alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN MCARDLE,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC; NEW

CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC;

NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS

SERVICES, INC.,

 Defendants - Appellants.

No. 09-17218

D.C. No. 4:09-cv-01117-CW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2012** 

San Francisco, California

Before: HUG, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JUN 29 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

AT&T Mobility, LLC (AT&T) appeals the district court’s order denying its

motion to compel arbitration. 

When the district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, it did not

have the benefit of the decisions by the United States Supreme Court in AT&T

Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) and by this court in Coneff v.

AT&T Corp., 673 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2012). The district court ruled that the

arbitration clause in the agreement between McArdle and AT&T was

unenforceable due to the absence of class action relief. This ruling is not

consistent with the holdings of Concepcion and Coneff. See Concepcion, 131 S.

Ct. at 1751-52; Coneff, 673 F.3d at 1161. 

In Coneff, we remanded the issue of procedural unconscionability to the

district court, reasoning that “generally applicable contract defenses” survive under

§ 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Coneff, 673 F.3d at 1161 (quoting

Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. at 1746). As in Coneff, the district court in this case did not

address procedural unconscionability, although the issue was raised by McArdle. 

Therefore, we remand to the district court for initial consideration of the issue of

procedural unconscionability. See id.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7658

ANTWYN GIBBS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. GORDON B. JOHNSON, SR., Judge; GARRETT LOMINACK; ROBERT DENNIS; MICHAEL STRIBBLE , Defendants

- Appellees , and
SOUTH CAROLINA COURTHOUSE , Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Donald C. Coggins, Jr. , District Judge. ( 8:20

- cv - 00716

- DCC )

Submitted : March 18, 2021 Decided: March 23, 2021

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Antwyn Gibbs , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Antwyn Gibbs appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Gibbs ’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by th e district court. Gibbs v. Johnson , No. 8:20

- cv - 00716

- DCC (D.S.C. Oct. 16, 2020) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 392 

Urging the Republic of Turkey to safeguard its Christian heritage and to 

return confiscated church properties. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2012 

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. KIRK) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Urging the Republic of Turkey to safeguard its Christian 

heritage and to return confiscated church properties. 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the 

2 Secretary of State, in all official contacts with officials and 

3 representatives of the Government of Turkey, should em4 phasize that the Government of Turkey should— 

5 (1) end all forms of religious discrimination; 

6 (2) allow the rightful church and lay owners of 

7 Christian church properties, without hindrance or 

8 restriction, to organize and administer prayer serv9 ices, religious education, clerical training, appoint10 ments, and succession, religious community gathVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:36 Mar 08, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR392.IS SR392

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 392 IS 

1 erings, social services, including ministry to the 

2 needs of the poor and infirm, and other religious ac3 tivities; 

4 (3) return to their rightful owners all Christian 

5 churches and other places of worship, monasteries, 

6 schools, hospitals, monuments, relics, holy sites, and 

7 other religious properties, including movable prop8 erties, such as artwork, manuscripts, vestments, ves9 sels, and other artifacts; and 

10 (4) allow the rightful Christian church and lay 

11 owners of Christian church properties, without hin12 drance or restriction, to preserve, reconstruct, and 

13 repair, as they see fit, all Christian churches and 

14 other places of worship, monasteries, schools, hos15 pitals, monuments, relics, holy sites, and other reli16 gious properties within Turkey. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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
 Healthy Processed Foods Research: Albany, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Docsheadline bar Business
               Main
               Enhancing the Marketability of California Persimmons
               Persimmon Info for Growers
               Imaging, Detection, and Sorting Lab
               Point of Sale Flyers


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
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4907

_____________________________ A NTHONY B AKER , Appellant,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Franklin County

. Terry P. Lewis , Judge

. January 14, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J.
, and R OBERTS and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Anthony Baker, pro se , Appellant

. Beverly S. Brewster
, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 CERTIFICATION
  In
connection with the Annual Report of Purchase Point Media Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Steve
Rubakh, President and 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 to the best of my
knowledge:
 
 (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 Company.
 
 /s/
Steve
Rubakh
 Steve
Rubakh
 President
 April 14,
2008
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
the Company for the quarter ended
March 31, 2007 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) 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 for the periods presented
therein.
 Date: May 10, 2007/s/ UMANG GUPTA
Umang Gupta

Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.02

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
           AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2004 of Hartford Life, Inc. (the "Company"), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 as enacted by
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or section 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.

                                    /s/ Lizabeth H. Zlatkus
                                    -----------------------
                                    Name: Lizabeth H. Zlatkus
                                    Title: Executive Vice President and Chief
                                           Financial Officer
                                    Date: May 11, 2004

                                       45
# Official Journal L 333/2011

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2011.333.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 333 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5415 December 2011 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2011.333.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 333

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5415 December 2011

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2011/823/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 5 April 2011 on the measures C 11/09 (ex NN 53b/08, NN 2/10 and N 19/10) implemented by the Dutch State for ABN AMRO Group NV (created following the merger between Fortis Bank Nederland and ABN AMRO N)
  (notified under document C(2011) 2114)

   (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

2011/823/EU

*

Commission Decision of 5 April 2011 on the measures C 11/09 (ex NN 53b/08, NN 2/10 and N 19/10) implemented by the Dutch State for ABN AMRO Group NV (created following the merger between Fortis Bank Nederland and ABN AMRO N)
  (notified under document C(2011) 2114)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2011) 2114)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 302 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Umang Gupta, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Keynote Systems, Inc.; 

 

2. Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting. 

 

Date: February 9, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,523
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                       715
<INVENTORY>                                     41,780
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,623
<PP&E>                                         243,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,828
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 323,454
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          435,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,094
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,184,179
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   323,454
<SALES>                                         98,489
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               136,688
<CGS>                                           89,914
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   89,914
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               841,048
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,880
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (822,154)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (822,954)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (822,954)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.074)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.074)
        

</TABLE>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

SEP 11 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PAULA CASTILLO ROGERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-4169

(D.C. No. 96-CR-023-02)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO , KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of malicious destruction of a

building by means of a destructive device, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). The

district court sentenced defendant to thirty-six months in prison and ordered

restitution in the amount of $59,452. This amount included restitution for the

offense of conviction as well as for other offenses. 

Defendant appeals from the restitution order, arguing that the district court

erred in ordering restitution for offenses other than the offense of conviction. 

Petitioner believes the district court should have limited restitution to $350, the

amount of loss for the offense of conviction. The government correctly concedes

that the district court erred in ordering defendant to pay restitution for offenses

for which she was not convicted. See Hughey v. United States , 495 U.S. 411, 413

(1990). 

We commend the government for recognizing and conceding the error in

defendant’s sentence. One hallmark of ethical advocacy is making concessions

that need to be made. We compliment the government in the hopes of

encouraging others to follow this good example. 
-3-

The restitution order is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for

resentencing with respect to restitution.

Entered for the Court

Robert H. Henry

Circuit Judge
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ELRIDGE ALEXANDER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1735

[February 2, 2022]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Robert Panse, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502019MM011877.

Benjamin W. Buck, Jr. of Benjamin W. Buck Law, P.A., Tallahassee, 

for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 

1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the 

appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so 

as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the 

evidence[.]”).

MAY, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         784,168
<SECURITIES>                                     1,414
<RECEIVABLES>                                  519,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                    37,181
<INVENTORY>                                     95,707
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,820,146
<PP&E>                                       6,359,231
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,394,554
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,178,302
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,575,010
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,933
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,927,618
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,178,302
<SALES>                                        589,414
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,493,113
<CGS>                                          549,470
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  549,470
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,857,518
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,648
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             202,071
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,535
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,535
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,505
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00



</TABLE>
#### Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. *v.*Freeman Albert et al.

Decided March 28, 1990

*David M. Reilly*and *Robert W. Carangelo,*in support of the petition.

*Joseph A. La Bella,*in opposition.

The proposed intervenor Americo Arduini, Sr.’s petitions for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court are denied.