alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1



                                                                  EXHIBIT 15.1

Detroit Diesel Corporation
13400 Outer Drive West
Detroit, Michigan  48239-4001

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Detroit Diesel Corporation and subsidiaries for the periods
ended September 30, 1996 and 1995, as indicated in our report dated October 22,
1996 (which report indicated our reliance on the review report of other
accountants with respect to their review of the interim financial statements of
VM Motori, S.p.A., a consolidated subsidiary); because we did not perform an
audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1996, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-84468, 33-84470 and
333-02024 on Form S-8.

We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
Detroit, Michigan
November 8, 1996



                                       17
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1745
JOE HILLIARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANN VENEMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture; KENNETH RENTIERS, State Executive Director, Farm Service Agency; HAYNES CULLER, Orangeburg County Farm Service Agency, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-04-22431-5) Submitted: February 8, 2006 Decided: February 24, 2006 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe Hilliard, Appellant Pro Se. Christie Newman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Joe Hilliard appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action for failure to comply with the court’s order. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. See Ballard v. Carlson , 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hilliard v. Veneman , No. CA-04-22431-5 (D.S.C. June 14, 2005). 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
Exhibit
32.1





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 Medifast, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael S. McDevitt,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1)
            The
      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 the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the
      Company.





By:
                /s/
      Michael S. McDevittMichael
      S. McDevittChief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
      OfficerNovember
      9, 2009
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY WHALEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

STATE OF ALASKA, Department of Public 

Safety; SAFARILAND, LLC, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 23-35431 

D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00006-JMK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Joshua M. Kindred, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 13, 2024**

Anchorage, Alaska

Before: BYBEE, FRIEDLAND, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Whaley appeals the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment in favor of Defendants after removal from state court. We asked the 

parties to file supplemental briefs addressing whether there is any basis for subject 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 22 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

matter jurisdiction here. United States v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 543 F.2d 676, 682 

(9th Cir. 1976) (“[W]e are bound to consider jurisdictional defects sua sponte.”). 

The parties now agree that there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case

because the State of Alaska is a party. See Dep’t of Fair Emp. & Hous. v. Lucent 

Techs., Inc., 642 F.3d 728, 737 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[N]either a state nor a state 

agency [can] be a party to a diversity action.” (alteration in original) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted)); Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 446 F.2d 1187, 

1188-89, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 1970) (holding that there was no diversity jurisdiction 

where the plaintiff sued a state agency alongside private entities); Luehrs v. Utah 

Home Fire Ins. Co., 450 F.2d 452, 455 n.4 (9th Cir. 1971) (noting that, in Fifty 

Associates, “the pleadings were apparently incapable of amendment because the 

State of Arizona had been made a defendant, thereby destroying diversity”); Lee v. 

Am. Nat’l Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1005 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that failure to 

meet the diversity requirements for each defendant “render[s] the entire case 

beyond the federal court’s power to decide”). The parties also agree that there are 

no other grounds for federal jurisdiction here. 

We hold that “removal to federal court was improper and the district court 

lacked jurisdiction to do anything other than remand [this] case[] to state court.” 

Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1255 (9th Cir. 2013). We thus vacate the district 

court’s orders and judgment and remand with instructions to remand to state court. 
3 

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS VACATED AND REMANDED.
Jeffrey LATIMORE, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 18-5857.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30922 Conference Calendar

JOHNNY WINSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BOB CARTER ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1745

- - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The motion of Louisiana prisoner, Johnny Winston, for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal is GRANTED. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), we assess an initial partial filing fee against Winston of $0.70.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Following payment of the initial partial filing fee, the remainder will be deducted from Winston’s prison trust-fund account until the entire filing fee is paid.No. 96-30922 - 2 - § 1915(b)(2). IT IS ORDERED that Winston pay the appropriate filing fee to the Clerk of the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of Winston forward the initial partial filing fee to the Clerk. Thereafter, the agency shall forward, in accordance with § 1915(b)(2), to the Clerk of the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income each time the amount in Winston’s account exceeds $10, until the appellate filing fee of $105 is paid. We have reviewed Winston’s briefs and the record and we hold for essentially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court that Winston’s suit was properly dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Winston v. Carter , No. 96-1745-M (W.D. La. Jul. 26 and Aug. 19, 1996). Winston’s appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous.
See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). APPEAL DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**AFFINITY GROUP, INC.**

 

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

I,Thomas F. Wolfe, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AffinityGroup, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify asfollows:

 

1.             This statement is provided pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

2.             The Periodic Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

3.             The information contained in the PeriodicReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of dates and for the periods indicatedtherein.

 

 
| Date:  May 9, 2008 |                      |
|-------------------------|---------------------------|
|                    |                      |
|                    |  /s/ Thomas F. Wolfe |
|                    | Thomas  F. Wolfe          |
|                    | Senior Vice President and |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or suchother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided toAffinity Group, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity Group, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

20 April 2006

(2006/C 93/02)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
Carmencita BRUNO, petitioner, v. CITY OF SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK, et al.

No. 18-5365.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
1The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1848

___________

Michael F. Jackson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Officer Bumpas; Officer Conyer; * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Officer Friar; Officer Spikes; Captain *

Simpkins, in Blytheville Police * [UNPUBLISHED]

Department, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: October 5, 2000

 Filed: October 12, 2000

___________

Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Michael Jackson appeals from the district court’s1 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1) dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Having

carefully reviewed the record and appellant’s brief, we agree that the complaint failed

to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. See Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783
-2-

(8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo review); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337

(8th Cir. 1985) (although pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, broad and

conclusory allegations warrant dismissal). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1904 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1904

              For the relief of Abimbola Oyebade-Balogun.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 1999

 Mrs. Clayton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              For the relief of Abimbola Oyebade-Balogun.

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

SECTION 1. CONSENT TO TRAVEL ABROAD FOR ABIMBOLA OYEBADE-BALOGUN.

    The Attorney General shall authorize Abimbola Oyebade-Balogun 
temporarily to travel abroad to Lagos, Nigeria, because of emergency 
and extenuating circumstances. If Abimbola Oyebade-Balogun returns to 
the United States at the conclusion of this temporary trip abroad, she 
shall be inspected and admitted in the same immigration status she had 
at the time of departure.
                                 <all>
```
Gregory MOLETTE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8368.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

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

Justice SOTOMAYOR, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent from the denial of certiorari for the reasons set out in *Brown v. United States* , 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 14, --- L.E.2d ---- (2018) ( Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
Warren D. WATSON, petitioner, v. Matthew KILLOUGH, et al.

No. 18-9313.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Uiki TEAUPA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5790.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Master Baye Balah ALLAH, petitioner, v. Brian WILSON, et al.

No. 18-5988.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

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

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice; revision of virtual meeting platform.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Commission on Civil Rights is holding a meeting of the Connecticut Advisory Committee on Monday, May 23, 2022, at 12:00 p.m. ET. This notice revises the virtual meeting platform. The notice is in the                         **Federal Register**                         of Thursday, May 5, 2022, in FR Doc. 2022-09562, in the third column of page 26724 and the first column of 26725.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Evelyn Bohor, (202) 921-2212,                         *ebohor@usccr.gov.*

*Revision:*                         Replace Webex virtual details with Zoom virtual details as follows:                    

*Zoom Link: https://tinyurl.com/​2c7hdxta*; password, if needed: USCCR-CT                    

Dated: May 11, 2022.

David Mussatt,

Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.

[FR Doc. 2022-10475 Filed 5-13-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
Cynthia BAUERLY, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Revenue, petitioner, v. William FIELDING, Trustee of the Reid and Ann MacDonald Irrevocable GST Trust for Maria V. MacDonald, et al.

No. 18-664.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Minnesota denied.
May 30, 2023

Dear MAIL MAIL:

The following is in response to your request for proof of delivery on your item with the tracking number:

9214 8901 0661 5400 0186 2010 75.

Thank you for selecting the United States Postal Service® for your mailing needs. If you require additional

assistance, please contact your local Post OfficeTM or a Postal representative at 1-800-222-1811.

Sincerely,

United States Postal Service®

475 L'Enfant Plaza SW

Washington, D.C. 20260-0004

Item Details

Status: Delivered, Left with Individual

Status Date / Time: May 30, 2023, 4:25 pm

Location: FORT WORTH, TX 76106

Postal Product: First-Class Mail®

Extra Services: Certified MailTM

Return Receipt Electronic

Recipient Name: MICHAEL MOATES

Recipient Signature

Signature of Recipient:

Address of Recipient:

Note: Scanned image may reflect a different destination address due to Intended Recipient's delivery instructions on file.

The customer reference information shown below is not validated or endorsed by the

United States Postal Service. It is solely for customer use.

Reference ID: 92148901066154000186201075

002488-000005

MICHAEL MOATES

4501 Nautilus Cir Apt 170

Fort Worth, TX 76106-2437

Case 4:23-cv-00194-ALM Document 36-3 Filed 08/02/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 292
Carter DAVENPORT, petitioner, v. ESTATE OF Marquette F. CUMMINGS, Jr.

No. 18-1191.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
kalv-ex102_208.htm



 

Exhibit 10.2

KalVista Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

March 11, 2019

 

Dr. Christopher Yea

 

Dear Christopher: 

You are party to a Service Agreement with KalVista Pharmaceuticals Limited, a company incorporated and registered in England and Wales (“KVP UK”) and a subsidiary of KalVista Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“KVP US”), dated as of November 1, 2015 and amended by a deed January 31, 2019 (the “UK Service Agreement”), 

If your employment is terminated by KVP UK (or its successor) during the two year period immediately following a Change of Control (as defined in the UK Service Agreement), and as a result of such termination you are entitled to the Severance Pay set forth therein, then, in addition to the Severance Pay, all of your then-unvested Equity Awards (as defined below) will vest in full (the “Acceleration”).  This Acceleration is conditioned on your execution of a settlement agreement releasing claims against the KVP US and its affiliates in a form acceptable to KVP US (the “Release”) and on that Release becoming irrevocable within 60 days following the termination date.  

“Equity Awards” means any stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock appreciation rights, phantom stock or other equity based awards granted by KVP US to you.  

Your eligibility to receive the Acceleration shall not create a right to further employment with the KVP UK or KVP US, or the right to receive additional equity.  Your rights under this letter agreements are entirely separate from any rights you have under your terms and conditions of employment with KVP UK.  

 

Sincerely,

KalVista Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


By: /s/ Benjamin L. Palleiko

Name: Benjamin L. Palleiko        

Title:Chief Financial Officer____________
Ross Harry BRIGGS, petitioner, v. Charles E. RENDLEN, III, Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

No. 18-299.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

AKOUSTIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

AKOUSTIS, INC., CORNELL 

UNIVERSITY AND CORNELL 

RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QORVO, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00180

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. 

After review and consideration thereof, the Court ORDERS that the Motion to Dismiss is hereby 

GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this _________ of _____________.

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 127-1 Filed 08/09/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 4464
Charles G. KINNEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR the NINTH CIRCUIT.

No. 18-160.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TREVOR L. PACQUETTE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-478

[March 4, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, Judge; L.T. Case No. 18-

005222CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Terrance LOMBARD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6161.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

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