alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Darrel Lee SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. SWANEY, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-16770.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 7, 2010.

Darrel Lee Smith, Represa, CA, pro se.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Darrel Lee Smith, a California prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Smith’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations in connection with a prison grievance procedure and a disciplinary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *McSherry v. City of Long Beach,*584 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court did not err by dismissing Smith’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Prison grievance documents attached to the fifth amended complaint undermine Smith’s retaliation claim by establishing that, at the time Swaney allegedly retaliated against Smith for filing a grievance, no grievance was on file. *See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,*266 F.3d 979, 988-89 (9th Cir.2001) (document attached to complaint fatally undermined allegations). The district court properly dismissed Smith’s claim that the defendant violated his due process rights by canceling his grievance because a prisoner enjoys no constitutional right to a prison grievance procedure. *See Mann v. Adams,*855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988) (order) (no due process right to a prison grievance procedure). The district court *235properly dismissed Smith’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated when he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine a witness at his prison disciplinary proceeding because the Due Process Clause afforded Smith no such right. See *Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 475-76, 486, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (prisoner enjoys no due process right to present witnesses at prison disciplinary proceeding where no atypical hardship resulted).

Smith’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
TINA M., et al., petitioners, v. SAINT TAMMANY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 15-1438.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Motion of Southern Poverty Law Center, et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>	6

<CIK>	0000744822

<NAME>	Fidelity Investment Trust

<SERIES>

	<NUMBER>	31

	<NAME>	Fidelity Pacific Basin Fund

<MULTIPLIER>	1,000



<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>
6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>
OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>
APR-30-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>
256,152
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>
326,715
<RECEIVABLES>
4,505
<ASSETS-OTHER>
856
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>
0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>
332,076
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>
3,725
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>
0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>
1,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>
4,830
<SENIOR-EQUITY>
0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>
347,107
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>
20,320
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>
16,436
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>
0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>
4,642
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>
(85,633)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>
0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>
70,414
<NET-ASSETS>
327,246
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>
1,104
<INTEREST-INCOME>
265
<OTHER-INCOME>
0
<EXPENSES-NET>
1,803
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>
(434)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>
10,177
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>
63,580
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>
73,323
<EQUALIZATION>
0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>
345
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>
0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>
0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>
6,952
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>
3,094
<SHARES-REINVESTED>
26
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>
131,782
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>
0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>
(95,809)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>
3,862
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>
0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>
1,223
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>
0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>
1,813
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>
235,376
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>
11.890
<PER-SHARE-NII>
(.020)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>
4.240
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>
 .020
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>
0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>
0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>
16.100
<EXPENSE-RATIO>
156





</TABLE>
H. Res. 1546 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 30 (legislative day, September 29), 2010. 

Whereas, on May 15, 2010, the Washington Stealth defeated 

Toronto Rock 15 to 11 in the National Lacrosse League 

Championship in Everett, Washington; 

Whereas the Stealth franchise won the Western Division during the regular season with a NLL-best 11 and 5 record, 

capturing the Western Divisional Championship by defeating the Edmonton Rush; 

Whereas the 2010 National Lacrosse League Championship 

game was sold out and 8,609 people watched the game 

at the Comcast Arena in Everett, Washington; 

Whereas this was the Washington Stealth’s first season in 

Everett, Washington, after spending 6 seasons in San 

Jose, California; 

Whereas Washington Stealth led the National Lacrosse 

League in goal-scoring with 211 goals in 16 regular season games; 

Whereas team member Lewis Ratcliff was the league’s top 

goal-scorer with 46 goals and earned the Championship 

Game MVP honors after scoring 5 goals during the 

championship game; 
2 

•HRES 1546 EH 

Whereas David Takata, President of Washington Stealth, has 

been named the National Lacrosse League’s Executive of 

the Year; 

Whereas Chris Hall, Head Coach of Washington Stealth, has 

been named the National Lacrosse League’s Coach of the 

Year; 

Whereas Forwards Lewis Ratcliff and Rhys Duch have 

earned the honor of Second Team All-Pro; 

Whereas Defenseman Matt Beers earned the honor of AllRookie Team; 

Whereas Lacrosse is one of America’s fastest-growing sports; 

Whereas the National Lacrosse League has 11 teams 

throughout North America; 

Whereas the National Lacrosse League’s West Division includes the Washington Stealth, Colorado Mammoth, Minnesota Swarm, Edmonton Rush, and Calgary Roughnecks; 

Whereas the National Lacrosse League’s East Division includes the Toronto Rock, Boston Blazers, Rochester 

Knighthawks, Buffalo Bandits, Orlando Titans, and 

Philadelphia Wings; 

Whereas 2010 marked the National Lacrosse League’s 24th 

season; and 

Whereas over 1,000,000 fans enter the doors of the National 

Lacrosse League arenas on a yearly basis: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) congratulates the Washington Stealth for winning the National Lacrosse League Championship; and 
3 

•HRES 1546 EH 

(2) recognizes the achievements of the players, 

coaches, students, and support staff who were instrumental in the victory. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S
O F T E X A S

N O

. W R

- 8 1
, 5 7 5

- 0 1

E X P A R T E G A R Y G R E E N

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R P O S T

- C O N V I C T I O N W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S

F R O M C A U S E N O

. F 0 9

- 5 9 3 8 0

- S I N T H E 2 8 2 D I S T R I C T C O U R T n d

D A L L A S C O U N T Y

P e r C u r i a m

.

O R D E R

T h i s i s a n a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r a w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f

T e x a s C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e A r t i c l e 1 1

. 0 7 1

.

I n N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 0

, a j u r y f o u n d a p p l i c a n t g u i l t y o f t h e o f f e n s e o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r

c o m m i t t e d i n S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 9

. T h e j u r y a n s w e r e d t h e s p e c i a l i s s u e s s u b m i t t e d p u r s u a n t t o

T e x a s C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e A r t i c l e 3 7

. 0 7 1

, a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t

, a c c o r d i n g l y , s e t

a p p l i c a n t ’ s p u n i s h m e n t a t d e a t h

. T h i s C o u r t a f f i r m e d a p p l i c a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e

o n d i r e c t a p p e a l

. G r e e n v

. S t a t e , N o

. A P

- 7 6

, 4 5 8 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. O c t

. 3

, 2 0 1 2 )

.G r e e n

- 2

A p p l i c a n t p r e s e n t s t w e n t y a l l e g a t i o n s i n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n i n w h i c h h e c h a l l e n g e s t h e

v a l i d i t y o f h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d r e s u l t i n g s e n t e n c e

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g

.

T h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w r e c o m m e n d i n g t h a t t h e r e l i e f

s o u g h t b e d e n i e d

.

T h i s C o u r t h a s r e v i e w e d t h e r e c o r d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s m a d e b y a p p l i c a n t

.

W e a d o p t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s f i n d i n g s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s

. G r o u n d s f o r r e l i e f 1 1 B

, 1 3

, 1 5

, 1 6 A

, a n d

1 7 a r e a l s o p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d

. S e e E x p a r t e B a n k

s , 7 6 9 S

. W

. 2 d 5 3 9 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

.

1 9 8 9 ) ; E x p a r t e A c o s t a

, 6 7 2 S

. W

. 2 d 4 7 0 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 8 4 )

. T h e r e f o r e , b a s e d u p o n t h e

t r i a l c o u r t ’ s f

i n d i n g s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s a n d o u r o w n r e v i e w , w e d e n y r e l i e f

.

I T I S S O O R D E R E D T H I S T H E 2 4 D A Y O F J U N E

, 2 0 1 5

. T H

D o N o t P u b l i s h
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000411

11-JAN-2019

12:15 PM
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: BATES GRAIN COMPANY 

DOCKET NUMBER: STIPULATION 68 

DATE: OCTOBER 23, 1964 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STIPULATION OF COMPLIANCE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Bates Grain Company 

Stipulation of Compliance under the Commodity Exchange Act No. 68 

The Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that Bates Grain Company 

has violated the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C., Chapter 1) 

and the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated thereunder. No 

complaint with respect to such violations has been issued and Bates Grain 

Company is desirous of disposing of the matter by entering into a stipulation of 

compliance as authorized by section 0.4(a) of the Rules of Practice under the 

Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR, 0.0-0.28). Therefore, Bates Grain Company 

stipulates the following facts are true: 

(1) Bates Grain Company is and was at all times mentioned herein a Missouri 

corporation and a registered futures commission merchant under the Commodity 

Exchange Act with an office and principal place of business at 1400 Board of 

Trade Building, Kansas City 5, Missouri. 

(2) During the period January 2, 1964, through June 4, 1964, Bates Grain 

Company had on its books an account for Uhlmann & Co., Inc., in which were 

carried trades in Kansas City wheat futures which had been made for the sole 

purpose of paying commissions to Bates Grain Company in exchange for business 

which Bates Grain Company had given to Uhlmann & Co., Inc., on other exchanges. 

(3) During the aforementioned period, instructions were given by Uhlmann & 

Co., Inc., to various members of the Kansas City Board of Trade for them to make 

purchases and sales of Kansas City wheat futures. In accordance with such 

instructions, purchases and sales of 2,155,000 bushels of Kansas City wheat 

futures were made for the account of Uhlmann & Co., Inc., and were given up to 

Bates Grain Company for clearance to be carried on the books of Bates Grain 

Company. The Secretary of Agriculture has advised Bates Grain Company that such 

trades were, or were of the character of wash trades, and as such were in 

violation of section 4c(A) of the Commodity Exchange Act. 

The said Bates Grain Company agrees to desist from such acts and practices in 

the future. It further understands and agrees that this stipulation shall be 

admissible as evidence of such acts and practices in any future proceeding based 

upon transactions 

other than those referred to herein which may hereafter be brought by the 

Secretary of Agriculture against it under the provisions of the said act. It 

also understands that it is the practice of the Commodity Exchange Authority to 

make stipulations of compliance a matter of public record. 

Done at Kansas City, Missouri, this 23rd day of October 1964 

BATES GRAIN COMPANY 
Page 2 

By [SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

President 

Witnesses: 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 3
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

          We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  Post-effective
     Amendment No. 2 to the Registration  Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-68019) and
     related Prospectus of Marvel Enterprises,  Inc. (formerly Toy Biz, Inc.) of
     our report dated March 8, 2002, with respect to the consolidated  financial
     statements and schedule of Marvel Enterprises, Inc. included in this Annual
     Report on (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                              /s/  Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
March 29, 2002
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-40359 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. FELIPE MARTINEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CR-896-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender ap p ointed to represent Felipe MartinezGarcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United S tates v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th C ir. 2011). Martinez-Garcia has not f i l ed a response. Moreover, Martinez-Garc i a h a s s e r ved his p rison term, a nd he has no additional term of supervised release or p ayment of a fine or s pecial a ssessment. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 16, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-40359 Document: 00512408827 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2013No. 13-40359

We c oncur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. A ccordingly, counsel’s motion f or leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS D ISMISSED in p art as frivolous a nd in part as moot. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2; Unit e d S t a t e s v. Rosenbaum-Alanis , 4 83 F .3d 381, 3 82-83 (5th Cir. 2007).

2 Case: 13-40359 Document: 00512408827 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2013
|   |  (1) |   |  The      Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period      ended September 30, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange      Act of 1934, as amended; and |   |
|--------|-----------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|   |  (2) |   |  The      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and      results of operations of the Company. |   |
|--------|-----------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|                               |                                                                      |                         |
|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                               | CORPORATE EQUITY INVESTMENTS, INC.(Registrant)                            |
|                               |                                                                      |                         |
|  Dated:      October 23, 2008 |  By:                                                                 |  /s/      Luz M. Weigel |
|                               | Luz      M. Weigel                                                        |
|                               | President,      Secretary and Treasurer(Principal      Executive Officer) |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessie William NEWTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-7442.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.

Jessie William Newton, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorneys, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jessie William Newton appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Newton,*No. 5:02-cr-30020-SGW-18 (W.D.Va. Oct. 6, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately-presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Noe SALAZAR-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-60912

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 22, 2010.

Jodilyn Marie Goodwin, Law Office of Jodi Goodwin, Harlingen, TX, for Petitioner.

*879Gregory Michael Kelch, Thankful Townsend Vanderstar, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mexican citizen Noe Salazar-Rodriguez petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determining that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) because his 1996 Texas deferred adjudication conviction of possession of marijuana constituted an aggravated felony due to two prior convictions of possession of controlled substances.

Salazar-Rodriguez’s 1996 deferred adjudication was not treated as a recidivist offense in state court. It therefore does not constitute an aggravated felony for purposes of federal immigration law. The 1996 conviction does not render him ineligible to be considered for cancellation of removal. *See Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 2580, 2589, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010). Salazar-Rodriguez’s petition for review is GRANTED. The order of the BIA is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to allow Salazar-Rodriguez to pursue cancellation of removal in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Carachuri-Rosen-do.*

*

 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.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: PAUL J. PERLIN 

DOCKET NUMBER: 217 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT -- CEA DOCKET NO. 217 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Paul J. Perlin 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that on four days during February and March 1973, Paul 

J. Perlin exceeded the speculative trading limits in wheat futures. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when there has been a determination that the evidence substantiates allegations 

in the complaint. A determination is considered as having been made when a 

decision of the Administrative Law Judge becomes final or, after appeal, a 

decision is made by the Judicial Officer of the Department. Complaints are 

filed in the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and 

are a matter of public record. Pending disposition of a complaint, it is the 

policy of the CEA not to comment or elaborate on charges contained therein or to 

discuss evidence on which it is based. 

A public hearing on the complaint will be held before a referee in Chicago, 

Illinois, at a date and time to be specified at a later date. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2