alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Riccardo GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH SEATTLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-35180.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 9, 2008.

Riccardo Green, Seattle, WA, pro se.

Catherine Hendricks, Esq., Office of the Washington Attorney General, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

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 **

Riccardo Green, a former instructor at North Seattle Community College, appeals pro se from the district court order dismissing his action against the College as precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Holcombe v. Hosmer,*477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Green’s action because he sought to litigate issues that were or could have been raised in a prior federal action against the same parties that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. *See id.*

Green’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# FCM Data January 2013

SELECTED FCM FINANCIAL DATA AS OF January 31,&KFF0000 &K0000002013FROM REPORTS FILED BY February 28,&KFF0000 &K0000002013	&P of &N
#### Maude Trudeau, Appellant, v Vernon Ford et al., Respondents.

[875 NYS2d 324]—

Kane, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dawson, J.), entered November 23, 2007 in Clinton County, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action based upon plaintiff’s failure to timely serve a complaint.

On September 5, 2006, plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover for injuries purportedly sustained on September 5, 2003, when her vehicle allegedly was struck from behind by a vehicle owned by defendant Vernon Ford and operated by defendant Monique Ford. Following service of an amended summons with notice in March 2007,* defendants demanded a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b). In August 2007, having received no response to their April 2007 demand, defendants moved to dismiss the action. Plaintiff cross-moved for permission to serve a late complaint. Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion and denied the cross motion, prompting plaintiffs appeal.

We affirm. To avoid dismissal for failing to timely serve a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action *(see Drake v Bates,*49 AD3d 1098, 1098 [2008]; *Kordasiewicz v BCC Prods., Inc.,*26 AD3d 853, 854 [2006]). “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse for *1187the delay lies within the sound discretion of the motion court” *(Amodeo v Gellert & Quartararo, P.C.,*26 AD3d 705, 706 [2006] [citation omitted]; *see Kordasiewicz v BCCProds., Inc.,*26 AD3d at 854).

Here, while Supreme Court concluded that plaintiffs proposed verified complaint was sufficient to establish a meritorious cause of action *(see generally Amodeo v Gellert & Quartararo, P.C.,*26 AD3d at 706), the court further found that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the three-month delay in responding to the underlying demand. Based upon our review of the record, we cannot say that Supreme Court abused its discretion in this regard. To the extent that plaintiff’s counsel contends that he needed time to investigate the merits of plaintiff’s claim, counsel’s January 2007 endorsement of the amended summons with notice demonstrates that counsel “had enough information at the time the summons was served to assert the general allegations he eventually asserted in” the proposed complaint *(Cohen v First Natl. City Bank,*75 AD2d 837, 837 [1980], *affd*52 NY2d 863 [1981]). Additionally, plaintiff possessed a May 2005 letter from a physician opining that plaintiff suffered a serious physical injury. Although counsel did not see this letter until August 2007, whatever difficulties counsel encountered in meeting or communicating with plaintiff do not constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay *(cf. Drake v Bates,*49 AD3d at 1098). Accordingly, we discern no basis upon which to disturb Supreme Court’s resolution of this matter.

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*

 Personal service was effected upon Vernon Ford and substituted service was attempted upon Monique Ford.
| 1.     | Such      Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008,      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                          |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |
| 2.     | The      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for      the period ended March 31, 2008, fairly represents in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Kraig      Biocraft Laboratories, Inc. |

| Date:      May  12, 2008            |
|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                          |
| Kraig      Biocraft Laboratories, Inc.        |
|                                          |
| By: /s/      Kim      Thompson                |
| Kim      ThompsonChief      Executive Officer |
#### Jeffery L. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-16629.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 10, 2012.

Jeffery L. Phillips, Des Moines, WA, pro se.

Karla Delord, Assistant U.S., Reid Charles Pixler, Assistant U.S., USPX-Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jeffery L. Phillips appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his *701action contesting the Drug Enforcement Agency’s seizure and forfeiture of $161,868.06 in cash that police officers discovered in Phillips’s vehicle after he was stopped for speeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal, *Conservation Force v. Salazar,*646 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.2011), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend, *Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Phillips’s action because Phillips pursued his administrative remedies by filing a “Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeiture” and conceded that he received the notice of forfeiture. *See Conservation Force,*646 F.3d at 1242 (“If a party pursues the administrative path, files a petition for remission, and the petition is denied, the only avenue to set aside the declaration of forfeiture is if the notice of forfeiture was not received.”) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. *See Cato v. United States,*70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.1995).

We are not persuaded by Phillips’s remaining contentions, including that his petition for remission was also meant to be a claim invoking judicial review.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Anthony Harris, Appellant, v “John” Bliss et al., Respondents.

[873 NYS2d 488]

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered October 2, 2007, which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate the dismissal of this action and to restore it to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*438The court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (b) *(see Saunders v Riverbay Corp.,*17 AD3d 137 [2005]). Plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear on the July 16, 2007 trial start date, given the parties’ explicit May 1, 2007 stipulation to the firm trial date with no further adjournments. We note the inadequacy of the proffered excuse (i.e., the week scheduled for trial, plaintiff was able to get time off work to attend a family event, but not for the trial), and the lengthy history of this case, which includes several prior motions to restore. Concur—Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 931 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 931

     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the work 
    opportunity credit with respect to certain unemployed veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2009

   Mr. Nye introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the work 
    opportunity credit with respect to certain unemployed veterans.

    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 ``Veterans Employment Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. FINDING.

    Congress finds that veterans are an integral part of our society 
and bring an underutilized knowledge base and skill level to the 
workforce.

SEC. 3. CREDIT ALLOWED FOR CERTAIN UNEMPLOYED VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 51 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(14) Credit allowed for unemployed veterans and hired in 
        2009 or 2010.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Any unemployed veteran who 
                begins work for the employer during 2009 or 2010 shall 
                be treated as a member of a targeted group for purposes 
                of this subpart.
                    ``(B) Unemployed veteran.--For purposes of this 
                paragraph, the term `unemployed veteran' means any 
                veteran (as defined in paragraph (3)(B), determined 
                without regard to clause (ii) thereof) who is certified 
                by the designated local agency as--
                            ``(i) having been discharged or released 
                        from active duty in the Armed Forces during the 
                        period beginning on September 11, 2001, and 
                        ending on December 31, 2010, and
                            ``(ii) being in receipt of unemployment 
                        compensation under State or Federal law for not 
                        less than 4 weeks during the 1-year period 
                        ending on the hiring date.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to individuals who begin work for the employer after December 31, 2008.
                                 <all>
```
| **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **3** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **Investment Company Institute** |
|--|----------------------------------|

| DATE: | 4/4/2005 | FR          PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 5 | PDF          SIZE: | 62 KB | PDF          LINK: | /files/foia/co |
|-------|----------|--------------------|-----|--------|---|---------------------|-------|---------------------|----------------|

|  | **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **2** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **Futures          Industry Association (FIA)** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 4/4/2005 | FR          PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 7 | PDF          SIZE: | 271          KB | PDF          LINK: | /files/foia/co |
|-------|----------|--------------------|-----|--------|---|---------------------|------------------|---------------------|----------------|

|  | **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **1** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **National          Futures Association (NFA)** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 4/4/2005 | FR          PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 1 | PDF          SIZE: | 19 KB | PDF          LINK: | /files/foia/co |
|-------|----------|--------------------|-----|--------|---|---------------------|-------|---------------------|----------------|

|  | **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

FirstPreviousNextLast
H. Res. 1280 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 27, 2010. 

Whereas there are approximately 55,000,000 children and 

7,000,000 adults who spend their days in the Nation’s 

more than 125,000 public and private schools; 

Whereas children spend an average of 30 to 50 hours per 

week in school; 

Whereas one-third of public school principals report that 

some environmental factors interfere with classroom instruction; 

Whereas some environmental hazards that are common in 

schools include unsafe drinking water, ventilation problems and poor indoor environmental quality which are associated with a wide range of problems that include poor 

concentration, poor attendance, lower student test scores, 

respiratory illnesses, cancer, and other safety hazards; 

Whereas about 9 percent of the Nation’s students have asthma, which is a leading cause of school absenteeism and 

is aggravated by poor air quality and ventilation problems; 

Whereas healthy and high performance schools are designed 

to improve indoor environments and other environmental 

factors by improving ventilation, providing for moisture 

and mold controls, temperature and humidity controls, as 
2 

•HRES 1280 EH 

well as acoustics and noise controls, and other design elements; 

Whereas healthy and high performance schools provide a 

healthier and safer learning environment for children and 

improved academic achievement and well-being; 

Whereas National Healthy Schools Day is an important day 

to celebrate and promote healthy and green school environments for all children; 

Whereas National Healthy Schools Day is coordinated by 

Healthy Schools Network in collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Council of Educational Facility Planners—International and is celebrated on the first day of School Building Week; and 

Whereas April 26, 2010, would be an appropriate day to designate as ‘‘National Healthy Schools Day’’: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) supports the designation of National Healthy 

Schools Day; and 

(2) supports the goals and ideals of this day which 

include the promotion of healthy and safe places to 

learn. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1299 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1299

    Supporting the goals and ideals of Peace Officers Memorial Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2010

Mr. Poe of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Supporting the goals and ideals of Peace Officers Memorial Day.

Whereas there are more than 900,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the United 
        States, 12 percent of whom are women;
Whereas law enforcement officers selflessly protect the people of the United 
        States and their communities;
Whereas law enforcement officers serve the country in spite of the inherent 
        danger of their service;
Whereas more than 18,600 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line 
        of duty in the United States since the first recorded police death in 
        1792;
Whereas 72 law enforcement officers were killed while responding to the 
        terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, making that day the deadliest 
        in law enforcement history;
Whereas 125 law enforcement officers were killed in 2009;
Whereas, on March 21, 2009, Sergeant Mark Dunakin and Officer John Hege and 
        Sergeants Ervin Romans and Dan Sakai of the Oakland Police Department in 
        California were shot and killed by the same gunman in two separate 
        attacks;
Whereas, on November 29, 2009, Sergeant Mark Renniger and Officers Tina 
        Griswold, Ronald Owens II, and Greg Richards of the Lakewood Police 
        Department in the State of Washington were shot and killed as they sat 
        in a coffee shop;
Whereas Public Law 87-726 designates May 15th of each year as Peace Officers 
        Memorial Day, and the calendar week during which that Day occurs as 
        Police Week;
Whereas section 7(m) of title 4, United States Code, requires that the United 
        States flag be flown at half-staff on all government buildings on Peace 
        Officers Memorial Day; and
Whereas law enforcement officers deserve the gratitude of the people of the 
        United States for their service: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of Peace Officers 
        Memorial Day;
            (2) honors Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
        officers who have been killed or disabled in the line of duty; 
        and
            (3) calls upon the people of the United States to observe 
        Peace Officers Memorial Day with ceremonies and respect 
        befitting those who have risked their lives and died in service 
        to their communities.
                                 <all>
```
#### Kimberly L. Thomas, Appellant, v Sharon Samuels, et al., Respondents.

[875 NYS2d 326]—

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Giardino, J.), entered January 22, 2008 in Schenectady County, upon a verdict rendered in favor of defendants.

Plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice action alleging that her surgeon, defendant Sharon Samuels (hereinafter defen*1188dant), deviated from the applicable standard of care by allegedly cutting or burning her long thoracic nerve during breast biopsy surgery. At the jury trial, defendant opined that plaintiffs nerve must have been subjected to a stretch injury during surgery, rather than a cut or burn. At the close of the trial, Supreme Court suggested and, over plaintiff’s objection, then gave the jury an instruction regarding evidence of defendant’s habit in performing surgeries. The jury found in defendants’ favor and, on appeal, plaintiff contends that the court’s instruction on habit evidence was inappropriate and constituted reversible error.

Defendants concede that the instruction was error due to the varying conditions encountered during surgical procedures *(see Rivera v Anilesh,*8 NY3d 627, 635 [2007]; *Gushlaw v Roll,*290 AD2d 667, 670 [2002]). The error, however, was harmless because there was no real evidence of defendant’s habits in performing biopsy surgeries and defense counsel did not rely on evidence of habit in the opening or closing arguments to the jury. Also, there was ample evidence to support the verdict, including the testimony by defendant and defendants’ medical experts that, given the location of the incision made, it would have *been*virtually impossible for defendant to cut or cauterize in the area where the long thoracic nerve was located. Finally, it is mere speculation that the instruction concerning defendant’s habits confused the jury or resulted in the five/six verdict. For these reasons, we conclude that Supreme Court’s addition of the evidence of habit instruction to an otherwise accurate, thorough and complete charge does not constitute reversible error here *(see*CPLR 2002; *Nestorowich v Ricotta,*97 NY2d 393, 400-401 [2002]; *see also Towers v Hoag,*40 AD3d 244, 246 [2007]; *Walker v State of New York,*111 AD2d 164, 165-166 [1985]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.