alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LIAOSHENG ZHANG, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF the CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER and Honeywell International, Inc., Respondents.

No. 09-73823.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 6, 2011.

*525Liaosheng Zhang, Seattle, WA, pro se.

Pavneet Singh Uppal, Esquire, Shayna H. Balch, Esquire, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Liaosheng Zhang petitions pro se for review of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer’s (“OCAHO”) orders dismissing her complaint alleging national origin and citizenship status discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(i)(l). We review de novo the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) conclusions of law, and for substantial evidence the ALJ’s findings of fact. *Mester Mfg. Co. v. INS,*879 F.2d 561, 565 (9th Cir.1989). We deny the petition for review.

The ALJ properly dismissed Zhang’s national origin discrimination claim for lack of jurisdiction because Zhang’s claim was excluded from the IRCA. Specifically, Zhang’s claim was covered by Title VII because Honeywell had more than fourteen employees. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(2)(B) (excluding from the IRCA national origin discrimination claims covered by Title VII); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) (Title VII covers an employer with more than fourteen employees).

The ALJ properly granted a summary decision on Zhang’s citizenship status discrimination and retaliation claims because Zhang failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Honeywell’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring her were pretextual, and whether there was a causal connection with her protected activity. *See Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los*Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 640-42, 646 (9th Cir.2004) (setting forth *McDonnell Douglas*burden shifting analysis); *see also Ipina v. Mich. Jobs Comm’n,*8 OCAHO No. 1036, 1999 WL 1893873 (Nov. 19, 1999) (applying *McDonnell Douglas*test to claims under the IRCA).

Zhang’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2

NANOGEN, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with
the accompanying Quarterly Report of Nanogen Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2006 (the Report), I, Robert Saltmarsh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |  |  |                                         
|---------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|                 |  | 
|November 9, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ ROBERT SALTMARSH                    
|                 |  |  |  | Robert Saltmarsh Chief Financial
Officer
Exhibit
        11
 
 
 LIVEREEL
        MEDIA CORPORATION
 
 CODE
        OF ETHICS
 
 FOR
 
 CHIEF
        EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OR CONTROLLER AND PERSONS PERFORMING
        SIMILAR FUNCTIONS
 
 
 General
        Philosophy
 
 The
        honesty, integrity and sound judgment of LiveReel Media Corporation (“LiveReel ”
or the “Company”) Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or Controller
        and persons performing similar functions (collectively the “Principal Officers”)
        is fundamental to our reputation and success.  The professional and
        ethical conduct of the Principal Officers is essential to the proper functioning
        and success of LiveReel.
 
 Applicability
 
 This
        Code
        of Ethics shall apply to LiveReel’s Principal Officers.
 
 Standards
        of Conduct
 
 To
        the
        best of their knowledge and ability, the Principal Officers shall:
 
 ·
              act
                  with honesty and integrity, including the ethical handling of actual
                  or
                  apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional
                  relationships;
 
 ·
              provide
                  full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in
                  reports and
                  documents that LiveReel files with, or submits to, the Securities
                  and
                  Exchange Commission (“Commission”) and in other public communications made
                  by LiveReel;
 
 ·
              comply
                  with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations;
 
 ·
              promote
                  the prompt internal reporting of violations of this Code of Ethics
                  to
                  LiveReel’s board of directors and outside legal counsel;
 
 ·
              respect
                  the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of employment;
  ·
              maintain
                  the skills necessary and relevant to LiveReel’s needs; and
 
 ·
              proactively
                  promote ethical and honest behavior among employees of LiveReel
                  and its
                  subsidiary.
 
 All
        Principal Officers are expected to adhere to the LiveReel Code of
        Ethics.  Any violation of this Code of Ethics will be subject to
        appropriate discipline, up to and including dismissal from the Company and
        prosecution under the law.  The board of directors shall have
        responsibility for administration of this Code of Ethics and shall have the
        sole
        and absolute discretionary authority to approve any deviation or waiver from
        this Code of Ethics for Principal Officers.  In the event that a
        waiver of, modification of and/or change to this Code of Ethics is approved
        and
        granted, then the notice of the waiver, modification, and/or change shall
        be
        disclosed as may be required by SEC rules or the rules of any exchange on
        which
        the securities of the Company are then trading.
#### In the Matter of G. WILLIAM PATTON, an attorney at law.

Eor the order: *Mr. George A. Streitz.*

Eor the respondent: *Mr. Lawrence N. Parle.*

June 28, 1960.

Name of respondent stricken from roll of attorneys at law. Opinion reported at 33 *N. J.*96.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20829

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS ROJO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR H-90-240-3

- - - - - - - - - -

August 14, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Rojo contends that the district court erred by

determining that he had an aggravating role in the offense and by

increasing his offense level. We review a district court’s

determination that a defendant had an aggravating role in an

offense for clear error. See United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d

253, 257 (5th Cir. 1993).

Rojo did not present sufficient rebuttal evidence to refute

the information in the presentence report (PSR). United States
No. 96-20829

-2-

v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995) (If the defendant does

not submit affidavits or other evidence to rebut the information

in the PSR, the district court may "adopt [the PSR] without

further inquiry or explanation."). The district court did not

clearly err by enhancing Rojo’s sentence based on his role in the

offense. 

AFFIRMED.
# Jurnalul Oficial C 188/2022

| | ISSN 1977-1029 |
| --- | --- |
| Jurnalul Oficial
  al Uniunii Europene | C 188 |
| | |
| Ediţia în limba română | Comunicări şi informări | Anul 6510 mai 2022 |

ISSN 1977-1029

Jurnalul Oficial

al Uniunii Europene

C 188

Ediţia în limba română

Comunicări şi informări

Anul 6510 mai 2022

---

| Cuprins | Pagina |
| --- | --- |
| | Rectificări |
| | Rectificare la Rezumatul deciziilor Comisiei Europene privind autorizațiile de introducere pe piață în vederea utilizării și/sau autorizațiile de utilizare a substanțelor menționate în anexa XIV la Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1907/2006 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind înregistrarea, evaluarea, autorizarea și restricționarea substanțelor chimice (REACH) [Publicat în temeiul articolului 64 alineatul (9) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1907/2006] (2022/C 131/05) ( JO C 131, 24.3.2022 ) | 1 |

Cuprins

Pagina

Rectificări

Rectificare la Rezumatul deciziilor Comisiei Europene privind autorizațiile de introducere pe piață în vederea utilizării și/sau autorizațiile de utilizare a substanțelor menționate în anexa XIV la Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1907/2006 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind înregistrarea, evaluarea, autorizarea și restricționarea substanțelor chimice (REACH) [Publicat în temeiul articolului 64 alineatul (9) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1907/2006] (2022/C 131/05) ( JO C 131, 24.3.2022 )

( JO C 131, 24.3.2022 )

1

---

| RO | |
| --- | --- |

RO

---

Rectificări

| 10.5.2022 | RO | Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene | C 188/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

RO

Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

C 188/1

---

Rectificare la Rezumatul deciziilor Comisiei Europene privind autorizațiile de introducere pe piață în vederea utilizării și/sau autorizațiile de utilizare a substanțelor menționate în anexa XIV la Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1907/2006 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind înregistrarea, evaluarea, autorizarea și restricționarea substanțelor chimice (REACH) [Publicat în temeiul articolului 64 alineatul (9) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1907/2006] (2022/C 131/05)

(
  Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene C 131 din 24 martie 2022
  )

(2022/C 188/01)

La pagina 5, în a doua coloană din tabel:

în loc de:

„27 martie 2022”,

se citește:

„17 martie 2022”.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Anthony ROGERS, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 10-7707.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 14, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 11, 2011.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, David T. Huband, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Rogers appeals the district court’s order, under 18 U.S.C. § 4245 (2006), finding that he is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect for which he is in need of custody for care and treatment in a suitable facility. Rogers contends that the district court clearly erred in reaching this conclusion. We affirm.

Section 4245 provides for hospitalization of an imprisoned person suffering from mental disease or defect. A district court properly grants a § 4245 motion if the government proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the inmate currently suffers from a mental disease or defect requiring “custody for care or treatment in a suitable facility.” 18 U.S.C. § 4245(a), (d); *see United States v. Baker,*45 F.3d 837, 840 (4th Cir.1995). A district court’s determination of this issue is reviewable on appeal for clear error. *United States v. Bean,*373 F.3d 877, 879 (8th Cir.2004).

In making its assessment, the district court here relied on a written evaluation of staff at FMC-Butner, an independent psychiatrist’s written evaluation, and the live testimony of a Butner psychiatrist. The unanimous conclusion of the medical personnel was that Rogers suffered from a mental disease or defect for which he required treatment at a suitable facility. Even though Rogers complied with his medication in the time leading up to the hearing and thus showed improvement, the doctors predicted that Rogers would relapse into refusing his medication and thus exhibit symptoms of his schizoaffective disorder. Based on Rogers’s history, the written evaluations, and the sworn testimony, we conclude that the district court did not commit clear error when it found that Rogers required placement in a suitable facility for mental health treatment under § 4245.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lynwood Watson, Also Known as Lynwood Garner, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), rendered June 10, 1983, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

While we condemn the statement made by the prosecutor during summation that: “The [complaining witness] is a Black *male. The*defendant is a Black male. I submit to you there is no bias or prejudice in this case” *(see, People v Green,*89 AD2d 874; *People v Hearns,*18 AD2d 922; *McFarland v Smith,*611 F2d 414; *see also, People v Roopchand,*107 AD2d 35), since defense *775counsel did not object to the statement, the error is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; *see, e.g., People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818). Moreover, we have examined the entire record and conclude that defendant received a fair trial. Therefore, there is no basis for reversal in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; *see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT 2002**

 

This certification is not tobe deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report of UTStarcom, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”).

 

In connection with theReport, we, Hong Liang Lu and Michael J. Sophie, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i) the accompanyingQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:    | August 8, 2005                                                                            |
|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|      |                                                                                           |
|  By: | /s/ Hong Liang Lu                                                                              |   |
|      | Name: Hong Liang Lu                                                                            |
|      | Title: President and Chief  Executive Officer                                                  |
|      |                                                                                           |
| By:       | /s/ Michael J. Sophie                                                                          |   |
|      | Name: Michael J. Sophie                                                                        |
|      | Title: *Executive Vice President, and Chief Operating  Officer, acting Chief FinancialOfficer* |
|           |                                                                                                |  |  |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 720 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 720

                      To repeal the CLASS program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 4, 2011

 Mr. Thune (for himself and Mr. Graham) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                      To repeal the CLASS program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Repeal the CLASS Entitlement Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CLASS PROGRAM.

    (a) Repeal.--Title XXXII of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 300ll et seq.; relating to the CLASS program) is repealed.
    (b) Conforming Changes.--
            (1) Title VIII of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
        Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 124 Stat. 119, 846-847) is 
        repealed.
            (2) Section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
        1396a(a)) is amended--
                    (A) by striking paragraphs (81) and (82);
                    (B) in paragraph (80), by inserting ``and'' at the 
                end; and
                    (C) by redesignating paragraph (83) as paragraph 
                (81).
            (3) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 6021(d) of the 
        Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 1396p note) are 
        amended to read as such paragraphs were in effect on the day 
        before the date of the enactment of section 8002(d) of the 
        Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-
        148). Of the funds appropriated by paragraph (3) of such 
        section 6021(d), as amended by the Patient Protection and 
        Affordable Care Act, the unobligated balance is rescinded.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2019182EN.01001201.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus v Comune di Cisternino, Consorzio per l’Inclusione Sociale dell’Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino

(Case C-109/19)

(2019/C 182/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus

Defendants: Comune di Cisternino, Consorzio per l’Inclusione Sociale dell’Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino

Question referred

Does EU law (in particular the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, freedom of movement, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services) preclude a national legislative provision, such as Article 83(9), Article 95(10) and Article 97(5) of the Italian ‘Codice dei contratti pubblici’ (Public Procurement Code), under which failure to indicate labour costs and costs relating to the safety of workers by a tenderer in a public procurement procedure results in any event in the tenderer being excluded from the procedure without the tenderer being given, at a later stage, the benefit of the ‘soccorso istruttorio’ procedure [whereby a tenderer is given an opportunity to remedy shortcomings in his tender documentation after submission of his tender], even where the existence of such an obligation to indicate those costs is apparent from sufficiently clear legal provisions in the public domain and irrespective of the fact that the contract notice does not expressly refer to the legal obligation to provide specific information?

---
# C_2019172EN.01000901.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-101/19)

(2019/C 172/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 69 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) make exhaustive provision with respect to the permissible content of package leaflets for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) or may other information within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC be included? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 69 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) make exhaustive provision with respect to the permissible content of package leaflets for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) or may other information within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC be included?

| 2. | May dosage schedules for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC constitute information which is useful to the patient within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May dosage schedules for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC constitute information which is useful to the patient within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 299, p. 1).

---