alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Henry C. VALDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SPOKANE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-35178.

D.C. No. CV-03-00441-JLQ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 11, 2005.

Henry C. Valder, Priest River, ID, pro se.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Henry C. Valder appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his action in which he claimed that the city of Spokane discriminated against him by refusing to attend to his 911 call reporting his dispute with a motel owner who allegedly refused to permit his service dog to sleep inside the motel room on a cold night. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint for failure to state a claim. *See Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). Although we construe pro se complaints liberally, we may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled. *See Ivey v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska,*673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.1982). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Valder failed to state a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act because the city of Spokane is not a private entity that owns or otherwise operates a place of public accommodation. *See*42 U.S.C. § 12182(a); *Fortyune v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.,*364 F.3d 1075, 1082 (9th Cir.2004). The district court also properly held that amendment could *891not cure the defect in this claim because if Valder is a disabled person who was discriminated against by a private entity providing a place of public accommodation, the private entity, and not the City of Spokane, is the proper defendant. *See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department,*839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.1988).

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.
**Exhibit 23.1**
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements onForm S-3 (No. 333-97783, 333-72128, 333-61136, and333-32684) and the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (333-80807, 333-56212, 333-32223, 333-11883, 33-35549,33-35719, 33-72502, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration StatementNo. 333-90768, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 2-97542,Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 2-78926,and Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statement No. 2-78925) ofour reports dated March 7, 2003, (which reports express unqualified opinions and include reference tothe adoption of anew accounting principle in 2002), relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Thoratec Corporation and subsidiaries as ofand for the years ended December 28, 2002 and December 29,2001, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofThoratec Corporation for the year ended December 28, 2002.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 
San Francisco, California
Opinion filed February25 , 2 010



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 09 -0 02 34 -CR

____ ____ __ TER RA NC E SC OTT A ND ERS ON, Ap pellant

V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee On App eal from the 142nd District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR 31582

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Th is i s an ap pe a l fr om a jud g me nt re vo kin g c omm un ity su pe rv isi on . We dis mis s th e a pp e a l. Th e tr ia l c ourt

or ig ina lly

c on vic te d T e rr a

nc e Sc ott An de rs on of re ta liatio n and a sse sse d h is punishment at confineme nt for 5 y ear s and a $1,500 f ine. The imposit ion of the conf inement portion of the se nte nc e wa s susp e nd e d, and a pp e lla nt wa s pla c e d o n c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on fo r f ive y e a rs . After a hea ring on the State’s third ame nded motion to revoke , the t rial court found the alleg ations to be true, r evoked a

ppellant’s community

supervision, and imposed the or igina l sentence
.2

Appella nt’ s c o u r t- a p p o in te d c o unsel has filed a

motion to wit hdraw . The motion is supported by a br ie f in wh ic h c ouns e l pr of e ssi on a lly and c on sc ie nti ou sly

e xami ne s th e re c or d a

nd a pp lic a ble law and states that he ha s conclude d that the appe al is frivolous. Counsel has p ro v ided appe llant wi th a c op y of the br ie f and a dv ise d a

pp e lla nt o f h is r ig ht t o r e vie w t

he re c or d a

nd fi le a re sp on se to counsel’s brie f. A response has not be en filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the require ments of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 38 6 U .S. 73 8 ( 19 67 ); In re Sc hulman , 2 5 2 S. W. 3 d 4 0 3 ( T e x. C r i m . Ap p. 20 08 ); St aff

or d v . S tat e , 8 13 S.W. 2d

50 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ); Hi gh v . S tat e , 573 S.W. 2d 80 7 ( Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tat e , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Ga ino us v . S

tat e , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Ea d e n v . S tat e , 161 S.W .3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.)
. Following the proc edure s outlined in An de rs , we have indepe ndently revie wed the r ecor d, and we a g re e that the a

pp e a l is wi tho ut me ri t. We no te that c ouns e l ha s th e re sp on sib ili ty to a dv ise a pp e lla nt t hat he may

fi le a pe tit ion fo r d isc re tio na

ry re vie w b y

the Te xas C ourt

of Cr imi na l App e a ls. Ex parte Owe ns , 206 S.W .3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). L ikewise, this court a dvises appellant that he may

file a pe tition for disc re t ionary revie w pursuant to T EX . R. A PP . P. 66. Blac k v . S tat e , 217 S.W .3d 687 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.)
. The motion to withdraw is g rante d, and the a ppeal is dismissed.
PER C URI AM
Fe bruar y 25, 2010 Do not publish. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5651 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South 

Dakota, as the ‘‘Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building 

and United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5651 RFS

1 SECTION 1. ANDREW W. BOGUE FEDERAL BUILDING AND 

2 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building and United 

4 States courthouse located at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, 

5 South Dakota, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘An6 drew W. Bogue Federal Building and United States 

7 Courthouse’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the Federal building and United States court11 house referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 

12 a reference to the ‘‘Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building 

13 and United States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
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.                  

###### National Indian Gaming Commission

# AGENCY:

National Indian Gaming Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 25 CFR 514.1(a)(3), that the National Indian Gaming Commission has adopted final annual fee rates of 0.00% for tier 1 and 0.053% (.00053) for tier 2 for calendar year 2005. These rates shall apply to all assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation under the jurisdiction of the Commission. If a tribe has a certificate of self-regulation under 25 CFR part 518, the final fee rate on class II revenues for calendar year 2005 shall be one-half of the annual fee rate, which is 0.0265% (.000265)

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Bobby Gordon, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street, NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005; telephone 202/632-7003; fax 202/632-7066 (these are not toll-free numbers), or send Emails to:                         *Fees@NIGC.Gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act established the National Indian Gaming Commission which is charged with, among other things, regulating gaming on Indians lands.

The regulations of the Commission (25 CFR part 514), as amended, provide for a system of fee assessment and payment that is self-administered by gaming operations. Pursuant to those regulations, the Commission is required to adopt and communicate assessment rates; the gaming operations are required to apply those rates to their revenues, compute the fees to be paid, report the revenues, and remit the fees to the Commission on a quarterly basis.

The regulations of the Commission and the final rate being adopted today are effective for calendar year 2005. Therefore, all gaming operations within the jurisdiction of the Commission are required to self-administer the provisions of these regulations and report and pay any fees that are due to the Commission by December 31, 2005.

Irene Schrader,

Director of Administration, National Indian Gaming Commission.

[FR Doc. 05-22063 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7565-01-M
<PAGE>


                        WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE TRUSTEE

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned Trustee of the Journal
Employees' Stock Trust (the "Trust"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Trust for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002 (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 Trust.



/s/ Paul M. Bonaiuto
------------------------------------
Paul M. Bonaiuto
November 14, 2002


















                                       2
Updated Frances Perkins Building Mask

Guidelines

This message is intended for all Frances Perkins Building Occupants

Per the attached message, we will no longer be requiring mask usage in the Frances Perkins Building for fully vaccinated

staff, contractors, or visitors.

As you are aware, the Frances Perkins Building has a COVID-19 Mitigation Plan and related signage. It will take us

some time to provide an updated plan and signage so we appreciate your patience as we adapt to rapidly evolving policy

changes.

The Child Development Center has indicated that they will retain a requirement for mask usage in their space. All

teachers, parents, visitors, and children 2 and older entering the space must wear a mask in accordance with the

Center’s specific guidelines.

I want to underscore that, as noted in the attached email to all DOL employees, there is no change in our maximum

telework posture or other components of the DOL COVID-19 Workplace Safety Plan. Employees, contractors and visitors

may only enter the FPB for mission critical activities that cannot be performed remotely and all DOL workplaces are

capped at 25% of normal occupancy limits.

Thank you,

Julia A. Tritz

Director, Business Operations Center

Last updated: May 14, 2021

LABORNET
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6837 EDWARD LEE MOSES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT DANNY WRIGHT; CAPTAIN QUINTON THOMPSON; LIEUTENANT SHERYL WILLOUGHBY; SERGEANT ALVIN LITTLE; CAPTAIN DONALD EDWARDS; OFFICER ALAN HINSHAW; SERGEANT JAMES LINDSEY; OFFICER JAMES M. JOHNSON; SERGEANT YOLANDA THOMPSON; OFFICER BILLIE WEAVER; SUPERINTENDENT RICK JACKSON; SECRETARY THEODIS BECK; DIRECTOR BOYD BENNETT; CHIEF HATTIE PIMPONG; DIRECTOR FINESSE G. COUCH; GREGORY T. WAH, Admin. Examiner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:04-cv-00517-1-MU) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 28, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Lee Moses, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Edward Lee Moses appeals a district court order and judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint without prejudice for failing to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the district court’s order and the record and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. SeeMoses v. Wright , No. 3:04-cv-00517-1-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 10, 2006; entered Apr. 11, 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
#### Teodulo PERALTA CUEVAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General,* Respondent.

No. 04-71214, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Teodulo Peralta Cuevas, El Monte, CA, Pro se.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA; Earle B. Wilson, Esq., and Leslie McKay Fax, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Teodulo Peralta Cuevas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) denial of his motion to reconsider an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C *189§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for reconsideration. *Singh v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the Board’s summary affirmance of the IJ’s denial of petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal because petitioner failed to file a timely petition for review of that decision. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).

We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration of its summary affirmance of the IJ’s decision because petitioner failed to demonstrate an error of fact or law. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

***

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

EmpLoYyMEnT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs Washington, D.C. 20210
Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation

October 2, 1979

No. 39

NOTICE TO INSURANCE CARRIERS AND SELF-INSURED EMPLOYERS
UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION
ACT, AS AMENDED

Subject: Annual Increases in Compensation Payments
Provided by Section 10(f) of the Longshore
and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act Not
Limited by Maximum Stated in Section 9(e)

This notice is to provide an informal interpretation of
Section 9(e) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act, which was amended in 1972 to read as
follows:

"In computing death benefits the average
weekly wages of the deceased shall be
considered to have been not less than the
applicable national average weekly wage

as prescribed in Section 6(b) but the total
weekly benefits shall not exceed the average
weekly wages of the deceased."

The last clause of Section 9(e) of the Act provides for a
minimum level of compensation in death cases similar to the
provisions of Section 6(b) (2) for disability cases. If the
stated minimum would result in initial payment of more than
the deceased worker's average weekly wage, the benefits are
limited to the actual average weekly wage. Thus the clause
in Section 9(e) is intended only as a limitation on the
initial minimum benefit level. Its purpose does not extend
to cases that have been or are subject to adjustment under
Section 10(f).

Therefore, Section 10(f) should be applied irrespective of
the fact that in some cases the resulting adjusted benefits
exceed the worker's average weekly wage at the time of the
injury.

Sark 6 Machi
OHN E. STOCKER

Associate Director,
Longshore and Harbor

Workers' Compensation
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Interstate Power and Light Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 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.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Chief Financial Officer

 

October 31, 2008
EXHIBIT 23.4


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


         We hereby  consent to the use of our name in the Annual  Report on Form
10-K of Seagull Energy Corporation and Subsidiaries (the "Company") for the year
ended December 31, 1996,  and the  incorporation  by reference  thereof into the
Company's registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 2-72014, 2-80834,  33-14463,
33-43483,  33-50643,  33-50645, 33-64041 and 333-13393), Forms S-8 and S-3 (Nos.
2-93087 and 33-22475) and Form S-3 (Nos. 33-53729, 33-65118 and 33-64051).







                                      NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.


                                 By:  /s/ FREDERICK D. SEWELL
                                       Frederick D. Sewell
                                       President



Houston, Texas
March 21, 1997
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 - 0589

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RYAN PATRICK SULLIVAN,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pur suant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Michael G. Moses , D istrict Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 26 2022

10/26/2022
Case Number: DA 20-0589
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
of CEO and CFO Pursuant to


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
Adopted Pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kansas City
Power & Light Company (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), Michael J. Chesser, as Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Terry Bassham, as Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of his knowledge:





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





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





/s/
      Michael J. ChesserName:
              Title:
            Michael
      J. Chesser
              Chairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
            August
      5, 2009/s/
      Terry BasshamName:
              Title:
            Terry
      Bassham
              Chief
      Financial OfficerDate:
            August
      5, 2009





This
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.  This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to
liability under that section.  This certification shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 except to the extent this Exhibit 32.2 is
expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such
filing.





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 Kansas City Power & Light Company
and will be retained by Kansas City Power & Light Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

FN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-10237

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTONIO DESMOND STONE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CR-22-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Antonio Desmond

Stone has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Stone has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 15, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
#### TRIPLETT v. JAMES

No. 49 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 96.

Petition by defendant Western Surety Co. for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 May 1980.