alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6026
JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES LEWIS KING, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-1368-A) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 5, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles Lewis King, Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Joseph Johnson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Johnson v. King , No. CA-98-1368-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 9, 1999). We deny Johnson’s motion to supplement the record on appeal and 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
Bruce W. Brewer, OSB No. 925581 

brucebrewerusdccases@gmail.com 

PO Box 421 

West Linn, OR 97068 

503-621-6633 

Attorney for Plaintiff 'v 

UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

EDWARD WINGFIELD, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER, 

of Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Case No. 3: 16-cv-00503-JR 

ORDER (EAJA FEES) 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to the 

Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, an attorney fee in the amount of $5,472.11 is 

awarded to Plaintiff. It is ordered that the aforementioned attorney fee will be paid to Plaintiffs 

attorney, dependent upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against 

the awarded fees, pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 

S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 

II I 

II I 

1 - ORDER FOR EAJA FEES 
If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made payable to Plaintiffs attorney, Bruce 

Brewer, and mailed to him at PO Box 421, West Linn, OR 97068. If Plaintiff has such debt, then 

the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt shall be made payable to Plaintiff and 

mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's mailing address stated above. There are no costs or expenses to be 

paid herein. 

DATED this ~$t)-...day of f\Vi~,t) Sf 

Submitted by: 

Bruce W. Brewer, OSB No. 925581 

503-621-6633. Attorney for Plaintiff 

2 - ORDER FOR EAJA FEES 

'2017. 

~~ J:,. . ~.$2> Uiti"re'a States District Court Judge/Magistrate
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1795 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1795

    To require the Commissioner of Social Security to make publicly 
 available on-line tools to allow individuals eligible for disability 
     benefits to assess the impact of earnings on the individual's 
 eligibility for, and amount of, benefits received through Federal and 
                        State benefit programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2015

   Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself, Mr. Young of Indiana, Mrs. 
Black, Mr. Reed, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Renacci, Mr. Marchant, and Mr. Kelly 
 of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require the Commissioner of Social Security to make publicly 
 available on-line tools to allow individuals eligible for disability 
     benefits to assess the impact of earnings on the individual's 
 eligibility for, and amount of, benefits received through Federal and 
                        State benefit programs.

    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 ``Promoting Opportunity through 
Informed Choice Act''.

SEC. 2. ONLINE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT TOOLS.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Commissioner of Social Security shall make publicly available 
through the website of the Social Security Administration on-line tools 
to allow all individuals eligible for benefits based on disability 
under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act to assess the impact 
of earnings on the individual's eligibility for, and amount of, 
benefits received through Federal and State benefit programs.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER BRIGHTLY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

CORIZON HEALTH, INC.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-16321

D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00127-JCH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John Charles Hinderaker, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 7, 2022** 

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: GRABER and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,

*** District

Judge.

 

FILED

FEB 9 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

*** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
Christopher Brightly, an Arizona state prisoner who is experiencing several

health problems, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a preliminary

injunction in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Eighth

Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and affirm.

We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion.

Guzman v. Shewry, 552 F.3d 941, 948 (9th Cir. 2009).

1. The district court correctly held that some of the relief that Brightly

initially sought in his preliminary injunction motion was moot because he had already

received the requested remedies. See Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir.

2007) (“[A] case becomes moot when ‘it no longer present[s] a case or controversy

under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution.’” (second alteration in original) (quoting

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998))); see also Honig v. Students of Cal. Sch. for

the Blind, 471 U.S. 148, 149 (1985) (per curiam) (explaining that an appeal

challenging the issuance of a preliminary injunction is moot if the movants have

already received the injunctive relief they sought).

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the remainder

of Brightly’s motion for a preliminary injunction. It is apparent from the record that

the district court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in

concluding that Brightly failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. 

-2-
And because Brightly did not meet this burden, the district court did not err by failing

to address separately each of the factors from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848,

856 (9th Cir. 2017).

AFFIRMED.

-3-
#### Devlin *v.*Atlantic Ave. R. Co. *et al.*

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

Carriers—Injury to Passenger—Negligence—Sufficiency of Evidence.

While riding in defendant’s horse-car, plaintiff was injured by the shaft of a wagon which collided with the car. In an action to recover for the injuries, the evidence tended to show that the two vehicles had stopped in'plain view of each other in a very narrow street, and that the collision would not have occurred had the car stood still for a very short time, and permitted the wagon, which was first in motion, to get by. *Held,*that it was error to order a nonsuit.

Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.

An action by William Devlin against the Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company, impleaded with Guns Haussknecht, to recover for injuries sustained in a collision between the company’s liorse-car and the other defendant’s wagon. The court dismissed the complaint as against the railroad company, and plaintiff appeals.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*Roswell H. Carpenter, (A. H. Dailey,*of counsel,) for appellant. *Tracy, MacFarland, Ivens, Boardman & Platt,*for respondents.

Barnard, P. J.

The evidence in this case was sufficient to go to the jury. The plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant’s road, and was injured by being struck by the shaft of a wagon, which struck the defendant’s car on the *849side, and near the rear of the same. The car was going down Adams street. The wagon which injured plaintiff was turning from Myrtle avenue into Adams street. When the wagon got to the avenue the defendant’s car was at the crossing where Adams street crosses Myrtle avenue. The car was stopped. The wagon had stopped first. The wagon started when the car stopped, and the car started at the same time. A collision was inevitable, from the position of the vehicles and the narrowness of Adams street. There was barely room in Adams street for a wagon to pass between the tracks and the curb-stone. The vehicles were in plain view of each other, and the collision seems to have happened because the driver of the car started before the wagon could get into Adams street out of Myrtle avenue. There would have been no collision if the car had stood still for a moment. The danger did not come in fact from the side, but from the front. The fact that the car had almost passed is decisive proof that a very short delay in the car would have permitted the wagon, which was first put in motion, to get by. *Breen*v. *Railroad Co.,*109 N. Y. 297, 16 N. E. Rep. 60. The exception should be sustained, and a new trial granted, costs to abide event. All concur.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Boyd E. Hoback, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Good Times Restaurants Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual 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, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

- Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
- The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures 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 which this report is being prepared;
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a)  All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which are reasonably 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 controls over financial reporting.

 

/s/ Boyd E. Hoback

Boyd E. Hoback*President and Chief Executive Officer
December 29, 2004*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
ACCOMPANYING CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1997   
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-1997   
<PERIOD-END>                                      MAR-31-1997   
<CASH>                                                 31,441   
<SECURITIES>                                            1,495   
<RECEIVABLES>                                          20,431   
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0   
<INVENTORY>                                                 0   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       58,432   
<PP&E>                                                 12,774   
<DEPRECIATION>                                          4,108   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         69,641   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  20,631   
<BONDS>                                                     0   
<COMMON>                                                    0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0   
<PREFERRED>                                                 2   
<OTHER-SE>                                             49,008   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           69,641   
<SALES>                                                13,008   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       19,360   
<CGS>                                                     520   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           4,497   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       12,125   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      (362)   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         3,100   
<INCOME-TAX>                                            1,147   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     1,953   
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0   
<CHANGES>                                                   0   
<NET-INCOME>                                            1,953   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0.09   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.09   
                                                                
                                               

</TABLE>
RIO GRANDE ABOVE HWY 380 NEAR SAN ANTONIOLatitude: 33.927Longitude: -106.851Elevation: 4841

RIO GRANDE ABOVE HWY 380 NEAR SAN ANTONIO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ute Creek Site Page...



Ute Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Vacas Locas Site Page...



Vacas Locas

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grayback Site Page...



Grayback

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Tres Ritos Site Page...



Tres Ritos

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Powderhorn Site Page...



Taos Powderhorn

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Shuree Site Page...



Shuree

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Palo Site Page...



Palo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to San Antonio Sink Site Page...



San Antonio Sink

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Garita Peak Site Page...



Garita Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wager Gulch Site Page...



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rio Santa Barbara Site Page...



Rio Santa Barbara

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Pueblo Site Page...



Taos Pueblo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Los Lunas PMC Site Page...



Los Lunas PMC

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sevilleta Site Page...



Sevilleta

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Alcalde Site Page...



Alcalde

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Thoreau Site Page...



Thoreau

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bateman Site Page...



Bateman

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beartown Site Page...



Beartown

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chamita Site Page...



Chamita

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Culebra #2 Site Page...



Culebra #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cumbres Trestle Site Page...



Cumbres Trestle

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Gallegos Peak Site Page...



Gallegos Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hopewell Site Page...



Hopewell

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lily Pond Site Page...



Lily Pond

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Middle Creek Site Page...



Middle Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to North Costilla Site Page...



North Costilla

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Quemazon Site Page...



Quemazon

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red River Pass #2 Site Page...



Red River Pass #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Senorita Divide #2 Site Page...



Senorita Divide #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Trinchera Site Page...



Trinchera

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Rio Grande Site Page...



Upper Rio Grande

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper San Juan Site Page...



Upper San Juan

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Whiskey Ck Site Page...



Whiskey Ck

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Summit Site Page...



Wolf Creek Summit

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elk Cabin Site Page...



Elk Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Santa Fe Site Page...



Santa Fe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rice Park Site Page...



Rice Park
# L_2011037EN.01003001.xml

| 11.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 37/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 37/30

---

Corrigendum to Directive 2009/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the suppression of radio interference produced by agricultural or forestry tractors (electromagnetic compatibility)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 216 of 20 August 2009
  )

On page 21, Annex II:

for:

3.11.2.2.   Rased power VA’,

read:

3.11.2.2.   Rated power: VA’;

for:

‘7.   Steerling’,

read:

‘7.   Steering’;

for:

‘9.   Field of vision, glaxing, windscreen wipers and rear-view mirrors’,

read:

‘9.   Field of vision, glazing, windscreen wipers and rear-view mirrors’;

for:

‘9.2.   Glaxing:’,

read:

‘9.2.   Glazing:’;

for:

‘9.4.   Rear-view mince(s) (position of each):’,

read:

‘9.4.   Rear-view mirror(s) (position of each):’;

on page 34, Annex VI, point 6.1, Measurements:

for:

‘Las mediciones se efectuarán en la gama de frecuencias que va desde los 30 hasta los 1 000 MHz. A fin de comprobar que se cumplen los requisitos del presente anexo, la autoridad encargada del ensayo efectuará ensayos enhasta 13 frecuencias de dicha gama, por ejemplo 45, 65, 90, 120, 150, 190, 230, 280, 380, 450, 600, 750 y900 MHz. En caso de que se rebase el límite durante el ensayo, se deberá comprobar si ello se debe al vehículo yno a la radiación ambiental.’,

read:

‘Measurements shall be made throughout the 30 to 1 000 MHz frequency range. To confirm that the vehicle meets the requirements of this Annex, the Testing Authority shall test at up to 13 frequencies in the range, for example 45, 65, 90, 120, 150, 190, 230, 280, 380, 450, 600, 750, 900 MHz. In the event that the limit is exceeded during the test, investigations shall be made to ensure that this is due to the vehicle and not to background radiation.’.

---
1The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of The Honorable John

F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1157

___________

Danny Scott Long, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Steve Asemota, Dr., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 3, 2001

 Filed: April 9, 2001

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Danny Scott Long appeals from the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In an amendment to his complaint filed more

than three years after the complained-of conduct, Long alleged Dr. Asemota

deliberately delayed performing surgery on Long after a stabbing incident. Upon our

de novo review, we agree with the district court not only that Long’s claim against Dr.

Asemota was time-barred, see Ketchum v. City of W. Memphis, 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th
-2-

Cir. 1992) (§ 1983 claims are governed by general personal-injury statute of limitation

of state in which they accrued; in Arkansas, limitations period is 3 years); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 15(c)(3) (relation back of amendment changing party); but also that Long failed to

rebut Dr. Asemota’s evidence that he did not know of Long’s condition prior to the

doctor’s arrival in surgery, see Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir.

1997). Long’s remaining arguments are either meritless, or are being raised for the first

time on appeal. See Stuart v. Gen. Motors Corp., 217 F.3d 621, 630 (8th Cir. 2000)

(refusal to compel discovery); Stevens. v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998)

(denial of request for appointed counsel); Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir.

1995) (per curiam) (declining to address argument first raised on appeal). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny all pending motions. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2009204EN.01000401.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5564 — Raiffeisen Leasing/SAG/Advisory House/The Mobility House JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 204/02

On 21 August 2009, 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 German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5564. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5564. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---