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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS CLINTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

R. DE LA CRUZ,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-56049

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-04181-DOC-OP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 26, 2016** 

Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Former California state prisoner Thomas Clinton appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in Clinton’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim arising from defendant’s alleged

refusal to assist Clinton in securing housing upon Clinton’s release from prison. 

FILED

MAY 02 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).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v.

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Clinton

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was

deliberately indifferent to Clinton’s post-release housing needs. See Leer v.

Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining that to prove deliberate

indifference, a plaintiff must show that the prison official’s “indifference was the

actual and proximate cause of the deprivation”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Clinton’s motion for

dispositive sanctions because Clinton failed to show that defendant or defense

counsel withheld, altered or destroyed documents. See Ryan v. Editions Ltd. W.,

Inc., 786 F.3d 754, 759, 766 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth standard of review and

concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions

where spoliation was speculative). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Clinton’s motion for

appointment of counsel because Clinton failed to demonstrate extraordinary

circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting

forth standard of review and exceptional circumstances requirement for

appointment of counsel). 

2 14-56049
We affirm the award of costs to defendant because Clinton failed to file a

motion for the district court to review the clerk-approved bill of costs. See Walker

v. California, 200 F.3d 624, 625-26 (9th Cir. 1999) (a party waives the right to

challenge a cost award if the party does not file a timely motion for review of the

award).

Clinton’s motion for sanctions, filed on April 6, 2015, is denied. Clinton’s

request that oral argument be held in Pasadena, filed on May 12, 2015, is denied. 

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

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

AFFIRMED.

3 14-56049
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5

<S>                                 <C>                <C>

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999    MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998    APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS          9-MOS
<CASH>                                         345,892              0
<SECURITIES>                                         0              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,918,814              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    95,249              0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,036,567              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,005,093              0
<PP&E>                                       1,278,438              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                (585,015)             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,896,419              0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,440,406              0
<BONDS>                                              0              0
<COMMON>                                         5,558              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0              0
<PREFERRED>                                          0              0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,950,455              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,896,419              0
<SALES>                                      3,273,701      9,451,604
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,273,701      9,451,604
<CGS>                                        1,372,154      3,436,590
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,203,078      5,893,294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (25,445)       (55,725)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (326,976)        71,134
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (108,868)        39,723
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (218,108)        31,411
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0              0
<CHANGES>                                            0              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (218,108)        31,411
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.04)          0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.04)             0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 74 (Monday, April 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 17994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8931]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,432]


Gmark Industries, McAllen, TX; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 27, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of the workers of Gmark 
Industries, McAllen, Texas.
    The petitioner requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of March 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-8931 Filed 4-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 31.1 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION  I, Edwin G. Marshall, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Medizone International, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2007;  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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer=s other certifying officer 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)) for the small business issuer and 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 small business issuer, 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) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer=s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer=s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer=s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer=s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer=s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer=s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (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 small business issuer=s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting.  Date: June 30, 2008  /s/Edwin G. Marshall Edwin G. Marshall, Principal Executive Officer
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 Royal Quantum Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ron Ruskowsky, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:






(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 result of operations of the Company.






Date: August 14, 2012 /s/ Roger Janssen






By: Roger Janssen






Its: Principal Executive Officer






Principal Accountant Officer






President, CEO and a Director






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
exv10w18



 





Exhibit
10.18

	 	 	 	 	 



FIRST AMENDMENT

TO
CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT


A. The Change in Control Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered into as of February 2003 by and among
IONA Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, IONA Technologies PLC, a public limited company
organized under the laws of Ireland and                                         (the “Executive”) is hereby amended, effective as of the
date hereof, as follows:





     1. Section 5 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting subsection (a)(v) thereof in its
entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof:




“(v) The payments set forth in subsections 5(a)(i) — (iii)
above (the “Cash Severance Benefits”) shall be payable in a lump sum
payment on the Termination Date; provided that the payments
described in Section 5(a)(iii) hereof shall be paid on a monthly
basis.”



     2. Section 5 of the Agreement is hereby further amended by adding
subsection (e) immediately following subsection (d) thereof:




“e. Notwithstanding any other provision herein to the contrary,
to the extent that any payment to be made pursuant to this Agreement
is determined to constitute “nonqualified deferred compensation”
within the meaning of and subject to Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Section 409A”) such payment shall
not be made prior to the date that is the earlier of (i) six months
and one day after the Executive’s separation from service with the
Company and all other members of the Group, or (ii) the Executive’s
death. The terms of this subsection (e) shall only apply if the
Executive is a “specified employee” (within the meaning of Section
409A) on the date of such separation from service, and shall only
apply to the extent the delay of such payment is necessary to
prevent such payment from being subject to interest, penalties
and/or additional tax imposed pursuant to Section 409A.”



B. Except as amended herein, the Agreement is hereby confirmed in all other respects.




 









 








     IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment is entered into this                      day of                                     
    ,                      by
the parties hereto.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	IONA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

a Delaware corporation
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name:
	 

	 	 	 	Title:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By: IONA Technologies PLC,

an Irish public limited company
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name:
	 

	 	 	 	Title:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name:







2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,453,000
<SECURITIES>                                22,048,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,087,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (469,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,354,000
<PP&E>                                       5,324,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 809,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,417,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,451,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       197,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,778,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,417,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,212,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,327,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            67,670,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               767,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (1,830,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (51,057,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (51,057,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (51,057,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (3.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.49)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8, Nos. 333-34510, 333-59316, 333-81172, 333-92276, 333-102907, 333-112380 and 333-116866) pertaining to the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, the Amended andRestated 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, the Amended and Restated 2000 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of InterMune, Inc., (Form S-1, No. 333-45460) and (Form S-3, Nos. 333-75794, 333-115516and 333-139713) and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated March 12, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of InterMune, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofInterMune, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Palo Alto, California 

March 12, 2010
Exhibit 4.2

SHARE CERTIFICATE

Certificate Number_______ Number of Shares ______ Ordinary Shares

China Cablecom Holdings, Ltd.

(No: BC 1439493)

(the “Company”)

Incorporated under the BVI Business Companies Act

Of British Virgin Islands

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT _____________________ of _____________________________________________ is the registered holder of ______________________ Ordinary Shares in the Company subject to the Amended and Restated Memorandum of Association of the Company.

Given under the Common Seal of the Company

This _____ day of _____________, 2008

 


	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 
	
                          
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                          
 
	
                        Director
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3009 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Mesosulfuron-methyl. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2012 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

Mesosulfuron-methyl. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MESOSULFURON-METHYL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.11.48 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Mesosulfuron-methyl) is amended by striking the date in 

7 the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3009 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
exv4w12



 








 







    EXHIBIT
    4.12



 




    BERKSHIRE
    HATHAWAY FINANCE CORPORATION



 



    OFFER TO EXCHANGE



 



    $1,500,000,000 principal amount
    of its Floating Rate Senior Notes Due 2011




    unconditionally guaranteed by
    Berkshire Hathaway Inc., which have been registered




    under the Securities Act of
    1933, for any and all Floating Rate Senior Notes




    Due 2011, unconditionally
    guaranteed by Berkshire Hathaway Inc.



 


 




    Instructions
    from Beneficial Owner
    



 



    The undersigned acknowledge(s) receipt of your letter and the
    enclosed Prospectus and the related Letter of Transmittal in
    connection with the offer by the Company to exchange the
    Exchange Notes for Outstanding Notes.



 



    This will instruct you to tender the principal amount of
    Outstanding Notes indicated below held by you for the account of
    the undersigned, upon the terms and subject to the conditions
    set forth in the Prospectus and the related Letter of
    Transmittal.



 



    The undersigned represents that (i) the Exchange Notes
    acquired pursuant to the Exchange Offer are being obtained in
    the ordinary course of the undersigned’s business,
    (ii) the undersigned is not engaging, does not intend to
    engage, and has no arrangement or understanding with any person
    to participate in the distribution of such Exchange Notes,
    (iii) the undersigned is not an “affiliate,” as
    defined under Rule 405 of the Securities Act, of the
    Company and (iv) the undersigned is not acting on behalf of
    any person or entity that could not truthfully make these
    statements. If the undersigned is a broker-dealer, it
    acknowledges that it will deliver a copy of the Prospectus in
    connection with any resale of the Exchange Notes.



 



    Sign Here




 



    Signatures(s)













 













    Securities which are to be tendered:



 



    Tender all of the Outstanding Notes



 



    Aggregate Principal Amount*



 


		
	    o  Outstanding Notes	
    





 






    Name(s) (Please Print)



 






    Address



 






    Zip Code



 






    Area Code and Telephone No.



 



    Dated: ­
    ­,
    2008













 





 




		
	    * 	
    Unless otherwise indicated, it will be assumed that all of the
    Outstanding Notes listed are to be tendered.





    

    2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

TAMIM ABDUL

- SAMAD, a.k.a. Tamin

Abdul

- Samad, a.k.a. Brandon Harris,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 56388

D.C. Nos. 3:16

- cv

- 01269

- WQH

3:10

- cr

- 02792

- WQH

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

The stay issued in this appeal on January 26, 2018, is lifted.

Tamim Abdul

- Samad appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 2253,

and we affirm.

* 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

DEC 5 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 56388

Abdul

- Samad contends that his armed bank robbery conviction under 18

U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) does not qualify as a predicate crime of violence under 18

U.S.C. § 924(c) . This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Watson , 88 1

F.3d 782 (9th Cir.), cert. denied

, 139 S. Ct. 203 (2018)

.

Appellee’s motion for summary affirmance is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.