alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ivan Von STAICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-15679.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 12, 2010.

Ivan Von Staich, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.

Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

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).

*258MEMORANDUM **

Ivan Von Staich, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the voluntary dismissal of his action following a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Lehman v. United States,*154 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Von Staich’s arguments concerning the validity and repudiation of the settlement agreement and concluding that Von Staich had not demonstrated any “extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief from judgment. *See id.*(the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rule 60(b)(6) relief after concluding there was no repudiation of the agreement); *see also United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.,*984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.1993) (Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used “sparingly [and] as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice”).

We do not consider Von Staich’s arguments that were not raised before the district court. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

Von Staich’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.
# C_2009082EN.01002101.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/21

---

Appeal brought on 6 February 2009 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2008 in Case T-339/06 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-54/09 P)

(2009/C 82/37)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and M. Tassopoulou)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | allow the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the appeal;

| — | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance;

| — | uphold the action in accordance with the form of order sought; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action in accordance with the form of order sought;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the appellant's costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the appellant's costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Hellenic Republic submits: (i) that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted Articles 16(1) and (2) and 17 of Regulation No 1227/2000 in finding that the time-limit laid down in Article 16(1) is binding, when it is in fact indicative — as is apparent from the interpretation of Article 16(2) and 17 of the regulation; (ii) that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted Article 10 of the Treaty and general principles of law because the Commission, in agreeing that it was aware of the corrected data 23 days prior to adoption of the contested decision but did not take them into account, and that it accepts data which are submitted belatedly by other Member States while refusing to do the same in Greece's case, infringes the principles of cooperation in good faith, sound administration and equal treatment; and (iii) that the judgment of the Court of First Instance under appeal contains contradictory reasoning given that the recognition of the binding nature of the time-limit conflicts with the recognition and admission that the Commission accepts information submitted after expiry of the time-limit too.

---
Albert Charles BURGESS, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6002.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
II-00386

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

deborah volk <wjvinns@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:59 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

deborah volk

1548 pullan ave

cincinnati, OH 45223
Candice STARUH, petitioner, v. Joanne TORMA, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Cambridge Springs, et al.

No. 16-6575.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                               16,528,884
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     16,696,771
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       16,696,771
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   923,959
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         16,696,771
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        591,614
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        488,118
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         103,496
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     103,496
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            103,496
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 9.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 9.57
        

</TABLE>
Mario Marquell WARD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5763.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.26



Date



Name

Address

City State



Dear
:



Pursuant to the terms and conditions of Adolor Corporations 2003 Stock Based Incentive Compensation Plan or Adolors 1994 Amended and Restated
Equity Compensation Plan (the Plan), you have been granted an Option to purchase  shares (the Option) of common stock as outlined below. Because
of the IRS limitation of $100,000 per year on Incentive Stock Options, the option must be segmented into  shares covered by an Incentive Stock Option and
 shares covered by a Non-Qualified Stock Option. Together these options vest
 effective as of date of grant.



|                        |  |                                      |  |                         |  |  
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------- |  | -
|Granted to:             |  | ___________                          |  |                         |  |  
|                        |  | SS #                                 |  |                         |  |  
|                        |  |                                      | 
|Grant Date:             |  | ___________                          |  |                         |  |  
|                        |  |                                     
|Options Granted:        |  | ________Incentive Stock Options      |  |                        
|Option Price per Share: |  | $                                    |  | Total Cost to Exercise: |  | $
|Expiration Date:        |  | _________                            |  |                         |  |  
|                        |  |                                     
|Options Granted:        |  | _________Non-Qualified Stock Options |  |                        
|Option Price per Share: |  | $                                    |  | Total Cost to Exercise: |  | $
|Expiration Date:        |  | ___________                          |  |                         |  |  



Michael R. Dougherty

Chief Operating Officer



I hereby acknowledge receipt of the Stock Option granted on the date shown above, which has been issued to me under the terms and conditions of the Plan and this Option Agreement. I also acknowledge receipt of copies
of the Plan, its Summary Description and the Companys latest annual report (SEC Form 10-K), and acknowledge and agree that I am bound by the terms and conditions of the Plan and this Option Agreement with respect to my option.



|           |  |  |  |      |  | 
|---------- |  |  |  | ---- |  | 
|Signature: |  |  |  | Date |  |
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                            |  |                  
|------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|Sequenom  Gemini, Ltd.                     |  | England and Wales
|Gemini Genomics, (UK) Ltd.                  |  | England and Wales
|Gemini Genomics, Ltd.                       |  | England and Wales
|Sequenom GmbH                               |  | Germany          
|Sequenom K.K.                               |  | Japan            
|Sequenom Hong Kong, Ltd                     |  | Hong Kong        
|Sequenom Biosciences (India) Pvt. Ltd       |  | India            
|Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, LLC |  | United States
II-00652

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Fernando Severi <ferhugsev@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:54 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Fernando Severi

PO Box 591

Anahola, HI 96703
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Debra A.Goodling, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fulton Bancshares Corporation.

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

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)          designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

(b)         evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

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

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

(a)          all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)         anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: May 11, 2006 | By:    | /s/ DEBRA A.  GOODLING             |   |
|-------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Debra A. Goodling                  |
|                    |   | *Interim  Chief Financial Officer* |

 

1

----
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Each of the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:  (1)
    this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    the information contained in this periodic report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Life Time Fitness, Inc. Dated: March 10, 2005 /s/ Bahram AkradiBahram AkradiChairman of the Board of Directors, President and
Chief Executive Officer /s/ Michael R. RobinsonMichael R. RobinsonExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [DA 01-1289]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This document identified those proposals filed during the limited low power television/television translator/Class A television auction filing window that are mutually exclusive and announces a 60-day settlement window ending July 24, 2001.

# DATES:

Settlements must be submitted by July 24, 2001.

# ADDRESSES:

To submit a settlement, parties must send the requisite paperwork identified in the Public Notice to: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20054. In addition, it is requested that a courtesy copy of all such filings be delivered to Shaun Maher, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 2-A820, Washington, DC 20554.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shaun Maher, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau at (202) 418-1600.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of a Public Notice released May 25, 2001. It does not include the attachment. The complete text of the Public Notice, including attachment, is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. It may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc. (ITS, Inc.) 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20035, (202) 857-3800. It is also available on the Commission's web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

In this Public Notice, the Mass Media Bureau identifies those proposals filed during the limited low power television, television translator, and Class A television auction filing window that are mutually exclusive. Parties have until July 24, 2001, to file a settlement if they desire to avoid going to auction.

Federal Communications Commission.

Robert H. Ratcliffe,

Deputy Chief, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01-15315 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
# C_2010113EN.01001501.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/15

---

Appeal brought on 10 September 2009 by Mr Hans Molter against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 August 2009 in Case T-141/09 Hans Molter v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-361/09 P)

2010/C 113/21

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Hans Molter (represented by: T. Damerau, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Other party to the proceedings:

The Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) dismissed the appeal by order of 5 February 2010 and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---
Michael Scott McDONALD, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-5255.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 184 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 184

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 25, 2009.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1105) making omnibus appropriations for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, 
as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against the bill, 
as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appro-

              
priations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  House Resolution 158 is laid on the table.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```