alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1270 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1270

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the Leaking 
          Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund financing rate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2005

  Mr. Thomas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the Leaking 
          Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund financing rate.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND 
              FINANCING RATE.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 4081(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
Trust Fund financing rate) is amended by striking ``April 1, 2005'' and 
inserting ``October 1, 2005''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case No. 17-cv-00899 NC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLMAN BUILDING ASSOCIATES, 

LP,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00899 NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendant AMCO Insurance Company removed this case from Monterey County 

Superior Court on February 22, 2017, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1. 

AMCO is an Iowa corporation, and plaintiff Holman Building Associates, LP, is a limited 

partnership. Id. at 3.

The federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction” and only have jurisdiction as 

authorized by the Constitution and Congress. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 

U.S. 365, 374 (1978). The Court must presume a lack of jurisdiction until the party 

asserting jurisdiction establishes otherwise. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 

1986). The asserted source of subject matter jurisdiction here is diversity jurisdiction. 

“Diversity jurisdiction” is assessed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court considers the 

citizenship of each party to the lawsuit, and there must be “total diversity” of citizenship 

between each plaintiff and each defendant and the amount in controversy must exceed 

Case 5:17-cv-00899-EJD Document 6 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 17-cv-00899 NC 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

$75,000. In determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists, the Court must consider the 

citizenship of all partners in a limited partnership. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 

185, 195 (1990); Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 569 (2004). 

Here, based on the removal papers, it is unclear that all of the partners in the 

Holman partnership are diverse from AMCO, an Iowa corporation, with its principal place 

of business in Iowa. There is no question regarding the amount in controversy. Dkt. No. 1 

at 3. Thus, the Court ORDERS AMCO to respond to this order, presenting facts to the 

Court demonstrating that each member of the Holman limited partnership is diverse from 

AMCO. This response must be filed by March 3, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2017 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00899-EJD Document 6 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 2
**
**EXHIBIT 32**

**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 Sabine Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust,certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Trust. 

 

SIMMONS BANK, TRUSTEE FOR

SABINE ROYALTYTRUST

By: /s/ Ron E. Hooper

Ron E. Hooper

SVP, Royalty TrustManagement

Date: November 10, 2022 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and will be retained by Sabine RoyaltyTrust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 
**
***S/MReal Estate Fund VII, Ltd.***
EXHIBIT 31.1
**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Richard E. Hoffmann, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of S/M RealEstate Fund VII, Ltd.:  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: May 10, 2004   /s/ Richard E. Hoffmann   Name: Richard E. Hoffmann Title: Chief Executive Officer, Director, President and Treasurer of
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEGAN KHOO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00570-KAW 

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 8

On February 9, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP), and required that Plaintiff pay in installment of $100.00/month, due on the 1st of each 

month until the filing fee is paid in full. (Ord. Denying IFP Application at 1, Dkt. No. 4.) The 

Court's order warned that failure to pay this amount would result in dismissal of the above-entitled 

action without prejudice. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff made installment payments on February 27, 2017, 

March 31, 2017, and May 1, 2017, but did not make the final installment payment. (Dkt. Nos. 5-

7.) 

On September 11, 2017, the Court issued an order to show cause, requiring Plaintiff to pay 

the final installment payment of $100.00 and respond to the order to show cause by explaining 

why she did not comply with the Court's order to pay monthly installments until the filing fee was 

paid in full. (Dkt. No. 8.) The Court warned that failure to complete both tasks by September 25, 

2017 could result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. (Id.)

As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not made the final installment payment or 

responded to the order to show cause. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered, on or before October 20, 

2017, to 1) pay the final installment payment of $100.00, and 2) respond to this order to show 

cause by explaining why she did not comply with the Court's prior order to show cause. Failure to 
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

complete both tasks by October 20, 2017 may result in the dismissal of this action without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge
Guadalupe-Blanco River 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 12, 2014

No. 04-14-00084-CV

Vanessa Jordan HARWOOD, William Crosby Harwood, and Donna Harwood,

Appellants

v.

GUADALUPE-BLANCO RIVER AUTHORITY,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-0134-CV-A

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant's Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on June 12, 2014.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ___________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
Alexander LUKASHOV, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9034.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit
32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002
 
 In
connection with this amendment number 1 to the Annual Report of Great
Spirits, Inc.(the Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended herein
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Dana
Hyde, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 fully presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations or the Company.
 
 Dated:
June 12, 2008
 
 By:
              /s/ Dana
      HydeDana
      Hyde
                Chief
      Executive Officer
                Chief Financial Officer
Presidential Documents

22245

Federal Register

Vol. 60, No. 86

Thursday, May 4, 1995

Title 3—

The President

Presidential Determination No. 95–20 of May 1, 1995

Suspending Prohibitions on Certain Sales and Leases Under

the Anti-Economic Discrimination Act of 1994

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 564 of the Foreign Relations

Authorization Act (‘‘the Act’’), Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, Public Law

103–236, as amended, I hereby:

(1) determine and certify that the following countries do not currently maintain a policy or practice of sending letters to United States firms requesting

compliance with, or soliciting information regarding compliance with, the

Arab League secondary or tertiary boycott of Israel:

Djibouti, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Tunisia, and Uganda.

(2) determine that suspension of the application of section 564(a) of the

Act to the following countries until May 1, 1996, is in the national interest

of the United States, and will promote the objectives of section 564 to

eliminate the Arab boycott:

Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Jordan, Kuwait, Mauritania, Oman,

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

(3) determine that it is in the national security interest of the United States

to suspend until May 1, 1996, the application of subsection (a) of section

564 of the Act with respect to Lebanon.

You are authorized and directed to report this determination to the appropriate committees of the Congress and to publish it in the 

œ–

Federal Register.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, May 1, 1995. [FR Doc. 95–11195

[Filed 5–3–95; 9:37 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 726 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 726

 To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Herrera.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2022

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Herrera.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Herrera, Cr. No. 21-619, pending in the 
        United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the 
        prosecution has requested the production of testimony from Jeffrey Kent, 
        Director of the Press Photographers' Gallery, and from Nate Russell and 
        Diego Torres, custodians of records in the Senate Recording Studio;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent current or former officers and employees 
        of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for 
        evidence relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate; Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Jeffrey Kent, Director of the Press Photographers' 
Gallery, and Nate Russell and Diego Torres, custodians of records in 
the Senate Recording Studio, are authorized to provide relevant 
testimony in the case of United States v. Herrera, except concerning 
matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Messrs. Kent, Russell, and Torres, and any current or former officer or 
employee of their offices, in connection with the production of 
evidence authorized in section one of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
ᎦᏙᎤᏍᏗ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎢᏳᏍᏗ 2 ᎧᎳᏎᏥ?

ᎢᏳᏍᏗ 2 ᎧᎳᏎᏥ ᏂᎦᎵᏍᏔᏅ ᎾᎯᏳ ᎯᏰᎸ ᎥᏝ ᏂᎪᏢᏍᎬᎾ 

ᎠᎴᏃ ᎢᏑᎳᏂ ᏂᎬᏗᏍᎬᎾ ᎣᏍᏓ, ᎾᏍᎩᏃ ᏂᏕᎬᏂᏏᏍᎬᎢ ᎦᎸᎳᏗ ᎩᎦ ᎧᎵᏤᏥ ᏓᏟᏩᎲᎢ .

ᎾᏍᎩᎾ ᎤᏟ ᎢᎦᎢ ᎧᏃᎮᏢᎥᏍᎩ ᎾᎿᎢ ᏅᏩᏙᎯᏯᏛ ᎢᎦᏘᎭᎢ, ᎠᏩᏛᎯᏓᏍᏗ www.fda. gov/healthequity.

ᏚᏳᎪᏛ 

ᎠᎵᏍᏓᏴᏗ

ᏃᏓᎬᎢ 

ᏗᎫᎬᏔᏂᏓᏍᏗ

ᏱᎬᎶᏍᏗᏭ 

ᎩᎦ ᎤᎾᎵᏌᎳᏓᏁᎲ

ᎤᎵᏖᎸᎲᏍᎬ 

 ᎥᎴᏂᏙᎲᎢ

ᎡᎳᏗᎨ ᏅᎦ ᏣᏤᎵ ᎤᎾᏰᎯᏍᏗ ᎾᏍᎩᎾ ᎢᏳᏍᏗ 2 ᎧᎳᏎᏥ

ᎤᏁᏉᏨ 

ᏚᏯᏪᎬᎢ

ᎤᏍᎪᎸᎢ

 ᎠᎪᏩᏗᏍᎬᎢ

ᎤᏁᏉᏨᎯ 

ᎤᏔᏕᎩᏍᎬ 

ᎠᎴ ᎠᏗᎧᎵᏙᎲᎢ

ᎤᏁᏉᏨ 

ᎤᏲᏏᏍᎬᎢ

ᏚᏍᏓᎸ 

ᎾᏍᎩᎾᎢ ᎥᏝ 

ᏂᏚᏗᏍᎬᎾ

ᏃᏛᎾ ᏄᏰᎵᏛ 

ᏄᏓᏰᏒ ᎤᏲᎱᏎᎲᎢ

ᏗᏓᏎᎮᎯ ᏂᏚᎾᎵᏍᏓᏁᎲᎢ ᎢᏳᏓᎵ ᎤᏍᎦᏃᎵ ᎪᏢᏅᎢ ᎠᎴ ᏰᎵᏊ 

ᏩᏂᎦᎳ ᎨᏒᎢ. ᎤᎪᏗ ᎠᏂᏴᏫ ᏞᏍᏗ ᏗᏓᏎᎮᎯ ᏂᏚᎾᎵᏍᏓᏁᎲᎢ.

ᎢᏳᏍᏗ 2 ᎧᎳᏎᏥ ᏫᏟᎢ ᎢᏳᏓᎵ ᏂᎦᎳᏍᏗᏍᎪᎢ ᎾᏳᎢ ᎠᏰᏟ-ᎢᏳᏕᏘᏅᏓ ᎠᎴ ᏣᏅᏘᏍᎪ ? ᏧᎾᏔᎾ ᎤᎾᏓᏂᎳᎨᎢ ᎠᏎᏃ ᏰᎵᏊ ᏳᏕᎲᏌ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎢᏴᏊ ᎢᏳᏕᏘᏴᏓ. 

ᎾᎥᏂᎨᏒ 1 ᎾᎢ 10 ᏧᎾᏔᎾ

 ᎤᏁᎲᎢ ᎢᏳᏍᏗ 2 ᎧᎳᏎᏥ

Ꮭ ᎪᎦᏍᏓ ᏱᎩ
ᎧᎳᏎᏥ ᎠᎴ ᏧᎾᏔᎾ ᎤᎾᏓᏂᎳᎨᎢ

ᎢᏳᏍᏗ 2 ᎧᎳᏎᏥ ᏂᏕᎦᎵᏍᏗᏍᎬ ᎾᎯᏳ ᎯᏰᎸ ᎥᏝ ᏂᎪᏢᏍᎬᎾ ᎠᎴᏃ ᎢᏑᎳᏂ ᏂᎬᏗᏍᎬᎾ ᎣᏍᏓ,

 ᎾᏍᎩᏃ ᏂᏕᎬᏂᏏᏍᎬᎢ ᎦᎸᎳᏗ ᎩᎦ ᎧᎵᏤᏥ ᏓᏟᏩᎲᎢ..

ᎾᏍᎩᎾ ᎤᏟ ᎢᎦᎢ ᎧᏃᎮᏢᎥᏍᎩ ᎾᎿᎢ ᏅᏩᏙᎯᏯᏛ ᎢᎦᏘᎭᎢ, ᎠᏩᏛᎯᏓᏍᏗ www.fda. gov/healthequity.

ᎭᎵᏍᏓᏴᎲᏍᎬ

 ᎤᏩᏙᎯᏯᏛ

Ꮭ ᎪᎦᏍᏓ ᏱᎩ ᎯᏱᎵᏎᏍᏗ 

ᏣᏤᎵ ᎩᎦ ᎧᎵᏤᏥ 

ᎯᏱᎵᏎᏍᏗ 

ᏣᏤᎵ ᎩᎦ 

ᏣᎵᏌᎳᏓᏁᎲᎢ

ᏣᏓᏟᏂᎩᏓ 

ᎨᏎᏍᏗ 

ᎠᎵᏖᎸᎲᏍᎬᎢ

ᏅᏬᏘᏃ ᎲᏗᏍᎬ

 ᎾᏍᎩ ᎢᏯᏛᏁᏗ

 ᎠᏎᎯᎲᎢ

ᏕᏣᎦᏎᏕᏍᏗ ᏗᏣᏤᎵ ᏧᏓᎵ ᏙᎯ ᎢᏳᏃ ᏤᎮᏍᏗ ᎧᎳᏎᏥ ᏄᏍᏛ:

ᎧᎳᏎᏥ ᏂᏗᎬᏂᏏᏍᎩ 

1 ᎾᎢ 4 ᎠᏂᏴᏫ 

ᎾᏍᎩ 65 ᎤᎶᏒᏍᏓ 

ᎢᏳᏕᏘᏴᏓ

ᏧᎾᏔᎾ ᎤᎾᏓᏂᎳᎨᎢ ᎤᏁᎲ ᎾᏍᎩ 

ᎦᎸᎳᏗᏳ ᎠᏟᎶᏍᏗ ᎥᎿᎢ ᎧᎳᏎᏥ-ᏧᏠᏱ 

ᎬᎵᏍᏆᏗᏍᎩ-ᎠᏓᏁᏟᏴᏎᎬ

ᎤᏓᎵ ᎧᎳᏎᏥ. ᎯᎠ ᏂᏕᎦᎵᏍᏗᏍᎬ 

ᎾᎯᏳ ᏧᏓᎵ ᏂᏕᏨᏅ ᎤᏓᎴᏅᎲᎩ 

ᏓᏓᏅᎸᎲᏍᎬ ᎠᎴ ᎢᎦ ᎦᏅᎦᎸᏓ 

(ᎦᏁᏟᏴᏍᏗ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎤᏪᏔ ᏗᎬᏔᏅᎩ 

ᎠᎴ ᎤᎪᏗᏗ ᎠᏑᎭ ᏂᏓᏳᏓᎴᏅ ᎾᏍᎩ 

ᎠᏰᎸᎢ) ᎠᎴᏃ ᎤᏓᎵ ᎤᏚᎸᏛ ᎢᏤᎢ ᎤᏚᎸ 

ᎠᏥᎳᏁᏗ ᎨᏎᏍᏗ.

94ãÖ

Çi

DIABETES AFFECTS

1 IN 4 PEOPLE

OVER THE AGE

OF 65.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo ROMERO, aka Pablo Gilberto Romero-Flores, aka “Sonny,” Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10398.

D.C. No. CR-00-00185-SOM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 23, 2004.

Thomas C. Muehleck, Asst. U.S. Atty., United States Attorney, Loretta A. Sheehan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of the United States Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Georgia K. McMillen, Wailuku, HI, Randal I. Shintani, Law Offices of Randal I. Shintani, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Pablo Romero appeals his conviction and 48-month sentence following his guilty plea to use of a telecommunications facility in furtherance of a drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b).

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Romero’s counsel has submitted a brief stating that he has found no meritorious issues for review. No supplemental pro se brief has been filed. The government did not file a brief.

Because Romero knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we dismiss the appeal. *See United States v. Nunez,*223 F.3d 956, 958 (9th Cir.2000) (“Generally, courts will enforce a defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal if (1) the language of the waiver encompasses the defendant’s right to appeal on the grounds claimed on appeal, and (2) the waiver is knowingly and voluntarily made.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by *the*courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Eric I. EISEN, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 12-1090.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Office, denied.
Yesenia PEREZ, Juanen Perez, Michelle Perez, Emilio Perez and Gladys Perez Individually and on Behalf of Bernardo Perez-Santos v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Entergy New Orleans, Inc., and Central Rock Corporation

2019-CC-0378

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS**

Writ denied.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

Crichton, J. would grant and assigns reasons.

I would grant the writ application of Defendant Entergy New Orleans, Inc. and Audubon Nature Institute, Inc., assign the case for briefing and permit the parties' opportunity to request oral argument in compliance with La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(H).
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAQUET CARDIOVASCULAR LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAPHENA MEDICAL, INC., and

ALBERT CHIN,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-07213 WHA

ORDER DENYING PRO 

HAC VICE APPLICATION

The pro hac vice application of Attorney Margaret Ives (Dkt. No. 28) is DENIED. Local

Rule 11-3 requires an applicant to certify that “he or she is an active member in good standing

of the bar of a United States Court or of the highest court of another State or the District of

Columbia, specifying such bar” (emphasis added). Filling out the form from the district court

website with only the state of bar membership — e.g., “the bar of Massachusetts” — is

inadequate because it fails to identify a specific court. Attorney Ives’s application is also

missing her bar number and a date. While the application fee does not need to be paid again,

the application cannot be processed until a corrected form is submitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-07213-WHA Document 30 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 1
Yvonne HICKMAN, petitioner, v. Nathaniel HICKMAN.

No. 12M133.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.