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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO LUIS WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

L. GAMBOA, M.D.; KIM KUMAR,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

J. CHUDY; J. LEWIN,

Defendants. No. 18

- 17430

D.C. No. 5:17

- cv

- 04050

- LHK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 18

, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Antonio Luis Williams appeals pro se from the

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously con cludes this case is suitable for decision

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

# FILED

SEP 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 17430

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on cross

- motions for

summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond , 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016)

.

We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants

because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs resulting from the

mass on his neck

. See To guchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1060

- 61 (9th Cir. 2004)

( holding deliberate indifference is a high legal standard requiring a defendant be

aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’ s health ).

Contrary to Williams’s contentions, there was no bas is for the district court

to enter default against defendants Drs. Kumar and Gamboa.

We reject as meritless Williams’s contentions that the district court should

not have dismissed defendant Dr. Chudy because Williams voluntarily dismissed

him from the act ion.

To the extent the district court erred by stating in its November 26, 2018

order that Williams did not oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

by not explicitly ruling on Williams’s April 11, 2018 filing, these errors were

harmless.3 18

- 17430

Williams’s pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. James L. HEIDECKER, Jr., Respondent.

No. 823 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 26, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

■ AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2003, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board and Dissenting Opinion dated January 28, 2003, the Petitions for Review and responses thereto, the request for a briefing schedule and oral argument is denied and it is hereby

ORDERED that James L. Heidecker, Jr., be and he is suspended from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day, he shall comply with all *667the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E., and he shall refund $1,440.00 to his client, Felix Freytiz. It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board relating to the matter docketed at No. 22 DB 1999 pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7563

BENJAMIN A. SIFRIT,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

JOHN A. ROWLEY, Warden, North Branch Correctional 

Institution; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General of the 

State of Maryland,

Respondents – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:08-cv-02327-RDB)

Submitted: June 28, 2011 Decided: July 8, 2011

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin A. Sifrit, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin A. Sifrit seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Sifrit has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

Sifrit’s request for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4336 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4336

  To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to the highway 
          safety improvement program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2014

Mr. Michaud (for himself and Mr. Ribble) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to the highway 
          safety improvement program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Local Road Safety Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

    (a) State Strategic Highway Safety Plan.--Section 148(a)(12) of 
title 23, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)--
                    (A) in clause (ix) by striking ``and'' at the end;
                    (B) by redesignating clause (x) as clause (xi); and
                    (C) by inserting after clause (ix) the following:
                            ``(x) private sector experts in the field 
                        of roadway safety infrastructure; and''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (E) by inserting ``, including the 
        results of any strategic highway safety plan developed by a 
        county or local government entity or regional transportation 
        planning organization'' after ``processes''.
    (b) Special Rules.--Section 148(g) of title 23, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) County and local transportation agencies.--Each 
        fiscal year, a State shall provide to county and local 
        transportation agencies, from amounts apportioned to that State 
        under section 104(b)(3) in that fiscal year, amounts that the 
        State determines are necessary to assist such agencies to 
        address significant safety needs, and high fatality segments, 
        of non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal land 
        identified in a State strategic highway safety plan.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19043]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

September 16, 2005.
    The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before October 24, 
2005 to be assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-0619.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: Credit for Increasing Research Activities.
    Form: IRS form 6765.
    Description: IRC section 38 allows for credit against income tax 
(Determined under IRC section 41) for an increase in research 
activities in a trade or business. Form 6765 is used by businesses and 
individuals engaged in a trade or business to figure and report credit. 
The data is used to verify that the credit claimed is correct.
    Respondents: Business or other-for-profit.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 455,233 hours.

    OMB Number: 15451257.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Credit for Prior Year Minimum Tax--Corporation.
    Form: IRS form 8827.
    Description: Section 53(d), as revised, allows corporation a 
minimum tax credit based on the full amount of alternative minimum tax 
incurred in tax years beginning after 1989, or a carry forward for use 
in a future year.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 25,000 hours.

    OMB Number: 1545-1653.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Revenue Procedure 99-26 Secured Employee Benefits Settlement 
Initiative.
    Description: This revenue procedure provides taxpayers options to 
settle cases in which they accelerated deductions for accrued employee 
benefits secured by a letter of credit, bond, or other similar 
financial instrument.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 2,000 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Glenn P. Kirkland, (202) 622-3428, Internal 
Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20224.

    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7316, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

Michael A. Robinson,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-19043 Filed 9-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-834V 

Filed: October 6, 2017 

Not to be Published 

*************************************

KENDRA CALVERT, Individually * 

and as Next Friend of S.C., a Minor, * 

*

Petitioner, * Notice of voluntary dismissal;

* Order Concluding Proceedings

 v. * under Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1)(A);

* diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“Dtap”) vaccine reaction of seizures

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

* 

Respondent. * 

* 

************************************* 

Gil L. Daley, II, Ft. Worth, TX, for petitioner. 

Ryan D. Pyles, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

MILLMAN, Special Master

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

On June 20, 2017, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis

(“Dtap”) vaccine administered on June 25, 2014 caused her daughter a reaction, including 

seizures. See Pet. Preamble and ¶ 1. 

On October 6, 2017, petitioner filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Vaccine Rule 

21(a)(1)(A). 

1 Because this Order Concluding Proceedings contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s 

action in this case, the special master intends to post this Order Concluding Proceedings on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 

3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). Vaccine 

Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they 

contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical 

or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. 

When such a decision is filed, petitioners have 14 days to identify and move to redact such information 

prior to the document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material 

fits within the categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access. 
2

DISCUSSION

Under Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1)(A), petitioner may engage in a voluntary dismissal by 

making a motion for dismissal at any time before service of respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, 

which petitioner has done in the instant action.

Under Vaccine Rule 21(a)(3), the result of this voluntary dismissal is an Order 

Concluding Proceedings. No judgment will enter pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11 for purposes of 

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a).

CONCLUSION

This petition is DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to remove this case from 

the docket of the undersigned. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2017 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128598 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128598 

 COA: 257954 

Kalamazoo CC: 99-001368-FC 

PATRICK JAY GRAY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 7, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10807

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Anthony Ray Williams, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-147-1

______________________________

Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Anthony Ray Williams, federal prisoner # 36832-177, moves for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from the denial of his 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. He is currently 

serving a 314-month sentence for various robbery and firearm convictions. 

The district court determined that Williams failed to show extraordinary and 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 14, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10807 Document: 00517064156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024
No. 23-10807

2

compelling reasons warranting a reduction in sentence and further that the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of granting relief. See

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 

In his brief on appeal, Williams renews his arguments that 

compassionate release is warranted based on the extraordinary and 

compelling circumstances that (i) various changes to the sentencing laws 

would result in a lower sentence if he were sentenced today; and (ii) he has 

been rehabilitated.

To the extent Williams’s arguments challenge the district court’s 

assessment of the § 3553(a) factors, they amount to no more than a 

disagreement with the district court’s balancing of these factors, which is 

insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 

948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020). Because Williams fails to identify a 

nonfrivolous argument that the district court abused its discretion by denying 

relief based on the balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, we need not consider 

his arguments regarding extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See

United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. 

United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 

693. 

Williams asks that his case be reassigned to a different district court 

judge. His request is of no moment because he has not raised a nonfrivolous 

issue that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for 

compassionate release. See Johnson v. Harris Cnty., 83 F.4th 941, 947 (5th 

Cir. 2023).

Accordingly, his IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is 

DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 

(5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th 

Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 23-10807 Document: 00517064156 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2024
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Report of Radial Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G. Leigh Lyons, Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to
      Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





ii.
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Radial Energy, Inc. and will be retained
      by
      Radial Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.


Date:
                  August14, 2007/s/
                  G. LEIGH LYONSName:
                  G. Leigh LyonsTitle:
                  Chief Executive Officer
## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before COOK, GALLAGHER, and HAIGHT Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Specialist JACOB D. MOON United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20120112

Headquarters, Joint Readiness Tr aining Center and Fort Polk James L. Varley, Military Judge Colonel Keith C. Well, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Captain John L. Schriver, JA; Captain Brian J. Sullivan, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Amber J. Roach (on brief).

29 March 2013

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

Per Curiam:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to hi s pleas, of two specifications of wrongful posses sion of child pornography and one spec ification of wrongful possession of images of nude minors and persons appearing to be nude minors, e ach in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2006) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence of a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for six months, fo rfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1.

In this case, the military judge made special findings as to the specific images involved in this case. Those special findi ngs are set forth in Appellate Exhibit XII
and are attached to this summa ry disposition at the Appendix.

After conducting our Article 66, UCMJ, review, we are not convinced beyond
a reasonable doubt that al l of the depictions underl ying one of appellant’s convictions of possession of child pornography are, in fact, child pornography asMOON—ARMY 20120112

2 defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8 ). Specifically, we find eleven of the forty-six depictions of which appellan t was convicted of in the Specification of The Charge are not child porn ography as appl icably defined. * However, we find that the remaining depictions identifi ed in the military judge’s special find ings, which form the basis of appellant’s convictions, ar e both legally and factually sufficient.

CONCLUSION

On consideration of the entire record and the allegations raised by appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), the fi ndings of guilty are correct in law and fact and are affirmed. Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the factual insufficiencies noted, th e entire record, and in accordance with the principles of United States v. Sales , 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986) and United States v. Moffeit , 63 M.J. 40 (C.A.A.F. 2006), to include the factor s identified by Judge Baker in his concurring opin ion, the sentence is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

KENNETH J. TOZZI COL, JA Acting Clerk of Court

* Contrary to the mi litary judge’s special findings of the Specifi cation of The Charge, we are not convince d beyond a reasonable doubt the following depictions are child pornography:

(1) Under Exhibit 7/8: Evidence # 196, Evidence #20 0, Evidence #213,
Evidence #217, Evidence #221, Evidence #238;

(2) Under Exhibit 12: Evidence #28, Ev idence #32, Evidence #49,
Evidence #53, Evidence #72. KENNETH J. TOZZI COL, JA
Actin g Clerk of Cour t