alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the MATTER OF: Terrence J. MATTHEWS, Debtor. Terrence J. Matthews, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis Sallaz; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35565

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

Terrence J. Matthews, Pro Se

D. Blair Clark, Attorney, Law Office of D. Blair Clark, PLLC, Boise, ID, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Terrence J. Matthews appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Matthews’ adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court, and apply the same standard of review the district court applied to the bankruptcy court’s decision. *Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.),*912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly dismissed counts 1 and 2 of Matthews’ complaint because Matthews failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. *See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 681, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The bankruptcy court properly dismissed counts 3, 4, and 5 of Matthews’ complaint because the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine. *See Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing proper application of the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine); *see also Hen*
      *591
      *richs v. Valley View Dev.,*474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) *(Rooker-Feldman*doctrine barred plaintiffs claim because the relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”). Contrary to Matthews’ contention, the extrinsic fraud exception to the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine does not apply to his claims.

A dismissal under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine is a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, *Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc.,*359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004), and thus should be without prejudice, *Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc.,*377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm the bankruptcy court’s dismissal, but remand to the bankruptcy court with instructions to amend the judgment to reflect that the dismissal of claims 3, 4, and 5 is without prejudice.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions to amend the judgment.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EX-10.14



 Exhibit 10.14 
 ADDENDUM #6 TO THE 
 CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY MANAGEMENT SERVICES

 AGREEMENT 
 BETWEEN 
 CEDAR MANAGEMENT LIMITED (“MANAGER”) 

AND 

AMERINST INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. (“COMPANY”) 
 EFFECTIVE: January 1, 2014 
 Management Agreement Addendum 

 

	 	1)	It is hereby agreed that the COMPANY will compensate MANAGER at a rate of $320,000 for the twelve months beginning 1/1/14 and ending 12/31/14, which shall be inclusive
of all work by MANAGER on run-off of CAMICO and PDIC treaties as well as continuing business from Crum & Forster. 

  

	 	2)	Cause the above fee to be paid in quarterly installments in advance at the beginning of each calendar quarter. 


 

	 	3)	Reimburse MANAGER for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the management of the COMPANY including; courier and express mail service; long distance
telephone calls; travel and meeting expenses incurred at the request of the COMPANY; costs of COMPANY stationery; filing fees; and similar expenses. 

  

	 	4)	MANAGER will continue to provide COMPANY with monthly time summaries. 

 COMPANY agrees that special projects will be invoiced separately at agreed upon fees or rates. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Addendum this 6th day of December, 2013. 

 

			
	 By:
	 	 /s/ MICHAEL LARKIN

		 	Cedar Management Limited (itself and on behalf of its affiliated companies)
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ STUART H. GRAYSTON

		 	AmerInst Insurance Company, Ltd.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herbert MARSHALL, a/k/a Victor King, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7159

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 16, 2018

Herbert Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

*729Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Herbert Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district-court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marshall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Marshall’s motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
# C_2023286EN.01001002.xml

| 14.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Cabot Plastics Belgium SA v État belge

(Case C-232/22, (1) Cabot Plastics Belgium)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 44 - Place of supply of services - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 - Article 11(1) - Provision of services - Point of reference for tax purposes - Concept of ‘fixed establishment’ - Suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources - Ability to receive and use the services for the fixed establishment’s own needs - Provision of tolling services and ancillary services - Exclusive contractual undertaking between a company providing services in a Member State and the company receiving those services established in a third State - Legally independent companies)

(2023/C 286/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cabot Plastics Belgium SA

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, and Article 11 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112,

must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person receiving services, whose business is established outside the European Union, does not have a fixed establishment in the Member State in which the provider of the services concerned — which is legally independent from that recipient — is established, where that recipient does not have a suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources capable of constituting that fixed establishment, even where the taxable person providing the services provides to that taxable person receiving services, pursuant to an exclusive contractual undertaking, tolling services and a series of ancillary or additional services, contributing to the business of that taxable person receiving services in that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 18.7.2022.

---
# NVRA - Table A1

# NVRA - Table A2

# NVRA - Table A3

# UOCAVA - Table A1a

# UOCAVA - Table A1b

# UOCAVA - Table A2a

# UOCAVA - Table A2b

# UOCAVA - Table A3a

# UOCAVA - Table A3b

# UOCAVA - Table A4a

# UOCAVA - Table A4b

# PS - Table A1

# PS - Table A2

# PS - Table A3

# PS - Table A4

# PS - Table A5

# PS - Table A6

# PS - Table A7

# PS - Table A8

# PS - Table A9

# PS - Table A10

# PS - Table A11

# PS - Table A12

# PS - Table A13
#### The American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Mrs. F. D. Warner, *et al.*

154 So. 513.

Opinion Filed April 16, 1934.

Petition for Rehearing Denied April 30, 1934.

*556*Mack & Julian,*for Appellant;

*Fielding & Duncan,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

— Creditors bill was filed to set aside and cancel a conveyance as fraudulent. Answer was filed denying all allegations of fraud contained in the bill and setting forth in detail the full consideration for which the conveyance was executed and delivered.

When the case had been at issue for a period of nearly three months a stipulation of counsel was procured extending the time for taking the testimony thirty days. When this period expired complainant applied to the chancellor for a further extension of time for taking testimony. The application was denied. The cause was set down by defendants for final hearing on bill and answer.

Complainant moved for an order dismissing the case without prejudice. The motion was denied and bill dismissed.

It is not made to appear that judicial discretion was abused by the chancellor.

Decree should be affirmed. So ordered.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
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 Annual Report of
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David L. Hauser, Group
Executive and Chief Financial Officer of Duke Energy Indiana, certify, 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 Duke Energy Indiana.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 19, 2008



/s/    DAVID L.
HAUSERDavid L. Hauser Group Executive
and Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-10518.

#### Chupp *v.*Carneygee, Superintendent, Correctional Industrial Facility.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2023329EN.01001804.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana — Spain) — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) v Bernardino

(Case C-796/22, (1) INSS)

(2023/C 329/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 164, 8.5.2023.

---
EX-10.14





 Exhibit 10.14 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO DERMATA THERAPEUTICS, INC. 2021 OMNIBUS 

EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 

This First Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Dermata Therapeutics, Inc. 2021 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan
(the “Plan”) of Dermata Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), is made as of June 29, 2021. All capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Plan. 

W I T N E S S E T H: 

WHEREAS, Section 17.2 of the Plan reserves to the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”)
the right to amend the Plan from time to time; 
 WHEREAS, the Board desires to increase the number of shares of
Common Stock reserved for issuance under the Plan from 12,163,479 to 33,788,366 , subject to approval by the Company’s stockholders. 

NOW, THEREFORE, be it effective as of the date of approval by the Company’s stockholders, the Plan is hereby
amended as follows: 
 1. Amendment to Section 2.1. Section 4.1(a) of the
Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety, to read as follows: 
  

	 	(a)	 Subject to adjustment pursuant to Section 4.3 and any other applicable provisions hereof, the maximum
aggregate number of shares of Common Stock which may be issued under all Awards granted to Participants under the Plan shall be 33,788,366 shares; all of which may, but need not, be issued in respect of Incentive Stock Options.



 2. This Amendment shall be subject to approval by the stockholders of the Company within 12 months after
the date this Amendment is adopted. Such stockholder approval shall be obtained in the manner and to the degree required under applicable laws. Notwithstanding any provision in the Plan to the contrary, exercise of any Option granted for shares of
Common Stock in excess of those remaining available for grant under the Plan in the absence of such Amendment before the Company has obtained stockholder approval of this Amendment in accordance with this Section 2 shall be
conditioned upon obtaining such stockholder approval of this Amendment in accordance with this Section 2. 

3. Except as set forth herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect without modification. 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer hereby certifies that the foregoing
amendment to the Plan was duly adopted and approved by the Board. 
  

							
	 Dated: June 29, 2021
	 		 		 	 DERMATA THERAPEUTICS, INC.

				
		 		 		 	 /s/ Gerald T. Proehl

		 		 		 	 Name: Gerald T. Proehl

		 		 		 	 Title: President and Chief Executive Officer


 [Signature Page to First Amendment to Dermata Therapeutics, Inc. 2021 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan]
No. 11-10264.

#### Ketron *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             27
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      52
<ALLOWANCES>                                        6
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  129
<PP&E>                                             47
<DEPRECIATION>                                     26
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             136
<BONDS>                                           108
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                         19
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      332
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  669
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     562
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    5
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    22
<INCOME-TAX>                                        9
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                13
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (12)
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        1
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.05



</TABLE>
# C_2021368EN.01003101.xml

| 13.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/31

---

Action brought on 26 July 2021 — YAplus DBA Yoga Alliance v EUIPO — Vidyanand (YOGA ALLIANCE INDIA INTERNATIONAL)

(Case T-443/21)

(2021/C 368/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: YAplus DBA Yoga Alliance (Arlington, Virginia, United States) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swami Vidyanand (Villupuram, India)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark YOGA ALLIANCE INDIA INTERNATIONAL — International registration designating the European Union No 1 415 321

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 May 2021 in Case R 1062/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by proceedings before the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5548]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Emergency 
Evacuation Issues

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the FAA's Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to discuss emergency evacuation 
issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 20, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. Arrange 
for oral presentations by March 14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held on the 20th Floor, MIC Room of the 
Boeing Company, 1700 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22202 (Rosslyn 
Metro stop).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jackie Smith, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-209, FAA, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-9682, FAX (202) 
267-5075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. app. III), notice is 
given of an ARAC meeting to be held on March 20, 1997 at Boeing 
Company, 20th Floor, MIC Room, 1700 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 
22202 (Rosslyn Metro stop).
    The agenda will include:
    <bullet> Opening Remarks.
    <bullet> Review of Action Items.
    <bullet> Report on Performance Standards Working Group Activities.
    The Emergency Evacuation Issues Group will vote on the Performance 
Standards Working Group's proposal for revision to Technical Standard 
Order (TSO) C69b, emergency slides, ramps, and slide/raft combinations. 
Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of this document should contact 
the individual listed under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    Attendance is open to the public, but will be limited to space 
available. The pubic must make arrangements by March 14, 1997 to 
present oral statements at the meeting. Written statements may be 
presented to the committee at any time by providing 25 copies to the 
Assistant Executive Director for Emergency Evacuation Issues or by 
providing copies at the meeting. In addition, sign and oral 
interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if 
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting. Arrangements may be made 
by contacting the person listed under the heading FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 28, 1997.
Joseph A. Hawkins,
Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 97-5548 Filed 3-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**RICHARD COLUCCIO,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**MICHAEL KARP, AND JAMES D'ANGELO, JR., AND D'ANGELO**  **INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC,**

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 180 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 19th day of July, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this** 

**matter.**