alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alexios ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-17397.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2013.*

Decided May 22, 2013.

Alexios Alexander, Blythe, CA, pro se.

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Alexios Alexander appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations concerning his conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

*563The district court properly dismissed Alexander’s action because Alexander failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (discussing the subjective prong of deliberate indifference); *Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass’n,*629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir.2010) (courts need not accept as true allegations that contradict exhibits attached to a complaint, or allegations that are “merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences”); *Hearns v. Terhune,*413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir.2005) (listing the elements of a conditions of confinement claim and explaining that the circumstances, nature, and duration of the deprivation are relevant); *see also Johnson v. Moore,*948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (holding that claims for injunctive relief “relating to [a prison’s] policies are moot” when the prisoner has been moved and “he has demonstrated no reasonable expectation of returning to [the prison]”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alexander’s multiple requests for appointment of counsel because Alexander failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. *See Palmer v. Valdez,*560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.2009) (setting forth standard of review and the exceptional circumstances requirement).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 13
- 00845
- CV

In re Chavela V. Crain

J. C. C., Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 201ST DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 12
- 000387 , THE HONORABLE SCOT T H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R T O S H O W C A U S E

PER CURIAM

This is a contempt proceeding ancillary to the appeal of J. C. C . The subject of this proceeding is court reporter Chavela V. Crain , who has failed to comply with this Court’s order to file the reporter’s record.

On January 7, 2014 , we ordered Crain to file the record by January 17, 2014, and cautioned her that failure to file the record by that date could require her to show cause why she
should not b e held in contempt of court.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Chavela V. Crain shall appear in person
before this Court on Thurs day , February 6 , 2014 , at 1:30 p.m. , in the Third Court of Appeals courtroom, located on the first floor of the Price Dan iel, Sr. Building, 209 West 14th Street, inAustin, Travis County, Texas, to show cause why she should not be held in contempt and have

sanctions imposed for her failure to obey our January 7, 2014 order. This order to show cause
will be withdrawn and Cra in will be relieved of her obligation to appear before this Court as ordered above if the Clerk of the Court receives the complete reporter’s record on or before February 3, 2014

.

It is ordered on January 23, 2014

.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin and F ield
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-50010

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOEL BERMUDEZ-REYES,

 Defendant-Appellant.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

__________________

No. 96-50218

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS MANUEL NEVAREZ-PUENTES, a/k/a 

Samuel Navarro-Puentes,

 Defendant-Appellant.

 - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-95-CR-300-ALL

USDC No. EP-95-CR-518 

 - - - - - - - - -

August 13, 1996

Before KING, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
2

In this consolidated appeal, Joel Bermudez-Reyes and Luis

Manuel Nevarez-Puentes appeal their sentences for illegal reentry

after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. They argue,

based on their interpretation of an aggravated felony under 8

U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), that their prior convictions were not

aggravated felonies because these convictions occurred before the

effective date of the 1990 amendments to the immigration laws.

The issue is foreclosed by United States v. Garcia-Rico, 46 F.3d

8, 9-10 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2596 (1995).

Nevarez-Puentes argues that his prior conviction which

resulted in a five-year suspended sentence is not an aggravated

felony under § 1101(a)(43) because his probation for that

sentence was revoked and he served a one-year prison sentence. 

We conclude that the district court correctly determined that the

prior conviction was an aggravated felony. See United States v.

Vasquez-Balandran, 76 F.3d 648, 649-51 (5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 17 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 17 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 17 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 3 of 3
EX-10.9





 Exhibit 10.9 

Spouse Consent Letter 
 To: Genetron
(Tianjin) Co., Ltd. 
 Whereas: 
  

	1.	 I, Zhou Jing (ID card/passport number:
[            ]), am the spouse of the natural person Wang Sizhen (ID card number: [            ]). Wang Sizhen holds 14.695%
equity of Genetron Health (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Target Equity Interest”) 


  

	2.	 With respect to the aforementioned Target Equity Interest held by Wang Sizhen, Wang Sizhen entered into the
Exclusive Option Agreement with other related parties on July 30, 2019, entered into the Equity Pledge Agreement with other related parties on July 30, 2019, and entered into the Shareholder Voting Rights Entrustment Agreement with other
related parties on July 30, 2019; and 


  

	3.	 Genetron Health (Beijing) Co., Ltd entered into the Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement with Genetron
(Tianjin) Co., Ltd. on July 2, 2019. This Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement together with the aforementioned Exclusive Option Agreement, Equity Pledge Agreement and Shareholder Voting Rights Entrustment Agreement constitute the
contractual control arrangement regarding Genetron Health (Beijing) Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the “Contractual Control Arrangement”). 



I hereby confirm and irrevocably undertake as follows on July 30, 2019: 
  

	1.	 I confirm that I have noted and agree that my spouse Wang Sizhen entered into the Exclusive Call Agreement,
Equity Pledge Agreement and Shareholder Voting Rights Entrustment Agreement. The aforementioned Target Equity Interest of Genetron Health (Beijing) Co., Ltd held by Wang Sizhen is not our joint property. I have no rights and interests in such Target
Equity Interest, (including the rights gained from the Contractual Control Arrangement). I will never take any action to interfere with the Contractual Control Arrangement, including but not limited to claiming any right over the aforementioned
Target Equity Interest and the Contractual Control Arrangement. 


  

	2.	 I hereby undertake, I have not participated in and will not plan to actually participate in the operation and
management of Genetron Health (Beijing) Co., Ltd in the future, and I will not claim any right related to the equity interests and assets of Genetron Health (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 



  
 1 














	3.	 If, for any reason, I obtain all or part of the Target Equity Interest, I unconditionally agree to be a party
of the Contractual Control Arrangement and be bound by the Contractual Control Arrangement. In this respect, I undertake to take all necessary actions and to sign all necessary documents. 



This letter will take effect immediately upon its signature by me and will be continuously effective. 

  
 2 













 (This page is intentionally left blank and is the signing page of this Spouse Consent
Letter) 
  

			
	Undertaker’s Signature:	 	 /s/ Zhou Jing

	 	 	Date: July 30, 2019



  
 3
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 9-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 9-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 9-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We hereby consent to the incorporation in the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(No. 33-52388 for the 1992 Performance Stock Option Plan) and the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 6, 1995 for the Amended 1992 Performance Stock Option Plan) of our
report dated December 23, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial
statements of Concorde Gaming Corporation and Subsidiaries, included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended September 30, 2003.



McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP



Rapid City, South Dakota

January 15, 2004
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 49-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 49-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 49-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 49-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


November 16, 2000

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated November 16, 2000 on our review of interim
financial information of W. R. Grace & Co., (the "Company") as of and for the
period ended September 30, 2000 and included in the Company's quarterly report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated by reference in its
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-37024, 333-49083, 333-49507,
333-49509, 333-49511, 333-49513, 333-49515, 333-49517, 333-49703, and
333-49705).


Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Baltimore, Maryland
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 2 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 2 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 2 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 3-2 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert E. Northrup, Jr., Appellant.

Judgment unanimously *539affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Livingston County Court, Houston, J. — driving while intoxicated.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 25, 2011 

p0718 

Order 

 

July 25, 2011 

142946 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142946 

 COA: 290131 

Saginaw CC: 08-030280-FC 

DEONTAE TRAVOHN DAVIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 17, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Jones, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered March 7, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (2) (a), violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 (a), and unlawfully operating or driving a motor vehicle on a public highway, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

As the People concede, the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to charge the jury, as requested by the defendant’s trial counsel, to draw no inference from the defendant’s failure to testify *(see,*CPL 300.10 [2]; *People v Britt,*43 NY2d 111; *People v Debroux,*133 AD2d 231). This error, which has been properly preserved for appellate review, is not subject to harmless error analysis *(see, People v Koberstein,*66 NY2d 989; *People v Britt, supra).*The defendant’s request for the charge was timely because it was made after the court called for exceptions to its charge and before the jury had started to deliberate *(see, People v Jeffries,*129 AD2d 962; *People v Cintron,*89 AD2d 590). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1
                                       
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-3 No. 333-48515) pertaining to the registration of $150,000,000 of 
debt securities, preferred stock, common stock, equity warrants and debt 
warrants, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-42741) pertaining to 
the Grubb & Ellis Company 1990 Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan and 
Grubb & Ellis Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statements (Form 
S-8 Nos. 33-71580, 33-35640 and 2-98541) pertaining to the 1990 Amended and 
Restated Stock Option Plan, as amended, and the Registration Statement (Form 
S-8 No. 33-71484) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan for Outside 
Directors of Grubb & Ellis Company of our report dated August 21, 1998, with 
respect to the financial statements of Grubb & Ellis Company included in the 
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 1998, filed with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Chicago, Illinois
September 25, 1998
Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 12-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 1 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 12-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 2 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 12-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 3 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 12-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 4 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 12-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 5 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 12-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 6 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 12-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 7 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 12-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 8 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 12-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 9 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 9 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 1
----

| Exhibit      32.2                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                              |
| CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO                    |
| 18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                      |
| AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       |
| SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 |

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (i)      the Annual Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March      31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date      hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|   | (ii)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company.                                                                                                                                                   |

|             | By:    | /s/      WAYNE BOOMER        |   |
|------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|             |   | Wayne      Boomer            |   |
|             |   | Chief      Financial Officer |   |
|             |   | On2      Technologies, Inc.  |   |
|             |   |                         |   |
| May      7, 2009 |   |                         |   |
#### In re Felipe Dabao ZULUETA, Jr., Debtor. Felipe Dabao Zulueta, Jr., Appellant, v. Martha G. Bronitsky, Ch 13 Trustee; OneWest Bank, FSB, Servicing agent, Appellees.

No. 11-60060.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2013.*

Filed May 22, 2013.

Felipe Dabao Zulueta, Jr., Brentwood, CA, pro se.

Martha G. Bronitsky, Ch 13 Trustee, Hayward, CA, pro se.

*559David R. Zaro, Esquire, Joshua Andrew Del Castillo, Allen Matkins, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee.

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.

MEMORANDUM **

Felipe Dabao Zulueta, Jr., appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Zulueta’s objection to Deutsche Bank’s proof of claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. *Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian),*564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.2009). We review de novo a challenge to prudential standing. *Dunmore v. United States,*358 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly denied Zulueta’s objection to Deutsche Bank’s proof of claim because Deutsche Bank and its servicing agent, OneWest Bank, had standing to enforce the claim. *See id.*at 1112 (explaining the requirements of prudential standing). The evidence before the court established that OneWest Bank was the holder of the note at issue. *See Grogan v. Garner,*498 U.S. 279, 283, 111 S.Ct. 654, 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991) (state law determines the validity of creditors’ claims in bankruptcy);Cal. Com.Code § 1201(21)(A) (defining “holder” as “the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or, to an identified person that is the person in possession”); *id.*§ 3205(b) (“When indorsed in blank, an instrument becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone[.]”); *id.*§ 3301 (the holder of a negotiable instrument may enforce it). Zulueta’s contention that the original note was not presented is not supported by the record.

This case is not rendered moot by the dismissal of Zulueta’s bankruptcy petition because the issue of prudential standing survives dismissal of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. *See Spacek v. Thomen (In re Universal Farming Indus.),*873 F.2d 1334, 1335-36 (9th Cir.1989) (a case is not moot if a legally cognizable interest survives dismissal of the bankruptcy proceedings).

OneWest’s motion requesting judicial notice of the docket and dismissal order in the underlying bankruptcy proceedings is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 19, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60377

Summary Calendar

BOBBY SERTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BILLY SOLLIE, Individually and as Sheriff of Lauderdale County,

Mississippi; DORIS CALLAHAN, Individually and as Jail

Administrator; LAUDERDALE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:03-CV-403

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


November 27, 2019


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


SmartTrust 453 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trust (the “Trust”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on November 26, 2019, in
accordance with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We
consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the
Registration Statement (No. 333-233556) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the
sale of the Units of the Trust and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President