alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: KENNY G ENTERPRISES, LLC, Debtor. Kenneth Gharib, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-55270

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 26, 2017

Kenneth Gharib, Pro Se

Steve Burnell, Irvine, CA, Kathleen J. McCarthy, Esquire, Bankruptcy Counsel, The Law Office of Thomas H. Casey, Ran-cho Santa Margarita, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

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 **

Kenneth Gharib appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Morrissey v. Stuteville (In re Morrissey),*349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Gharib’s appeal because, despite being required by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to take certain actions within 14 days of filing the appeal, Gharib failed to do so more than six months after appealing. *See*Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(a)(2) (an appellant’s failure to take steps to prosecute a bankruptcy appeal may be grounds for dismissal); *In re Morrissey,*349 F.3d at 1190-91 (dismissal for noncompliance with procedural rules is proper, without explicit consideration of alternative sanctions, where procedural defects are egregious); *Fitzsimmons v. Nolden (In re Fitzsimmons),*920 F.2d 1468, 1473-75 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming dismissal for failure to prosecute where appellant did not timely serve the designation of record, failed to take prompt steps to have reporter’s transcripts prepared, and failed to post the necessary fees or contact reporter until after the filing of the motion to dismiss).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gharib’s motion for rehearing because Gharib did not identify any error in the district court’s order dismissing his appeal. *See*Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8022(a)(2); *United States v. Fowler (In re Fowler),*394 F.3d 1208, 1214-15 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth standard of review and requiring a motion for rehearing to state with particularity each point of law or fact a court overlooked).

Because we affirm the district court’s order dismissing the appeal, we do not consider Gharib’s challenges to the bankruptcy court’s decisions or the district court’s order denying Gharib’s request for release. *See In re Morrissey,*349 F.3d at 1190; *Al-Torki v. Kaempen,*78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996).

*391Gharib’s requests for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 8,19) are denied.'

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for-publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT
32





SECTION
1350


CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Biofield Corp. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Antonoplos,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and
belief:





(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.








Date:  August
19,
2008                                                                                                               By:    /s/ Michael J.
Antonoplos


Michael J. Antonoplos


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 2203

ASHLEY POPA,

individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Appellant

v.

HARRIET CARTER GIFTS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation;

NAVISTONE, INC., a Delaware corporation

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2

- 19

- cv

- 00450 )

District Judge: Honorable William S. Stickman, IV

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

____________________

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge

, McKEE, AMBRO, JORDAN, HARDIMAN,

GREENAWAY, JR., SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, RESTREPO, BIBAS, PORTER, MATEY,

and FUENTES 

, Circuit Judges

The petition for panel rehearing filed by Appellee is granted in part. The panel has

determined that the original decision should be upheld but has revised the opinion to

clarify issues raised in appellee’s petition for rehearing. Accordingly, it is here by

 Judge Fuentes’ vote is limited to panel rehearing only.ORDERED that the opinion filed on August 16, 2022, is hereby vacated and amended

opinion shall be filed sim ultaneously with this order. The revised opinion does not alter

the August 16, 2022, judgment

.

The amended opinion has been circulated to the en banc court in accordance with

3d Cir. I.O.P. 9.5.7. The majority of the judges of the circuit in regular active service

having not voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing en banc is denied

.

By the Court,

s/ Thomas L. Ambro

Circuit Judge

Dated: October 18, 2022

L mr/ cc: All Counsel of Rec ord
(2001 Ed.)

VOLUME 3

Titles 173 through 178

2001

WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

Published under authority of chapters 1.08 and 34.05 RCW.

Containing all permanent roles adopted

under chapter 34.05 RCW, as of

January 1, 2001.

[Preface-p I]
j"

;

c,

WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

2001 Edition

History notes and Reviser's notes

Copyright 2001

by the State of Washington

CERTIFICATE

The 2001 edition of the Washington Administrative Code, published officially by the Statute Law

Committee, is, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 34.05 RCW, certified to comply with the current

specifications of the committee.

~:!!a.SCHULTZ. Chair,

STATUTE LAW COMMITTEE

[Prerace-p Ii] (2001 Ed.)
No. 11-1520.

#### Hoosier Racing Tire Corp. et al. *v.*Race Tires America, Inc., et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 110 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 110

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
          prohibiting courts from levying or increasing taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 1998

   Mr. Manzullo introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
          prohibiting courts from levying or increasing taxes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Neither the Supreme Court, nor any inferior court of the United 
States, nor the court of any State in its application of laws under 
this Constitution or any Federal law, shall have the power to instruct 
or order a State or political subdivision thereof, or an official of 
such State or political subdivision, to levy or increase taxes.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Christian Samuel LOPEZ, AKA Diego Araujo, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73842

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Ava C. Benach, Benach Ragland LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner

Joanna L. Watson, Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorneys, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

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 **

Christian Samuel Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding *904her ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal, and denying relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s particularly serious crime determination. *Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch,*800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that Lopez’s conviction for driving under the influence with blood alcohol of 0.08 percent or more and causing bodily injury to another person with two or more prior convictions pursuant to Cal. Vehicle Code § 23153(b), and hit and run causing death or injury in violation of Cal. Vehicle Code § 20001(a), was a particularly serious crime, where Lopez declined the opportunity to offer additional testimony or evidence regarding the circumstances of her conviction, and the agency weighed the correct factors. *See id.) Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder,*594 F.3d 673, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (all reliable information may be considered in making a particularly serious crime determination).

Lopez waived any challenge to the agen: c/s CAT determination. *See Corro-Barragan v. Holder,*718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez’s unexhausted contentions that her prior counsel was ineffective and that she had insufficient opportunity to present evidence regarding her conviction. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (no jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Past Conflicts             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns             
  -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing 
-  News & Stories    -  Recent News & Stories             
  -  News Releases             
  -  Livestreams             
  -  Year In Review             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  Volunteer		 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 

## 2016

## GoogleTranslate

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Order entered January 9 , 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 01004

- CV

ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellant

V.

SUZZETT YARUM , Appellee

On A p peal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 18

- 02852

- C

O RDER
The reporter’s record in this case is past due. By postcard dated November

1, 2023, we notified Janet Wright, Official Court Reporter for Co unty Cour t at

Law No 3, that the reporte r ’s record was overdue and directed her to file the
reporter’s record with in t hirty days.
So that this appeal can proceed, we ORDER Jane t Wri ght , to file, within

FIFTEEN DAYS of the da te of this order, either (1) the reporte r ’s record; (2)

written verification no hear ings were recorded ; or (3) written verification appellanthas not paid or ma de arrangements to pay for the r eport er ’ s record

. We notify

appellant that if we receive verification the reporter’s record has not bee n
requested, or that appellant has not paid for or made arran gements to pay for the
reporter’s record, we will order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record.

See T ex . R. A pp . P. 37.3(c).

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to :

Honor a ble Sally Montgomery Presiding Judge County Court at Law No. 3
Janet Wright Official Court Reporter Cou nt y Court at Law No. 3
All parties

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ismelda SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50051

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 22, 2017

Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ryan A. Sausedo, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Benjamin J. Cheeks, Attorney, Law Offices of Benjamin J. Cheeks, A.P.C., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

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 **

Ismelda Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 68-month sentence imposed upon remand following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sanchez contends that the district court erred by denying her request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

Sanchez argues that the district court failed to compare her to two of her co-participants in the offense, and incorrectly concluded that she was not entitled to a minor role adjustment under the amended Guideline. The record reflects that the *501court compared Sanchez to all of the co-participants she identified, and found that Sanchez was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). In light of the totality of the circumstances, including Sanchez’s prior drug smuggling activity, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reduction. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); *Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d at 1170.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NUMBER 13-11-00356-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

CITY OF MCALLEN, TEXAS, Appellant,

v.

MCALLEN POLICE OFFICERS UNION, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 93rd District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, City of McAllen, Texas, filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the 

93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-3039-10-B. Appellant 

has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that appellees have filed a notice of 

nonsuit in the trial court which has been granted, rendering this appeal moot. Appellant

requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s motion to 

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellant=s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby 

DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent 

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having 

dismissed the appeal at appellant=s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, 

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

21st day of July, 2011.
Exhibit
32.3





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 Annual Report of
CHDT Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Gerry McClinton, Chief
Operating Officer of the Company of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify 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/ Gerry
McClinton


Gerry
McClinton


Chief
Operating Officer, Director


(Principal
Operations Executive)








May 14,
2008








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 China  Direct  Trading
Corporation  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2006,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Howard  Ullman,  Chief  Executive/Financial  Officer  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 and belief:

         (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/    Howard Ullman
Howard Ullman
CEO, President and Chairman
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)


August 24, 2006


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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.
#### Donald McDuffin WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Detective J. MOUTON; Officer Tubman; Anton Johnson, P.G. County Police, Brentwood, Defendants-Appellees, and Lord Baltimore Hotel, Defendant.

No. 17-7198

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 6, 2018

Decided: February 21, 2018

Donald McDuffin Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Goldmeier, Gary W. Kuc, Louis Paul Ruzzi, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland; Bernard Allen Cook, LAW OFFICES OF BERNARD A. COOK, LLC, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donald McDuffin Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s orders staying his civil case pending resolution of his criminal case and returning documents. Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial*Indus. *Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders that Williams seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appeal-able interlocutory or collateral orders. *See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,*460 U.S. 1, 10 n.11, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983); *Porter v. Zook,*803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015); *Amdur v. Lizars,*372 F.2d 103, 105-06 (4th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, we grant Appel-lees’ motion to dismiss, deny Williams’ pending motions, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*