alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 8/2/13 P. v. Hernandez CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). Thi s opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSE ANTONIO HERNANDEZ,

Def endant and Appellant. D062748

(Super. Ct. No. SCD240590)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura Halgren,

Judge. Affirmed.

Jill M. Klein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Kristine A.

Gutierrez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jose Antonio Hernandez entered a negotiated guilty plea to continuous sexual abuse of a

child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a); count 9) and three counts of committing a lewd

act on a child under 14 with substantial sexual conduct (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (a) &

1203.066 , subd. (a)(8); counts 28, 30 & 33). The court sentenced him to a stipulated 28

- year2

prison term: the 16

- year upper term on count 9; the eight

- year upper term on count 28 and two

years each (one

- third the middle term) on counts 30 and 33. The court impo sed a $154

criminal justice administration fee (booking fee) pursuant to Government Code section

29550.1, as recommended in the probation report. Hernandez appeals, contending imposition

of the booking fee violated his right to equal protection because Go vernment Code section

29550.1 does not require a finding of ability to pay, unlike the booking fees set forth in

Government Code sections 29550 and 29550.2, and there is no rational basis for distinguishing

Government Code section 29550.1 from the latter t wo sections. Alternatively, Hernandez

contends substantial evidence does not support a finding he had the ability to pay the booking

fee.

Hernandez did not object in the trial court to the imposition of the booking fee. He has

thus forfeited his right to challenge the fee on appeal. ( People v. McCullough (2013) 56

Cal.4th 589, 593.) Hernandez suggests that we exercise our discretion to consider the merits of

the equal protection issue. ( Ibid .) We decline to do so.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is aff

irmed.3 M C CONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, J.

M C DONALD, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,257,967
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,263,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,093,527
<PP&E>                                     226,787,955
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,941,257)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             249,805,059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,688,633
<BONDS>                                    109,984,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        95,081
<OTHER-SE>                                 136,317,357
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               249,805,059
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,448,794
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,198,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,144,891
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               865,311
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,502,375
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,737,381
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,737,381
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,737,381
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .92
        

</TABLE>
Opinion issued Febr uary 4 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 16

- 00024

- CR

——————————— IN RE GERALD A. GOOD SON , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Gerald A. Goodson has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging he

is being illegally restrained by the Sheriff of Polk County, Texas. 1

We deny the petition.

PER CURIAM

1 The underlying case is State v. Goodson , cause number 24,060, pending in the 411th District Court of Polk County, Texas, the Hon. Kaycee Jones presiding.2

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Huddle. Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
#### TOMPKINS v. SHEEHAN.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

July 14, 1894.)

Action by Hiram Tompkins against Cornelius Sheehan.

No opinion. Reargument ordered.
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

XXXXX, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 -againstXXXXX, 

 Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 XX Civ. XXXX (AKH) 

INITIATING COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. __ (“CMO __”) dated June __, 2007 by Hon. 

Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S.D.J., in In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site 

Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH), Plaintiff(s) hereby submit this Initiating Complaint against the 

above named Defendants and state: 

1. Plaintiff ____________ (XXXX) [Å last 4 digits of social security number] 

currently resides at ______________. 

2. Plaintiff(s) have a claim for injury against the Defendants named above that 

would be encompassed within the scope of the In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan 

Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

3. Plaintiffs will file a fully complete Check-Off Complaint under this docket 

number within 30 days of the filing of this Initiating Complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-05314-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

Dated: _____ __, 200X 

{law firm name} 

Attorney(s) for 

Plaintiff(s)_______________________ 

By: ________ 

 {name} 

{law firm address} 

Telephone: _______________ 

Case 1:07-cv-05314-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
Clear All

        30 September 2022    

                    U.S. and Brazil Navy Conduct Bilateral Exercise                 
                ATLANTIC OCEAN - The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Lassen (DDG 82) and Brazilian frigate BNS União (F45) conducted a 5-day maritime exercise September 23-28 that took place off the coast of Rio de Janeiro.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7213

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARVIN BAILEY, a/k/a Larry Anderson, a/k/a

Head,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (2:96-cr-00191)

Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 3, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. John Castel Parr, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, Gary L. Call,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia,

Miller A. Bushong, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley,

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.

2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bailey has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bailey’s motion

for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability,

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
- 3 -

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                   [LETTERHEAD]

Contact:  Jeffrey J. Hattara                               (NYSE-BMC)
          (612)851-6030                                    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


                          BMC ANNOUNCES QUARTERLY DIVIDEND


March 11, 1999 -- Minneapolis, Minnesota - BMC Industries, Inc. today 
announced that its Board of Directors has approved a continuation of its 
quarterly cash dividend of $.015 per share.

Shareholders of record as of March 24, 1999 will receive a dividend of $.015 
for each share owned on that date, to be paid on April 7, 1999.

BMC Industries, Inc. is one of the world's largest manufacturers of aperture 
masks for color picture tubes used in televisions and computer monitors.  The 
Company is also a leading producer of polycarbonate, glass and plastic 
eyewear lenses.  BMC's common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange 
under the symbol BMC.

                                        -30-
# C_2009320EN.01000401.xml

| 24.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/4

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 320/02

| Date of adoption of the decision | 19.11.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | NN 43/09 |
| Member State | Netherlands |
| Region | Groningen |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Maatregelen ten gunste van Groningen Aiport NV |
| Legal basis | Overeenkomst beëindiging subsidierelatie Staat/GAE
  Overeenkomst inzake baanverlenging en waarde luchthaven terreinen GAE |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | Regional development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 21,32 million |
| Intensity | 100 % |
| Duration (period) | — |
| Economic sectors | Transport |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat |
| Plesmanweg 1-6 |
| 2597 JG Den Haag Postbus 20 904 — 2500 EX Den Haag |
| NEDERLAND |

Date of adoption of the decision

19.11.2009

Reference number of State Aid

NN 43/09

Member State

Netherlands

Region

Groningen

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Maatregelen ten gunste van Groningen Aiport NV

Legal basis

Overeenkomst beëindiging subsidierelatie Staat/GAE

Overeenkomst inzake baanverlenging en waarde luchthaven terreinen GAE

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Regional development

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 21,32 million

Intensity

100 %

Duration (period)

—

Economic sectors

Transport

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat

Plesmanweg 1-6

2597 JG Den Haag Postbus 20 904 — 2500 EX Den Haag

NEDERLAND

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 32-2 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 32-2 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

BRIAN LEWIS WILLIAMSON, 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D23-79

LT Case No. 2019-CT-000865

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Decision filed March 21, 2023 

Appeal from the County Court 

for Nassau County, 

Jenny Higginbotham Barrett, Judge.

Susan Z. Cohen and David M. Robbins, 

of Epstein & Robbins, Jacksonville, for 

Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and 

Zachary F. Lawton, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

JAY, SOUD and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.
Clear All

        25 July 2023    

                    CNAL Squadrons Receive Battle "E" Award                 
                Rear Adm. John F. Meier, Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic (CNAL), presented the first of many Battle Efficiency, or Battle “E,” awards to Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 11, Airborne Command & Control Squadron (VAW) 126 and Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 81, July 17 and July            

        21 November 2022    

                    USS Gettysburg Crew Awarded for Battlefield Preservation Projects At Their Namesake                 
                NAVAL STATION NORFOLK - Sailors assigned to the guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg (CG 64) accepted the Kinsley Award during the annual Gettysburg Foundation Gala, Nov. 18. The Gettysburg Foundation recognized the extraordinary contributions by the ship’s crew to the historical preservation of            

        22 July 2022    

                    MSC Intern Receives Judith C. Gilliom Workforce Recruitment Program Award                 
                NORFOLK, Va. - The Department of Defense (DOD) Diversity Management Operations Center recently named an intern at Military Sealift Command (MSC) as a recipient of the 2022 Judith C. Gilliom Award for Outstanding Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP) Participant.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21



                             MCDERMOTT INCORPORATED
                   SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                        FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1997

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                                     PERCENTAGE
                                          ORGANIZED      OF
                                          UNDER THE   OWNERSHIP
            NAME OF COMPANY                LAWS OF    INTEREST
<S>                                       <C>        <C>
 
Babcock & Wilcox Investment Company       Delaware          100
   The Babcock & Wilcox Company           Delaware          100
      Babcock & Wilcox Industries Ltd.     Canada           100
 
</TABLE>

The subsidiaries omitted from the foregoing list do not, considered in the
aggregate, constitute a significant subsidiary.
IN THE 

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

No. 10-13-00452-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF M.G., M.G., AND K.G., CHILDREN, 

 Appellant 

From the 272nd District Court 

Brazos County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 001802-CV-272 

ABATEMENT ORDER 

The appellant’s brief is overdue in this appeal. The Clerk of the Court’s February 

28, 2014 letter to appellant’s counsel states: 

Our records indicate that the appellant’s brief was due to be filed in 

this Court on or before February 18, 2014. To date, no brief has been filed. 

The Court directs that you prepare and file a brief in this Court within 14 

days after the date of this letter. 

Unless a brief or satisfactory response is received within 14 days, 

the Court will abate this cause to the trial court for a hearing to determine 

why a brief has not been filed on appellant’s behalf and to assure that 

appellant is receiving effective assistance of counsel. See In re T.V., 8 

S.W.3d 448, 449-50 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, order). 

 Because appellant’s brief was not filed within 14 days, we abate this appeal to the 

trial court to conduct a hearing within 14 days to determine why a brief has not been 
In the Interest of M.G., M.G., and K.G., Children Page 2 

filed on appellant’s behalf and to assure that appellant is receiving effective assistance 

of counsel. 

 The supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records, if any, are ordered to be filed 

within 21 days of the date of this Order. 

PER CURIAM 

Before Chief Justice Gray, 

 Justice Davis, and 

 Justice Scoggins 

Order issued and filed March 27, 2014 

Do not publish
Clear All

        25 January 2023    

                    MAKO Challenge Increases Warfighting Readiness for Navy Reserve                 
                NORFOLK, Va. - Reserve Sailors from U.S. Fleet Forces (USFF), U.S. 2nd Fleet, U.S. 4th Fleet, U.S. 6th Fleet, and U.S. 10th Fleet conducted MAKO Challenge 23, an operational level of warfare (OLW) exercise within a Maritime Operations Center (MOC) scenario, from Jan. 19-22 at the Navy Warfare            

        15 April 2022    

                    USFFC Deputy, CTF-80, Shares Lessons of Leadership with Future Naval Officers                 
                In an hour-long discussion at Old Dominion University, Vice Adm. James Kilby shared personal struggles and successes throughout his 36-year career with about 220 midshipmen and officer candidates of the Hampton Roads Naval ROTC.            

        05 May 2021    

                    Fleet Forces To Host Leadership, Resiliency, Toughness Virtual Workshop                 
                U.S. Fleet Forces Command will host a leadership, resiliency, and toughness virtual workshop focused on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR), May 6, 2021.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S OF J AN B AH AU DI N, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. JO H N M . M cH U G H , S ec re t ary, U ni t ed S t at es D ep artm en to f th e A rm y, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 56650 D . C . N o . 2 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 5 1 0 - J F WPL A ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn F . W a l t e r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry 17, 2012 ** B e f o r e : L E A V Y , T A L L M A N , a n d C A L L A H A N , C ir c u it J u d g e s . S o f ja n B a h au d in ap p e a ls p r o s e f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e rd is m is s in g h is e m pl oy m e nta c t i on a s ba rr e d by as e tt l e m e nta gr e e m e nt . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s i nt erpret at i on of a 

# FI LED JAN 26 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 56650 2 s e tt l e m e nta gr e e m e nt , a nd f orc l e a re rr orany f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs m a de i n i nt e rpr e t i ng th e s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n t. C i t yof E m e r y v i l le v . R obi ns on , 621 F . 3d 1251, 1261 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y di s m i s s e d B a haudi n’ s a c t i on a s ba rr e d by the te rm s o f th e s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n t r e s o lv in g h is p r io re m p lo y m e n t a c tio n . See Str om an v . W

. C oas t G r oc e r yC o. , 88 4 F . 2d 45 8, 46 1-63 (9th C i r. 19 89 ) ( T i t l e V II c l a i m s ba rr e d by pr i ora gr e e m e ntw he r e w a i ve rw a s vol unt a ry , de l i be r a t e , a nd i nform ed). B ahaudi n fai l ed t o est abl i sh thatthe se tt l em entagre em entw as pr oc ur e d by f

r aud a nd w a s the r e f

or e i nva l i d. See P a rd iv. Ka iser Fo u n d. H o sp s. , 38 9 F . 3d 84 0, 84 8 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( up ho l di ng se tt l em entagre em entw here pl ai nt i ff fa i l ed t o est abl i sh thatthe agree m entw as procured by fraud or any other bas i s that w ou l d render i ti nv al i d). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y d is m is s in g w ith o u t le a v e to a m e n d b e c au s e a m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e f u tile . Se e G ordon v . C i t yof O akland , 627 F . 3d 10 92 , 10 94 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). B ahaudi n’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. W e do notc ons i de ra r gum e nt s a nd a l l e ga t i ons r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on ap p e a l. Se e P adge t t

v . W r i ght , 58 7 F . 3d 98 3, 98 5 n . 2 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( per c uri am ). AF F I RME D.