alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marie CONFORTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard V. SPENCER, Secretary, Department of the Navy; Department of the Navy, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55808

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 12, 2018 * Pasadena, California

Filed February 16, 2018

Dennis M. Grady, Attorney, Grady and Associates, San Diego, CA, Garrett Anderson Smee, Attorney, Daley & Heft LLP, Solana Beach, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Brett Norris, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Dianne M. Schweiner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: BERZON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and WOODCOCK,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable John A, Woodcock, Jr,, United States District Judge for the district of Maine, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM***

Marie Conforto sued her employer, the Department of the Navy, for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621. *670At trial, a jury returned a verdict for the Navy. Conforto raises only two issues on appeal: (1) whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that the denial of her request to attend a training symposium was not an adverse employment action; and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of her chiropractor, Dr. Rahmanian.

With respect to the first issue, Conforto failed to renew her motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). “[A] post-verdict motion under Rule 50(b) is an absolute prerequisite to any appeal based on insufficiency of the evidence.” *Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian,*491 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing *Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.,*546 U.S. 394, 126 S.Ct. 980, 163 L.Ed.2d 974 (2006)). Conforto has therefore waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. *See id.*at 1089.1

We need not address the merits of Con-forto’s second issue because she has not identified any way in which the exclusion of Dr. Rahmanian’s testimony prejudiced her, and indeed, it is clear the district court’s evidentiary ruling did not impact the jury’s verdict. *See U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Jensen,*835 F.3d 1100, 1116 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and reversed only if the decision below was both erroneous and prejudicial.”).

AFFIRMED.

***

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

1

. Conforto argues there was no judgment below. Although the district court did not enter judgment in a separate document as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, judgment was deemed entered 150 days after entry of the jury’s verdict on the civil docket. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2).
#### Larry R. STEELE, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee

No. 15-20770 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 2, 2018

Larry R. Steele, Pro Se

Gwendolyn Suzanne Vindell, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Larry R. Steele, Texas prisoner # 1864228, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C, § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. According to Steele, he properly exhausted his claims because he raised them on direct appeal and in a petition for discretionary review (PDR). The Respondent does not dispute that the district court committed error by dismissing Steele’s petition for failure to exhaust on the ground that Steele failed to raise his claims in a state habeas application. We initially hold that the district court’s dismissal of Steele’s petition on that ground was error. *See Busby v. Dretke,*359 F.3d 708, 723 (5th Cir. 2004).

Nonetheless, the Respondent claims that, while three of the claims Steele raised in his § 2254 petition were properly exhausted, one of his claims was not. As such, the Respondent contends that Steele’s petition is mixed, and the district court erred by failing to treat it accordingly-

Steele’s PDR raised three claims: (i) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (ii) the State made an improper argument during the punishment phase of his trial; and (iii) the Texas appellate court that affirmed his conviction lacked jurisdiction. Steele’s § 2254 petition raised those claims but also raised the claim that the State made an improper argument during the guilt/innocence phase of his trial. Because Steele did not raise this claim in his PDR, it is unexhausted. *See Smith v. Quarterman,*515 F.3d 392, 402 (5th Cir. 2008); *see also Holland v. Anderson,*230 Fed.Appx. 374, 377-79 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that, where petitioner raised claim in his state-court direct appeal concerning impartiality of the jury during *punishment phase*of trial and raised a similar claim in his § 2254 petition but applied the claim to the *guilt/innocence phase*of trial, claim was not properly exhausted).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*

 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,
No. 11-1506.

#### Grose *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16757-16758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06215]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Antimicrobial Resistant Infections.
    Date: April 19, 2022.

[[Page 16758]]

    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Pauline Cupit, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-3275, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e78492978e93849289898e89808f978aa78a868e8bc9898e8fc9808891"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3d0c6c3dac7d0c6dddddaddd4dbc3def3ded2dadf9ddddadb9dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 18, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-06215 Filed 3-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Amendment No. 1
to Registration Statement on Form S-4 of our report dated April 16, 2002
relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Hanover Compressor Company, which appears in Hanover Compressor
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2001. We
also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such
Registration Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas

May 24, 2002
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.2**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

November 12, 2010

 

Bruce N. Warner, the Chief Financial Officer of Northern CaliforniaBancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

c.               that thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

d.              thatinformation contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/  Bruce N. Warner         |
|--------|------------------------------|
|   | Bruce N. Warner              |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer and |
|   | Principal Accounting Officer |

 

48

----
<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 IN 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>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         262,164
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  480,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,854
<INVENTORY>                                  3,628,515
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,345,189
<PP&E>                                       1,723,901
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,370,568
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,143,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          587,618
<BONDS>                                      1,540,552
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        76,633
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,382,212
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,143,553
<SALES>                                        767,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               767,626
<CGS>                                          491,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,452,468
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             437,285
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,098,630)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,098,630)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,098,630)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 34.1**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Board of Directors 

Mechanics Bank 

Walnut Creek, California 

We have examined management’sassertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Mechanics Bank (the “Bank”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) for the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Bank acts as servicer of automotive retailinstallment sales contracts included in private and public securitizations sponsored by the Bank (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(2)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(ii)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ix)-(xiii) and 1122(d)(4)(xv),for which the Bank has determined are not applicable to the activities performed with respect to the Platform. Appendix B to management’s report identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management asconstituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Bank’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Bank’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testingof selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Bank processed those selected transactions and performed those servicingactivities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Bank during the period covered by the report. Our procedures were not designed todetect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Bank during the period covered by this report. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Bank’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Bank complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2017 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ Crowe Horwath LLP 

Sacramento, California 

March 29, 2018
#### Toni PATRICK, Appellant, v. BOLD ROOFING CO., Appellee.

No. 08-15-00148-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso.

July 8, 2015

Eliot D. Shavin, for Toni Patrick.

Stephen Niermann, for Bold Roofing Co.

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

*MEMORANDUM OPINION*

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Pending before the Court is the joint motion of Appellant, Toni Patrick, and Ap-pellee, Bold Roofing Company, to vacate the trial court’s judgment. *See*Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2). The motion is granted. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is set aside and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement. The motion does not address costs. Accordingly, costs of the appeal are taxed against Appellant. *See*Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d)(“Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant”).
No. 11-10085.

#### Marquez *v.*Massachusetts.

App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 32.2




                           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 The Jones Financial Companies,
L.L.L.P. on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 28, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Steven Novik, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify to the best
of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of
              operations of the Partnership.


                                  /s/  Steven Novik
                                  ---------------------------------------
                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                  The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.
                                  November 9, 2007
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-90,379-01

EX PARTE HAO TICH HUYNH, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W03-26686-I(A) 

IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of robbery and

sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary because counsel did not advise Applicant

of potential defensive issues. Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. In

these circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d

294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The

trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the
2

appropriate case, the trial court may rely on its personal recollection. Id.

It appears that Applicant is represented by counsel. If the trial court elects to hold a hearing,

it shall determine if Applicant is represented by counsel, and if not, whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law in regard to Applicant’s

claim that his plea was involuntary. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: October 9, 2019

Do not publish
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

[NSA LOGO APPEARS HERE]



           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
           ---------------------------------------------------------

       We hereby consent to the reference to our firm and to our reports
  effective December 31, 1994; December 31, 1995; and December 31, 1996, and to
  the use of our reports in the Annual Report of Flores & Rucks, Inc. on Form
  10-KA for the year ended December 31, 1996 to be filed with the Securities and
  Exchange Commission on or about May 7, 1997.


                                  NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.


                                  By:   Original Signed by Frederic D. Sewell
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Frederic D. Sewell
                                      President

  Dallas, Texas
  May 6, 1997
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8326 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8326

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to 
      require eligible recipients of certain grants to develop a 
comprehensive economic development strategy that directly or indirectly 
increases the accessibility of affordable, quality child care, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Child Care is Economic Development 
Act of 2020'' or the ``CED Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 302(a)(3)(A) of the Public Works and 
Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3162(a)(3)(A)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' before ``balances resources''; and
            (2) by inserting ``, and directly or indirectly increases 
        the accessibility of affordable, quality child care'' after 
        ``sound management of development''.
    (b) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services, shall issue guidance on implementing the 
amendments made by subsection (a) to include the accessibility of 
affordable, quality child care in a comprehensive economic development 
strategy developed under section 302 of the Public Works and Economic 
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3162).

            Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 8326

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to 
      require eligible recipients of certain grants to develop a 
comprehensive economic development strategy that directly or indirectly 
increases the accessibility of affordable, quality child care, and for 
                            other purposes.
```