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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM L. McVEIGH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CLIMATE CHANGERS, INC., DBA JW 

Brower Heating & Air Conditioning; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35331 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05174-RJB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 15, 2017**

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. 

William L. McVeigh appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his action alleging employment-related claims. We review for an abuse 

of discretion a district court’s dismissal as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). 

Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). We 

 

* 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

NOV 22 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-35331 

affirm. 

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

action because McVeigh failed to comply with the district court’s discovery orders, 

and he failed to appear for his deposition. See id. at 130-32 (discussing the five 

factors the district court must weigh before dismissing a case for failure to comply 

with a court order). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning McVeigh in the 

amount of attorney’s fees and costs “caused by [McVeigh’s] failure to obey a court 

order to provide or permit discovery.” Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 

1381, 1385-86 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting forth standard of review and the expenses 

the district court may consider in awarding attorney’s fees under Rule 37(b)(2)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McVeigh’s motion 

for reconsideration because McVeigh failed to establish any basis for such relief. 

Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th 

Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)); see also W.D. Wash. R. 7(h)(1) (reconsideration will be 

“ordinarily den[ied] . . . in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior 
3 17-35331 

ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been 

brought to [the district court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”). 

We reject as without merit McVeigh’s contention that the district court was 

biased.

McVeigh’s motion to supplement the record on appeal (Docket Entry No. 

20) is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00016-CV

Justin Scott Skrhak, Appellant

v.

Kathryn Coombs, Appellee

FROM THE 465TH DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY 

NO. 23-22075, THE HONORABLE VERONICA JUAREZ DUNNE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s brief was originally due on February 28, 2024. After this Court 

granted multiple motions requesting an extension of time to file his brief, appellant’s brief 

was due May 6, 2024. To date, the brief has not been tendered for filing and is overdue. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: July 18, 2024
Herbert Wallace Givin CLANTON, petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 12-791.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Brian M. CASEY, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9735.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

                       HYDRIL COMPANY 2000 INCENTIVE PLAN

                                    AMENDMENT

                             EFFECTIVE MAY 20, 2003

The Hydril Company 2000 Incentive Plan be and hereby is amended, effective May
20, 2003, by deleting "such that the aggregate Option Value is $25,000" in
Section 9(b) and inserting in lieu thereof "for the purchase of 3,000 shares of
Common Stock"
Exhibit 31
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Ted L. Hall, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of KiewitRoyalty Trust, for which U.S. Bank National Association acts as Trustee;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, distributable income and changes intrust corpus of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;
     4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)), or for causing such procedures to be established and maintained,for the registrant and I have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchcontrols and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant is made known to me by otherswithin the registrant, particularly during the period in which this quarterlyreport is being prepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period coveredby this report, based on my evaluation; and
     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to theregistrant’s auditors:
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
     In giving the certifications in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, I have relied tothe extent I consider reasonable on information provided to me by AmberBrewster, Bank of Oklahoma.
Date: May 14, 2004       By: /s/ Ted L. Hall      Ted L. Hall   Vice President and Trust Officer   U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee
Pablo BENITEZ-BENITEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9802.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Demetris ALLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-5048

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10429 Conference Calendar

REID DARWIN PHELPS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LEE HANEY, HONORABLE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY 35TH JUDICIAL COURT, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CV-43-C

- - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Reid Darwin Phelps, Jr., Texas inmate # 824168, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. He argues that he was denied access to the courts. We have reviewed Phelps’s brief and the record and agree with the reasoning set forth by the district court. Phelps v. Haney , No. 6:96-CV-043-C (N.D. Tex. April 18, 1997).No. 97-10429 - 2 - Phelps’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Phelps is warned that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Phelps should review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Exhibit 32.1
                            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 Veridicom  International,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Paul  Mann,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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 and 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 12, 2005                 By: /s/ Paul Mann
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Paul Mann
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,Robert N. Stephens, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review ofthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Adaptec, Inc. for the quarterended December 31, 2004 (the “*Form 10-Q*”),that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and thatinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Adaptec, Inc.for the quarterly periods covered by the Form 10-Q.
|                             | By: /s/ ROBERT  N. STEPHENS |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                        | Robert N. Stephens          |
| Date: February 7, 2005 | *Chief Executive Officer*   |

 

I,Marshall L. Mohr, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review ofthe Form 10-Q, that the Form 10-Q fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the periods covered by the Form 10-Q.
|                             | By: /s/ MARSHALL  L. MOHR |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                        | Marshall L. Mohr          |
| Date: February 7, 2005 | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
Amendment #1 to the Trust Agreement



 Exhibit 10(b) 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO 
  
 GRANTOR TRUST AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS AGREEMENT, made
as of the thirteenth day of May, 1994, by and between THE BANK OF NEW YORK COMPANY, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”), and UNITED STATES TRUST
COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York (hereinafter referred to as the “Trustee”), 
  
 W  I  T  N  E  S  S  E  T  H  : 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Trustee entered into a Grantor Trust Agreement
dated as of November 16, 1993 (the “Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, Article TWELFTH of the Agreement provides that the Company may amend the Agreement; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Agreement; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Trustee agree that the Agreement is amended as follows, effective as of May 13, 1994: 
  

	 	(1)	Item 3 of EXHIBIT I is hereby amended by adding the name “Newton P.S. Merrill” immediately following the name “Robert J. Mueller” as it appears in the column
entitled “Individual” and the date “April 25, 1994” immediately following the date “January 10, 1993” as it appears in the column entitled “Date of Agreement”. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be
executed in their respective names by their duly authorized officers under their corporate seals as of the day and year first above written. 
  

					
	 ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 THE BANK OF NEW YORK COMPANY, INC.

			
	/s/    SUE J. SIEBEL        	 	 	 	/s/    CHARLES E. RAPPOLD II        
	
	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 Charles E. Rappold II
 Chief Legal Officer and Secretary


  
  

									
	 ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK

					
	 	 	/s/    GERARD STAFFORD-SMITH        	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/    MARTHA C. DOLAN        
	
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Martha C. Dolan
 Vice President


  

 -1-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 2:13-CV-97-JD-JEM

)

JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP )

address 98.220.153.245, )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. An Answer, Affirmative Defenses and

Counterclaim [DE 26] was filed by Defendant on October 3, 2013.

Local Rule 10-1(a) provides that “[r]esponsive pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) must:

(1) restate verbatim the paragraphs from the pleading they respond to; and (2) immediately

following each restated paragraph, state the response to that paragraph.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(a). 

This Answer does not comply with Local Rule 10-1 insofar as it does not recite the paragraphs of

the Complaint and respond separately to each paragraph.

Accordingly, the Court STRIKES from the record the Answer, Affirmative Defenses and

Counterclaim [DE 26] with leave granted to re-file a document that complies with the Local Rules

on or before October 17, 2013.

SO ORDERED this 10th day of October, 2013.

s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

case 2:13-cv-00097-JD-JEM document 27 filed 10/10/13 page 1 of 1
Ricky Lane WHITMAN, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 12-9288.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
Joseph A. CAMP, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.

No. 12-8988.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 23
- 00757
- CR

Jose Guadalupe Medina , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 3 OF HAYS COUNTY NO. 20
- 2673CR
- 2 , THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER P. JOHNSON , JUDGE PRE SID ING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Jose Guadalupe Medi na pleaded no contest to the charge of driving while intoxicated, and the trial court place d him on deferred

- adjudication community supervision for
fi fteen mo n t hs. See Tex . P enal Code § 49.04; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42 A.10 1. After
Medi na was placed on deferred

- adjudication community supervision, his retained attorney filed a notice of appeal. Medina ’ s retained attorney later filed a motion to with draw as c ounsel , and
this Court granted the motion. See T e x. R. App. P. 6.5. Medina ’ s appellant ’ s brief was due on May 1, 2024

. On June 10, 20 24 , this Court sent Medina a notice stating that appellant ’ s brief
was overdue and that a failure to file a s atisfa cto ry re sponse by June 20, 2024, would result in further action being taken by thi s Court

. No brief or request for an extension by Medina has been filed, and Me dina has not otherwise responded to this Court ’ s notice that the brief was overdue.2 Und er thes e ci rcumstances, we abate the appeal and remand the caus e to the trial court to hold a hearing

. See Tex. R. App. P. 38. 8 (b)(2), (3) , 43.6 . Durin g the hearing, the tria l

court shall admonish Medina about his right to be represented by counsel on ap peal an d th e dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se , s ee Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 1.051(g) , and
shall determine whether Medina desi res to prosecut e this appeal , whether he wants to proceed
pro se, a nd whe ther he is indigent , s ee Tex. R. App. P. 3 8.8(b)( 2) , (3)

. I f Medina wants to prosecute this appeal and is not indigent, the trial cou rt shall determine whether he has made the necessary arrangements for filing a brief

. S ee id. If Medina wants to prosecute this appeal , is
i ndigent , and wants cou nsel ap poin ted to represent h im , the trial court should make appropriate
orders to ensure that he is adequately re present ed on appeal.

The trial court w ill advi se Medina or his co unsel , if any, that his appellant ’ s brief
is due within thirty days of the date of the t rial court ’ s hea ring

. T he trial cour t shall make appropriate written findings and recommendations. Following the hearing, which shall be transcribed, the trial court shall order the appropriate supplemental clerk ’ s and reporter ’ s records

— inc lud ing all fi ndings , concl usions, and orders

— to be prepared and forw arded to thi s Court no later than July 26 , 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5 (c) (2), .6( d) , 38.8(b)(2), (3)

.

It is ordered on July 2, 2024
.

Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Kelly
Abated and Remanded
Filed July 2, 2 0 2 4
Do Not Publish
Exhibit 32.1
  
 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of SinoHub, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Henry T. Cochran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:
 
 (1)
The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:  March 14, 2011
By:
/s/ Henry T. CochranHenry T. CochranChief Executive Officer
 
 This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by §906 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.
Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 187 Filed 08/14/06 Page 1 of 4
Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 187 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 4
Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 187 Filed 08/14/06 Page 3 of 4
Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 187 Filed 08/14/06 Page 4 of 4
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11027]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Mapping for Future 
Operations

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Mapping for 
Future Operations will meet in closed session on June 12-13, July 6-7, 
August 3-4, and August 31-September 1, 1995 at Science Applications 
International Corporation, Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and 
Technology) on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings the 
Task Force will develop recommendations for implementing a cost-
effective approach for providing geospatial information and products to 
Department of Defense users.
    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has 
been determined that these DSB Task Force meetings concern matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly these 
meetings will be closed to the public.

    Dated: May 1, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-11027 Filed 5-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
FILED 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEp 3 0 2010 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

~oua for the District of Columbia 

DIALLOBE A. McDOUGALD, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, 1 

1 

1 Civil Action No. 

1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint 

will be dismissed. 

I 

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by 

pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted 

by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 5 19, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, 

must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 

(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint 

contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand 

for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum 

standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to 

prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the 

doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).
EXHIBIT 80

FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-8 Filed 04/21/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 81 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-8 Filed 04/21/17 Page 2 of 4
EXHIBIT 82 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-8 Filed 04/21/17 Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT 83 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-8 Filed 04/21/17 Page 4 of 4