alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BENJAMIN FREEMAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

STATE OF ARIZONA, Real party in 

interest; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

RUVACOBA, First Name Unknown; et al., 

Defendants.

No. 18-17352 

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01015-JAT-MHB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Benjamin Freeman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

* 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).

FILED

JUN 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-17352 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of 

discretion a district court’s denial of leave to amend. Curry v. Yelp Inc., 875 F.3d 

1219, 1224 (9th Cir. 2017). We vacate and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Freeman’s operative complaint because 

Freeman failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. 

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are 

liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim).

However, the district court dismissed the operative complaint without 

previously providing Freeman with notice of his claims’ deficiencies. See Akhtar 

v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A district court should not dismiss 

a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the 

deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”); Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (remanding because the district 

court failed to grant prisoner leave to amend his complaint to name the correct 

defendants). We vacate the judgment and remand for the district court to provide 

Freeman with an opportunity to amend his complaint.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
3 18-17352 

Freeman’s motion to dismiss defendant State of Arizona (Docket Entry No. 

27) is granted. Freeman’s other pending motions are denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6530 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6530

 To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a position for a 
   representative of Indian Tribes on the Joint Board overseeing the 
      implementation of universal service, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2010

   Mr. Inslee (for himself, Mrs. Bono Mack, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Cole, Mr. 
 Kildee, Mr. DeFazio, and Mr. Grijalva) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a position for a 
   representative of Indian Tribes on the Joint Board overseeing the 
      implementation of universal service, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TRIBAL REPRESENTATIVE.

    (a) In General.--Section 254(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 
(47 U.S.C. 254(a)) is amended by striking ``advocates.'' and inserting 
``advocates, and one member of such Joint Board shall be a Commission-
appointed Tribal representative nominated by the Commission's Office of 
Native Affairs and Policy.''
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 410(c) of the Communications Act 
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 410(c)) is amended in the third and fourth sentences 
by striking ``State'' each place it appears and inserting ``State, 
Tribal, and utility consumer advocate''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 663 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 663

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 12877 Broad Street in Sparta, Georgia, as the ``Yvonne Ingram-
                    Ephraim Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2009

 Mr. Barrow (for himself, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Broun of Georgia, 
 Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, 
Mr. Kingston, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Linder, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Price 
of Georgia, Mr. Scott of Georgia, and Mr. Westmoreland) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 12877 Broad Street in Sparta, Georgia, as the ``Yvonne Ingram-
                    Ephraim Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. YVONNE INGRAM-EPHRAIM POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 12877 Broad Street in Sparta, Georgia, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Yvonne Ingram-Ephraim Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Yvonne 
Ingram-Ephraim Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 97-40270 Summary Calendar

_____________________ KATE BROYLES, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Scott A. Broyles, Et Al., Plaintiffs DON BROYLES, Individually and as the Heirs and Beneficiaries of the Estate of Scott A. Broyles, Deceased, MARCIA BROYLES, Individually and as the Heirs and Beneficiaries of the Estate of Scott A. Broyles, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus GARY LEE HATFIELD, ET AL., Defendants, DENTON COUNTY, Texas, WELDON LUCAS, Individually and as the Sheriff of Denton County, Texas, CITY OF DOUBLE OAK, RICK BRAUD, MARK WATKINS and RICKY DON SELDERS, Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Texas

(4:95-CV-308)

_______________________________________________________ September 17, 1997 Before REAVLEY, KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 2 PER CURIAM: *
The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by that court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 20, 1997.
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                   LIST OF IMCO RECYCLING INC. SUBSIDIARIES


Wholly owned unless otherwise indicated as of March 12, 1999.


 1. IMCO Investment Company, a Delaware Corporation

 2. Interamerican Zinc, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

 3. IMCO Recycling of Ohio Inc., a Delaware Corporation

 4. IMCO Management Partnership L.P., a Texas Limited Partnership

 5. IMCO Recycling of California, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

 6. IMCO Energy Corp., a Delaware Corporation

 7. IMCO International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

 8. IMCO Recycling of Indiana Inc., a Delaware Corporation

 9. IMCO Recycling of Illinois Inc., an Illinois Corporation

10. IMCO Indiana Partnership L.P., an Indiana Limited Partnership

11. Pittsburg Aluminum, Inc., a Kansas Corporation

12. VAW-IMCO Gu(beta) und Recycling GmbH, a private company with limited
    liability organized under the laws of Germany (50% owned)

13. IMCO Recycling of Michigan L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company

14. IMCO Recycling (UK) Ltd., a private company limited by shares and organized
    under the laws of England and Wales

15. IMSAMET, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

16. IMCO Recycling of Idaho Inc., a Delaware Corporation

17. IMCO Recycling of Utah Inc., a Delaware Corporation

                                      74
<PAGE>
 
                   LIST OF IMCO RECYCLING INC. SUBSIDIARIES


18. Imsamet of Arizona, an Arizona General Partnership (70% owned)

19. Solar Aluminum Technology Services, a Utah General Partnership (50% owned)

20. Rock Creek Aluminum, Inc., an Ohio Corporation

21. Alchem Aluminum, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

22. IMCO Recycling Holding B.V., a private company with limited liability
    organized under the laws of the Netherlands

23. IMCO (UK) Limited Partnership, a limited partnership organized under the
    laws of England and Wales

24. U.S. Zinc Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

25. Gulf Reduction Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

26. Midwest Zinc Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

27. MetalChem, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation

28. Western Zinc Corporation, a California Corporation

29. U.S. Zinc Export Corporation, a Texas Corporation

30. U.S. Zinc - FSC, Inc., a Barbados Corporation

31. MetalChem Canada Incorporated, an Ontario Corporation

32. MetalChem Handel GmbH, a private company with limited liability organized
    under the laws of Germany

33. Alchem Aluminum Shelbyville Inc., a Delaware Corporation
#### EINSTEIN, Appellant, v. ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CO. et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

June 20, 1894.)

Action by Edwin Einstein against the Rochester Gas *&*Electric Company and ano.her.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals granted, for the reason that in our opinion the question arising in the case is of sufficient importance to render a decision of that court desirable be» fore proceeding further. See 28 N. Y. Supp. 434.
Exhibit 20.1
 
 Parcel #
    
    Square Feet (sq. ft.)CAPITAL CENTER:
    
    PARCEL SIZE
    
    DEVELOPMENT ON PARCELS2A & B
    
    
    
    56,700
    
    
    17 and 19
Story Apartment Buildings - 307,000 gross sq. ft.2C
    
    
    
    35,300
    
    
    13 Story
Office Building - 325,000 gross sq. ft.3S
    
    
    
    48,000
    
    
    13 Story
Office Building - 235,000 gross sq. ft.3W
    
    
    
    35,000
    
    
    3E
    
    
    
    24,000
    
    
    4W
    
    
    
    46,000
    
    
    4E
    
    
    
    22,000
    
    
    5
    
    
    
    54,000
    
    
    8 Story
Apartment Building - 454,000 gross sq. ft.6
    
    
    
    276,000
    
    
    4 Story Apartment Building - 120,000 gross sq. ft.7A
    
    
    
    76,000
    
    
    330 Car Public Parking Garage8
    
    
    
    36,000
    
    
    4 Story
Office Building - 114,000 gross sq. ft.9
    
    
    
    72,000
    
    
    10 Story Office Building - 210,000 gross sq. ft.OUTSIDE CAPITAL CENTER20
    
    
    
    26,600
    
    
    3-4 Story
Historic Building in southwest corner of
lot - 18,000 gross sq. ft.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

In re : VINODH RAGHUBIR,

Petitioner

______________________

2022

- 102

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States

Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20

- cv

- 00388

- EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

Vinodh Raghubir petitions this court for writ of mandamus . The United States moves for summary dismissal. Mr. Raghubir moves to strike the United States’ motion and also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

. On August 28, 2020, the United States Court of Federal

Claims dismissed Mr. Raghubir’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Raghubir sought this court’s review . OnDecember 22, 2020, this court dismissed his appeal as frivolous. In re Raghubir , 831 F. App’x 957 , 958 (Fed. Cir. 2020). On September 13, 2021, t he Court of Federal Claims

received from Mr. Raghubir a submission entitled Case: 22-102 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 12/07/2021IN RE : RAGHUBIR 2

“Demand/Motion for Reinstatement

. ” On September 20,
2021, the Court of Federal Claims issued an order notifying Mr. Raghubir that his submission would not be docketed

because his cas e was over.

Mr. Raghubir’s petition argues that the Court of Federal Claims’ September 20, 2021 order “violat[ed] federal law and rules of procedure,” which “resulted in vindictive proceedings.” Pet. at 2 (capitalization omitted). But he has

not met th e high standard for mandamus relief because, among other things, he has not shown a “clear and indisputable,” right to having his submission, filed almost a year after his case was over, considered by the trial court. Will

v. Calvert Fire Ins. , 437 U.S. 655, 66 5

– 6 6 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The petition is denied.

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

Decem ber 07 , 2021

Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s 28 Case: 22-102 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 12/07/2021
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6398 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 1, 2010 

Received 

AN ACT 

To require the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to 

fully insure Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6398 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. INTEREST ON LAWYERS TRUST ACCOUNTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 11(a)(1)(B)(iii) of the 

3 Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as added by section 343 

4 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

5 Protection Act (Public Law 111–203), is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subclauses (I), (II), and 

7 (III) as items (aa), (bb), and (cc), respectively, and 

8 adjusting the margins accordingly; 

9 (2) by striking ‘‘means a deposit’’ and inserting 

10 the following: 

11 ‘‘means— 

12 ‘‘(I) a deposit’’; 

13 (3) in item (cc), as so redesignated, by striking 

14 the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

15 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(II) a trust account established 

17 by an attorney or law firm on behalf 

18 of a client, commonly known as an 

19 ‘Interest on Lawyers Trust Account’, 

20 or a functionally equivalent account, 

21 as determined by the Corporation.’’. 

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 subsection (a) shall take effect on December 31, 2010. 

24 SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

25 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

26 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 6398 RDS 

1 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

2 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

3 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

4 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro5 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

6 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 30, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                              31,937
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       80,919
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         4,376
<INVENTORY>                                                         59,816
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   187,121
<PP&E>                                                             797,654
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      46,816
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   1,818,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              189,594
<BONDS>                                                          1,207,978
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                           464,550
<OTHER-SE>                                                         (51,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     1,818,950
<SALES>                                                            505,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                   505,594
<CGS>                                                              150,480
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      445,678
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     2,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  89,181
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    (31,309)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        (8,896)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                (22,413)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       (22,413)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        (0.53)
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 3, 2018

No. 04-18-00722-CV

Idalia G. BARRERA,

Appellant

v.

Mary Sue PATE,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CV04273

Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On November 29, 2018, the trial court reporter filed a notification of late record 

informing the court that no record was taken in the underlying cause. Accordingly, appellant’s 

brief is due on or before December 31, 2018.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of December, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
|   | (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ Richard T. Fedor            |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------|
|   |   | Richard T. Fedor                |
|   |   | Interim Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |                            |
|   |   | March 17, 2010                  |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6412
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT TYRONE COLBERT, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Ric hard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-147) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 2, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Tyrone Colbert, Appellant Pro Se. John Granville Douglass, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Colbert , No. CR-92-147 (E.D. Va. Dec. 14, 1995). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED