		 	Signature of registered owner corresponding exactly to the name of such owner as written on the face of this certificate.
		 		 	
	  
	 		 	
	 Witness
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          49,653
<SECURITIES>                                    80,399
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,342
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,984
<INVENTORY>                                      9,736
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               232,031
<PP&E>                                          57,420
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,955
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 286,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,337
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                     215,953
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   286,354
<SALES>                                        205,768
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               205,768
<CGS>                                           40,691
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                79,681
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 88,845
<INCOME-TAX>                                    33,140
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    55,705
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.86
        



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kyle Robert MIETH, also known as “K-Wood”, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11714 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 15, 2017

Richard J. Guiltinan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Haynes *&*Boone, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Randy W. Bowers, Fort Worth, TX, Kara L. Carreras, Goza Carreras Attorneys at Law, P.C., Arlington, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kyle Robert Mieth appeals his 220-month, above-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. For the first time on appeal, he argues that the district court erred by (1) referencing his prior criminal offenses, including those not resulting in a conviction, when imposing an upward variance and (2) failing to address specifically the mitigating factors offered by Mieth and instead focusing solely on his criminal history.

In reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we first examine whether the district court committed any significant procedural error, including “selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts.” *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In considering the procedural unreasonableness of a sentence, we review the district court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. *United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,*517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). However, because Mieth did not preserve his appellate arguments, he must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. *See id.*

The sentencing court explicitly stated that it was considering the mitigating factors set forth in Mieth’s objection to the presentence report, and that consideration was reflected in the mental health aspects of the imposed sentence. The district court properly considered Mieth’s prior criminal conduct and the leniency of his prior sentences when determining the propriety of an upward variance. *See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez,*526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008); *United States v. Brumfield,*558 Fed.Appx. 489, 490 (5th Cir. 2014) (relying on *United States v. Lee,*358 F.3d 315, 328-*21029 (5th Cir. 2004)). Mieth has failed to show any error, plain or otherwise.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### Eric MELOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shawn CHETTO; Matthew Beech; John Does, Individually and as employees of the Akron Police Department; James Nice, Individually and as Chief of Police; City of Akron, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-3414

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Filed January 17, 2018

Sean Colin Buchanan, Slater *&*Zurz, Akron, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant

J. Christopher Reece, Michael J. Defi-baugh, City of Akron, Department of Law, Akron, OH, for Defendants-Appellees

BEFORE: GUY, GIBBONS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Eric Meloy’s appeal challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to his claim that Officer Chet-to used excessive force against him in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After review of the record, the applicable law, and the arguments presented on appeal, we are convinced that the district court correctly set out the facts and governing law and did *875not err in concluding that qualified immunity barred this claim. Concluding that the issuance of a detailed opinion would be duplicative, we AFFIRM for the reasons stated in the district court’s Opinion and Order entered on April 18, 2017. *See Meloy v. Akron Police*Dep’t, No. 5:15-CV-01123, 2017 WL 1387170 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 18, 2017).
#### COM. v. NGUYEN, D.

2458 EDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/15/2017

MC-51-CR-0048127-2012 (Philadelphia)

Reversed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         307,663
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,070,898
<ALLOWANCES>                                   631,165
<INVENTORY>                                  3,340,086
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,139,847
<PP&E>                                       1,994,140
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,401,218
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,805,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,831,761
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,159
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,283,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,805,480
<SALES>                                      2,972,809
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,972,809
<CGS>                                        2,017,060
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,154,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,808
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,113,102)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    46,122
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,159,224)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,159,224)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.50)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1998
<CASH>                          4,660
<SECURITIES>                      764
<RECEIVABLES>                     248
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   0
<PP&E>                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 25,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              0
<BONDS>                           714
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                          351
<OTHER-SE>                     22,903
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   25,264
<SALES>                         1,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                2,916
<CGS>                             436
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     436
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  990
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 25
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 1,465
<INCOME-TAX>                     (656)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             2,121
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                    2,121
<EPS-BASIC>                     .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                     .54


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.8

                         Beneficial Owner Election Form

                                  Instructions

     The undersigned acknowledge(s) receipt of your letter and the enclosed
materials referred to therein relating to the offering of shares of common stock
(the "Common Stock") of Harken Energy Corporation (the "Company").

     This will instruct you whether to exercise Rights to purchase shares of the
Company's Common Stock distributed with respect to the shares of the Company's
Common Stock held by you for the account of the undersigned, pursuant to the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Prospectus and the related
"Instructions as to Use of Harken Energy Corporations Rights Certificates."

     Box 1. [ ]  Please DO NOT EXERCISE RIGHTS for shares of Common Stock.

     Box 2. [ ]  Please EXERCISE RIGHTS for shares of Common Stock as set forth
                 below.

                     Number of   Subscription
                      Rights        Price       Payment
                     ---------   ------------   -------
Subscription Right             x              =

     Box 3. [ ]  Payment in the following amount is enclosed $_______________.
                 (This amount must equal the amount set forth under "Payment"
                 above).

     Box 4. [ ]  Please deduct payment from the following account maintained by
                 you as follows:


------------------------------   -----------------------------------------------
       Type of Account                             Account No.

                                 $
                                  ----------------------------------------------

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

                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Signature(s)

                                 Please type or print name(s) below:

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

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

Date:                      , 2003
      ---------------------
# Official Journal C 235A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.235.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 235A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5614 August 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.235.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 235A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5614 August 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2013/C 235A/01 | Recruitment notice PE/170/S | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Parliament

2013/C 235A/01

Recruitment notice PE/170/S

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |
| 49 | (ET) |
| 50 | (HU) |
| 51 | (SL) |
| 54 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 58 | (EN/GA) |
| 75 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 88 | (BG) |
| 89 | (CS) |
| 94 | |
| 104 | |
| 109 | |
| 111 | |
| 112 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 117 | (ET) |
| 118 | |
| 120 | |
| 131 | |
| 143 | |
| 160 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 162 | |
| 166 | |
| 167 | |
| 168 | |
| 172 | |
| 173 | |
| 174 | |
| 176 | (BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 180 | (MT) |
| 182 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 183 | (IT) |
| 191 | |
| 192 | |
| 193 | |
| 194 | |
| 196 | |
| 197 | |
| 199 | |
| 200 | |
| 204 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 210 | (LV) |
| 211 | (PL) |
| 219 | |
| 227 | |
| 231 | |
| 235 | |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

49

(ET)

50

(HU)

51

(SL)

54

(DE/EN/FR)

58

(EN/GA)

75

81

82

88

(BG)

89

(CS)

94

104

109

111

112

(DE/EN/FR)

117

(ET)

118

120

131

143

160

(DE/EN/FR)

162

166

167

168

172

173

174

176

(BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

180

(MT)

182

(DE/EN/FR)

183

(IT)

191

192

193

194

196

197

199

200

204

(DE/EN/FR)

210

(LV)

211

(PL)

219

227

231

235

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

EN
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.3

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-3 of US Unwired Inc. of our report dated March 8, 2002
relating to the financial statements of IWO Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries,
which appears in the Current Report on Form 8-K of US Unwired Inc. dated April
1, 2002. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in
such Registration Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Albany, New York
August 12, 2002
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 Bonamour Pacific, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Nathan Halsey, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Nathan Halsey


Nathan Halsey


Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


August 12, 2011





A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 11-10361.

#### Myers *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.