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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EUGENE KORTE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 15305

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 02428

- TLN

- KJN

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021 * *

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Eugene Korte appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging numerous constitutional claims and other violations of federal

law

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. W e review de novo a

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

. Watison v. Carter , 668 F.3d 1108,

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously co ncludes this case is suitable for decision

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

# FILED

APR 26 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 15305

1112 (9th Cir. 2012)

. We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Korte’s action because Korte failed to

allege facts suffic ient to state any plausible claim

. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>			5
       
<S>				<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>			12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>			DEC-31-1995
<CASH>				1,499,119
<SECURITIES>			000
<RECEIVABLES>			000
<ALLOWANCES>			000
<INVENTORY>			000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                000
<PP&E>				25,243,577
<DEPRECIATION>			11,370,295
<TOTAL-ASSETS>			16,022,013
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           000
<BONDS>                         11,954,188
<COMMON>			000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>		000
<PREFERRED>			000
<OTHER-SE>			3,575,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>	16,022,013
<SALES>                         4,313,044
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                4,415,579
<CGS>				000
<TOTAL-COSTS>			2,261,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1,306,455
<LOSS-PROVISION>                000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              1,191,397
<INCOME-PRETAX>			000
<INCOME-TAX>			000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             000
<DISCONTINUED>			000
<EXTRAORDINARY>			000
<CHANGES>			000
<NET-INCOME>			1,141,669
<EPS-PRIMARY>			(1.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>			(1.38)
        

</TABLE>
COVID-19 Vaccination Card Best Practices

This email is intended for all DOL employees and contractors

All DOL employees and contractorsAs more and more people get vaccinated against COVID-19, we wanted to send everyone a reminder to guard your

paper vaccination cards and any images of your cards carefully.These contain personally identifying and health

information. Some additional suggestions:

For any employees and contractors who received their vaccination from a source that is not their regular health care

provider (such as through local public health) — consider asking your regular provider to include a copy of your

vaccination card with your medical records.

It is also prudent to take a picture of your vaccination card (such as with a smartphone), and to make a digital scan

and/or paper copy of it for safekeeping.You should avoid sharing your personal and health information with others

who do not have a need to know, especially in the form of attachments or in social media postings.

We continue to urge all employees and contractors to take advantage of any opportunity that they and their families have

to be vaccinated, to safeguard this important health information, and to be wary of online scams relating to vaccination

documentation.

Julia A. Tritz

Director, Business Operations Center

Last updated: May 10, 2021

LABORNET

■

■
EXHIBIT 21

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

         The Company  was  incorporated  in Texas in 1973.  The  following  is a
listing of significant subsidiaries of the Company as of March 18, 1997:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                               % Voting
                                                                               Securities
                                                     Jurisdiction of          or Beneficial
                                                      Incorporation          Interest Owned
          Name of Subsidiary                         or Organization         by the Company
------------------------------------------------  ---------------------    ----------------
<S>                                               <C>                      <C> 
Alaska Pipeline Company                                  Alaska                  100%
Global Natural Resources Inc.                          New Jersey                100%
Global Natural Resources Corporation of Nevada           Nevada                  100%
Seagull East Zeit Petroleum Ltd.                      Cayman Islands             100%
Seagull Energy Canada Holding Company                     Wyoming                100%
Seagull Energy Canada Ltd.                           Alberta, Canada             100%
Seagull Energy E&P Inc.                                 Delaware                 100%
Seagull Pipeline & Marketing Company                    Delaware                 100%
Seagull Marketing Services, Inc.                          Texas                  100%
Seagull Midcon Inc.                                     Delaware                 100%
Seagull Mid-South Inc.                                  Delaware                 100%
</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 27, 2013

NO. 03-12-00572-CR

Elisa Gonzales Condarco, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s 

order: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the order of the 

trial court is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and unable to 

pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
#### HARLESS v. FLYNN

No. 441

Case below: 1 N.C. App. 448.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 September 1968.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7688

LARRY KEITH GREEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; NORTH CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-618-5-BR) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 22, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Keith Green, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Larry Keith Green, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Green v. North Carolina Dep’t of Corr. , No. CA-01-618-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 10, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 6, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00327

- CV

PLAINSCAPITAL BANK and Alber t C hapa

,

Appellant ’ s

v.

Andy HERNANDEZ

, Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 17

- 712 The Honorable Baldemar Garza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellants filed an agreed motion to abate this appeal on September 3, 2019, stating that the parties have entered a settlement agreement and wish to abate the appeal to facilitate the effectuation of the settlement agreement. Appellants request abate ment for 120 days or until appellants move to dismiss the appeal or reinstate the case. It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is ABATED for a period of 120 days from the date of this order unless reinstated at an earlier date by an order of this court. All appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order

of this court.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of September, 2019

.

___________________________________ Keith E . Hottle

, Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1286

THADDEUS MOORE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

DR. HECTOR COLLISON, Estate of, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. 

(1:09-cv-00286-JFM) 

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 1, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit 

Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Thaddeus Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Thaddeus Moore appeals the district court’s dismissal 

for failure to state a claim of Moore’s medical malpractice 

practice suit. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Moore v. Estate of Collison, Case No. 

1:09-cv-00286-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 13, 2009). 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
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30090 Conference Calendar

RICHARD A. DARBY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOE STOREY; LYNN BAMBURG, Defendants-Appellees.

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

USDC No. 97-CV-625

- - - - - - - - - - February 10, 1999 Before BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. * PER CURIAM: ** Richard A. Darby, Louisiana inmate #387223, challenges the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. We have carefully reviewed Darby’s arguments and the appellate record. Darby had not exhausted his administrative remedies, through the parish jail grievance procedures, when he filed his complaint. The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint for want of administrative exhaustion. See 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a); UnderwoodNo. -2- v. Wilson , 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 1998). AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.19

                            FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                          AMVESCAP GLOBAL STOCK PLAN
            (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 1997)
            ------------------------------------------------------

     Acting pursuant to Section 10.5 of the AMVESCAP Global Stock Plan (the
"Plan"), the Remuneration Committee of the Board of Directors of AMVESCAP p.l.c.
hereby amends the Plan, effective as of December 1, 1998, as follows:

     1.  Article II of the Plan is hereby amended to delete the definition of
"Distribution Election" therefrom.

     2.  Section 7.2 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows:

         Section 7.2  Distribution Election.  A Participant may voluntarily
                       ---------------------
     elect to defer receipt of distribution of his Awards under this Plan upon
     such terms and conditions as the Management Committee may prescribe. The
     Management Committee, at its sole discretion, may approve or disapprove any
     such distribution election.

     3.  Article X of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following at the end
thereof:

          Section 10.13  Transfer of Awards.  The Management Committee may, with
                         ------------------
     a Participant's consent, permit the transfer of such Participant's vested
     awards under the AMVESCAP Global Stock Plan II to this Plan upon such terms
     and conditions as the Management Committee may prescribe.
EXHIBIT 10.27  


[HEALTHETECH LOGO]

www.healthetech.com 


October 2,
2000 


Kamal
Hamid

1329 Starwood Lane

Evergreen, Co. 80439 



Dear
Kamal Hamid: 


        I
am pleased to offer you a position with HealtheTech, Inc. (the "Company") as Chief Financial Officer commencing on 11-13-00 . You will receive a monthly salary of $15,000, which
will be paid semimonthly in accordance with the Company's normal payroll procedures. This is an exempt position. As a Company employee, you are also eligible to receive all employee benefits offered
by the Company to its other employees in similar positions, when such employee benefits are established. The Company retains the right to modify or change its benefits and compensation policy from
time to time, as it deems necessary. 


OPTION GRANT  


        You will be granted an option to purchase 60,000 shares of Common Stock pursuant to the Company's Amended and Restated 1998 Stock Plan. 


AT WILL EMPLOYMENT  


        You should be aware that your employment with the Company is for no specified period and constitutes at will employment. As a result, you are free to resign at
any time, for any reason or for no reason. Similarly, the Company is free to conclude its employment relationship with you at any time, with or without cause. 



        For
purposes of federal immigration law, you will be required to provide to the Company documentary evidence of your identity and eligibility for employment in the United States. Such
documentation must be provided to us within three (3) business days of your date of hire, or our employment relationship with you may be terminated. 


        I
have enclosed our standard Employee Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement. If you accept this offer, please return to me a signed copy of that agreement. As an
employee of the Company, you will be expected to abide by the Company's rules and regulations. 



        To
indicate your acceptance of the Company's offer, please sign and date this letter in the space provided below and return it to me. A duplicate original is enclosed for your records.
This letter, along with the agreement relating to proprietary rights between you and the Company, set forth the terms of your employment with the Company and supersede any prior representations or
agreements, whether written or oral. This letter may not be modified or amended except by a written agreement, signed by the Company and by you. 





 

        We
look forward to working with you at the Company. 



	

 	
 	

Sincerely,
	 	 	HealtheTech, Inc.
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  JAMES MAULT      

	 	 	James Mault
 Chairman and CEO





Accepted
and agreed to this 2nd day of October 2000 


/s/  KAMAL HAMID     

Kamal Hamid 


Attachment A: Employee Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement 


2
#### STATE v. WILLIS

No. 1 PC.

Case below: 4 N.C. App. 641.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 10 July 1969.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEROY EVANS

No. 7510SC132

(Filed 7 May 1975)

Criminal Law § 66 — •in-court identification of defendant — observation at crime scene as basis

Witnesses’ in-court identification of defendant was not tainted by an illegal lineup where the witnesses had ample opportunity to observe defendant at the crime scene, though he was wearing a stocking mask at the time.

Appeal by defendant from *Bailey, Judge.*Judgment entered 2 October 1974 in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 April 1975.

Defendant was indicted on. a charge of armed robbery. He pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury. He was found guilty as charged and the trial court sentenced him to 25 to 30 years imprisonment. Defendant appealed to this Court. Additional facts are set out in the opinion.

*668
      *Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney T. Lawrence Pollard, for the State.*

*William E. Marshall, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendant’s principal assignment of error concerns the admissibility of the identification testimony of Emik Hanson Etuk and Amos Hanson Etukodah. He contends that the trial court’s finding that the witness’s in-court identification was not tainted by an illegal lineup is unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree. At the pretrial voir dire hearing, Etuk testified that on the night of 11 July 1974 he and his brother Etukodah were working at a Seven-Eleven Store in Raleigh. Defendant came in, pointed a gun at Etukodah,' and forced the brothers to give him the money in the cash register. Defendant was wearing a stocking mask, which prevented Etuk from seeing all of his face. However, Etuk was able to identify defendant “by his build, complexion, shape of his mouth, shape of his chin and the back of his head.” Etukodah testified that he could see through the panty hose and could identify defendant by his facial features. Both witnesses picked defendant out of a seven-man lineup. The court found that the in-court identification of defendant was independently arrived at by each witness. The trial court’s findings on the admissibility of identification testimony are conclusive on appeal when supported by competent evidence. *State v. Tuggle,*284 N.C. 515, 201 S.E. 2d 884 (1974). This assignment of error is overruled.

Defendant further contends that the court erred in denying his motions for nonsuit. In addition to the testimony of Etuk and Etukodah, the State offered circumstantial evidence concerning defendant’s arrest near the scene of the robbery and the presence of his fingerprint on a magazine rack in the store. Considered in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence against defendant clearly was sufficient to go to the jury.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.
#### STATE v. DRIGGERS

No. 82 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 156.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 December 1976. Appeal dismissed ex mero motu.
##### 



EXHIBIT 23 CONSENT OF CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES INC. [LETTERHEAD] July 22, 2005 Permian Basin Royalty Trust
Bank of America, N.A., Trustee
901 Main Street, 17th Floor
Dallas, Texas 75202-3714 Gentlemen: Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the oil and gas reserve
information in the Permian Basin Royalty Trust Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the
year ending December 31, 2004 as amended by Securities and
Exchange Commission Form 10-K/A (Amendments No.1 and 2)
based on reserve reports dated February 25, 2005, prepared by Cawley,
Gillespie & Associates, Inc. Submitted,CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:
    
    /s/ KENNETH J. MVELLERKenneth J. Mveller, Vice President
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2015141EN.01011801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 141/118 |

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 199 of 31 July 2007](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2007_199_R_TOC)
)

On page 12, point 4.7:

for:

| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | --- | --- | | ‘4.7. | Choice of court/tribunal agreed by the parties | | ’ |

,

read:

| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | --- | --- | | ‘4.7. | Choice of court/tribunal agreed by the parties | | ☐’ |

.

---
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


The  undersigned  hereby  certifies,  in his  capacity  as an officer of SoftNet
Technology Corporation (the "Company"),  for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to
his knowledge:

     A.   the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10QSB for the period ended
          September  30, 2004 fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section
          13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     B.   the  information  contained  in such report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.




Dated:  November 22, 2004



/s/ James Farinella
-----------------------------------------------
James Farinella
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6365
KENDALL C. WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. WELLS, Officer, Riverside Regional Jail; C. JEFFRIES, Food Service Supervisor, Riverside Regional Jail; DARNLEY R. HODGE, Superintendent, Riverside Regional Jail, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00038-JCC) Submitted: September 27, 2006 Decided: October 17, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kendall C. Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kendall C. Watson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Watson’s motion to produce court records and trial transcripts, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Watson v. Wells, No. 1:06-cv-00038-JCC (E.D. Va. Feb. 15, 2006). 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