alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DWAYNE E. McINTOSH, a single man,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY

COLLEGE DISTRICT; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-16224

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00760-DGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2011** 

Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Dwayne E. McIntosh appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his action alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race in

violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. We have jurisdiction under

FILED

NOV 01 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-16224

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1167

(9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because McIntosh

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring him for another position was

pretext for discrimination. See id. at 1169-70 (stating that circumstantial evidence

of pretext must be specific and substantial).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants’ motion

for reconsideration of the court’s order denying summary judgment in part, given

that defendants showed good cause for seeking reconsideration based on newly

discovered evidence. See Ariz. Dist. LRCiv. 7.2(g) (providing that a motion for

reconsideration may be based on a showing of new facts and may be filed after the

deadline for good cause); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993)

(reviewing application of local rules for abuse of discretion); see also Hoffman v.

Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010) (district courts may entertain

successive motions for summary judgment). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc., Respondent, v Long Island Rail Road Company, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (And Third- and Fourth-Party Actions.)

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Long Island Rail Road Company appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burstein, J.), entered October 27, 1988, as denied its cross motion for a protective order against the disclosure of certain documents.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*578We find unpersuasive the contentions of the Long Island Rail Road Company (hereinafter LIRR) that the documents at issue, namely a memorandum between an LIRR attorney and its director of capital programs and a report prepared for litigation by a consulting firm at the request of an attorney for the LIRR, should be subject to a protective order. These documents were privileged under the attorney-client and attorney work product doctrines. However, the LIRR failed to exercise due diligence and reasonable care to protect the confidentiality of these documents by allowing one of them to be utilized during a deposition and the other document to be expressly referred to and quoted from in various litigation papers and briefs filed with the Supreme Court, this court, and the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, although opposing counsel first utilized one of the documents in the latter part of 1985 and the other in 1986, the LIRR did not move for a protective order until 1988. The repeated failure of the LIRR to take any action when the plaintiff quoted from the privileged documents in court papers and its failure to even raise the issue of privilege with respect to one of the documents for approximately 10 months after it had been utilized during a deposition, is indicative of the failure of the LIRR to exercise reasonable care and due diligence, and thus, constituted a waiver of the privilege *(see, Bras v Atlas Constr. Corp.,*153 AD2d 914). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion of the LIRR for a protective order. Bracken, J. P., Fiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Pillowtex Corporation:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (nos.
33-65408, 33-84624, 33-81478, 333-39191 and 333-57727) on Form S-8 of Pillowtex
Corporation of our report dated February 14, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Pillowtex Corporation and subsidiaries as of
December 29, 2001 and December 30, 2000, and the related consolidated statements
of operations, shareholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 29, 2001, and the related
financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 29, 2001
annual report on Form 10-K of Pillowtex Corporation. Our aforementioned report
contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company and substantially
all of its subsidiaries (collectively, the Companies) have filed a voluntary
petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code
(Chapter 11) and are currently operating their business under the jurisdiction
of Chapter 11 and the United States Bankruptcy Court in Delaware (the Bankruptcy
Court), and continuation of the Company as a going concern is contingent upon,
among other things, the ability to formulate a plan of reorganization which will
gain approval of the requisite parties under the United States Bankruptcy Code
and confirmation by the Bankruptcy Court, the ability to comply with the
debtor-in-possession financing facility, and the ability to generate sufficient
cash from operations and obtain financing arrangements to meet future
obligations. In addition, the Companies have experienced operating losses and
negative operating cash flows and are currently in default under all of their
pre-petition debt agreements. These matters raise substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial
statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and
classification of recorded asset amounts or the amounts and classification of
liabilities that might result from the outcome of these uncertainties.

                                                        KPMG LLP


Charlotte, North Carolina
March 27, 2002
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-1844

GHL International, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-11664

L&R Manufacturing Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 report on Form 10-QSB of OpenLimit, Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, Henry Dattler, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|(1) |  | This Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the small business issuer at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of the small business issuer for the period covered by this Report.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Henry Dattler

Henry Dattler

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

May 7, 2007

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the small business issuer for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the small business issuer and will be retained by the small business issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3037

NSK Steering Systems America:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 4.51





Exhibit 4.51A









 


 









 













 


2












 




Exhibit 4.51.B



English Translation of Power of Attorney




I, Mi Saiyu, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”), with ID number as
33010319710109162X, and a shareholder of 80% of equity interest (“Equity Interest”) in Shanghai
JIDI Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Company”), hereby irrevocably authorize JIDI Network Technology
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“WFOE”) to exercise the following powers and rights concerning Equity
Interest within the term of this Power of Attorney (the “POA”).




	1.	 	Acting as the sole and exclusive representative to exercise the rights and powers concerning
Equity Interest on my behalf, including but not limited to: (1) attending shareholder meetings
of the Company and sign shareholder resolutions on behalf of me; (2) exercising all
shareholder rights under the laws and the articles of association of the Company, including
but not limited to, voting right, right of selling, transferring, pledging or disposing of the
whole or any part of Equity Interest; and (3) acting as my authorized representative to
designate and appoint the legal representative, chairman, board of directors, supervisors and
general manager and other senior management.







	2.	 	The power to sign Equity Interest transfer agreement on my behalf where I may be demanded as
a party to the agreement for the purpose of performing my obligations under Equity Interest
Pledge Agreement dated on the same date of this POA.







	3.	 	Except otherwise provided herein, the power to allocate, use or act in other ways to dispose
of dividends arising out of Equity Interest, whether in cash or not, according to my oral and
written instructions.







	4.	 	Except otherwise provided herein, the power to make decisions at its own discretion without
any further oral or written instruction from me.







	5.	 	I hereby acknowledge that, any and all actions concerning Equity Interest by WFOE shall be
deemed conducted by myself, and any and all documents concerning Equity Interest signed by
WFOE shall be deemed signed by myself.




 


 









 











	6.	 	WFOE has power to assign this POA concerning the above issues to any other person or company
without any prior notice to or consent from me.







	7.	 	This POA comes into force upon signing and is irrevocable and continues to be valid during
the term when I am a shareholder of the Company.







	8.	 	During the term of this POA, I hereby waive any and all rights and powers concerning Equity
Interest authorized to WFOE herein and I acknowledge that I will not exercise such rights and
powers by myself.






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Signed by:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Mi Saiyu	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Date: December 6, 2010
Exhibit 32.1
 
 
 Certification of CEO 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 GAMCO Investors, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Mario J. Gabelli, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Mario J. Gabelli
 Name: Mario J. Gabelli
 Title:   Chief Executive Officer
 Date:   November 5, 2010
 
 This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:

(1) Registration Statement
Number 33-60730 on Form S-8 filed March 31, 1993,

(2) Registration Statement Number 333-27459 on Form S-8 filed
May 20, 1997,

(3) Registration Statement Number 333-67033 on Form S-8 filed November 10, 1998,

(4) Registration Statement Number 333-87996 on Form S-8 filed May 10, 2002,

(5) Registration Statement Number 333-105081 on Form S-8 filed May 8, 2003,

(6) Registration Statement Number 333-123218 on Form S-3/A filed May 16, 2005,

(7) Registration Statement Number 333-129636 on Form S-3 filed November 10, 2005,

(8) Registration Statement Number 333-129632 on Form S-8 filed November 10, 2005,

(9) Registration Statement Number 333-138302 on Form S-3 filed October 30, 2006,

(10) Registration Statement Number 333-140400 on Form S-3 filed February 2, 2007,

(11) Registration Statement Number 333-142883 on Form S-4/A filed July 3, 2007,

(12) Registration Statement Number 333-158801 on Form S-3 filed April 27, 2009, and

(13) Registration Statement Number 333-160598 on Form S-8 filed July 16, 2009,

of our report dated February 25, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Jarden, included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009.



|                   |  |                      
|------------------ |  | ---------------------
|                   |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|                   | 
|New York, New York |  |                      
|February 24, 2010  |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANICIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM [Identify specific financial statements] AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,483
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,187,489
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,188,972
<PP&E>                                      93,162,180
<DEPRECIATION>                              34,341,682
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,009,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          115,930
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  58,820,498
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,009,470
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,217,526
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,175,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               464,937
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,422,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,803,862
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,803,862
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.66
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40058 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CARLOS ALFREDO ARREDONDO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:16

- CR

- 413

- 1

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Alfredo Arredondo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Arredondo h a s not filed a r esponse. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. Although counsel addresses the validity of Arredondo’s

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 28, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40058 Document: 00514406347 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2018No. 17

- 40058

2 appeal waiver, counsel does not discuss the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of Crimi nal Procedure 11. An appeal waiver in the plea agreement does not waive the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 or the need to brief this issue adequately in an Anders brief. See United States v. Carreon

- Ibarra , 673 F.3d 358, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012) ; see also United States v.
Brown , 328 F.3d 787, 789

- 90 (5th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, our independent review confirms that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We therefore concur in counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous is sue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-40058 Document: 00514406347 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2018