alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Melvin Joseph SIMMONS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.S. EVANS; et al., Defendant.

No. 07-16714.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 8, 2011.

Melvin Joseph Simmons, Jr., Susanville, CA, pro se.

*272Before: 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 **

Melvin Joseph Simmons, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action because he failed to state a claim as to two defendants and failed to serve, or show cause for non-service, as to a third. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) for failure to state a claim, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to effect service under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, *Puett v. Blandford,*912 F.2d 270, 273 (9th Cir.1990). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Simmons’s claim concerning the handling of his grievances because inmates have no protected due process rights in grievance procedures, *see Mann v. Adams,*855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988) (order), and Simmons failed to plead facts showing that any defendant acted with an intent to discriminate against him on the basis of his membership in a protected class, *see Thornton v. City of St. Helens,*425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir.2005) (plaintiff seeking to state claim for violation of equal protection must allege intent or purpose to discriminate based on membership in protected class).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Simmons’s action without prejudice under Rule 4(m) because Simmons did not serve Newton and failed to establish good cause for not having done so. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); *see also Boudette v. Barnette,*923 F.2d 754, 755-56 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that good cause means, at a minimum, excusable neglect).

Simmons’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 99





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 on Form 10-Q of Entrust, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, F. William Conner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and David L. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





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





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





Dated: August 13, 2002

/s/    F. WILLIAM
CONNERF. William ConnerChief Executive Officer





Dated: August 13, 2002

/s/    DAVID L.
THOMPSONDavid L. ThompsonChief Financial Officer
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000025

23-MAR-2017

07:58 AM
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Synovics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2008 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ronald Howard Lane, Principal Executive Officer, 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the
Company for the periods presented.

Dated: June 16, 2008

|By: | /s/ Ronald H. Lane     
|--- | -----------------------
|    | Ronald Howard Lane     
|    | Chief Executive Officer

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Synovics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Synovics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
PEOPLES-SIDNEY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                   EXHIBIT 32

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


In connection with then Quarterly Report of Peoples-Sidney Financial Corporation
(the  "Corporation")  on Form  10-QSB for the  period  ended  March 31,  2005 as
furnished  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date of this
Certification  (the  "Report"),  I, Douglas  Stewart,  the  President  and Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation, and, I, Debra A. Geuy, the Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer of the  Corporation,  certify,  pursuant to 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 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 Corporation.





                         /s/ Douglas Stewart
                         -------------------
                         Douglas Stewart, President and Chief Executive Officer

                         Date:  May 16, 2005
                                ------------


                         /s/ Debra A. Geuy
                         -------------------
                         Debra A. Geuy, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

                         Date:  May 16, 2005
                                ------------


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

                                                                             29.
#### VAN KEUREN, Appellant, v. BROWN, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Edwin Van Keuren against Joseph P. Brown.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously ■affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.30
 
                           ALBERTA TREASURY BRANCHES
                          Sunridge Professional Centre
                          #5, 2681 - 36th Street N.E.
                            Calgary, Alberta T1Y 5S3
 
                                                                December 1, 1997
Venture Seismic Ltd.
3110, 80th Avenue S.E.
Calgary, AB T2C 1J3
 
ATTENTION: GREG WIEBE
 
Dear Mr. Wiebe:
 
Re: Working Capital Covenant -- Venture Seismic Ltd.
 
We acknowledge that Venture Seismic Ltd. ("Venture") is in breach of the working
capital covenant as of September 30, 1997. We confirm that ATB does not
currently intend to take any action on or in respect of such breach on the basis
that the company will undertake to remedy the breach on or before January 31,
1998.
 
Yours truly,
 
/s/KEVIN SCOTT
Kevin R. Scott
Account Manager
#### Aegis Holding Lipstick LLC, Appellant, v Metropolitan 885 Third Avenue Leasehold LLC, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[945 NYS2d 71]—

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered October 26, 2011 and November 9, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, dissolved a temporary restraining order that had tolled plaintiffs time to cure the alleged defaults and denied plaintiff’s motions for a *Yellowstone*injunction, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motions granted.

Plaintiff established its entitlement to a *Yellowstone*injunction. Plaintiff demonstrated that it held a commercial lease, had received a notice to cure from defendant landlord, and had requested injunctive relief prior to the expiration of the cure period. Plaintiff also showed that it was prepared and maintained the ability to cure the alleged defaults *(see Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v 600 Third Ave. Assoc.,*93 NY2d 508, 514 [1999]). Although plaintiff initially did not, as required under the lease, remain open six days per week while it contested defendant’s purportedly improper HVAC charges, plaintiff cured that default and there has yet to be a determination as to plaintiffs responsibility to cure the remaining alleged defaults, which the court did not address *(see e.g. Boi To Go, Inc. v Second 800 No. 2 LLC,*58 AD3d 482 [2009]). Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 96

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Senate should

ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

Against Women.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 12, 1997

Ms. WOOLSEY (for herself, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. PELOSI, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. YATES, Mr. OLVER, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of

Texas, Mr. GEJDENSON, Ms. HARMAN, and Mr. PAYNE) submitted the

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

the Senate should ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that—

3 (1) the full realization of the rights of women

4 is vital to the development and well-being of people

5 of all nations; and

6 (2) the Senate should, therefore, give its advice

7 and consent to the ratification of the Convention on
2

•HRES 96 IH

1 the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

2 Against Women.

Æ
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF MEDALLION FINANCIAL CORP.



|                                 |  |                                           
|-------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Name                             |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Formation
|Medallion Funding LLC            |  | New York                                  
|                                 | 
|Medallion Capital, Inc.          |  | Minnesota                                 
|                                 | 
|Freshstart Venture Capital Corp. |  | New York                                  
|                                 | 
|Medallion Bank                   |  | Utah                                      
|                                 | 
|Generation Outdoor, Inc          |  | Delaware                                  
|                                 | 
|Medallion Hamptons Holding LLC   |  | Delaware                                  
|                                 | 
|Taxi Medallion Loan Trust II     |  | Delaware                                  
|                                 | 
|Taxi Medallion Loan Trust III    |  | Delaware                                  
|                                 | 
|Medallion Financing Trust I      |  | Delaware
#### Carmen Serbia, Appellant, v Arthur Mudge et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 296]—

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered March 9, 2011, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the failure to establish a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claims of “significant limitation of use” of her lumbar spine, by submitting expert medical reports finding normal ranges of motion, as well as the report of a radiologist who opined that the herniated disc shown in an MRI of the plaintiff was not acute or caused by the accident (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]).

The preclusion of plaintiffs expert neurologist’s and radiologist’s reports was an improvident exercise of discretion, since defendants relied on plaintiffs neurologist’s report, were equally *787untimely in serving their radiologist’s report and thus cannot show prejudice by the lateness of the exchange *(see Martin v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth.,*73 AD3d 481, 482 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 713 [2010]; *Browne v Smith,*65 AD3d 996 [2009]).

In opposition, plaintiff submitted competent medical evidence raising an issue of fact as to her lumbar spine injuries, including the report of the radiologist who submitted a nonconclusory opinion sufficiently rebutting defendants’ expert opinion regarding the cause of plaintiffs herniated disc, and of her treating physician, who opined, after a full examination soon after the accident, that her injuries were causally related to the accident *(see Ramos v Rodriguez,*93 AD3d 473 [2012]).

Plaintiff adequately explained the gap in treatment by asserting in her affidavit that she stopped receiving treatment for her injuries when her no-fault insurance benefits were cut off, and she lacked income to continue treatment *(see Browne v Covington,*82 AD3d 406 [2011]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.
# C_2019348EN.01001301.xml

| 14.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/13

---

Appeal brought on 21 August 2019 by Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. against the judgment delivered on 28 June 2019 in Case T-64/18 Alfamicro v Commission

(Case C-623/19P)

(2019/C 348/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, advogados, and M. Stock da Cunha, advogada estagiária)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-64/18, (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-64/18, (1)

| — | Annul Commission Decision C (2017) 8839 final, of 13 December 2017, |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision C (2017) 8839 final, of 13 December 2017,

| — | Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the event giving rise to a contractual debt is the contract itself. Consequently, if the Commission, in the declarative action, can make its claims, but does not do so, it cannot, following the judgment, issue enforcement instruments for the amount of the overdraft.

The Commission misused its powers.

In the declarative judgment (T-831/14), (2) the General Court ruled on the Commission’s claim arising out of the grant agreement, and not on the ineligible costs relating to the period covered by the audit, as it erroneously does now.

The operative part of the judgment handed down in the declarative action (T-831/14) does not lay down any limitation, either in relation to the debt, the period or the costs.

A single enforcement instrument corresponds to a single obligation, being the debt under the grant agreement.

It does not make any sense for the General Court to determine definitively a debt and then for the creditor ultimately to claim that not all of the amounts were calculated.

The applicant submits that, from the moment there is a declarative action to determine a contractual debt owed to the European Union, it is forbidden for the Commission to issue enforcement instruments without taking the General Court’s judgment as its reference.

If the declarative action concerns the contractual debt owed by the debtor to the Commission, the jurisdiction of the General Court to determine the debt precludes the Commission’s power to issue enforcement instruments which override the judgment.

---

(1)  EU:T:2019:453

(2)  See Case C-14/18 P

---
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Starpoint Central School District, Appellant, and CSEA, Inc., Local 872, Starpoint Central School District Buildings and Grounds Unit #7698, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 713]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered July 1, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The order, among other things, dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Garni and Sconiers, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Jessie J. Barnes, Petitioner, v Ronald Harling, Superintendent, Monroe County Jail, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 901]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County [Thomas A. Stander, J.], entered December 9, 2009) to review determinations of respondent. The determinations found that petitioner had violated various jail rules.

It is hereby ordered that the determinations are unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 *1416proceeding challenging the determinations that he violated certain rules and regulations while he was an inmate at the Monroe County Jail, and Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) inasmuch as the petition raised an issue of substantial evidence. We conclude that petitioner is not entitled to any of the relief he seeks. Petitioner failed to establish that respondent ever violated a court order or willfully failed to comply with his disclosure request, and thus he is not entitled to a default judgment or any other relief based on any alleged violation or willful failure to comply with his disclosure request *(see*CPLR 3126; *Matter of Seneca Foods Corp. v Jorling,*168 AD2d 967, 968 [1990], *lv denied*77 NY2d 808 [1991]). Petitioner’s sentencing during the pendency of this proceeding and his subsequent incarceration render moot the applicability of the conditions and policies of the Monroe County Jail to petitioner, where he previously was housed *(see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the three months ended March 31, 2008 (the Report), I, Howard C. Birndorf, Chief Executive 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                                                   
|-------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|               | 
|August 8, 2008 |  | /s/ HOWARD C. BIRNDORF                            
|               |  | Howard C. Birndorf                                
|               |  | Chairman of the Board, and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statement of Operations, Statements of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          52,752
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,713
<PP&E>                                         380,381
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,093
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,282,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          195,393
<BONDS>                                        262,913
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     89,062
<COMMON>                                        39,908
<OTHER-SE>                                     695,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,282,377
<SALES>                                      1,069,550
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,069,550
<CGS>                                          130,151
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  835,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                82,605
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             119,944
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (98,636)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (98,636)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       12,469
<NET-INCOME>                                 (111,105)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Salzano, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered on Novem*521ber 11, 1983, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Fein, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.