alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS DANIEL CLARK,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden; CAROLE HYMAN, Chaplain at San Quentin Prison,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 15994
D.C. No. 4:14

- cv - 04649

- YGR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge,

Presiding Submitted May 15, 2018 **

* 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 

### FILED

MAY 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 15994 Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges

. California state prisoner Douglas Daniel Clark appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the denial of Clark’s entry into a kosher diet program. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 12 91. We review de novo the district court’s gran t of a motion to dismiss

. ASARCO,
LLC v. Union Pac. R. Co. , 765 F.3d 999, 1004

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).3 16

- 15994 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Clark’s claim s seeking injunctive relief because Clark is now a member of the kosher diet program , rendering his claim moot

. See NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. v. Judicial Council of Cal. , 488 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A case is moot on appeal if no live controversy rem ains at the time the court of appeals hears the case

. ”). The district court prop erly dismissed Clark’s claims seeking declaratory relief and monetary damages as barred by the doctrine of res4 16

- 15994 judicata because Clark has previously litigated the same claim s in a Cal ifornia state habeas proceeding against the same parties or their privies. See Gonzales v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. , 739 F.3d 1226, 1231 (9th Cir. 2014) (reasoned denials of California habeas petitions have claim preclusive effect on civil litigation ); Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara , 604 F.3d 1142, 1148

- 49 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements of claim preclusion under California law and explaining that California’s doctrine of claim preclusion is based on a5 16

- 15994 primary rights theor y). To the extent Clark claims legal error in the California state habeas proceeding, the Rooker

Feldman doctrine bars any such claim

. See Noel v. Hall , 341 F.3d 1148, 1155

- 57 (9th Cir. 2003) ( Rooker

- Feldman doctrine bars de facto appeal of a state cour t decision). We do not consider t he district court’s denial of Clark ’s post

-

judgment motion because Clark never filed a new or amended notice of appeal after the district court denied his motion. See Harris v. Mangum , 863 F.3d 1133, 1137

- 386 16

- 15994 n.1 (9th Cir. 2017). We reject as without merit Clark’s contentions regarding judicial misconduct and fraud upon the court

. Clark’s motion for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 37 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 37 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### Robert D'Arata et al., Respondents, v New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, defendant’s motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in this action to compel the defendant insurer to pay an unsatisfied default judgment. The subject homeowner’s insurance policy specifically excluded coverage for bodily injuries "expected or intended by the insured”. Here, the insured’s conviction for first degree assault conclusively established that the injuries plaintiffs received were intentionally caused by the insured and, therefore, plaintiffs are collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of intent *1005in this action *(see, S. T. Grand, Inc. v City of New York,*32 NY2d 300, 305; *Bergen v Shapiro,*129 AD2d 669; *Hooks v Middlebrooks,*99 AD2d 663). We reject Special Term’s conclusion that plaintiffs did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of intent in the criminal action. Plaintiffs, as judgment creditors seeking to enforce the policy, have no greater rights than the insured under the policy *(see, Spadaro v Newark Ins. Co.,*21 AD2d 226, *ajfd*15 NY2d 1000). Here, unlike *Gilberg v Barbieri*(53 NY2d 285), where defendant was charged with the petty offense of harassment, the insured was charged with several felonies including attempted murder, robbery and first degree assault. Thus, there can no be doubt that the insured had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of intent *(see, Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v Arzillo,*98 AD2d 495). Plaintiffs’ reliance upon *Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Cherry*(38 NY2d 735) is misplaced because there the insurer’s duty to defend was at issue, whereas here, only the duty to pay is in question. There can be no duty to indemnify where the loss is not covered under the policy *(see, Servidone Constr. Corp. v Security Ins. Co.,*64 NY2d 419; *New York Cas. Ins. Co. v Ward,*139 AD2d 922; *Holmes v Allstate Ins. Co.,*33 AD2d 96). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6333 

To prohibit, for one year, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency from issuing regulations that result in increased costs for small 

business concerns, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Agriculture, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit, for one year, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing regulations that 

result in increased costs for small business concerns, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Small Busi5 nesses From Costly Regulations Act of 2010’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6333 IH

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

2 Congress finds the following: 

3 (1) According to the Office of Advocacy of the 

4 Small Business Administration, the costs imposed by 

5 Federal regulations disproportionally affect small 

6 businesses as compared to larger firms. 

7 (2) The cost per employee related to Federal 

8 regulations for firms with fewer than 20 employees 

9 is $10,585, while the cost per employee for firms 

10 with 500 or more employees is $7,755. 

11 (3) The cost per employee related to Federal 

12 environmental regulations for firms with fewer than 

13 20 employees is $1,584, while the cost per employee 

14 for firms with 500 or more employees is $883. 

15 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN REGULATIONS. 

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi17 sion of law, the Administrator of the Environmental Pro18 tection Agency may not issue a regulation that would re19 sult in increased costs for a small business concern (as 

20 determined by the Administrator of the Small Business 

21 Administration), unless the regulation is— 

22 (1) in response to a major disaster; 

23 (2) necessary to prevent a major disaster; or 

24 (3) necessary to protect human life. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6333 IH

1 (b) PERIOD OF EFFECT.—The prohibition under sub2 section (a) shall only have effect during the one-year pe3 riod beginning on the date of enactment of this Act. 

4 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following defi5 nitions apply: 

6 (1) MAJOR DISASTER.—The term ‘‘major dis7 aster’’ means a major disaster declared to exist by 

8 the President pursuant to section 401 of the Robert 

9 T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assist10 ance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170). 

11 (2) SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN.—The term 

12 ‘‘small business concern’’ has the meaning given 

13 that term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 

14 U.S.C. 632). 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10289]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicant

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicant has filed with 
the Federal Maritime Commission an application for licenses as Non-
Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573.
    Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder 
Transportation Intermediary Applicant:

Alpico International Inc., 13281 Eastern Avenue, #2, Palmetto, FL 34221
    Officers: Ildes R. Alpizar, President (Qualifying Individual), 
Edward Alpizar, Vice President

    Dated: April 20, 2001.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10289 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT





CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





The Board of Directors


ProQuest Company:





We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-99982, 333-48425, and 333-93099) on Form S-8 of ProQuest Company
(formerly known as Bell & Howell Company) of our report dated February 11, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of ProQuest Company and subsidiaries as of the end of fiscal years 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for the fiscal years 2001, 2000, and 1999, which report appears in the fiscal 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of ProQuest Company.





Our report refers to a change in the methods of accounting for certain inventory costs and in revenue recognition for fiscal year 2000.





/s/    KPMG LLP


Detroit, Michigan


March 27, 2002
# C_2009036EN.01010002.xml

| 13.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/100

---

Corrigendum to the update of the list of border crossing points referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 33 of 10 February 2009
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 33 of 10 February 2009

(2009/C 36/12)

The text of the update of the list of border crossing points, published in the
  Official Journal of the European Union C 33 of 10 February 2009, page 3, should be considered as null and void, the correct version will be published in OJ C 37 of 14 February 2009.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Oglesby, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J.), rendered September 24, 1984, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting into evidence, during the People’s rebuttal, certain letters written by him to the complainant after the commission of the crime.

The record indicates that the trial court ruled that it would not admit the letters into evidence unless the defendant took the stand and placed in issue his state of mind at the time of the crime. The defendant did testify in his own behalf and stated that he accidentally stabbed the complainant. Since the letters contained various statements by the defendant indicating consciousness of guilt, they were properly admitted during the People’s rebuttal to counter the defendant’s testimony regarding an accidental stabbing *(see, People v Harris,*57 NY2d 335, 345-346, *cert denied*460 US 1047; *People v McCann,*90 AD2d 554, 555).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining argument and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Argued and submitted July 9, 1998,

petition for habeas corpus dismissed as moot January 6, 1999

#### DAVID HERBERT HART, *Appellant, v.*S. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, *Respondent.*

(97C-10958; CA A100188)

969 P2d 402

William N. Kent filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General, and John T. Bagg, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Petition for habeas corpus dismissed as moot. *Payton v. Thompson,*156 Or App 217, 968 P2d 388 (1998); *Jones v. Thompson,*156 Or App 226, 968 P2d 380 (1998).
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1579 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1579

To amend title 36, United States Code, to require that the POW/MIA flag 
    be displayed on all days that the flag of the United States is 
                 displayed on certain Federal property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2019

Mr. Pappas (for himself and Mr. Bergman) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 36, United States Code, to require that the POW/MIA flag 
    be displayed on all days that the flag of the United States is 
                 displayed on certain Federal property.

    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 ``National POW/MIA Flag Act''.

SEC. 2. DAYS ON WHICH THE POW/MIA FLAG IS DISPLAYED ON CERTAIN FEDERAL 
              PROPERTY.

    Section 902 of title 36, United States Code, is amended by striking 
subsection (c) and inserting the following:
    ``(c) Days for Flag Display.--For the purposes of this section, 
POW/MIA flag display days are all days on which the flag of the United 
States is displayed.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2009029EN.01002001.xml

| 5.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/20

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 29/08)

| Member State | Italy |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned route | Elba Marina di Campo-Firenze and vice versa and Elba Marina di Campo-Pisa and vice versa |
| Period of validity of the contract | 12 months (1 May 2009-30 September 2009 and 1 October 2009-30 April 2010) |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 2 months after the date of publication of this notice |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the pubic tender and the public service obligation can be obtained | Ente Nazionale per l'Aviazione Civile (ENAC) |
| Direzione centrale regolazione economica |
| Direzione trasporto aero |
| Viale del Castro Pretorio n. 118 |
| I-00185 Roma |
| www.enac-italia.it |
| e-mail: trasporto.aero@enac.rupa.it |

Member State

Italy

Concerned route

Elba Marina di Campo-Firenze and vice versa and Elba Marina di Campo-Pisa and vice versa

vice versa

vice versa

Period of validity of the contract

12 months (1 May 2009-30 September 2009 and 1 October 2009-30 April 2010)

Deadline for submission of tenders

2 months after the date of publication of this notice

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the pubic tender and the public service obligation can be obtained

Ente Nazionale per l'Aviazione Civile (ENAC)

Direzione centrale regolazione economica

Direzione trasporto aero

Viale del Castro Pretorio n. 118

I-00185 Roma

www.enac-italia.it

e-mail: trasporto.aero@enac.rupa.it

---
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT 4


                ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE


Global Certificate No._________                      CUSIP No. 74912E309

                             R&B Falcon Corporation
              13-7/8% Senior Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
       Liquidation Preference $1,000 Per Share - Par Value $.01 Per Share

This  Certifies that __________ is the owner of  ***_________*** fully paid
and non-assessable Shares of the above Corporation transferable only on the
books  of  the  Corporation  by  the  holder  hereof  in  person or by duly
authorized  Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate  properly endorsed.
In Witness  Whereof,  the said Corporation has caused this  Certificate  to
be signed  by  its duly authorized  officers and to be sealed with the Seal
of the Corporation.

Dated:


_________________________          SEAL           _________________________
W. K. Hillin, Secretary                           Paul B. Loyd,  Jr.,
                                                  Chairman
                                                  and Chief Executive
                                                  Officer
**Exhibit 15.1**

RAIT Financial Trust 

Cira Centre 

2929 Arch Street,17th Floor 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 

We havereviewed, in accordance with standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim consolidated financial information of RAIT Financial Trust and subsidiaries for the periods endedJune 30, 2008 and 2007, as indicated in our report dated August 4, 2008 because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements of RAIT Financial Trust on Form S-3(File No. 333-152351, effective on July 16, 2008; File No. 333-149340, effective on March 13, 2008; File No. 333-144603, effective on July 16, 2007; File No. 333-139948, effective on January 12, 2007; FileNo. 333-139889, effective on January 10, 2007; File No. 333-103618, effective on March 14, 2003) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-151627, effective on June 13, 2008; File No. 333-125480, effective on June 3, 2005;File No. 333-109158, effective on September 26, 2003; File No. 333-100766, effective on October 25, 2002; and File No. 333-67452, effective on August 14, 2001). 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of a Registration Statement preparedor certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

August 4, 2008
**Exhibit 15.1**

RAIT Financial Trust 

Cira Centre 

2929 Arch Street,17th Floor 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 

We havereviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim consolidated financial information of RAIT Financial Trust and subsidiaries for the periods ended September 30,2008 and 2007, as indicated in our report dated November 6, 2008; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements of RAIT Financial Trust on FormS-3 (File No. 333-152351, effective on August 6, 2008; File No. 333-149340, effective on March 13, 2008; File No. 333-144603, effective on July 16, 2007 and post effective amendment effective April 25, 2008; FileNo. 333-139948, effective on January 12, 2007; File No. 333-139889, effective on January 10, 2007;) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-151627, effective June 13, 2008; File No. 333-125480, effective on June 3, 2005;File No. 333-100766, effective on October 25, 2002; and File No. 333-67452, effective on August 14, 2001). 

We also are aware that theaforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of a Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

/s/    Grant Thornton LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

November 6, 2008