alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-2910

___________

Norvell Daniels, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern 

v. * District of Missouri.

*

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. ___________ *

Submitted: November 22, 2000

Filed: December 5, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Norvell Daniels appeals the district court's1 denial of his Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion and his motions for recusal and reassignment of

judge. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule

60(b) motion because the relief Daniels requested was raised in a prior appeal and thus

did not present any new grounds for relief. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d
-2-

161, 169-70 (8th Cir. 1988). We further conclude the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motions for recusal and reassignment.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R.

47A(a).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Gregory D. KILPATRICK, petitioner, v. Andrew M. CUOMO, Governor of New York.

No. 18-6130.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1670
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GRACE HAWKINS COOK, a/k/a Grace L. Cook, Claimant - Appellant, and 8619 MULBERRY STREET, LAUREL, MARYLAND, with all buildings, appurtenances and improvements thereon, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA93-3970-PJM) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Grace Hawkins Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.23 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying Appellant's request for relief pursuant to the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court's decision. See United States v. Chandler , 36 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 1994). 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
J^t* H??EAL..HO. 02-15-00 W-CA.

ZN THE

d10 CoudT of WW

AT AUSTIN, TBkfs

7

v.

THE MTt Of TExA$ ^RECEIVED\

OCT 1 0 2016

,THIRD COURTOFAPPEALS,

h??m of ctmMM .c/?-tr-o603

f[kOf\ TUB WW

MXCm pjjffllcrCOURT OF ffWCOuHFf

.TO) M01JM FPU EXTFJMUl OF Tflf. TO fTlf, 0EUM'fMoj£ mm oiiFufmE to mm

MZEF

TO THE HOMMLF- WLC£* OF w com

Of fiftBMS:

f Comes now ZoutfS Anfam IUmDJ'. Afpellm pro Je. a

\jr\<T {; or rtjo oriel L SimMys. In. ivjoof^. hpywM

I
f^

0^

WCfJd /W ml ~Tbl\o\y\l\%

On Qddkc24 ^15 itjawfml fyfdw.iJk..

cr AmmA^ njsojJr wm /Jemy k/#mn. Tie Jury /meuoJ

/*nWM/n *f 15 yturs iMjtriSotohiMT mw te*u Pe{

of CfiM\mS$\mct, _.. ..;_.

ptrTWT

ir

Or\, OMtr 24 loft /k/t//y toml AppeJLl fully <£

^Mrui^d faswf w\lf\ ju Wy W&Mm> The Jury oj^sm

fifteen)' &.1?ye*rt inprteonmcnT iVi.w Tcku vepMVnefli

ur/AiiViJi. l/vjspce,

if

nr.

Qi\. Z&lyJyjxdA , v^cKoiff. r#/W /U^ /y w(

rto-Z-ree -fid ^flfetaM' Aid * rMfo tile pro jc brief or

retiforvSe h we AmcS J>ciQJ.

®* AuQcstf Z%20l6 j Jiie AppelUe recori woj -firJr

Khoie MtilMi io App^wr* %e deal l\me -h>r fi/fnf nfpdlmw Qhtf.--.9r reJfonse /J\ OcfoUr ?4) 2°l£-
r

~Z

i#rf*-7 V*-""^ty **U*u />/^

XT

Or response in 6uffoA /tyeX*& t/f*l, '

f «V * ^ ^ JF/>eLpJ/r/Je Utr ram

Reg/eofoU* cfi^ed

Aepewr. pro Je
T Yereby Cerh'fy +W- OY) Octohec_J_ J^r)l6/ cl \we.

OiYli Correct copy of Afpellfi>>^K<> motion for eytan$/'<?r? \o

file Wl Irtet or fc^ponSe Uat? ymleJ. +° the aHornty

for fk? 5-fet+e by tt$. F/6+ Ck#? yneul dMr^<6eA

+o Jeffrey D> kyle &+ ?& M &W7j fabnJeWb

Appellant, ?Co Sa

ij Loo\^ RtLrto5y Tb£Sitr30'&l60, beinfl pce6&nt\y \MorleratU

'in 7^e Byrd Un!-t of the lefa6 Depart/nwt &-f_Crfmmal

Jt^hu: Tr)$ii±vhona I Dillon in Udfer County, A3&S,

l/en'fy <XnA Active under penalty of perjur) iM~ the.

foregoing 6htements cure true. mA Correct. ^XeoAed. 0/?

ty\& the—Z—daJ of October,2014.

Loufy ft, fyimo5
•si

Q)

•si

I

h)

in

•si

£s

3*15$?^

= \J\

c U r- s ~ • <Q>

tf- Tf

^

c: ^ 0^

5?T >o ~rc \ -C

3 3 sj

n/

0

vN

N/ -*•

VA/ r3VZ-7

<J

1

•A

0

3
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Omer Regev, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NetManage, the Periodic Report, for the period ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered
by the Periodic Report.



By:

/s/ Omer RegevName:

Omer RegevTitle:

Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of FinanceDated:

November 9, 2007
George Eli BROWN, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5016.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
James T. BAGBY, petitioner, v. William HYATTE, Warden.

No. 18-5057.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 29756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10006]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0251]


Pacific Coast Port Access Route Study; Notice of Availability and 
Request for Comments

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability, online, of an 
information center for the public to review information, materials, and 
the announcement of upcoming public engagements related to the ongoing 
Pacific Coast Port Access Route Study (PAC-PARS), which is examining 
existing shipping routes and waterway uses, and, to the extent 
practicable, reconciling the paramount right of navigation within 
designated port access routes with other waterway uses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document 
call or email LCDR Sara Conrad, Coast Guard Pacific Area (PAC-544); 
telephone (510) 437-3813, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cb98aab9aae58ee588a4a5b9aaaf8bbeb8a8ace5a6a2a7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="85d6e4f7e4abc0abc6eaebf7e4e1c5f0f6e6e2abe8ece9">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose

    On July 29, 2021, the Coast Guard announced a Port Access Route 
Study (PARS) that will cover the Pacific Coast from the Washington/
Canada border to the California/Mexico border. The Coast Guard is 
conducting this PARS to evaluate safe access routes for the movement of 
vessel traffic proceeding to or from ports or places along the western 
seaboard of the United States and to determine whether a Shipping 
Safety Fairway (``Fairway'') and/or routing measures should be 
established, adjusted or modified. The PARS will evaluate the continued 
applicability of, and the need for modifications to, current vessel 
routing measures. The data gathered during this Pacific Coast PARS 
(PAC-PARS) may result in the recommendation for the establishment of 
one or more new vessel routing measures, modification of existing 
routing measures, or disestablishment of existing routing measures off 
the Pacific Coast along Washington, Oregon, and California.
    In order to keep the public informed on the PARS as the study 
proceeds, the Coast Guard Pacific Area has set up an online information 
center that can be found here: https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/DispForm.aspx?ID=77149&Source=/Lists/Content/DispForm.aspx?ID=77149.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: April 28, 2022.
K.B. Reed,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, PACAREA Preparedness Division (PAC-
5).
[FR Doc. 2022-10006 Filed 5-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Scott James REPELLA, petitioner, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

No. 18-8385.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
financial  statements  as of and for the period  ended  March 31,  2000,  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    000909298
<NAME>                   MID-ATLANTIC REALTY TRUST
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                  1
<CASH>                           1,156
<SECURITIES>                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                    1,994
<ALLOWANCES>                     0
<INVENTORY>                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS><F1>             0
<PP&E>                           341,275
<DEPRECIATION>                   62,588
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   348,673
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES><F1>        0
<BONDS>                          163,929
<COMMON>                         138
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0
<PREFERRED>                      0
<OTHER-SE>                       91,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     348,673
<SALES>                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 13,909
<CGS>                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    10,156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 827
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               3,843
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  2,927
<INCOME-TAX>                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              2,927
<DISCONTINUED>                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0
<CHANGES>                        0
<NET-INCOME>                     2,927
<EPS-BASIC>                    0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                    0.21
<FN>

<F1> Mid-Atlantic Realty Trust (MART) is in the specialized real estate industry
     for which the current/noncurrent  distinction is deemed in practice to have
     little or no  relevance.  Therefore,  MART  prepares  unclassified  balance
     sheets which do not report current assets or current liabilities.
</FN>


</TABLE>
PHILADELPHIA TAXI ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., petitioners, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

No. 18-32.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Bradley B. MILLER, petitioner, v. TEXAS, et al.

No. 18-7450.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 13.2

                            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 Annual Report of Delta Galil Industries Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge:

     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date: June 28, 2006

    /S/ YOSSI HAJAJ
-------------------------------------------
Name:  Yossi Hajaj
Title: Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1643 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1643

To establish a moratorium on large fishing vessels in Atlantic herring 
                        and mackerel fisheries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 1999

Mr. Saxton (for himself and Mr. Faleomavaega) introduced the following 
         bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish a moratorium on large fishing vessels in Atlantic herring 
                        and mackerel fisheries.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MORATORIUM.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et 
seq.), no large fishing vessel may engage in fishing for Atlantic 
herring or Atlantic mackerel within the United States exclusive 
economic zone until--
            (1) the National Marine Fisheries Service has completed a 
        new population survey into the abundance of the discrete 
        spawning stocks of Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel; and
            (2) the Secretary of Commerce has approved and implemented 
        fishery management plans developed by the appropriate regional 
        fishery management council for Atlantic herring and Atlantic 
        mackerel, which specifically allow large fishing vessels to 
        participate in those fisheries.
    (b) Large Fishing Vessel Defined.--In this section, the term 
``large fishing vessel''--
            (1) except as provided in paragraph (2), means a fishing 
        vessel (as that term is defined in section 3 of the Magnuson-
        Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
        1802)) of the United States that is equal to or greater than 
        165 feet in length overall and has an engine of more than 3,000 
        horsepower; and
            (2) does not include such a vessel that engages only in 
        processing fish harvested by fishing vessels of the United 
        States.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 11.1

IPC HOLDINGS, LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

RECONCILIATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED NET INCOME PER COMMON
SHARE

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars, except for share amounts)

A reconciliation of basic and diluted earnings per share (EPS) is given in the following table:



|                                             |  |                       |        |                                  |            |                 |   |     
|-------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- | ------ | -------------------------------- | ---------- | --------------- | - | ----
|                                             |  | Net Income(unaudited) |        | Sharesoutstanding andequivalents |            | Amount perShare
|Quarter ended March 31, 2009:                |  |                       |        |                                  |            |                 |   |     
|Basic EPS (available to common shareholders) |  | $                     | 8,252  |                                  | 55,903,740 |                 | $ | 0.15
|Diluted EPS                                  |  | $                     | 8,252  |                                  | 55,916,256 |                 | $ | 0.15
|Quarter ended March 31, 2008:                |  |                       |        |                                  |            |                 |   |     
|Basic EPS (available to common shareholders) |  | $                     | 82,569 |                                  | 57,427,602 |                 | $ | 1.44
|Diluted EPS                                  |  | $                     | 86,803 |                                  | 66,182,884 |                 | $ | 1.31
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F OR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROCHELLE GRAY, P laintiff

- Appellant,
v. ROBERT WILKIE, * Defendant

- Appellee. No. 19

- 15061 D.C. No. 4:17

- cv - 03973

- HS G
MEMORANDUM **

Ap peal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding S ubmitted March 3, 2020 ** * Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. R ochelle Gray appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging discrimination under Title VII and the Age

* R obert Wilkie has been substituted for his predecessor, David J. Sh ulkin, as Secretary of Veterans Affairs under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

** Th is disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED
M AR 6 2020 M OLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 15061 Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de no vo . Weill v. Citizens Telecom Servs. Co. , 922 F.3d 993, 1001 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gray failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscr iminatory reasons for placing Gray on a performance plan and discharging her were pretextual. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc. , 281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth framework for Title VII discrimination claim and explaining that sum mary judgment is appropriate where plaintiff did not establish “a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or . . . that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Sangvh i v. City of Claremont , 328 F.3d 532, 536 n.3 (9th Cir. 2003) (Title VII and ADEA claims are analyzed under the same burden

shifting framework)
. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gray’s request for additional discovery under Feder al Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) because Gray did not show how additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment
. See Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco , 441 F.3d 1090, 110 0

- 01 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth the standard of review and upholding the denial of a request for a continuance where plaintiff “did not identify the specific facts that further3 19

- 15061 discovery would have revealed or explain why those facts would have preclude d summary judgment”). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED.
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 10/04/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       44,503
COMMITMENTS
   3,260      894        0   37,605   41,782   40,865   42,676    3,638    1,827

CHANGES FROM 09/27/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        784)
    -130      158        0      648      357      518      515      266      269

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     7.3      2.0      0.0     84.5     93.9     91.8     95.9      8.2      4.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       53)
       6        2        0       29       26       35       28
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 10/04/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       63,284
COMMITMENTS
   6,064   19,903      225   51,087   33,737   57,376   53,865    5,908    9,419

CHANGES FROM 09/27/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      5,682)
   1,342    2,400       33    3,808   -3,666    5,183   -1,233      499    6,915

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     9.6     31.5      0.4     80.7     53.3     90.7     85.1      9.3     14.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       72)
      14        7        1       36       23       50       31
```

----

Updated October 7, 2011