alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NEWAY MANGISTU, an individual,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

MORTON LA KRETZ, an individual; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 12

- 56860

D.C. No. 2:11

- cv

- 05271

- SJO

- RZ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14 , 2017 **

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ , Circuit Judges.

Neway Mengistu appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his

housing discrimination action sua sponte for failure to prosecute. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Oliva

* 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

FEB 27 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 12

- 56860

v. Sullivan , 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9t h Cir. 1992). We vacate and remand

.

The district court dismissed Mengistu’s action with prejudice for failure to

prosecute after Mengistu did not appear on time at a scheduling conference. The

district court failed to consider the adequacy of less drasti c sanctions, such as

dismissal without prejudice. See id

. (“A district court abuses its discretion if it

imposes a sanction of dismissal without first considering the impact of the sanction

and the adequacy of less drastic sanctions.” (citation and intern al quotation marks

omitted)); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet , 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)

(“[D]ismissal is a harsh penalty and, therefore, it should only be imposed in

extreme circumstances.”). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further

proceeding s.

We do not consider documents not filed with the district cour t

. See United

States v. Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not

presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”) ; Lowry v.

Barnhart , 329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth limited exceptions)

.

Accordingly, Mengistu’s request to supplement the appellate record with

documents not presented to the district court , filed June 12, 2015, is denied.

The parties shall b ear their own costs on appeal.3 12

- 56860

VACATE D and REMANDED

.
# CE2004088EN.01061901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/619 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/619

---

(2004/C 88 E/0638)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1891/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Iran's nuclear activities

Subject:

The European Union is currently negotiating on a trade treaty with Iran. Iran has nuclear activities that are not entirely transparent to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In February 2003 IAEA officials visited Iran. They are still not convinced and have asked Iran to provide a written answer to their questions.

Does the Commission agree that total transparency on nuclear activities is a precondition for a trade treaty?

What steps will the Commission take if total transparency is not provided?

Is the Commission prepared to stop the negotiations in the absence of total transparency?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

(17 July 2003)

The Union has repeatedly stated that the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) constitutes one of the major areas of concern in its relations with Iran. While recognising Iran's right as a party to the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the Commission strongly supports the view of the Union that Iran must be fully transparent in compliance with this Treaty. In this context the Commission welcomes the report of the International Atomic Energy Center (IAEA) but notes with concern that Iran reportedly has failed to fulfil certain of its obligations under the NPT safeguards agreement. It trusts that Iran will address these shortcomings without delay and hopes that Iran will take steps to adhere to relevant international instruments to ensure additional transparency.

The Union will keep Iran's progress in this area under continuous review. Positive measures taken by Iran in the near future on the question of its nuclear activities, including full transparency, would undoubtedly help the Trade and Corporation Agreement (TCA) negotiations. The reverse is also true.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18450]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 05-140]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is assigned to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, is the subject of a patent 
application that has been filed in the United States Patent and 
Trademark office, and is available for licensing.

DATES: September 16, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Homer, Patent Counsel, NASA 
Management Office--JPL, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Mail Stop 180-200, 
Pasadena, CA 91109; telephone (818) 354-7770.

NASA Case No. NPO-40267-1: Reconfigurable Tomographic Imaging 
Spectrometer;
NASA Case No. NPO-40070-1: High Rated Alumina Nanotemplate Fabrication.

    Dated: September 12, 2005.
Keith T. Sefton,
Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management.
[FR Doc. 05-18450 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
STATE of North Carolina v. Raul OLIVEROS, Defendant.

No. COA15-411.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

133305 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 133306 Marilyn Kelly 133307 Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices JAMES TAYLOR, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Afradita Taylor, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 133305-133307 COA: 262763, 262771, 262777 Oakland CC: 03-053470-NH RAMALINGESWARA YALAMANCHI, M.D., R. R. YALAMANCHI, M.D., P.C., PANKAJ K. VIJ, M.D., DAVID M. MONTGOMERY, M.D., MITUL K. PATEL, M.D., GRAHAM W. LONG, M.D., and WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 18, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the
case of Mullins v St Joseph Mercy Hosp (Docket No. 131879) is pending on appeal
before this Court and that the decision in th at case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the app lication be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.

l0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
In the Matter of K.A., W.A.

No. COA15-262.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN JOSEPH STOLTIE, 

Petitioner-Appellee, No. 07-56079

v. D.C. No.  CV-06-00289-DDP JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary of the

Department of Corrections, OPINION

Respondent-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

August 6, 2008—Pasadena, California

Filed August 19, 2008

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Circuit Judge, Roger J. Miner,*

Senior Circuit Judge and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judge.

Per Curiam Opinion

*The Honorable Roger J. Miner, Senior United States Circuit Judge for

the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. 

11025
COUNSEL

Jonathan Libby, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, California, for the petitioner-appellee. 

Heather F. Crawford, Deputy Attorney General for the State

of California, San Diego, California, for the respondentappellant. 

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

We AFFIRM the district court’s decision, and adopt its

opinion in Stoltie v. California, reported at 501 F. Supp.2d

1252 (C.D. Cal. 2007), except for Section III.C., as to which

we express no view. As the state acknowledged at oral argument, even the state appellate court misunderstood the confused and confusing explanation of reasonable doubt provided

to the jury by the trial judge. This error led it to apply in an

unreasonable manner clearly established Supreme Court law

regarding reasonable doubt. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S.

275 (1993); Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990), overruled

on other grounds by Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991);

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). 

AFFIRMED. 

11026 STOLTIE v. TILTON

PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
EX-10.7
                                Letter Agreement




September 28, 2000


3220 Executive Ridge Drive
Suite 100
Vista, California 92083

         Re: Teletrac, Inc.

Dear Mr. Steven D. Scheiwe:

Reference is made to that certain employment agreement dated as of September 29,
1999 (the "Employment Agreement") between you and Teletrac, Inc. (the "Company")
regarding the term of your employment with the Company. This will confirm our
understanding that the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

1.       Section 2 is hereby deleted and the following is inserted in its place:

         "2. Term of Employment. Unless earlier terminated as hereinafter
         provided, the term of the Employee's employment under this Agreement
         shall initially be for a period beginning on the Effective Date hereof
         and ending thirty-six months after the Effective Date. Thereafter, this
         Agreement will continue in full force and effect from year to year
         unless terminated by either the Employee or the Company by written
         notice given to the other not later than two months before the end of
         the year of such termination. The period from the date hereof until the
         date the Employee's employment hereunder is terminated (whether
         thirty-six months after the Effective Date or earlier or later as
         provided herein) is hereinafter called the "Employment Term."

2.       Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, nothing herein shall
         affect or be deemed to affect any provisions of the Employment
         Agreement, and except only to the extent that they may be varied
         hereby, all of the terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain
         unchanged and in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and
         confirmed.


<PAGE>


If the foregoing correctly sets forth our understanding concerning this matter,
please sign below and return to us an executed copy of this letter, whereupon
this letter shall become a binding agreement between us.

Sincerely,

Teletrac, Inc.


By /s/ Steven D. Scheiwe
   ---------------------------------

Name:  Steven D. Scheiwe

Title: Chief Executive Officer





Accepted and agreed to as of the date written above.


/s/ Steven D. Scheiwe
-------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,227,706
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,550,757
<PP&E>                                         360,417
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,117,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          181,515
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,171,013
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,117,274
<SALES>                                         21,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,001
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,020,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (18,516)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (980,920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       524
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (981,444)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (981,444)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 4, 2019

No. 04-17-00310-CV

YATES ENERGY CORPORATION, EOG Resources, Inc., Jalapeno Corporation, ACG3 

Mineral Interests, Ltd., Glassell Non-Operated Interests, Ltd., and Curry Glassell,

Appellants

v.

BROADWAY NATIONAL BANK, Trustee of the Mary Frances Evers Trust,

Appellees

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015PC2618

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellees’ motion for rehearing and/or en banc reconsideration was due February 1, 

2019. On January 30, 2019, appellees filed a motion, requesting a seven (7) day extension of 

time to file their motion. After consideration, we GRANT appellees’ motion and ORDER

appellees’ motion for rehearing and/or en banc reconsideration due on or before February 8, 

2019.

It is so ORDERED on this 4th day of February, 2019.

PER CURIAM 

 ATTESTED TO: ___________________________________

 KEITH E. HOTTLE,

 Clerk of Court
STATE v. Lester Gerard PACKINGHAM.

No. 366PA13-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Glenn Gerding, Chapel Hill, for Packingham, Lester Gerard.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

David L. Elliott, Raleigh, for State of North Carolina.

Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of October 2015 by Defendant to Appoint the Appellate Defender:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Full Court)

24 June 2008

Case F-116/05

**Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni**

**v**

**European Central Bank (ECB)**

(Civil service – ECB staff – Remuneration – Method of calculation of annual salary adjustment – Enforcement of a judgment of the Community judicature – Confirmatory act – Inadmissibility)

**Application:**brought under Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central
Bank, annexed to the EC Treaty, in which Mrs Cerafogli and Mr Poloni seek in particular and essentially, first, annulment
of their salary slips for the month of July 2001, as drawn up by the ECB in February 2005, in enforcement of the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2003 in Case T‐63/02 *Cerafogli and Poloni* v *ECB* [2003] ECR II‐4929, and, second, the award of damages.

**Held:**The action is dismissed as inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

**Summary**

*Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Action – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Confirmatory
act – Not included*

*(Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, Art. 36.2; Staff Regulations,
Arts 90 and 91; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Art. 42)*

The case-law according to which the act adversely affecting the applicant is the act that directly and immediately affects
the legal situation of the person concerned, which is not how a purely confirmatory measure, such as an act which contains
no new factors as compared with a previous measure adversely affecting the applicant, can be described, must be applied by
analogy to actions based on Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the
European Central Bank and on Article 42 of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank.

(see paras 41-43)

See:

204/85 *Stroghili* v *Court of Auditors* [1987] ECR 389, para. 6

T-14/91 *Weyrich* v *Commission* [1991] ECR II‐235, para. 35; T‐173/95 *Biedermann and Others* v *Court of Auditors* [1998] ECR‐SC I‐A‐273 and II‐831, para. 39
**Exhibit 99.13****CONSENT OF M. VERMA**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated byreference therein (the “40-F”) of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December31, 2009, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and theAnnual Information Form (the “AIF”) and Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) of theCompany for the year then ended, which are filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference inthe 40-F.     I hereby consent to the references to, and the information derived from, the followingreport(s) and to the references, as applicable, to my name in connection with (including, as anexpert) the following report(s) and documents: 1. The technical report dated February 13, 2009, entitled “An UpdatedTechnical Report on the Mineral Reserves of Minera Alumbrera Ltd.,Catamarca, Argentina” (the “Alumbrera Report”); and  2. The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connectionwith information relating to the Alumbrera Report and the AlumbreraMine, and the properties described therein.Date:March 19, 2010              /s/ Mani M. Verma     Name:  Mani M. Verma, P. Eng.     Micon International Limited
Nesbit Ausburn KING, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Wendy GIANNINI-KING, Defendant.

No. COA15-835.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.
Timothy CLARKE, Personal Representative of the Estate of Erica Bohn v. Ashraf Gad Bakhom MIKHAIL, M.D.; Jessica Lyn Hardin, P.A.; and Coastal Carolina Neuropsychiatric Center, P.A.

No. 29P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Gary K. Shipman, Wilmington, for Clarke, Timothy (Representative), et al.

Cory Reiss, Wilmington, for Clarke, Timothy (Representative), et al.

C. Andrew Childers, for Clarke, Timothy (Representative), et al.

John D. Martin, Wilmington, for Mikhail, Ashraf Gad Bakhom (M.D.), et al.

Colleen N. Shea, Wilmington, for Mikhail, Ashraf Gad Bakhom (M.D.), et al.

Kara O. Gansmann, Wilmington.

Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch, Raleigh, for Mikhail, Ashraf Gad Bakhom (M.D.), et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 9th of February 2016 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Aquilno Molina, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appellate Advocates, (Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant.Queens County District Attorney, (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill and Kayonia Whetstone of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Elisa S. Koenderman, J.), rendered November 17, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), seeking leave to withdraw as counsel.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.</p><p>We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to <i>Anders v California</i> (386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (<i>see id.</i>; <i>Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.]</i>, 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; <i>People v Paige</i>, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; <i>cf. People v Gonzalez</i>, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).</p><br>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.<br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: May 04, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Opinion issued April 14, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00479-CV

———————————

JOY WALLACE VARNER, Appellant

V.

REOCO, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-07852

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Joy Wallace Varner, proceeding pro se, appealed from the trial 

court’s April 22, 2015 order granting the appellee’s motion to expunge appellant’s 

notice of lis pendens. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. However, appellant has failed to 

timely file her appellate brief. See id. 38.6(a), 38.8(a)(1). After being notified by 

the Clerk of this Court on March 3, 2016, that her appeal was subject to dismissal 
2

for failure to timely file her appellate brief, appellant failed to timely respond. See 

id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to 

timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Higley.
STATE of North Carolina v. Isaac Jackson STROUD.

No. 162P95-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Isaac Jackson Stroud, for Stroud, Isaac Jackson.

Mr. Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 31st of July 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."