alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Brenda J. LINDSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOEING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-35668.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2011.*

Filed April 27, 2011.

Brenda J. Lindsey, Seattle, WA, pro se.

Sherida Colvin, James G. Zissler, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Brenda J. Lindsey appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in *669her employment action alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. *Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles,*349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.2004). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a request for a continuance under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). *Tatum v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco,*441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lindsey failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for her suspensions and termination were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. *See Vasquez,*349 F.3d at 640-42, 646; *see also Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc.,*256 F.3d 864, 875 n. 9 (9th Cir.2001) (‘“decisions interpreting [Title VII] are persuasive authority for the construction of [WLAD]’ ” (alterations in original) (quoting *Xieng v. Peoples Nat’l Bank,*120 Wash.2d 512, 844 P.2d 389, 392 (1993))).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lindsey’s request for a continuance under Rule 56(f) to conduct additional discovery because Lindsey failed to show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. *See Tatum,*441 F.3d at 1100-01.

Lindsey’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
*Pursuant to 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determ ined that this opinio n should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4.

1 127 S. Ct. 625 (2006). United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 3, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### In The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit No. 05-40741 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. AQUILEO AYALA-FLORES, Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas No. 5:04-CR-2469 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * On January 8, 2006, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment in this case and remanded the case to this court for further consideration in light of Lopez v. Gonzales . 1 The defendant has served his term of imprisonment and has been deported, but he remains subject2 ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. 2007). 2

to a term of supervised release. Our disposition of this appeal is governed by this circuit’s binding precedent in United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis . 2 Because the defendant remains subject to a term of supervised release, however, he may still seek modification of the term of supervised releas e under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), which does not require his presence. We therefore DISMISS this appeal without prejudice to the defendant’s right to seek a modification of his term of supervised release.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10326]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP95-168-006]


Sea Robin Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

April 20, 2001.
    Take notice that on April 16, 2001, Sea Robin Pipeline Company (Sea 
Robin) tendered for filing the pro forma tariff sheets listed on 
Appendix A attached to the filing.
    Sea Robin states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
Ordering Paragraph (C) of the Commission's June 30, 1999 Order in the 
above-referenced proceeding that Sea Robin ``file tariff sheets 
specifying separately stated gathering rates, not inconsistent with the 
terms and conditions of its Part 284 tariff provisions, for gathering 
services performed through facilities located upstream of the 
Vermillion 149 compressor station.'' Sea Robin Pipeline Co., 87 FERC 
para. 61,384, at 62,432 (1999), reh'g denied, 92 FERC para. 61,072 
(2000), as modified by the Commission's December 15, 2000 Order on 
Compliance Filing 93 FERC para. 61,287, reh'g, 94 FERC para. 61,137 
(2001). Sea Robin asserts that the filing is submitted within the time 
provided by the Commission in its January 17, 2001 letter order 
regarding time for compliance. This filing may be viewed at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
    Sea Robin states that copies of this filing are being served on the 
parties to the proceeding and appropriate state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Secs. 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance 
with Sec. 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and 
interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of 
paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the 
Commission's web site at
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10326 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Justin SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6007.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 12, 2011.

Decided: May 20, 2011.

*347Michael Justin Smith, Appellant Pro Se. S. Katherine Burnette, Michael Gordon James, Office of the United States Attorney, Barbara Dickerson Kocher, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Justin Smith appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled “Motion to Defer Payment Schedule” of his court-ordered criminal monetary penalties. Because the district court was without authority to grant the relief sought by Smith in his motion to defer, we affirm the district court’s order. *See United States v. Smith,*No. 5:05-cr-00207-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2010). 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 Joseph Lambertson, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mordue, J. — grand larceny, third degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of the Treasury
 DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 29, 2001 to be assured of consideration. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) *OMB Number:*
                     1545-0908. *Form Number:*
                     IRS Forms 8282 and 8283. *Type of Review:*
                     Extension. *Title:*
                     Donee Information Return (Sale, Exchange or Other Disposition of donated Property) (8282); and Noncash Charitable Contributions (8283). *Description:*Internal Revenue Code section 170(a)(1) and regulation section 1.170A-13(c) require donors of property valued over $5,000 to file certain information with their tax return in order to receive the charitable contribution deduction. Form 8283 is used to report the required information. Code section 6050L requires donee organizations to file an information return with the IRS if they dispose of the property received within two years. Form 8282 is used for this purpose. *Respondents:*
                     Individuals or households, Business or other for-profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeeper:*
                     1,051,000. *Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:* Form 8282
Form 8283 
                             (minutes)Recordkeeping
3 hr., 35 min.
19Learning about the law or the form
12 min.
29Preparing the form
15 min.
36Copying, assembling, and sending the form to the IRS

34
 *Frequency of Response:*
                     Annually. *Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden:*
                     3,019,050 hours. *Clearance Officer:*
                     Garrick Shear, Internal Revenue Service, Room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. *OMB Reviewer:*
                     Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Lois K. Holland, Departmental Reports Management Officer.


[FR Doc. 01-10302 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adalberto TERRAZAS-GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-51014

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Adalberto Terrazas-Guerrero presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by *United States v. Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d 554, 562-63 (5th Cir.2008), which held that the disparity between sentences of defendants who can participate in a fast-track program and defendants who cannot is not “unwarranted” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
1

IF-352

(Rev. 01/15)

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES COURTS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544 Date: 10/03/2016

GUIDE TO JUDICIARY POLICY

TRANSMITTAL 07-010 VOLUME/PART 7A CHAPTER(S) 2

TO: Judges, United States Courts of Appeals

Judges, United States District Courts

United States Magistrate Judges

Circuit Executives

Federal Public/Community Defenders

District Court Executives

Clerks, United States Courts of Appeals

Clerks, United States District Courts

Chief Probation Officers

Chief Pretrial Services Officers

Senior Staff Attorneys

Chief Circuit Mediators

Circuit Librarians

FROM: James C. Duff 

RE: DEFENDER SERVICES

This transmittal provides notice of changes to the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 7 (Defender Services), Part 

A (Guidelines for Administering the CJA and Related Statutes): 

Chapter 2 – Appointment and Payment of Counsel 

Appendix 2A – Model Plan for Implementation and Administration of the Criminal Justice Act

At its September 2016 session, the Judicial Conference of the United States approved a new Model Plan for 

Implementation and Administration of the Criminal Justice Act (also known as the Model CJA Plan). This 

plan consolidates former Appendices 2A and 2B into a single plan, and as such, Appendix 2B has been 

removed. In addition, the Conference adopted a new policy, codified in Guide, Vol. 7A, § 210.10.10(e), that 

each district should review its CJA plan every five years and amend it as needed. The significant changes 

in Chapter 2 are detailed in the Redline Comparison below.

Questions regarding this transmittal may be directed to the AO Defender Services Offices, at 202-502-3030. 
2

REDLINE COMPARISON REFLECTING CHANGES

[Significant changes in Chapter 2 (Appointment and Payment of Counsel) follow:]

Appendices

Appx. 2A Model Plan for Implementation and Administration of the Criminal Justice Act Plan

Appx. 2B Model Plan for the Composition, Administration and Management of the CJA Panel

[. . .]

§ 210 Representation under the CJA

§ 210.10 District Plans

§ 210.10.10 Overview

[. . .]

(d) A Model Plan for Implementation and Administration of the Criminal Justice Act Plan (Model 

Plan) is included as Appx. 2A.

(e) Each district court should review, and amend as appropriate, the CJA Plan every five years to 

ensure compliance with the CJA Guidelines and other relevant Judicial Conference policies.

[. . .]

§ 210.30 Composition and Management of the Panel of Private Attorneys (CJA Panel)

§ 210.30.10 Overview

[. . .]

(d) AThe Model Plan for the Composition, Implementation and Administration and Management 

of the CJA PanelCriminal Justice Act is included as Appx. 2BAppx. 2A.

[. . .]
#### In the Matter of Hansel L. McGee, Appellant, v Jeffrey R. Korman et al., Respondents. Jeffrey R. Korman et al., Respondents, v Alice Sachs et al., Respondents, and Hansel L. McGee, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Carl J. Mugglin, J.), entered August 17, 1987, which dismissed appellant’s proceeding seeking a judgment declaring valid the designating petition by which he sought to be a candidate for the office of Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County, in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 15, 1987 and which dismissed, as moot, the proceeding seeking to invalidate the said petition, reversed, the proceedings reinstated, the matters remanded to Supreme Court forthwith, to determine whether the said petition contained 2,000 valid signatures, without costs.

The appellant, Hansel L. McGee, filed a petition seeking a place on the ballot for the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 15, 1987, as a candidate for the office *39of Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The petition contained 11,690 purported signatures. The Board of Elections found 7,104 of those signatures to be invalid, leaving 4,586 valid signatures, 414 short of the 5,000 signatures required by statute for a candidate for county-wide office in Bronx County. Proceedings were commenced by the parties to validate the petition and to invalidate the petition. The hearing commenced on August 4, 1987 before a Special Referee. A continuance was granted over respondents’ objection, respondents maintaining that they wished to proceed with their petition to invalidate by calling witnesses to establish irregularities to either invalidate appellant’s entire petition, or at least further reduce the number of valid signatures therein. Appellant’s attorneys conceded that they would be unable to establish 5,000 valid signatures. The appellant made a constitutional challenge to Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b) which requires 5,000 valid signatures to be filed in order to secure a place on the ballot for a candidate for any borough-wide office in any of the five boroughs of New York City. This challenge was rejected by Supreme Court.

This court has today found that section of the Election Law to be unconstitutional *(Matter of Korman v Sachs,*133 AD2d 41). Since the proceeding in Supreme Court was dismissed prior to a determination of whether the petition filed on behalf of appellant contained the requisite 2,000 valid signatures, the matter is remanded to Supreme Court, forthwith, to make such determination. Concur—Kassal, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Smith, J., dissents and would affirm for the reasons stated by Smith, J., in his dissenting memorandum in *Matter of Korman v Sachs*(133 AD2d 41 [decided herewith]).
**Exhibit 12.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Lee Finniear, certify that:1. I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 20-F/A of Metal Storm Limited; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of Metal Storm as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. Metal Storm’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for Metal Storm and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financialreporting, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of Metal Storm’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in Metal Storm’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Metal Storm’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. Metal Storm’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Metal Storm’s auditors and theaudit committee of Metal Storm’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectMetal Storm’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in Metal Storm’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: January 29, 2008         By:      Name:  Lee Finniear    Title: Chief Executive Officer
Certification of Chief Executive Officer


and Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2011 for Excalibur Industries I, Joseph P. Hubert, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Excalibur Industries, 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Excalibur Industries.






Date: July 1, 2011






/s/ JOSEPH P. HUBERT


President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer