alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES DOUGLAS WILLIAMS, Jr., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-55379 

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-06130-MWF-KS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2018**

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

James Douglas Williams, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order 

dismissing his Title VII employment action for failure to effect timely and proper 

service of the summons and complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-55379 

discretion. Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). 

We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Williams’s 

action without prejudice because Williams failed to effect proper service of the 

summons and complaint and otherwise failed to show good cause for his failure to 

timely serve the summons and complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) (any person 

who is not a party may serve a summons and complaint); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j) 

(setting forth how to serve a state or local government); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) 

(requiring court to dismiss action without prejudice if a defendant is not served 

within 90 days after the complaint is filed absent a showing of good cause); In re 

Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512 (discussing Rule 4(m)’s “good cause” standard).

Contrary to Williams’s contention, his action was not dismissed for failure 

to file an opposition to the County defendants’ motion to dismiss, which he did not 

receive.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Williams’s 

motion for reconsideration because Williams failed to file an amended or separate 

notice of appeal. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.
|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                                   
|                                                                                
|Tennessee Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                
|                                                                                
|Tennessee Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 860    | 860   
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 0      |        | 0      | 1,800  | 1,800  | 1,800  | 1,800  | 1,800 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,800  | 1,800  | 1,800  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13513]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National 
Seashore Advisory Commission; Meeting Cancellation

    Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act that the meeting of the Golden Gate National Recreation 
Area and Point Reyes National Seashore Advisory Commission previously 
scheduled for Wednesday, May 13, 1998 in San Francisco will be 
canceled.
    The Advisory Commission was established by Pub. L. 92-589 to 
provide for the free exchange of ideas between the National Park 
Service and the public and to facilitate the solicitation of advice or 
other counsel from members of the public on problems pertinent to the 
National Park Service systems in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo 
Counties. Members of the Commission are as follows:

Mr. Richard Bartke, Chairman
Ms. Naomi T. Gray
Mr. Michael Alexander
Ms. Lennie Roberts
Mr. Trent Orr
Ms. Jacqueline Young
Mr. R. H. Sciaroni
Dr. Edgar Wayburn
Mr. Mel Lane
Ms. Amy Meyer, Vice Chair
Dr. Howard Cogswell
Mr. Jerry Friedman
Ms. Yvonne Lee
Mr. Redmond Kernan
Mr. Merritt Robinson
Mr. John J. Spring
Mr. Joseph Williams

    Dated: May 6, 1998.
Len McKenzie,
Deputy Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
[FR Doc. 98-13513 Filed 5-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
"Harold Coble"

<harold_coble@ncsu.edu> 08/20/2009 09:28 AM Teung, Attached are the cost figures for aquatic IPM practices. harold IPM practice cost for aquatics

Prevention: Nutrient buffers : A 50
-ft nutrient buffer requires approximately 1.0 acre of land for every 870 feet of shoreline. A 1

- acre rectangular pond has 832 feet of shoreline. Nutrient buffer establishment costs average $150 per acre, so a 1

- acre pond would require about $145 for buffer establishment. A 100

- acre rectangular lake would require 9.6 acres of buffer at a cost of about $14 50. Irregular shorelines would increase the cost of buffer establishment. Monitoring: Weed survey : Most states have identification services for weed samples sent in to a central lab for little or no cost. However, when trips to a location to survey and ide ntify weed problems are required, typical cost is about $100/acre for a small pond or lake, and run as high as $1000/day for larger lakes requiring full day or longer surveys. Suppression: Dredging : Dredging equipment operation typically costs around $400/ hour. Two operators estimated that dredging a 1

- acre pond to remove 1 foot of soil would take about 10 hours at a cost of about $4000. Dredging would not be feasible for large water bodies. Mechanical harvest : Availability of contract operations is limited , but where available mechanical harvest of aquatic weeds runs about $1000/hr. A typical operation can remove weeds from about 1 acre per day at a cost of around $8000.00/acre. These costs make mechanical removal of aquatic weeds too expensive for most sit uations. Current cost for harvesting machines run from $150,000 to $250,000 and annual maintenance is very expensive. Triploid grass carp : Costs average $10 to $15/fish and 10 fish per acre are recommended for a cost of $100 to $150/acre. Fish are typica lly replaced every 5 to 10 years. Herbicides :Fluridone $750/acre including application

Imazapyr $750/acre including application Glyphosate $300/acre including application Copper $250/acre including application
EXHIBIT 12
  MERRILL
    LYNCH & CO., INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND
    COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
    (dollars in millions)
  Successor Company


Predecessor CompanyThree Months Ended


Six Months EndedJune 30,


June 30,


Year Ended


Years Ended2010


2010


December 31,


December 26,


December 28,


December 29,


December 30,(Unaudited)


(Unaudited)


2009


2008


2007


2006


2005Pre-tax earnings/(loss)(a)


$
85



$
1,763



$
2,218



$
(45,438
)


$
(13,723
)


$
9,313



$
6,335Add: Fixed charges (excluding capitalized interest and preferred
    security dividend requirements of subsidiaries)



2,136




4,243




11,063




29,641




51,683




35,719




21,764Pre-tax earnings/(loss) before fixed charges



2,221




6,006




13,281




(15,797
)



37,960




45,032




28,099Fixed charges:Interest



2,053




4,093




10,773




29,349




51,425




35,499




21,549Other(b)



83




150




290




292




258




220




215Total fixed charges



2,136




4,243




11,063




29,641




51,683




35,719




21,764Preferred stock dividend requirements



43




101




126




4,356




401




259




99Total combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends


$
2,179



$
4,344



$
11,189



$
33,997



$
52,084



$
35,978



$
21,863Ratio of earnings to fixed charges



1.04




1.42




1.20





*




*



1.26




1.29Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock
    dividends



1.02




1.38




1.19





*




*



1.25




1.29   On January 1, 2009, Merrill Lynch (the Predecessor
    Company) was acquired by Bank of America through the
    merger of a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America with and
    into ML & Co. with ML & Co. (the
    Successor Company) continuing as the surviving
    corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America.
    The Predecessor Company and Successor Company periods have been
    separated by a vertical line above to highlight the fact that
    the financial information for such periods has been prepared
    under two different cost bases of accounting.
   (a)
    
    Excludes undistributed
    earnings/(loss) from equity investments and earnings from
    discontinued operations.(b)
    
    Other fixed charges consist of
    the interest factor in rentals, amortization of debt issuance
    costs and preferred security dividend requirements of
    subsidiaries.*
    
    The earnings for year-end 2008
    and 2007 were inadequate to cover total fixed charges and total
    fixed charges and preferred stock dividends. The coverage
    deficiencies for total fixed charges were $45,438 million
    and $13,723 million, respectively. The coverage
    deficiencies for total fixed charges and preferred stock
    dividends were $49,794 million and $14,124 million,
    respectively.
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Kansas Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Kansas Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 2,902  | 88     | 60    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 40     | 47     | 44     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,543,676
<SECURITIES>                                   504,534
<RECEIVABLES>                                  631,261
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,686,893
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,686,893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,516,801
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,686,893
<SALES>                                      3,260,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,293,513
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  277,971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,015,542
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,015,542
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,015,542
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .230
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .230


</TABLE>
The Honorable Patrick A. Conmy, United States District Judge 1

for the District of North Dakota, adopting the report and

recommendation of the Honorable Dwight C. H. Kautzmann, United

States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota.

___________

No. 96-1011

___________

Kenneth J. Murchison, *

 *

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

v. * District of North Dakota.

 *

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: July 17, 1996

 Filed: July 26, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth J. Murchison appeals from the district court's denial of his 1

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. After carefully reviewing the record before us

and the parties' briefs, we conclude the District Court's judgment was

correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the

government's motion to supplement the record on appeal.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.02

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 DRYCLEAN USA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Venerando J. Indelicato, Principal 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:

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

| | (2) | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
                    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 12, 2006

| | /s/ Venerando J. Indelicato                        
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Venerando J. Indelicato
Principal Financial Officer

22
# L_2010024EN.01001401.xml

| 28.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 24/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 24/14

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) No 23/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required and amending Regulations (EC) No 1359/2008, (EC) No 754/2009, (EC) No 1226/2009 and (EC) No 1287/2009

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 21 of 26 January 2010
  )

On the cover page and on page 1, the Regulation number in the title:

for:

‘Council Regulation (EU) No 23/2010 ...’,

read:

‘Council Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 ...’.

---
|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                    
|View History:                                                                     
|                                                                                  
|No chart available.                                                               
|No chart available.                                                               
|                                                                                  
|                                                                                  
|Sault St Marie, MI Compressed Natural Gas Imports from Canada (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                  

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2021                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | 0   |    
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Com. v. Hollingshead

10/14/2015

101 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa,Super,, 111 A.3d 186
#### David Charles STEVENSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D15-3920

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[October 12, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Lisa M. Porter, Judge; L.T. Case No. 13-017343-CF10A.

Affirmed.
No. 12-6349.

#### Bigesby *v.*United States.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-702.

#### Heap *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.