alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0**
**- 6**  **94 9** 

FRED LEWIS WILSON ,

P laintiff

– Appell ant ,

v.
C/O ROBERTS; C/O TABOR; SGT. ELY,

Defendants

– Appellees,

and
B. COLLINS, SGT.; M. WILLIAMS, C/O; H. BISHOP, C/ O; J. DURHAM, C/O; SGT. KING; LT. KILBOURNE; C/O HYLTON; C/O BOYD; TED THOMPSON, DR.; M. STANFORD, RN; MELISSA SPEARS, LPN; PATSY GARNETTE ZEPPA, RN; PATRICIA HILLMAN, RN,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western D istrict of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Glen E. Conrad , District Judge. ( 7 :0 8

- cv
- 0 0638

- gec
- mfu )

Submitted : December 6, 2010 Decided: December 2 2 , 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN , Circuit Judge s
.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Fred Lewis Wilson , Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior A ssistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia , for Appellee s
.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Fred Lewis Wilson appeals the district court ’ s judgment entered after a jury found in favor of Appellees and

deni ed relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complain t. We have
reviewed the record, conclude that the issues Wilson raises do
not present substantial questions, and find no reversible error

. Accordingly, we decline to authorize preparation of the trial
transcript at government expense and affirm the judgment of the

district court

. We grant Wilson’s motion to withdraw his
September 2010 motion for production of documents and deny

Wilson’s O ctober 2010 motion for production of documents. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Corporation.
 Date: December 28, 2007By:
    
    /s/ John M. HughesName:
    
    John M. HughesTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
[No. 15821-7-III.

Division Three.

August 19, 1997.]

#### Darlene Lewin, *as Guardian, Appellant,*v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 96-2-00364-1, Kathleen M. O’Connor, J., entered May 22, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kurtz, J., concurred in by Schultheis, A.C.J., and Brown, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                   21,867
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       28
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                         18,696
<TRADING-ASSETS>                              0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>             160,817
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                    1,673
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                      1,681
<LOANS>                                 294,035
<ALLOWANCE>                               3,737
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          509,882
<DEPOSITS>                              409,223
<SHORT-TERM>                             13,352
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                       5,208
<LONG-TERM>                              48,264
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  3,242
<OTHER-SE>                               30,593
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          509,882
<INTEREST-LOAN>                          17,981
<INTEREST-INVEST>                         6,378
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            699
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                         25,058
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                       10,599
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       13,092
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                    11,966
<LOAN-LOSSES>                               540
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                          251
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                          10,272
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           4,349
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                3,408
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              3,408
<EPS-BASIC>                              0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.87
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                             3.78
<LOANS-NON>                                 387
<LOANS-PAST>                                205
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                              0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                           2,400
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                          3,405
<CHARGE-OFFS>                               476
<RECOVERIES>                                268
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                         3,737
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                      3,737
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                           0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       0


</TABLE>
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
 Cell Wall Biology and Utilization Research: Madison, WI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Madison, Wisconsin U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center Cell Wall Biology and Utilization Research People





- Find a Person
- Find a Location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Christina Arther
- Jonathan Bleier
- Mary Beth Hall
- Melanie Katawczik
- Pankaj Kulshrestha
- Wenli Li
- Jennifer McClure
- Jeffrey Messer
- Joseph Mielke
- Marilyn Millett
- Michael L. Sullivan
- Kevin Panke-Buisse
- Jan Pitas
- Wendy Radloff
- Laurie Reinhardt
- Carolyn Xue
- Geoffrey Zanton
- Wayne Zeller

Joseph  Mielke    Biological Science Lab Technician **Joseph Mielke** Cell Wall Biology and Utilization Research Biological Science Lab Technician joseph.mielke@usda.gov


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
Filed 3/13/19 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2019 ND 60

Nathan Richard Miles, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Sierra Marie Holznagel, Defendant and Appellant

and

State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest 

No. 20180388

Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District,

the Honorable James D. Gion, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Markus A. Powell, Dickinson, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Mary E. Depuydt, Wishek, ND, for defendant and appellant.

State of North Dakota, statutory real party in interest; no appearance.
Miles v. Holznagel

No. 20180388

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Sierra Holznagel appeals from district court orders granting Nathan Miles

primary residential responsibility of their minor child and denying a motion to

reconsider or grant a new trial. Holznagel argues the district court erred in finding a

material change in circumstances supported the change in residential responsibility

and overlooked facts when analyzing the best interest factors. Holznagel further

argues the court abused its discretion by limiting an evidentiary hearing to three

hours, allowing testimony from certain witnesses and denying a continuance. We

summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (3) and (4).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jon J. Jensen

Jerod E. Tufte

1
# C_2008290EN.01000501.xml

| 13.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5356 — Gamestop/Micromania)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 290/02)

On 7 November 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5356. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5356. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

EXCEL ENTEPRISE, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:16-cv-0016-TLS-SLC

)

WINONA PVD COATINGS, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

On January 15, 2016, Plaintiff Excel Enterprise, LLC, filed a complaint against

Defendant Winona PVD Coatings, LLC, alleging that this Court has diversity jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (DE 1). The complaint recites that Plaintiff is a Michigan limited

liability company (“LLC”) with its principal place of business in Michigan and that “[n]o

member of Excel is a resident of Delaware.” The complaint further alleges that Defendant is a

Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in Indiana and that “[n]o member of Winona

is a resident of Michigan.” (DE 1 ¶¶ 1, 2).

Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations inadequately set forth the citizenship of the parties.

As the party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of

demonstrating that the requirement of complete diversity has been met. Chase v. Shop’N Save

Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff cannot merely allege a

“naked declaration that there is diversity of citizenship” in its complaint. Thomas v.

Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007).

An LLC’s citizenship “for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its 

members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998). Thus, the Court must be
advised of the identity of each member of Plaintiff Excel Enterprise, LLC, and Defendant

Winona PVD Coatings, LLC, and such member’s citizenship. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell,

439 F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006); see generally Guar. Nat’l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101

F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that the court would “need to know the name and

citizenship(s)” of each partner for diversity jurisdiction purposes).

Furthermore,“citizenship of unincorporated associations must be traced through however

many layers of partners or members there may be.” Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chi. Casino, 299

F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). In that respect, residency is meaningless for

purposes of diversity jurisdiction; an individual’s citizenship is determined by his or her

domicile. Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002); see Heinen v. Northrop

Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[R]esidence may or may not demonstrate

citizenship, which depends on domicile—that is to say, the state in which a person intends to live

over the long run.”).

Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record on or before February 2,

2016, by filing an amended complaint that properly alleges the citizenship of the parties, tracing

such citizenship through all applicable layers of ownership.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 19th day of January 2016.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Gilbert Smith, Respondent.

— Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, New York County (George Roberts, J.), entered April 4, 1984, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss, in the interest of justice, an indictment charging him with robbery in the first and second degrees and assault in the second degree, held in abeyance, and the matter is remanded to the motion Judge to set forth his reasons in accordance with CPL 210.40 (2).

On this appeal by the People from an order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss in the interest of justice an indictment charging him with robbery in the first and second degrees and assault in the second degree, the single ground urged is that the court appeared to have based this determination on the circumstance that the People had delayed perfecting an appeal from a previous order vacating the defendant’s conviction of the counts in the indictment because his trial counsel had been ineffective as a result of a conflict of interest.

We agree that such a ground would not have been an appropriate basis for dismissing the indictment in the interest of justice. *(See,*CPL 210.40 [1].) From an examination of the entire record it is apparent that the court in fact granted the motion on the basis of the application of the criteria set forth in CPL 210.40 (1) to the facts set forth in the defendant’s motion papers. Regrettably he did not make that clear in his brief comment.

We note that the People did not file answering papers to defendant’s motion nor does the record indicate any explanation for failure to do so, and that it has not been urged on this appeal that the facts set forth in defendant’s comprehensive motion papers would not provide an adequate basis for granting the motion. We also note that the appeal from the previous order vacating defendant’s conviction was dismissed by this court on *638November 1, 1984. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Asch, Bloom and Milonas, JJ.
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 Soil Erosion Research Laboratory: West Lafayette, IN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Outreach
                        Fact Sheets
                                    Videos
                                    Seminars
                                    Careers
                    Our Lab
                        Phosphorus Removal Structures
                                    CEAP St. Joseph River Watershed
                                    WEPP Model
                                    USLE Database
                                    RUSLE
                                    
                                    Conferences
                                    Scientist Almuni
                                    Local TalksSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






WEPPheadline bar Research
               WEPP Model Documentation
               WEPP Release Notes
               WEPP Windows Install Notes
               WEPP Downloads
               Cligen
               Breakpoint Climate Generator
               BPCDG Install
               WEPP DOS Software
               WEPP Future Climate Generator
               WEPPCLIFF


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
#### In the Matter of Joann M. Schor, Petitioner, v St. Francis Hospital, Currently Known as Mercy Community Hospital, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights, dated September 20,1983, which (1) determined that there was no probable cause to believe that respondent hospital engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in rejecting petitioner’s employment application, and (2) dismissed the complaint.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner sought employment at respondent hospital in the position of an intravenous (IV) nurse. While the duties of IV nurses do not require any heavy lifting, it was the regular practice of the hospital to utilize the IV nurse as a fill-in for absent or vacationing staff nurses. This substitution of the IV nurse for a staff nurse occurs frequently. In an affidavit submitted on behalf of the hospital, the assistant administrator of nursing indicated that the previous person to hold the IV nurse position was substituted as staff nurse on the average of 14 days each month. She further indicated that a staff nurse must be ready and able to confront emergency life-threatening situations which routinely require the use of physical strength to assist and lift patients and equipment. By her own admissioil, petitioner was unable to lift more than 15 pounds. The hospital thus rejected petitioner’s application because of her physical limitation.

Petitioner subsequently filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, claiming that the hospital discriminated against her on the basis of her disability. The Division investigated the complaint and concluded that there was no probable cause to believe that petitioner was the subject of unlawful discrimination.

Pursuant to Executive Law § 298, petitioner sought review by this court and claims that the Division’s determination was *853arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. Respondent hospital raised, as an affirmative defense, the claim that because the notice of petition was not served in the same manner as a summons in an action, it was not properly served, and that, therefore, the proceeding should be dismissed. We disagree with this contention that service was improper and that therefore, jurisdiction over respondent hospital was never established.

This type of proceeding which, in effect, is an appeal to this court, is governed by the rules governing an appeal from a judgment of a court rendered after trial or hearing *(see,*22 NYCRR 670.14). Hence, service by mail of the papers was sufficient.

However, there was substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner’s disability would have prevented her from performing the requirements of the position in a reasonable manner *(see,*Executive Law §§ 292, 296). Therefore, the Division’s determination that there was no probable cause to believe that respondent hospital engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices was not arbitrary or capricious, nor an abuse of discretion. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
ACCEPTED

04-15-00162-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

4/29/2015 5:47:40 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 4/29/2015 5:47:40 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
H. R. 2322

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and six 

An Act 

To designate the Federal building located at 320 North Main Street in McAllen, 

Texas, as the ‘‘Kika de la Garza Federal Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The Federal building located at 320 North Main Street in 

McAllen, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Kika de 

la Garza Federal Building’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the Federal building referred 

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Kika 

de la Garza Federal Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.