alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Keith D. GILBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara J. ROTHSTEIN, U.S. Judge; et al., Defendants.

No. 04-35406.

D.C. No. CV-04-00676-JCC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.*

Decided April 7, 2005.

Keith D. Gilbert, Seattle, WA, pro se.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*183MEMORANDUM **

Keith D. Gilbert appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against District Judge Rothstein, the City of Seattle, and a number of municipal officials. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A district court’s decision may be affirmed on any ground finding support in the record, *Oscar v. Univ. Students Co-op. Ass’n,*965 F.2d 783, 785 (9th Cir.1992). We review for abuse of discretion the enforcement of a vexatious litigant order, *De Long v. Hennessey,*912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm.

Gilbert’s contention that Judge Roth-stein’s vexatious litigant order violates his right to due process lacks merit because he received adequate notice to oppose the order, and it was “based on adequate justification supported in the record and narrowly tailored to address the abuse perceived.” *See De Long,*912 F.2d at 1149. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Gilbert’s action because he failed to comply with the vexatious litigant order, as his claims were patently frivolous.

Gilbert’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5609 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5609

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 13, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to prohibit any person 
  from performing lobbying activities on behalf of a client which is 
     determined by the Secretary of State to be a State sponsor of 
                               terrorism.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING LOBBYING ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF STATE SPONSORS 
              OF TERRORISM.

    The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 27. PROHIBITING LOBBYING ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF STATE SPONSORS 
              OF TERRORISM.

    ``No person may perform lobbying activities on behalf of a client 
which is a country the government of which the Secretary of State has 
determined, for purposes of section 6(j) of the Export Administration 
Act of 1979 (as continued in effect pursuant to the International 
Emergency Economic Powers Act), section 40 of the Arms Export Control 
Act, section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or any other 
provision of law, is a government that has repeatedly provided support 
for acts of international terrorism.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 1, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# C_2007268EN.01000201.xml

| 10.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 268/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4913 — Euraleo/Capitoloquattro/Sirti)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 268/03)

On 30 October 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4913. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4913. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF JILCO INDUSTRIES FOR THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,602
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,602
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,616
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       749,950
<OTHER-SE>                                   (866,964) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,602
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,596
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,596)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,596)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service, Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of closed meeting of Art Advisory Panel. 

# SUMMARY:

Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held in Washington, DC. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held November 30, 2005. 

# ADDRESSES:

The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held on November 30, 2005, in Room 4200E beginning at 9:30 a.m., Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Carolan, C:AP:AS, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Telephone (202) 435-5609 (not a toll free number). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held on November 30, 2005, in Room 4200E beginning at 9:30 a.m., Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. 

The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103. 

A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), and that the meeting will not be open to the public. 

David B. Robison, 

Chief, Appeals. 

[FR Doc. 05-22280 Filed 11-7-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Detroit, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1189

Issued: September 28, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On September 22, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a January 24, 2023 merit decision

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-1189.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the January 24, 2023 decision was July 23, 2023. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until September 22, 2023, more than 180 days after the

January 24, 2023 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-1189 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

explained her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-1189, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-1189 is dismissed.

Issued: September 28, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
# ACS
#### STATE v. WHITE

No. 17

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 31.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 1 June 1973. Appeal dismissed ex mero motu for lack of substantial constitutional question 1 June 1973.
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 300



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION IV No. CR-14-294

DEWAYNE CURTIS WRIGHT APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered May 6, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-2012-98-3] HONORABLE EDWIN KEATON, JUDGE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge Dewayne Curtis Wright appeals from his Ouachita County Circuit Court convictions for aggravated robbery, theft of property, and third-degree battery. Appellate counsel has filed a motion with this court to be relieved as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2014). The motion is accompanied by a no-merit brief containing an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below. The abstract and addendum in counsel’s brief include all objections and motions decided adversely to appellant, and counsel explains in the argument portion of his brief why there is nothing in the record that would arguably support an appeal. Wright has filed a pro se statement of points for reversal, and the State has filed a response thereto. The test for filing a no-merit brief is not whether there is any reversible error but whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous. See Tucker v. State , 47 Ark. App. 96, 885Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 300

S.W.2d 904 (1994). From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, including consideration of Wright’s pro se points for reversal, which are either not preserved for appeal or do not otherwise support reversal, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(k) and that there is no merit to an appeal. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. V IRDENand G RUBER , JJ., agree. N. Mark Klappenbach , for appellant. Dustin McDaniel , Att’y Gen., by: Ashley Priest , Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUG 6, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-16585

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency Nos. A96-271-426

A96-271-427

GUSTAVO ADOLFO RESTREPO-VELASQUEZ, 

LUZ ALBA BEDOYA BEDOYA, 

ALEJANDRA RESTREPO BEDOYA, 

SANTIAGO RESTREPO BEDOYA, 

Petitioners, 

versus 

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent. 

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________

(August 6, 2007)

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Gustavo Adolfo Restrepo-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Colombia,

petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied

his motion to reopen his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

Restrepo-Velasquez argues that the BIA abused its discretion when it denied his

motion to reopen without considering the newly offered evidence. Because the

evidence offered was not material, we deny the petition. 

The IJ denied Restrepo-Velasquez’s application for asylum because

extortion, not political persecution, motivated the incidents Restrepo-Velasquez

alleged. Restrepo-Velasquez filed two motions to reopen alleging he had new

evidence that established that he would be persecuted if returned to Colombia. 

Both were denied. Restrepo-Velasquez appeals the denial of the second motion to

reopen. 

We review the denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings for an

abuse of discretion. Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. 2006). 

“Our review is limited to determining whether there has been an exercise of

administrative discretion and whether the ma[nn]er of exercise has been arbitrary

or capricious.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The BIA may

grant a motion to reopen if the movant presents new evidence that is material and

was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the removal

hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). A petitioner is ordinarily permitted to file
3

one motion to reopen within 90 days of the date of the final order of removal, see 8

U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), but the time and numerical limitations do not apply to

the filing of a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions if the motion

is supported by evidence that is “material and was not available and would not

have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding,” 8 U.S.C. §

1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied the second motion to

reopen. Contrary to Restrepo-Velasquez’s contention, the BIA considered the new

evidence and found that it was not material because it did not establish that

Restrepo-Velasquez was being persecuted on account of a protected ground. We

agree. None of the new evidence establishes a connection between the alleged

persecution and Restrepo-Velasquez’s political opinion. 

Restepo-Velasquez’s petition for review is

DENIED.
#### Ernest I. White, Respondent, *v.*Hudson Navigation Company, Appellant.

*White*v. *Hudson Navigation Co.,*172 App. Div. 931, affirmed.

(Submitted November 13, 1918;

decided December 3, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 18, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor' of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. This action was to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff’s automobile while in possession of the defendant for-' the purpose of being transported by boat from Albany to New York. The complaint alleged the delivery of the automobile to' the defendant, and the receipt óf the same by it for the purpose of transportation, and payment of the charges therefor, the damage to the automobile while in transit through the negligence of the defendant, and the failure of the defendant to deliver the same to plaintiff in good order and condition. The answer was a denial of knowledge or information sufficientto form a belief as to the allegations of the complaint, and an allegation that the damages sustained were caused by the negligence of the plaintiff, his servants or agents.

*Charles Irving Oliver*for appellant.

*Jerome L. Cheney lor*respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddebáck, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

Solely for the purposes of
complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Jilco Industries, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the quarter ended Jan.31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 14, 2008                                       
|                                                           
|/s/ Martha Kretzmer                                        
|Martha Kretzmer                                            
|Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              31
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,702
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     49,828
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,142
<PP&E>                                          10,809
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,577
<BONDS>                                         67,854
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,430
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   150,870
<SALES>                                        250,236
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               250,236
<CGS>                                          189,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  189,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,041
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,414
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,462
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,952
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73
        

</TABLE>