alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ruthann Taylor CORBIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED AIRLINES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-15153.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008 *.

Filed Sept. 8, 2008.

*572Ruthann Taylor Corbin, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Wendy Krincek, Esq., Littler Mendel-son, PC, Las Vegas, NV, Sandra Ketner, Esq., Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appel-lees.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ruthann Taylor Corbin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her complaint against her former employer as barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Chol-la Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish,*382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Corbin’s action as time-barred because she filed her complaint after the ninety-day period within which to file suit. *See Nel-mida v. Shelly Eurocars, Inc.,*112 F.3d 380, 384 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that the ninety-day period within which to file suit began running when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) attempted delivery of the right-to-sue notice at the address of record). The district court properly concluded that equitable tolling was inapplicable because Corbin failed to notify the EEOC of her change of address as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1601.7(b). *See Nelmida,*112 F.3d at 385 (explaining that equitable tolling was not available to a plaintiff who was not diligent in ensuring that she receive the right-to-sue notice because she failed to notify the EEOC of her change in address); *see also Scholar v. Pac. Bell,*963 F.2d 264, 268 (9th Cir.1992) (“Courts have been generally unforgiving ... when a late filing is due to claimant’s failure ‘to exercise due diligence in preserving his legal rights.’ ”) (citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14322]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area (SRA) Advisory Council

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory Council meeting 
will convene in Stayton, Oregon on Monday, June 18, 2001. The meeting 
is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m., and will conclude at approximately 
8:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the South Room of the Stayton 
Community Center located on 400 West Virginia Street in Stayton, 
Oregon.
    The Opal Creek Wilderness and Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Act 
of 1996 (Opal Creek Act) (Pub. L. 104-208) directed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish the Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory 
Council. The Advisory Council is comprised of thirteen members 
representing state, county and city governments, and representatives of 
various organizations, which include mining industry, environmental 
organizations, inholders in Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area, economic 
development, Indian tribes, adjacent landowners and recreation 
interests. The council provides advice to the Secretary of Agriculture 
on preparation of a comprehensive Opal Creek Management Plan for the 
SRA, and consults on a periodic and regular basis on the management of 
the area. The tentative agenda will focus developing standards and 
guidelines for management of the SRA and discussion of public 
involvement strategies.
    The public comment period is tentatively scheduled to begin at 8 
p.m. Time allotted for individual presentations will be limited to 3 
minutes. Written comments are encouraged, particularly if the material 
cannot be presented within the time limits of the comment period. 
Written comments may be submitted prior to the June 18 meeting by 
sending them to Designated Federal Official Stephanie Phillips at the 
address given below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information regarding this 
meeting, contact Designated Federal Official Stephanie Phillips; 
Willamette National Forest, Detroit Ranger District, HC 73 Box 320, 
Mill City, OR 97360; (503) 854-3366.

    Dated: June 1, 2001.
Y. Robert Iwamoto,
Deputy Forest Supervisor.

    Disclaimer: This meeting notice is being published less than 15 
days prior to the meeting due to lack of time to adequately plan the 
meeting between the councils last meeting on May 5 and this upcoming 
meeting on Monday, June 18. This late notice is authorized under 41 CFR 
1016.1015(b)(2).

[FR Doc. 01-14322 Filed 6-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2319

BISMARK KWAKU TORKORNOO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NINA HELWIG, Esq.; JOHN MONAHAN, Esq.; MARY TORKORNOO; 

JACQUELINE NGOLE, Esq.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:15-cv-02652-TDC)

Submitted: April 27, 2018 Decided: May 16, 2018

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bismark Kwaku Torkornoo, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bismark Kwaku Torkornoo appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 

civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Torkornoo v. Helwig, No. 8:15-cv02652-TDC (D. Md., Oct. 27, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Federal Register: September 13, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 176)]
[Notices]
[Page 55144]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13se04-25]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:30 a.m., Thursday, September 16, 2004.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Commission Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Rule Enforcement Reviews.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100 or  href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.cftc.gov" shape="rect">http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.cftc.gov
.


Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-20691 Filed 9-9-04; 1:26 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 137 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 137

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      February 9, 2009.
    Resolved, That House Resolution 24, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, agreed to 
January 7, 2009, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Mr. Kravotil'' and inserting 
        ``Mr. Kratovil''; and
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``Mr. Moore of Kansas'' the second 
        place it appears and inserting ``Ms. Moore of Wisconsin''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Annette CANTU, also known as Angelica Flores, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-41157

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

Ernest Gonzalez, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Bryan MacMorris, Law Office of Mac-Morris, Plano, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Annette Cantu has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Cantu has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Cantu’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Cantu’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Remarks by
Jon W. Dudas
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

“A View From the Patent Office”

Before the
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Technology Advisory Committee

Washington, DC

April 28, 2005

NO WRITTEN TEXT



JON W. DUDAS

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

Jon W. Dudas is the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO). Mr. Dudas served as acting Under Secretary and
Director from January 2004 until assuming his current position. He
served as Deputy Under Secretary and Deputy Director from January
2002 until he became acting Under Secretary.

As Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, Mr. Dudas is the lead
policy advisor to the Secretary of Commerce, the President of the United States and
Administration agencies on intellectual property matters. As Director of the USPTO,
he is responsible for administering the laws relevant to granting patents and
trademarks, and the day-to-day management of the agency's $1.5 billion budget and
7,000+ employees.

As head of the world's leading intellectual property office, Mr. Dudas is focused on
funding and implementing the agency's 21st Century Strategic Plan to ensure that
the USPTO continues to provide American innovators the patent and trademark
systems they need to remain competitive around the world.

Prior to joining the Bush Administration, Mr. Dudas served six years as Counsel to
the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, and Staff Director and Deputy
General Counsel for the House Committee on the Judiciary, where he guided
enactment of major patent, trademark and copyright policy, including the 1999
American Inventors Protection Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. He was
also instrumental in the passage of the 1996 Trademark Anti-Counterfeiting
Consumer Protection Act, a law making it more difficult for seized counterfeit
merchandise to re-enter the consumer marketplace. Before his employment with the
House of Representatives, Under Secretary Dudas practiced law in the Chicago law
firm of Neal Gerber & Eisenberg.

Mr. Dudas holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Finance, summa cum laude, from
the University of Illinois and a law degree from the University of Chicago, with
honors. He is a member of the Illinois State Bar and the Bar of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He lives in Northern Virginia with his
wife and their four children.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4844-4845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1455]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose

[[Page 4845]]

confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material, and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: February 7, 2001.
    Time: 8:30 am to 5 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Rd, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Aftab A. Ansari, PHD, National Institutes of 
Health, NIAMS, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Room 5AS25N, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4952.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 9, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-1455 Filed 1-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Denny TAN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL USA, Respondent.

No. 06-2857.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted on Motion to Dismiss Appeal or Possible Summary Affirmance Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Nov. 30, 2006.

Filed: Dec. 22, 2006.

*170Ephraim T. Mella, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.

Edward J. Duffy, Susan K. Houser, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Denny Tan petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). On the Government’s motion, we will dismiss the petition for review.

Denny Tan is a native and citizen of Indonesia. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found him removable on January 12, 2005. Through counsel, Tan filed a notice of appeal with the BIA, listing two reasons for the appeal: (1) the IJ erred in pretermitting his asylum application; (2) the IJ erred in denying withholding and his application for protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture without giving Tan an adequate opportunity to testify in his own behalf. The notice requested a remand and assignment to another IJ, and also reserved the right to raise other claims. However, no brief was filed on Tan’s behalf.

In his brief on appeal to this Court, Tan raises one claim: “Whether or not the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) findings for substantial evidence should be reversed where there is a showing of compelling evidence of a contrary finding?” As the Government notes, in his appeal to the BIA, Tan did not raise the issue of whether the IJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.

A court of appeals may review a final order of removal only if an alien has exhausted all administrative remedies. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). The requirement of administrative exhaustion is jurisdictional; when a party in removal proceedings fails to exhaust his administrative remedies, the court lacks power to act. *See Bejar v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 127, 132 (3d Cir.2003). As Tan did not raise before the BIA the issue he now seeks to raise, he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. This failure bars judicial review of Tan’s removal claims. *Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft,*330 F.3d 587, 594-95 (3d Cir.2003). We will therefore grant the motion to dismiss the petition.
A special meeting ofeach fund's shareholders was held on April 16, 2008. The results of votes takenamong shareholders on the proposals before them are reported below. Each votereported represents one dollar of net asset value held on the record date forthe meeting.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1336 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1336

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 20, 2010.
Whereas, on March 28, 2010, the University of Texas Longhorns men's swimming and 
        diving team won the 2010 NCAA Division I national championships with 500 
        points;
Whereas the University of Texas at Austin, located in Austin, Texas, was founded 
        in 1883 and serves over 50,000 students today;
Whereas the University of Texas Longhorns have won more than 40 national 
        championships, and University of Texas athletes have won 116 Olympic 
        medals;
Whereas 2010 marked the 10th NCAA national championship for the University of 
        Texas men's swimming and diving team;
Whereas head coach Eddie Reese led the team to excellence and became the first 
        men's swimming and diving coach to win NCAA team titles in four separate 
        decades; and
Whereas senior Dave Walters and sophomore Jimmy Feigen were named the 2010 Big 
        12 Co-Swimmers of the Year, and sophomore Drew Livingston was named the 
        2010 Big 12 Diver of the Year: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the University of 
Texas men's swimming and diving team for winning the 2010 NCAA Division I 
national championship.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit
31.2




Certification


Pursuant
to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Exchange Act




I, Robert
J. Eu, certify that:




1.           I
have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Hambrecht Asia Acquisition Corp.;




2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4.           The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:




(a)             Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant 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 the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and




(c)             Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




5.           The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):




(a)             All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b)             Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.




Date:      May
14, 2009





/s/ Robert J. EuName:
              Robert
      J. EuTitle:
              Chairman
      of the Board, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
    Director(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 98-20348

Summary Calendar

_______________

BARRY JONES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

KEITH MILLER; KELVIN MILLER; and LOUIS RAY, JR.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

PHYSICIAN SALES & SERVICES, INC.,

a/k/a Physician Sales & Service, Inc.;

THE GIBBONS COMPANY;

and

DOUG KARINS,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-97-H-3555)

_________________________

September 16, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The plaintiffs were employed by defendant Physician Sales &

Services, Inc., which subsequently obtained evidence that the

plaintiffs were involved in thefts. After one plaintiff was fired

and the district attorney initiated criminal charges that later
2

were dropped, plaintiffs sued on various theories, including

malicious prosecution. 

The only issue is whether the district court erred in entering

summary judgment without granting plaintiffs' requests for

discovery. In its order entered March 5, 1998, entitled “Opinion

on Denial of Amendment of the Judgment,” the district court

carefully explained that it had required defendants to produce

substantial amounts of discovery information to plaintiffs. The

court explained, “The plaintiffs knew the operative facts when they

filed the complaint, and they have had candid disclosure of the

company's records, and yet they still cannot make out a prima facie

case. Further discovery would be futile and wasteful.” 

Before entering judgment, the court held a hearing (on January

26, 1998). The transcript of that hearing reveals that, after

listening to plaintiffs' counsel's request, the court carefully

explained why the sought-after information was unnecessary. We

note also that, faced with a pending motion for summary judgment,

plaintiffs failed to make the particularized requests for discovery

that FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f) requires.

There is no hint, from all that has ensued in this case, that

plaintiffs ever could have established any cause of action. We see

no error in the manner in which the district court enabled

plaintiffs to obtain documents and other information. As the court

observed, further proceedings would have been a waste of time.

Essentially for the reasons the district court provided in the

above-referenced order and hearing, the judgment is AFFIRMED.