alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Osiel RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. KARGE, Captain; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-15482.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 6, 2010.

Osiel Rodriguez, Florence, CO, 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 ***

Osiel Rodriguez, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging constitutional violations arising from an electronic word search of his documents and related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim alleging that prison officials improperly conducted electronic word searches on documents that Rodriguez drafted on a shared word processor because inmates have no legitimate expectation of privacy in their prison cells or possessions. *See Hudson v. Palmer,*468 U.S. 517, 525-27, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984).

The district court properly dismissed the due process claims because Rodriguez failed to allege facts showing how his placement in the Secure Housing Unit or transfer to the Administrative Maximum facility imposed an atypical and significant hardship on him in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. *See Wilkinson v. Austin,*545 U.S. 209, 223-24, 125 S.Ct. 2384, 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005). Further, “inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a special prison grievance procedure.” *Ramirez v. Galaza,*334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Pablo Francisco PALACIOS-GOMEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5789.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14798]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1175]


Approval of Manufacturing Activity Within Foreign-Trade Zone 246 
Waco, TX; Caterpillar Inc. (Construction Equipment)

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the City of Waco (Texas), grantee of FTZ 246, has 
requested authority on behalf of Caterpillar Inc., to manufacture 
construction equipment under zone procedures within FTZ 246, Waco, 
Texas (filed 12-15-2000, FTZ Docket 69-2000);
    Whereas, pursuant to Sec. 400.32(b)(1), the Commerce Department's 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration has the authority to act 
for the Board in making such decisions on new manufacturing/processing 
activity under certain circumstances, including situations where the 
proposed activity is the same, in terms of products involved, as 
activity recently approved by the Board and similar in circumstances 
(Sec. 400.32(b)(1)(i));
    Whereas, the Board's Executive Secretary has determined that the 
application meets the criteria for review under Sec. 400.32(b)(1)(i); 
and,
    Whereas, the FTZ staff has reviewed the proposal, taking into 
account the criteria of Sec. 400.31, and the Executive Secretary has 
recommended approval;
    Now, therefore, the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
acting for the Board pursuant to Sec. 400.32(b)(1), concurs in the 
recommendation and hereby approves the request subject to the Act and 
the Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of May 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14798 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
Richard RAMBARAN, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 16-6084.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Juan Jose Acuna, Jr.

, * From the 238th District

Court of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR36960

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00245

- CR * April 16, 2015

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Exhibit 24.1



POWER OF ATTORNEY



WHEREAS, BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the Company), will file with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, under the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005; and



WHEREAS, the undersigned serve the Company in the capacity indicated;



NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints THOMAS N.
HUND or JEFFREY R. MORELAND, his or her attorney with full power to act for him or her in his or her name, place and stead, to sign his or her name in the capacity set forth below, to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2005, and to any and all amendments to such Annual Report on Form 10-K, and hereby ratifies and confirms all that said attorney may or shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Power of Attorney has been executed by the
undersigned this 16th day of February, 2006.



|                                                 |  |                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                 | 
|/s/ Alan L. BoeckmannAlan L. Boeckmann, Director |  | /s/ Donald G. CookDonald G. Cook, Director                                   
|                                                 | 
|/s/ Vilma S. MartinezVilma S. Martinez, Director |  | /s/ Marc F. RacicotMarc F. Racicot, Director                                 
|                                                 | 
|/s/ Roy S. RobertsRoy S. Roberts, Director       |  | Matthew K. Rose, Director and Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                                 | 
|/s/ Marc J. ShapiroMarc J. Shapiro, Director     |  | /s/ J.C. Watts, Jr.J.C. Watts, Jr., Director                                 
|                                                 | 
|/s/ Robert H. WestRobert H. West, Director       |  | /s/ Edward E. Whitacre, Jr.Edward E. Whitacre, Jr., Director                 
|                                                 | 
|/s/ J. Steven WhislerJ. Steven Whisler, Director |  |
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: LAIRD, BISSELL & MEEDS, INC. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 207 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 207 

(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: 

Laird, Bissell & Meeds, Inc. 

(Wilmington, Delaware) 

The complaint charges that on July 31, 1972, Laird, Bissell & Meeds, Inc., 

failed to keep accurate records of the amount of customers' monies required to 

be held, and held, in segregation under the Commodity Exchange Act. It also 

charges that the firm failed to apply offsetting purchases and sales in the 

accounts of certain customers as required by the regulations under the Act. 

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 will be held before a referee in New York, 

New York, at a date and time to be specified at a later date. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
Lisa CARROLL, petitioner, v. Garth J. NICHOLLS.

No. 16-5999.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.
Exhibit 23
                                                       ----------

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (File No's. 333-81055,  333-29363,  333-19383,  33-91364
and 33-90292) of Commonwealth  Industries,  Inc. and  subsidiaries of our report
dated January 20, 2000 relating to the consolidated financial statements,  which
appears in the Annual  Report to  Stockholders,  which is  incorporated  in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report dated January 20, 2000 relating to the financial  statement schedule,
which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Louisville, Kentucky
March 22, 2000
Dawn BAILEY, petitioner, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

No. 15-1371.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 18, 2022

No. 04-22-00182-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.T., a child,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PA01505

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In this accelerated appeal, the reporter’s record was due on April 11, 2022. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 35.1(b). To date, this court has not received a notification of late record or the reporter’s 

record. 

We order court reporter Elva Chapa to file the reporter’s record or a notification of late 

record in this court within ten days of the date of this order. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of April, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 15.1**

May 15, 2014 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20549 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We were previously principal accountants for Petróleos Mexicanos, Subsidiary Entities and Subsidiary Companies (“PEMEX”) and, under the dateof April 30, 2013, we reported on the consolidated financial statements of PEMEX as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and January 1, 2011, and for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011. On October 8, 2013, we were notifiedthat Petróleos Mexicanos engaged Castillo Miranda y Compañía, S.C. (“BDO Mexico”) as its principal accountants for the year ending December 31, 2013 and that the auditor-client relationship with KPMGCárdenas Dosal, S.C. will cease upon completion of the limited review of PEMEX’s unaudited interim consolidated financial statements as of and for the three-month and nine-month periods ending September 30, 2013. OnNovember 15, 2013, we completed our limited review and the auditor-client relationship ceased. We have read Petróleos Mexicanos’ statements included under Item 16-F of its Form 20-F dated May 15, 2014, and we agree withsuch statements, except that: (i) we are not in a position to agree or disagree with Petróleos Mexicanos’ stated reason for changing principal accountants, and, (ii) we are not in a position to agree or disagree withPetróleos Mexicanos’ statement that BDO Mexico was not consulted regarding either (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed, or (ii) the type of audit opinion thatmight be rendered on PEMEX’s consolidated financial statements, or (iii) whether there were any matters that were either the subject of disagreement or “reportable event”, and (iv) that no written report or oral advice wasprovided that BDO Mexico concluded was an important factor considered by Petróleos Mexicanos in reaching a decision as to the accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue. 

Very truly yours, 

KPMG Cárdenas Dosal, S.C. 

/s/ JOSÉ GILBERTO ALFARO SERVÍN

José Gilberto Alfaro Servín
* District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by

designation.

 

1 We note that the appellant argues that the standard of review is "abuse

of discretion" rather than "gross abuse of discretion." As authority for this

standard, the appellant cites United States v. Kirkland, 853 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir.

1988). The Kirkland case states that the court will "examine only whether the

sentence was illegal or whether the district court abused its discretion." Id.

at 1246. As authority for this standard, the Kirkland court cites United States

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 92-1610

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee 

 versus

CLIFFORD SINCLAIR

Defendant-Appellant 

___________________________________________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

____________________________________________________________

(August 27, 1993)

Before WIENER, EMILIO GARZA, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE*, District

Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Clifford Sinclair, a federal prisoner, has appealed from the

district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence, which

was filed pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure. A district court's ruling under Rule 35 will be

reversed "only for illegality or gross abuse of discretion."1
v. Hayward, 762 F.2d 1226, 1228 (5th Cir. 1985). The Hayward case provides that

a district court's ruling on a motion under Rule 35 will be reversed "only for

illegality or gross abuse of discretion." Id. (cites omitted). Therefore, the

standard of review remains gross abuse of discretion.

2

United States v. Lewis, 743 F.2d 1127, 1129 (5th Cir. 1984)

(quoting United States v. Sparrow, 673 F.2d 862, 864 (5th Cir.

1982)). We have reviewed the record and considered the arguments

presented, and we do not find that the district court grossly

abused its discretion. 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                    SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERIGAS PARTNERS, L.P.

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                   STATE OF
SUBSIDIARY                                          OWNERSHIP      INCORPORATION
----------                                          ---------      -------------
<S>                                                 <C>            <C>
AmeriGas Finance Corp.                                100%              DE
AmeriGas Propane, L.P.                                98.99%            DE
  AmeriGas Eagle Propane, L.P.                        99%               DE
    AmeriGas Eagle Parts & Service, Inc.              100%              PA
  AmeriGas Propane Parts & Service, Inc.              100%              PA
  AmeriGas Eagle Propane, Inc.                        100%              DE
    AmeriGas Eagle Holdings, Inc.                     100%              DE
      Active Propane of Wisconsin LLC                 100%              DE
AmeriGas Eagle Finance Corp.                          100%              DE
AP Eagle Finance Corp.                                100%              DE
</Table>
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 Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1370-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota, (FEMA-1370-DR), dated May 16, 2001, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

June 8, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 16, 2001: 

Clearwater, Crow Wing, and Roseau for Public Assistance. 

Anoka, Beltrami, Clearwater, Hennepin, Koochiching Counties and Red Lake Indian Reservation and White Earth Indian Reservation for Individual Assistance. 

Brown, Carver, Chisago, Douglas, Grant, Kittson, Nicollet, Red Lake and Scott Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

Lacy E. Suiter,

Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate. 

[FR Doc. 01-15267 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
Rogerio Chaves SCOTTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6749.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Andrew Lambert SILICANI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6577.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Roger BRYNER, petitioner, v. CANYONS SCHOOL DISTRICT.

No. 15-9153.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Utah denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN GAMING &
ENTERTAINMENT, LTD. FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         424,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               459,000
<PP&E>                                           8,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 464,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          128,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 17,453,000
<COMMON>                                       126,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (17,453,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   464,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               137,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (136,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (136,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (452,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
In re Leroy SINGLETON, petitioner.

No. 16-6748.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Mantra Venture Group Ltd. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Dennis Petke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:





1
            The Report
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





By:/s/
Dennis Petke


Dennis
Petke


Chief Financial
Officer, Principal Accounting Officer


January 14,
2009