alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Desha M. CARTER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. M. YARBOROUGH; et al. Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-55015.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 4, 2012.

Desha M. Carter, Wasco, CA, pro se.

Tiffany R. Hixson, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, John E. Rittmayer, Esquire, Rene L. Lu-caric, Esquire, Supervisory, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Jack M. Schuler, Esquire, Schuler and Brown, Van Nuys, CA, 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 **

Desha M. Carter, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo *606summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, *Galen v. County of Los Angeles,*477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on Carter’s denial of outdoor exercise claim because Carter failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that restricting Carter’s outdoor exercise during the prison security lockdown violated his constitutional rights. *See Norwood v. Vance,*591 F.3d 1062, 1068-70 (9th Cir.2010) (prison officials entitled to qualified immunity on denial of outdoor exercise claim because a reasonable officer could have believed that restricting outdoor exercise during prison security lockdown was constitutional), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1465, 179 L.Ed.2d 299 (2011).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Carter’s access-to-court claim because Carter failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the warden knew that the prison staff was not following the directive to provide legal materials to the prisoners with court deadlines. *See Taylor v. List,*880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983; plaintiff must show defendant’s personal involvement in alleged violations).

Carter’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.
No. 576, Misc.

#### Nicholson, Administrator, et al. *v.*Thompson, Trustee.

C. A. 6th Cir,

*William A, McTighe*for petitioners.

*Walter P. Armstrong*for respondent.

Certiorari denied.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Presidential Documents 30631

Presidential Determination No. 2001–16 of June 1, 2001

Determination Under Subsection 402(d)(1) of the Trade Act

of 1974, as Amended—Continuation of Waiver Authority for

the People’s Republic of China

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me under the Trade Act of 1974, as

amended, Public Law 93–618, 88 Stat. 1978 (hereinafter the ‘‘Act’’), I determine, pursuant to section 402(d)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2432(d)(1), that

the further extension of the waiver authority granted by section 402 of

the Act will substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of the

Act. I further determine that continuation of the waiver applicable to the

People’s Republic of China will substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of the Act.

You are authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal

Register.

[FR Doc. 01–14519

Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, June 1, 2001.

W

Billing code 4710–10–M
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE V. E.F. CARLSTON COMPANY, C.E. CARLSTON, H.F. 

CARLSTON, AND DAVID FULLER 

DOCKET NUMBER: GFA-10 

DATE: 1936 

DOCUMENT TYPE: SUMMARY OF CASE 

NOTE: PROCEEDING BEFORE THE GRAIN FUTURES COMMISSION UNDER THE GRAIN FUTURES ACT 

GFA Docket No. 10 

E. F. Carlston Company, 

C. E. Carlston, 

H. F. Carlston, and 

David Fuller, respondents 

On December 6, 1935, the Secretary of Agriculture issued a complaint charging 

the respondents with refusal to permit a Department employee to examine futures 

records relating to grain trading covering the period from December 1, 1932, 

through October 30, 1935. 

A hearing was held before a referee at Minneapolis, Minnesota, on December 

16, 1935. In view of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the 

Cutten case (GFA Docket No. 7), the Grain Futures Commission dismissed the 

complaint on September 12, 1936 

LOAD-DATE: December 15, 2008 
Page 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 6 
<CIK> 0000744822
<NAME> Fidelity Investment Trust
<SERIES>
 <NUMBER> 71
 <NAME> Fidelity Canada Fund
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>
<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 year          
 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             oct-31-1997   
 
<PERIOD-END>                  oct-31-1997   
 
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>         89,461        
 
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>        97,242        
 
<RECEIVABLES>                 2,871         
 
<ASSETS-OTHER>                0             
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>          0             
 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                100,113       
 
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>      3,044         
 
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>       0             
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>     611           
 
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>           3,655         
 
<SENIOR-EQUITY>               0             
 
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>      75,593        
 
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>         5,110         
 
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>         5,937         
 
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>     323           
 
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>        0             
 
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>       12,764        
 
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>      0             
 
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>      7,778         
 
<NET-ASSETS>                  96,458        
 
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>             1,091         
 
<INTEREST-INCOME>             431           
 
<OTHER-INCOME>                (116)         
 
<EXPENSES-NET>                1,178         
 
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>       228           
 
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>      13,786        
 
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>     (5,364)       
 
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>         8,650         
 
<EQUALIZATION>                0             
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>     783           
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>      26,589        
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>         0             
 
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>       2,742         
 
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>   5,109         
 
<SHARES-REINVESTED>           1,541         
 
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>        (33,214)      
 
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>       783           
 
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>     33,609        
 
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>       0             
 
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>    0             
 
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>         498           
 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0             
 
<GROSS-EXPENSE>               1,181         
 
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>          127,505       
 
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>         21.840        
 
<PER-SHARE-NII>               .030          
 
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>       1.390         
 
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>          .130          
 
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>     4.290         
 
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>          0             
 
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>           18.880        
 
<EXPENSE-RATIO>               93            
 
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>        0             
 
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>          0
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Declaration of Economic Injury Disaster #9L78]

Essex County and the contiguous county of Middlesex in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties in the State of New Hampshire constitute an economic injury disaster loan area as a result of a fire that occurred on April 28, 2001 in Amesbury, Massachusetts. Eligible small businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere may file applications for economic injury assistance as a result of this disaster until the close of business on March 1, 2002 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow Blvd, South 3rd Floor, Niagara Falls, NY 14303.

The interest rate for eligible small businesses and small agricultural cooperatives is 4 percent. The numbers assigned for economic injury for this disaster are 9L7800 for Massachusetts; and 9L7900 for New Hampshire. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59002) 

Dated: June 1, 2001.

John Whitmore,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01-14565 Filed 6-8-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 10.1


 


Securities Purchase Agreement


dated April 30, 2016


 





Accompanying this exhibit is a 37 page document in PDF format
showing the Securities Purchase Agreement by and among Rokwader Acquisition Corp., Clean Freak USA, Inc., and selling
shareholders.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000851478
<NAME>                        BEI ELECTRONICS

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                0
<CASH>                                         7,685
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  17,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                   474
<INVENTORY>                                    20,376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               59,509
<PP&E>                                         47,990
<DEPRECIATION>                                 24,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          27,942
<BONDS>                                        24,519
<COMMON>                                       9
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     53,651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,463
<SALES>                                        34,666
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               34,666
<CGS>                                          24,547
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  24,547
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               9,033
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                551
<INCOME-TAX>                                   198
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            353
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   353
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.05
        

</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY

#### Burnett v. Mugle et al.

November 4, 1991

By JUDGE JOSEPH E. SPRUILL, JR.

We have for consideration a Motion to Quash Service of Process filed by Banker’s Standard Insurance Company.

The plaintiff filed this suit on May 22, 1990. The named defendants were served soon thereafter. On August 5, 1991, pursuant to a request from the plaintiff, Banker’s Standard, as an underinsured carrier, was served with process. Thus, service of process on Banker’s was obtained over one year after the commencement of the action.

Banker's now moves to quash process, claiming that the process was not in accordance with Rule 3:3, which provides that no judgment shall be entered against a defendant who was served with process more than one year after the commencement of the action. Banker’s also relies on Section 38.2-2206(F) which provides:

> If any action is instituted against the owner or operator of an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle by any insured intending to rely on the uninsured or underinsured coverage provision or endorsement of this policy under which the insured is making a claim, the insured shall serve a copy of the process upon this insurer in the manner prescribed by law, as though the insurer were a party defendant.

*421The plaintiff responds that Banker's is not a defendant to this action and that the service of process is proper.

Upon consideration of the memoranda submitted by counsel following oral argument on October 3, 1991, and the authorities cited by counsel, the Motion to Quash will be overruled.

The process prescribed by $ 38.2-2206(F) shall be made as though the party to be served were a party defendant, but such service does not make the party served a defendant. The statute merely prescribes the manner in which service is to be made. The phrase "in the manner prescribed by law" modifies the words "shall serve" indicating a clear legislative intent to limit the requirement to the *manner*of service of process. *Glens Falls Insurance Company*v. Stephenson, 235 Va. 420 (1988). This interpretation is consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in *Roenke*v. *Virginia Farm Bureau Insurance*Company, 209 Va. 128 (1968), wherein it was held: "Even service of a copy of the process does not make the insurance company a defendant to the cause of action. The statute simply prescribed a precise and formal method of notification ..."

Having found that Banker's is not a party defendant, it follows that Rule 3:3 has not application here.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: RODGER HARRIS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 170 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 170 

(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: 

Rodger Harris 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that the respondent cheated and defrauded a customer of 

the firm for which the respondent was employed. The complaint alleges that on 

April 23 and 25, 1968, the respondent, Office Manager at the offices of a 

registered futures commission merchant, placed in the account of a customer 

without the knowledge or consent of such customer, a total of four May 1968 

potato futures contracts. This position, when liquidated on May 1, 1968, 

resulted in a net loss to the customer of approximately $ 1,500. 

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 the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, April 15, 1970, in Chicago, Illinois. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at September 30, 2000 and the
Consolidated Statement of Income for the year ended September 30, 2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          15,915
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,628
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,693
<PP&E>                                         708,630
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 969,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,115
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       239,920
<OTHER-SE>                                     620,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   969,254
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  152,983
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               275,337
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (428,320)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (428,320)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (428,320)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (428,320)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Robert Skelly, the President, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and a director of Harborside Ventures, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Harborside Ventures, Inc., for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Harborside Ventures, Inc.



| | "Robert Skelly"Robert SkellyPresident, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and a director 
Date:  May 20, 2008
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Harborside Ventures, Inc. and will be retained by Harborside Ventures, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

__________
Delaware wn.

The First State

I, JEFFREY W. BULLOCK, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY "SWAPEX, LLC" IS DULY FORMED UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AND IS IN GOOD STANDING AND
HAS A LEGAL EXISTENCE SO FAR AS THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE SHOW,
AS OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH DAY OF JULY, A.D. 2013.

AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE ANNUAL TAXES HAVE

BEEN PAID TO DATE.

SQ) SLC

Jeffrey W. Bullock, Secretary of State
5111336 8300 AUTHENT{CATION: 0610305

130911008 DATE: 07-24-13

You may verify this certificate online
at corp. delaware. gov/authver. shtml
No. 649.

#### Longyear Holding Co. et al. *v.*Minnesota, 336 U. S. 948.

Rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Burton took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
MISSISSIPPI VIEW HOLDING COMPANY
                                   EXHIBIT 11
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                  For the Twelve Months
                                                                   Ended September 30,
                                                                  ---------------------
                                                                     1997        1996  
                                                                  ----------  ---------
<S>                                                                <C>        <C>      
Net Income .....................................................   $739,715   $558,768 
                                                                   ========   ========   

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding ............................    746,484    851,025
Common stock equivalents due to dilutive effect of stock options     26,970      1,587
                                                                   --------   -------- 
Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding    773,454    852,612
                                                                   ========   ========   

Primary Earnings Per Share .....................................   $   0.96   $   0.66  
                                                                   ========   ========  



Weighted Average Shares Outstanding ............................    746,484    851,025
Additional  dilutive  shares using end of period
  market value versus average market value for
  period when utilizing the treasury stock method
  regarding stock options ......................................     54,005     10,870
                                                                   --------   -------- 

Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding
  for fully diluted computation ................................    800,489    861,895
                                                                   ========   ========  

Fully diluted earnings per share ...............................   $   0.92   $   0.65   
                                                                   ========   ========   
</TABLE>


Earnings per share of common stock for the twelve month periods ended  September
30, 1996 and 1997, have been determined by dividing net income for the period by
the  weighted  average  number of shares of  common  stock  outstanding,  net of
unearned ESOP shares.



                                       24
# FCM Data January 2017