alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NEIL F. KEEHN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 15

- 56466 D.C. No. 2:14

- cv - 04733

- PSG

- PJW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016 **
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN , Circuit Judges. Neil F. Keehn appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action seeking an injunction under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Serra v. Lappin , 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010) ,

* 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 3 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 56466

and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Keehn’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Keehn did not seek review under the APA of any agency decision to disclose i nformation in violation of the Trade Secrets Act (“TSA”). See Chrysler Corp. v. Brown , 441 U.S. 2 81, 317

- 18 (1979) (while there is no private right of action to enjoin the disclosure of information under the TSA, a district court may review, under the APA , an agency decision to disclose information in violation of the TSA).
T he district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Keehn’s action
without granting further leave to amend because Keehn did not identify any basis upon which the court could exercise jurisdiction over his action

. See Serra , 600 F.3d at 1195, 1200 (setting forth standard of review and factors for a district court to consider in determining whether to grant leave to amend)

. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Keehn’s motion for
reconsideration because Keehn did not set forth any basis that would warrant
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah C ty ., Or. v. ACandS, Inc ., 5 F.3d 1255, 126 2

- 6 3 (9 th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration); Kona Enter s
. , Inc. v. Estate of Bishop , 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th3 15

- 56466

Cir. 2000) ( explaining that “[a] Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for t he first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation”)

. Because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we do not reach the merits of Keehn’s claims or evidentiary contentions.
Keehn’s contentions that the dist rict court erred by not reaching the merits of his claims or by taking judicial notice of his proceedings in the Court of Federal
Claims are unpersuasive

. Keehn’s motion to stay the district court’s dismissal, filed July 12, 2016, is
denied as moot.
AF FIRMED.
#### In re RICE. In the matter of Joseph M. Rice.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 18, 1898.)

T. Cleveland, for appellant.

J. M. Perry, for respondent.

No-opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the UnitedStates Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Maurice R. Ferré, M.D., in his capacity as President, ChiefExecutive Officer and Chairman of MAKO Surgical Corp., hereby certifies that, to the best of hisknowledge: (i) the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 towhich this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and (ii) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of MAKO Surgical Corp.     March 31, 2008 /s/ Maurice R. Ferré, M.D.   Maurice R. Ferré, M.D.   President, Chief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board(Principal Executive Officer)  This certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K to which it relates, is notdeemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing of MAKO Surgical Corp. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theExchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any generalincorporation language contained in such filing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DUANE LEE FREY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 96 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DUANE LEE FREY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 97 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of August, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
(23 Misc. Rep. 115.)

#### VIETOR et al. v. NICHOL et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 30, 1898.)

Appeal—Directing Verdict.

Where, at the trial of an action, the defendant does not move for the dismissal of the complaint, *or do*any act from which a waiver of his right to go to the jury could be implied, his exception to the direction of a verdict in the plaintiff's favor is sufficient, upon appeal, to raise the point whether there were any questions of fact requiring determination by the jury.

*718Appeal from city court of New York, general term.

Action by George F. Victor and others against George T. Nicho! and others to recover a balance due for merchandise sold. From a judgment of the general term affirming a judgment on a verdict directed for plaintiffs (45 N. Y. Supp. 1150), defendants appeal. Reversed. *719tiffs for permission to enter judgment for the amount of the stenographer’s fees as part of the taxable costs in said action, and to set aside a receipt in full given by them through mistake. Granted.

*718Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J.," and GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGERICH, JJ.

Herbert H. Walker and Campbell & Hance, for appellants.

A. Blumenstiel and Blumenstiel & Hirsch, for respondents.

GIEGERICH, J.

We think the case should have been submitted1 to the jury on the question whether there was any agreement between the parties by which the appellants wére to have the privilege of examining and returning defective goods, from time to time, as the articles sold were taken from the plaintiffs’ warehouse. The actual' return of goods, and the acceptance of the same by the respondents, from time to time, tended to sustain the claim made by the appellants that there was such an agreement, and was a corroborative circumstance which the jury were entitled to take into consideration. The respondents seek to uphold the judgment on the ground that the appellants did not request to go to the jury upon any question of fact; but as the latter did not move for a dismissal of the complaint, or do any other act from which a waiver of their right to go to the jury could be implied, their exception to the direction in respondents’ favor is sufficient upon this appeal to raise the point whether there were any questions of fact requiring determination by the jury. Vail v. Reynolds, 118 N. Y. 297, 301, 23 N. E. 301, and citations; As there must be a new trial, we consider it proper to say that greater care should be shown in putting in the proofs. Among other things, it is impossible to determine from the record what discounts the defendants were entitled to, and on what basis they were estimated.'

The judgment should therefore be reversed, and a new trial or- * dered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. All concur.
George W. JOHNSON, petitioner, v. Justin JONES, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

No. 12-8830.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 33380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13331]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences; Notice 
of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: Advisory Committee for Mathematical and 
Physical Sciences (#66).
    Date and Time: July 20, 2021; 11:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 (Virtual 
attendance only).
    To attend the virtual meeting, please send your request for the 
virtual meeting link to Kathleen McCloud at the following email 
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f69d9b95959a998392b6988590d8919980"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84efe9e7e7e8ebf1e0c4eaf7e2aae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Leighann Martin, National Science Foundation, 2415 
Eisenhower Avenue, Room C 9000, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Telephone: 
703/292-4659.
    Summary of Minutes: Minutes and meeting materials will be available 
on the MPS Advisory Committee website at http://www.nsf.gov/mps/advisory.jsp or can be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations and counsel 
on major goals and policies pertaining to MPS programs and activities.

Agenda

Tuesday, July 20, 2021

<bullet> Call to Order and Official Opening of the Meeting
<bullet> FACA and COI Briefing
<bullet> Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes--Catherine Hunt, MPSAC Chair
<bullet> MPS Update by Assistant Director
<bullet> AC Member Introductions
<bullet> Science Highlight
<bullet> Translation, Innovation and Partnership--Erwin Gianchandani, 
NSF Office of the Director
<bullet> Update on MPS AC Facilities Subcommittee
<bullet> NSF Strategic Plan: Thoughts from the AC
<bullet> Discussion of MPSAC Facilities Subcommittee
<bullet> Preparation for discussion with NSF Director and COO
<bullet> Meeting and discussion with NSF Director and COO
<bullet> Discussion of Environmental Research and Education (ERE)
<bullet> Discussion of MPS AC Award Subcommittee
<bullet> Agency Priorities and Budget Update--Caitlyn Fife, Budget 
Division
<bullet> Closing remarks and adjourn

    Dated: June 21, 2021.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-13331 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Rel: March 17, 2023

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern 

Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 

300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other 

errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023

_________________________

SC-2022-0767

_________________________

City of Dothan 

v. 

Carroll Ben Powell, Jr.

Appeal from Dale Circuit Court

(CV-19-900102)

MENDHEIM, Justice.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(E), Ala. R. App. P.
SC-2022-0767

2

Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.

Parker, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion, 

which Cook, J., joins.
SC-2022-0767

3

PARKER, Chief Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in affirming the summary judgment in favor of Carroll Ben 

Powell, Jr., with regard to the City of Dothan's public-nuisance claim. I 

dissent from affirming the judgment in favor of Powell on the City of 

Dothan's interference-with-easement claim. I would reverse the 

judgment as to that claim.

Cook, J., concurs.
Rafael RAMIREZ-PEREZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10439.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
|   | • | fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities      Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /s/      James Traicoff                    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                       |
|   | Name:  | James      Traicoff                        |
|   | Title: | Treasurer      and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | (Principal      Financial Officer)         |
|   | Date:  | July      12, 2010                         |

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 24649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11363]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

[Docket No. AB-167 (Sub-No. 1145X)]


Consolidated Rail Corporation--Abandonment Exemption--
Philadelphia, PA

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: Under 49 U.S.C. 10505, the Commission exempts from the prior 
approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903-10904 the abandonment by 
Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) of the 1.64-mile ``City 
Branch'', between milepost 0.66 at the east side of Broad Street, and 
milepost 2.3 at the east side of 30th Street, in Philadelphia, 
Philadelphia County, PA. The exemption is subject to trail use, public 
use, historic preservation, and labor protective conditions.

DATES: The exemption will be effective May 26, 1995, unless stayed or a 
statement of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) is 
filed. Statements of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2), 
requests for a notice of interim trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 
1152.29, petitions to stay, requests for a public use condition under 
49 CFR 1152.28, and petitions to reopen must be filed by May 22, 1995.

ADDRESSES: An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to 
Docket No. AB-167 (Sub-No. 1145X), must be filed with the Office of the 
Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate Commerce Commission, 1201 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20423. In addition, a copy of 
all pleadings must be served on John J. Paylor, Consolidated Rail 
Corporation, 2001 Market Street, 16A, Philadelphia, PA 19101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 927-5660. 
[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Commission's decision. To purchase a copy of the decision, write to, 
call or pick up in person from Dynamic Concepts, Inc., Interstate 
Commerce Commission Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 
2229, Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-4357/4359. [Assistance 
for the hearing-impaired is available through TDD services at (202) 
927-5721.]

    Decided: May 1, 1995.

    By the Commission, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Owen, and 
Commissioners Simmons and McDonald.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11363 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-M
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 National Animal Disease Center: Ames, IA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        Food Safety and Enteric PathogensSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Observancesheadline bar Observances FY2020
               Observances FY2019
               Observances FY2018
               Observances FY2017
               Observances FY2016
               Observances FY2015
               Observances FY2014
               Observances FY2021


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### 3 Park Avenue Company, Respondent, v New York City Educational Construction Fund, Appellant.

— Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Dontzin, J.), entered July 16, 1984, which granted, upon reargument, plaintiff’s motion to restore the matter to the calendar, reversed, without costs, on the law, the facts and as a matter of discretion, without prejudice to a motion to vacate the dismissal of its complaint and to restore the case to the Trial Calendar, made upon proper papers.

*657Plaintiff, a general contractor, brought action against defendant property owner to recover damages for delay and for extra work. Plaintiff filed a statement of readiness and note of issue on March 9, 1981. The case was marked “off calendar” somewhat more than two years later. On April 5, 1984, two days short of one year after the case had been marked off, a motion was made to restore. On May 11, 1984, the motion to restore was denied.

On June 13, 1984, plaintiff moved to reargue the denial of its motion to restore. Reargument was granted and the case restored to the calendar.

CPLR 3404 provides that when a case is marked off the calendar “and not restored within one year thereafter, [it] shall be deemed abandoned and shall be dismissed without costs for neglect to prosecute. The clerk shall make an appropriate entry without the necessity of an order”. The dismissal is automatic and self-executing and “[b]efore a plaintiff may move to restore a case to the Trial Calendar, he must first move to vacate the automatic dismissal of his complaint (CPLR 3404; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3404.04)” *(Merrill v Robinson,*99 AD2d 578). Here, the initial denial of the motion brought the period during which the cause was marked off the calendar beyond the one-year period specified in CPLR 3404. The matter was, at that time, dismissed. To vacate the default and to effect restoration to the calendar, plaintiff was required to show the reason for the delay and include an affidavit indicating a meritorious cause of action. Neither the original papers nor the motion to reargue complied with this requirement. Concur — Murphy, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Bloom, JJ.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.11.3    
    


Amendment No. 10 (the "Amendment") To

Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement") between

George W. Blank ("Employee") and Univison Management Co. ("Company")  


Employee
and Company agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows: 


        1.     Term. The Term of the Employment Agreement is extended through December 31, 2006, unless earlier terminated in
accordance with the provisions of the Employment Agreement. 



        2.     Salary. The annual Base Salary rate will be: Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000) for the annual period from
January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. 


        3.     Effective Date of Amendment. Upon execution by Employee and Company, this Amendment will become effective as of
January 1, 2004. 


        4.     Other. Except as provided in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions in the Employment Agreement will remain in
full force and effect, and the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is ratified and confirmed. 



	 	 	UNIVISION MANAGEMENT CO.
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  ROBERT V. CAHILL       
 Robert V. Cahill

President and Chief Executive Officer
	

/s/  GEORGE W. BLANK      
 George W. Blank	
 	

 	
 	

 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.11.3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:15-CR-68 

)

BERNARD HAMILTON, SR., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge Upon a Plea of Guilty (DE

#22) filed on September 23, 2015. No objections have been filed to

Magistrate Judge Rodovich’s findings and recommendations upon a

plea of guilty. Accordingly, the Court now ADOPTS those findings

and recommendations, ACCEPTS the guilty plea of Defendant Bernard

Hamilton, Sr., and FINDS the Defendant guilty of Count 1 of the

Indictment, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

This matter is set for sentencing on December 17, 2015, at

1:00 p.m. 

DATED: October 16, 2015 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court
#### Michael Robert PULIDO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Chris CHRONES, Respondent-Appellant. Michael Robert Pulido, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Chris Chrones, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 05-15916, 05-16308.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 20, 2009.

J. Bradley O’Connell, First District Appellate Project, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.

Michael Robert Pulido, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

Jeremy E. Friedlander, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondenb-Appellant.

Before: ALFRED T. GOODWIN, DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN, and SIDNEY R. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

In light of *Hedgpeth v. Pulido,*555 U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 530, — L.Ed.2d — *1041(2008), which vacated the judgment of this court, 487 F.3d 669, and remanded, we in turn remand this case to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court’s determination that the appropriate standard of review in a case under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 is harmless error, rather than structural error, when a jury is instructed on alternative theories of guilt.

REMANDED.