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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACO VAN MAANEN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

UNIVERSITY OF THE NATIONS, INC.,

DBA YWAM-University of the Nations

and DOES, 1-10,

 Defendants - Appellees,

 And

YOUTH WITH A MISSION

INTERNATIONAL, INC., DBA YWAMOffice of The Founders and YOUTH

WITH A MISSION-BISHOP,

 Defendants.

No. 12-15515

D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00493-AWI-JLT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 9, 2013

San Francisco, California

FILED

OCT 15 2013

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.
Before: D.W. NELSON, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Jaco van Maanen appeals the district court’s decision granting summary

judgment in favor of the University of the Nations (University) on van Maanen’s

claim of ostensible agency under California law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The evidence in the record does not establish any genuine dispute of

material fact suggesting that van Maanen relied on a belief that Youth With a

Mission-Bishop (YWAM-Bishop) was the agent of the University when he decided

to enroll in the SOAR course. See Cal. Civ. Code § 2300; Associated Creditors’

Agency v. Davis, 13 Cal. 3d 374, 399 (1975). Van Maanen testified that he relied

on the inclusion of the YWAM-Bishop SOAR course as part of the University

course catalog because it informed him that the course was part of the YWAM

movement and complied with YWAM’s values. But Van Maanen did not identify

any other reason why the inclusion of the SOAR course in the University was

important to him. Cf. J.L. v. Children’s Institute, Inc., 177 Cal. App. 4th 388,

403–04 (2009). Accordingly, there is no evidence that in making his decision to

enroll in the SOAR course van Maanen relied on the ability of the University to

exercise control over YWAM-Bishop. Cf. Kaplan v. Coldwell Banker Residential

2
Affiliates, Inc., 59 Cal. App. 4th 741, 744–48 (1997); Beck v. Arthur Murray, Inc.,

245 Cal. App. 2d 976, 977–78 (1966). 

AFFIRMED.

3
No. 09-8155.

#### Broderick White, Petitioner v. State Farm Insurance Company.

559 U.S. 976, 130 S. Ct. 1694,

176 L. Ed. 2d 188,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2067.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
No. 09-7306.

#### Georgette R. Asbury, Petitioner v. City of Roanoke, Virginia.

559 U.S. 974, 130 S. Ct. 1687,

176 L. Ed. 2d 186,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2021.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 330 Fed. Appx. 39.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 150 (Wednesday, August 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41866-41867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20808]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

National Institute of Justice
[OJP(NIJ)-1189]
RIN 1121-ZB26


Announcement of the Availability of the National Institute of 
Justice Solicitation for ``Forensic Document Examination Validation 
Studies''

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 
Justice.

ACTION: Notice of solicitation.

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

SUMMARY: Announcement of the availability of the National Institute of 
Justice solicitation for ``Forensic Document Examination Validation 
Studies.''

DATES: Due date for receipt of proposals is close of business August 
14, 1998.

ADDRESSES: National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the solicitation, please 
call NCJRS 1-800-851-3420. For general information about application 
procedures for solicitations, please call the U.S. Department of 
Justice Response Center 1-800-421-6770.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

    This action is authorized under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968, Secs. 201-03, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3721-23 
(1994).

Background

    The National Institute of Justice calls for proposals to determine 
the scientific validity of handwriting identification. Two major areas 
of research will be required for each proposal:
    (A) Statistical validation of individuality in handwriting--
application should include projected data set, measurement tools, 
statistical analysis;
    (B) statistical validation of standard operating procedures for 
handwriting comparison--application should include projected data set, 
Standard Operating Procedures, experimental designs, and statistical 
analysis.
    Interested organizations should call the National Criminal Justice 
Reference Service (NCJRS) at 1-800-851-3420 to

[[Page 41867]]

obtain a copy of ``Forensic Document Examination Validation Studies'' 
(refer to document no. SL000297). For World Wide Web access, connect 
either to either NIJ at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/funding.htm, or 
the NCJRS Justice Information Center at <a href="http://www.ncjrs.org/
fedgrant.htm#nij">http://www.ncjrs.org/
fedgrant.htm#nij</a>.
Jeremy Travis,
Director, National Institute of Justice.
[FR Doc. 98-20808 Filed 8-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT QUINN W ILSON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C HARLES L. R

YAN; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15960 D.C . No. 4:12-c v-00851-C KJ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na C indy K. Jorge nson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2015 ** B e fore : LEAVY, C ALLAHAN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. Quinn W ilson, a

n Ariz ona sta t e prisone r, a

p pe a ls pro se from the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging viola tion of his right to fre e ly

e xe rc i se his re ligious be lie fs unde r the First Am e ndm e nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c o urt’ s 

# F IL ED

MAY29 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).sum

m ary judgm e nt a

nd finding of qualifie d im m unity , Taraboc hia v . Adk

ins , 766 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th C ir. 2014), a n d we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on theba sis of qua lifie d im

m unity be c a use de fe nda

nts’ c onduc t did not viola te c le a rly e s ta blishe d la w. Se e Estate of Ford v . Ramie rz-Palme r , 301 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (9th C ir. 2002) (a prison offic i a l m ay

be e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity whe re he ha s a re a s ona ble , but m ista

k e n, be lie f a

bout thefa c t s or a

bout wha t the la w re quire s in a give n situa

tion). C ontra

ry to W ilson’ s c onte ntions, the la w wa s not suffic ie ntly c le ar that a

re a s ona ble offic ia l would understa nd he wa s re quire d to providea pre da wn m e a l, rathe r tha

n a pre -sunrise m e a l, during Ra m a d an . Se e Ande rson v . C re ighton , 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987) (to be c le arly e s ta blishe d, “ [t] he c ontours of the right m

ust be suffic ie ntly

c le ar that a

re a sona b le offic i a l would understa nd tha t what he is doing viola

te s tha t right” ). W ilson’ s re que sts for c ounse l, se t forth in his brie fs, a re de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 5 9 6 0 2
No. 09-8499.

#### Rodrigo Figueroa-Trejo, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 958, 130 S. Ct. 1557,

176 L. Ed. 2d 145,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1213.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 349 Fed. Appx. 221.
No. 09-8277.

#### Ieshia Brown, Petitioner v. Illinois.

559 U.S. 979, 130 S. Ct. 1703,

176 L. Ed. 2d 193,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2065.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 391 Ill. App. 3d 1115, 367 Ill. Dec. 836, 982 N.E.2d 986.
# C_2016463EN.01000301.xml

| 13.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/3

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo apply

(2016/C 463/04)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):

1

The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 (2).

2

The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director General of DG C (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is the Unit 1C of DG C that can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the Statement of Reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (3).

3

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

---

(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 193, 23.7.2005, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.

3

---
No. 11-5982.

#### Michael R. Seehafer, Petitioner v. Wisconsin.

565 U.S. 1080, 132 S. Ct. 815,

181 L. Ed. 2d 528,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8821.

December 5, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District III, denied.

*529Same case below, 332 Wis. 2d 317, 797 N.W.2d 935.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: New Hampshire Insurance Company v. Peggy C. Allison

Appellate case number: 01-12-00505-CV

Trial court case number: 2010-50904

Trial court: 157th District Court of Harris County

Appellee’s Motion for Leave to File Post-Submission Brief is GRANTED. It is so 

ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

Acting individually

Date: June 20, 2013
No. 09-8208.

#### Lynn A. Padgett, Petitioner v. Karen Reid Bramblett, Prothonotary, Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

559 U.S. 951, 130 S. Ct. 1536,

176 L. Ed. 2d 133,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1410.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 487 

To impose limitations on the authority of the Secretary of the Interior 

to claim title or other rights to water absent specific direction of law 

or to abrogate, injure, or otherwise impair any right to the use of 

any quantity of water. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2005 

Mr. PEARCE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To impose limitations on the authority of the Secretary of 

the Interior to claim title or other rights to water absent 

specific direction of law or to abrogate, injure, or otherwise impair any right to the use of any quantity of 

water. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND WATER 

4 RIGHTS. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec6 retary of the Interior shall not— 
2 

•HR 487 IH 

1 (1) claim title or other rights to water in a 

2 State, other than for Indian reservation lands, ab3 sent specific direction of law; or 

4 (2) exercise authority so as to abrogate, injure 

5 or otherwise impair any right to the use of any 

6 quantity of water— 

7 (A) that has been allocated— 

8 (i) in conformance with subsections 

9 (a) through (c) of section 208 of the De10 partment of Justice Appropriations Act, 

11 1953 (43 U.S.C. 666); 

12 (ii) by or pursuant to interstate com13 pact; and 

14 (iii) by a decision of the United States 

15 Supreme Court; 

16 (B) by requiring a change in the nature of 

17 use or the transfer of any right to use water or 

18 creating a limitation on the exercise of any 

19 right to use water; or 

20 (C) by modifying the delivery, diversion, 

21 nondiversion, allocation, or storage of any water 

22 to be delivered by contract. 

Æ
No. 09-777.

#### City of San Clemente, California, Petitioner v. Steve Klein, et al.

559 U.S. 972, 130 S. Ct. 1706,

176 L. Ed. 2d 183,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2198.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 584 F.3d 1196.
Exhibit 10.5

REVOLVING CREDIT NOTE



|            |  |                 
|----------- |  | ----------------
|$20,637,500 |  | January 31, 2007

On or before the Maturity Date, FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), promises to pay to the order of WB QT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Lender) at Minneapolis, Minnesota, care of the Agent in lawful money of the United
States of America so much of the sum of Twenty Million Six Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($20,637,500), as may from time to time have been advanced by Lender to the Company and then be outstanding hereunder pursuant to the
Credit Agreement dated as of January 31, 2007 made by and among the Company and certain lenders signatory thereto, including the Lender, and WB QT, LLC as Agent for such lenders, as the same may be amended or otherwise modified from time to
time (Credit Agreement), together with interest thereon as hereinafter set forth.

Each of the Revolving Credit Advances
made hereunder shall bear interest at the interest rate from time to time applicable thereto under the Credit Agreement or as otherwise determined thereunder, and interest shall be computed, assessed and payable as set forth in the Credit Agreement.

This Note is a Revolving Credit Note under which Revolving Credit Advances, repayments and readvances may be made from time to time, by
Lender, but only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement. This Note evidences borrowings under, is subject to, is secured in accordance with, and may be accelerated or prepaid under, the terms of the Credit Agreement to
which reference is hereby made. Capitalized terms used herein, except as defined to the contrary, shall have the meanings given them in the Credit Agreement.

This Note shall be interpreted and the rights of the parties hereunder shall be determined under the laws of, and enforceable in, the State of Minnesota.

Company hereby waives presentment for payment, demand, protest and notice of dishonor and nonpayment of this Note and agrees that no obligation hereunder
shall be discharged by reason of any extension, indulgence, release, or forbearance granted by any holder of this Note to any party now or hereafter liable hereon or any present or subsequent owner of any property, real or personal, which is now or
hereafter security for this Note.

Nothing herein shall limit any right granted Lender by any other instrument or by law.

[Signature Follows On Succeeding Page]



---

QUANTUM FUEL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES WORLDWIDE, INC.



|      |  |                        
|----- |  | -----------------------
|By:   |  | /s/ Kenneth R. Lombardo
|Name: |  | Kenneth R. Lombardo    
|Its:  |  | General Counsel        

[Signature page to Revolving Credit Note]



2
No. 09-723.

#### Aurelius Capital Partners, LP, et al., Petitioners v. The Republic of Argentina, et al.

559 U.S. 988, 130 S. Ct. 1691,

176 L. Ed. 2d 207,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1910.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 584 F.3d 120.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANt ) PR 06-0544
IN RE PETITION OF KASSANDRA J. BUSS FOR REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN THE BAR OF MONTANA 

### An 1 0 r21 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprerra Court State of Montana ORDER

Kassandra J. Buss has petitioned the Court for reinstatement to active status in the State Bar ofMontana. Buss was placed on inactive status for failing to comply with the Rules for Continuing Legal Education for the reporting year ending March 31,2021. Buss has provided a letter from the State Bar certifying that Buss has now completed all CLE requirements for that reporting year, in accordance with Rule 13 ofthe CLE Rules. The Petition states that Buss is not currently subject to disciplinary proceedings and has not committed any acts or omissions sanctionable under the Rules of Professional Conduct while on inactive status. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition ofKassandra J.Buss for reinstatement toactive status in the State Bar ofMontana is GRANTED. Upon paymentofany remaining dues,fees,and the state license tax to the State Bar ofMontana,Buss shall be reinstated. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to the Petitioner and the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this 6 day ofAugust,2021. Chiefju e -t5 08/10/2021

Case Number: PR 06-0544

# Li.

r .,, ,..4-i eSU Al JVL

Justices

2
# C_2018334EN.01019401.xml

| 19.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 334/194 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 334/194

---

P8_TA(2017)0276

EU-Kosovo Framework Agreement on the general principles for the participation of Kosovo in Union programmes ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 July 2017 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Kosovo (*1) on the general principles for the participation of Kosovo in Union programmes (13391/2016 — C8-0491/2016 — 2013/0115(NLE))

(Consent)

(2018/C 334/24)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (13391/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (13391/2016),

| — | having regard to the draft Framework Agreement between the European Union and Kosovo (*1) on the general principles for the participation of Kosovo in Union programmes (13393/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Framework Agreement between the European Union and Kosovo (*1) on the general principles for the participation of Kosovo in Union programmes (13393/2016),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 212 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0491/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 212 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0491/2016),

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0207/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0207/2017),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Kosovo. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---

(*1)  This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244(1999) and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.

---
No. 11-7550.

#### Richard T. Cabaccang, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1134, 132 S. Ct. 1059,

181 L. Ed. 2d 777,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 71.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.