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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CAROL MOLANICK,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE

ASSOCIATION,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-16404

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01619-GMS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2016** 

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Carol Molanick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her

action alleging that United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) violated

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) by denying her claims

FILED

SEP 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
for short-term disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

Where an ERISA plan grants discretionary authority to determine eligibility for

benefits or to construe the terms of the plan, we review for an abuse of discretion

the administrator’s interpretation of the plan, and de novo the district court’s

application of this standard. Tapley v. Locals 302 & 612 of the Int’l Union of

Operating Eng’rs-Emp’rs Constr. Indus. Ret. Plan, 728 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir.

2013). We affirm. 

Because Molanick failed to establish circumstances that warranted giving

any conflict of interest greater weight, the district court properly reviewed USAA’s

decision for an abuse of discretion. See Harlick v. Blue Shield of Cal., 686 F.3d

699, 707 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining abuse of discretion review is “tempered by

skepticism when the plan administrator has a conflict of interest,” and outlining

circumstances when conflict is given more or less weight (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)). Applying this standard, the district court properly

concluded that USAA did not abuse its discretion in denying benefits because the

medical evidence did not support a finding that Molanick was disabled from

performing the material and substantial duties of her job. See Salomaa v. Honda

Long Term Disability Plan, 642 F.3d 666, 676 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that in

reviewing plan administrator’s decision, a court may not “substitute [its] view for

2 14-16404
that of the factfinder;” rather, the court must “consider whether application of a

correct legal standard was (1) illogical, (2) implausible, or (3) without support in

inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record” (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted)). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 14-16404
#### Susan Stulz et al., Appellants, v 305 Riverside Corp., Respondent.

[56 NYS3d 46]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered February 26, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As a result of the Court of Appeals decision in *Roberts v Tishman Speyer Props., L.P.*(13 NY3d 270 [2009]), a tenant is entitled to rent-stabilized status for the duration of the tenancy and to collect any rent overcharges, where an apartment was improperly deregulated at a time when the landlord was receiving J-51 benefits *(see 72A Realty Assoc. v Lucas,*101 AD3d 401, 401-402 [1st Dept 2012]).

It was undisputed that defendant received J-51 benefits and deregulated plaintiff’s apartment in 2001, based on individual apartment improvements (IAIs). Defendant’s answer conceded the improper decontrol, which was based on the Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s then policy, and it reimbursed plaintiffs for the overcharges, utilizing the rent on the base date of four years prior to the filing of the complaint to compute the overcharges (CPLR 213-a).

Plaintiffs argue that substantial indicia of fraud by defendant post *-Roberts*and in connection with the IAIs permitted them to utilize the last legal rent paid by a rent-stabilized tenant in the apartment for the calculation of the current legal rent and overcharges *(see Altschuler v Jobman 478/480, LLC.,*135 AD3d 439, 440 [1st Dept 2016], *lv dismissed*28 NY3d 945 [2016]).

The court properly disregarded the claimed evidence of fraud by defendant *post-Roberts*as irrevelant, and the record does not reflect evidence sufficient to raise a question of fact as to defendant’s stated reliance on DHCR’s policy in decontrolling the apartment *(see Todres v W7879, LLC,*137 AD3d 597, 598 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 910 [2016]). Defendant *559provided a construction contract, cancelled checks, and the testimony of the contractor to substantiate the IAIs.

Dismissal of the declaratory judgment and injunctive relief causes of action was appropriate as these claims were moot (see *Amherst & Clarence Ins. Co. v Cazenovia Tavern,*59 NY2d 983, 984 [1983]). The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees, based on a finding that defendant’s conduct was not willful.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
No. 12-8660.

#### Krug *v.*Roberts, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 89.8.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31455-31456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15280]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada 
Test Site

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) notice is hereby given of the 
following Advisory Committee meeting: Environmental Management Site-
Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada Test Site.

DATES: Wednesday, July 1, 1998: 5:30 p.m.--9:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Support Facility, Great 
Basin Room, 232 Energy Way, North Las Vegas, Nevada.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Rohrer, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Environmental Management, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, 
Nevada 89193-8513, phone: 702-295-0197.


[[Page 31456]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Advisory Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental 
restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

5:30 p.m.  Call to Order
5:40 p.m.  Presentations
7:00 p.m.  Public Comment/Questions
7:30 p.m.  Break
7:45 p.m.  Review Action Items
8:00 p.m.  Approve Meeting Minutes
8:10 p.m.  Committee Reports
8:45 p.m.  Public Comment
9:00 p.m.  Adjourn

    Copies of the final agenda will be available at the meeting.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to 
agenda items should contact Kevin Rohrer, at the telephone number 
listed above. Requests must be received 5 days prior to the meeting and 
reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the 
agenda. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the 
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 
1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 
DC 20585 between 9:00 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal 
holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Kevin Rohrer at 
the address listed above.

    Issued at Washington, DC on June 3, 1998.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-15280 Filed 6-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### Com. v. Brooks

12/10/2015

500 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1120
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2073

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse that is

States Courthouse’’, and for other purposes.Hampshire, as the ‘‘Warren B. Rudman Unitedscheduled to be constructed in Concord, New
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2073

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse that is scheduled

to be constructed in Concord, New Hampshire, as the

‘‘Warren B. Rudman United States Courthouse’’, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 2073 ES

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF WARREN B. RUDMAN UNITED

2 STATES COURTHOUSE.

3 The United States courthouse that (as of the date

4 of enactment of this Act) is scheduled to be constructed

5 in Concord, New Hampshire, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Warren B. Rudman United States Court7 house’’.

8 SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

9 Any reference in a law, regulation, document, record,

10 map, or other paper of the United States to the courthouse

11 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

12 to the ‘‘Warren B. Rudman United States Courthouse’’.

Passed the Senate August 17 (legislative day, August 11), 1994.

Attest:

Secretary.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 16, 2017

No. 04

- 16

- 00286

- CV

Margaret Landen SAKS and Philip M. Ross

,

Appellant s

v.

Marcus P. ROGERS, A. Chris Heinrichs, J. Barrett Shipp and Heinrichs & De Gennaro, P. C.,

Appellee s

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- PC

- 3466B

Honorable Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion , Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The en banc court has considered Appellants’ motion for en banc reconsideration. The

motion is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.7.

___ ______________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of November, 2017

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Morgans Foods, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and
Rule 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provided reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for
external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of August 17, 2008, based on such evaluation; andd) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during registrants second fiscal quarter that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: October 3, 2008
    /s/ Leonard R. Stein-SapirLeonard R. Stein-SapirChairman of the Board,

Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION FROM THE FORM 10-QSB FOR
THE THREE  MONTHS  ENDED  JUNE 30,  1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                         382
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                1,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                  1,651
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             3,464
<PP&E>                                                       4,066
<DEPRECIATION>                                               2,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               6,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        2,362
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                       358
<OTHER-SE>                                                   3,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 6,020
<SALES>                                                      3,699
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             3,699
<CGS>                                                        2,612
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                3,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              41
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                359
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   143
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            215
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   215
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0.06


</TABLE>
160 A.3d 1279

#### IN THE MATTER OF J. ELLIOT STOLZ, A/K/A JARED E. STOLZ, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 019621990)

June 1, 2017

ORDER

This matter have been duly presented pursuant to *Rule*1:20— 10(b), following a granting of a motion for discipline by consent in DRB 16-392 of J. ELLIOT STOLZ, A/K/A JARED E. STOLZ, of FLEMINGTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1990;

And the Office of Attorney Ethics and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated *RPC*8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), *RPC*8.4(d)(conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and *Rule*1:20-20 (rule imposing certain restrictions on suspended attorneys);

And the parties having agreed that respondent’s conduct violated *RPC*8.4(c), *RPC*8.4(d) and *Rule*1:20-20, and that said conduct warrants a censure or lesser discipline;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further determined that the stipulated facts supported a violation of *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a censure is the appropriate discipline for respondent’s unethical *224conduct and having granted the motion for discipline by consent in District Docket No. XIV-2016-0588E and XIV-2016-0589E;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having submitted the record of the proceedings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the entry of an order of discipline in accordance with *Rule*1:20—16(e);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that J. ELLIOT STOLZ, A/K/A JARED E. STOLZ, of FLEMINGTON is hereby censured; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
# DLA Europe & Africa hosts 21st TSC deputy commander

/ Published April 22, 2021
GERMERSHEIM, Germany, 
Army Brig. Gen. Wanda N. Williams, deputy commanding general for the 21st Theater Sustainment Command, visited Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Europe in Germersheim, Germany, for a tour and a DLA Europe & Africa brief April 8.

“It’s always a pleasure showing off the DDDE workforce — and Brig. Gen. Williams’ tour of the A8M warehouse had a big impact given its direct link to readiness in support of U.S. Army Europe & Africa’s Defender-Europe 21 exercise already underway,” DLA Europe & Africa Commander, Army Col. Krista Hoffman, said.

                Army Brig. Gen. Wanda N. Williams, deputy commanding general for the 21st Theater Sustainment Command, right, visits Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Europe in Germersheim, Germany, for a DLA Europe & Africa brief April 8, 2021.                            DLA Europe & Africa hosts 21st TSC deputy commander                            Army Brig. Gen. Wanda N. Williams, deputy commanding general for the 21st Theater Sustainment Command, right, visits Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Europe in Germersheim, Germany, for a DLA Europe & Africa brief April 8, 2021.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DLA Distribution Public AffairsVIRIN: 210408-D-D0441-0019

While on site, Williams toured DLA Distribution Europe’s warehouses including Logistic Distribution Center Europe, the Global Combat Support System-Army mission and a DLA Disposition site. DLA major subordinate commanders and deputies within the Europe & Africa area of responsibility, provided an overview of DLA’s capabilities to support the theater.

Wrapping up the visit, Williams presented coins to DLA Distribution’s Martin Mendel, Jered Biers, and Nathanael Love for their superior support to the warfighter during the COVID-19 pandemic and troop rotation support.

In addition to serving as the deputy commanding general of the 21st TSC, Williams also serves as the deputy commanding general of the 7th Mission Support Command, the only forward stationed U.S. Army Reserve command in Europe.
Order entered February 10, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01030-CV

SANJAY BHARDWAJ, Appellant

V.

ANUPAMA PATHAK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-53882-2013

ORDER

We DENY appellant’s January 27, 2015 motion for leave to file an oversize reply brief. 

We STRIKE the reply brief filed by appellant on January 27, 2015. On the Court’s own motion, 

we ORDER appellant to file, WITHIN TEN DAYS of the date of this order, a reply brief that 

complies with the 7,500 word limit. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(h)(i)(2)(C).

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### American Express Centurion, Respondent, v Hubert Pototschnig, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 896]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered October 15, 2015, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, the motion granted, the judgment vacated, and the complaint dismissed without prejudice.

In view of plaintiff’s counsel’s advice to this Court that plaintiff is not opposing this appeal, we reverse and grant defendant the requested relief.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Mazzarelli, Feinman and Gische, JJ.