alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 27, 2019

No. 04-19-00311-CV

Ernest BUSTOS,

Appellant

v.

ENCINO PARK HOMEOWNERS,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-18828

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was originally due to be filed in this appeal on September 10, 2019. 

On September 24, 2019, this court notified the court reporter that the reporter’s record was late. 

The court reporter responded to our notice by stating that the reporter’s record was not filed 

because appellant had failed to request the record or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee 

for preparing the record. 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten 

(10) days of the date of this order that: (A) the appellant has requested the court reporter to 

prepare the reporter’s record, which request must designate the portions of the proceedings and 

the exhibits to be included, see TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(b)(1); and (B) the reporter’s fee has been 

paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee. If appellant fails to respond 

within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty (30) days from the date of 

this order, and the court will consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that 

do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). If appellant 

provides sufficient proof that a request and payment arrangements have been made, the 

reporter’s record must be filed in this court no later than one week after the date appellant’s 

written proof is filed with this court.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of September, 2019.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada,

Chief Deputy Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SELENE FUMIE STEWART, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER 

AFFAIRS OF CALIFORNIA; 

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF VOCATIONAL 

NURSES AND PSYCHIATRIC 

TECHNICIANS; DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH CARE SERVICES, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-15315 

D.C. No. 3:21-cv-07674-EMC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Selene Fumie Stewart appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims. We 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 30 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-15315 

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

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 

2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stewart’s equal protection and 

procedural due process claims because Stewart failed to allege facts sufficient to 

state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 

2010) (holding that although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a 

plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for 

relief); see also Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting 

forth pleading requirements for equal protection claim); Portman v. County of 

Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth elements of 

procedural due process claim).

In her opening brief, Stewart fails to address the grounds for dismissal of her 

claims that arose prior to September 30, 2019 and has therefore waived her 

challenge to the district court’s determination that those claims are untimely. See 

Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e 

will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening 

brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not 

supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 
3 22-15315 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





I,
      John W. Combs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ShoreTel, Inc. for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in
      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects
      the
      financial condition and results of operations of ShoreTel, Inc.




Dated:
                November 13, 2007
            
            By:
            
            /s/
                John W. CombsName:
            
            John
                W. CombsTitle:
            
            Chairman,
                President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)




This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002 and is not deemed filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by referenced into any filing
      of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 (whether made on or before or after the date of this Report),
      irrespective at any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

John Radford, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Berg Homes LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00287-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Civil Procedure 

apply to all proceedings in this case. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, you must serve each Defendant in your case with the Summons and 

Complaint within 90 days from the date the Complaint is filed, unless you obtain a 

waiver of service pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). If, for good reason, 

you cannot serve your Summons and Complaint on a Defendant within 90 days, you may, 

prior to the expiration of the 90-day period, file with the Court a request for an extension 

of time in which to serve your Summons and Complaint. In that request, you should set 

forth the reason why you have not accomplished service and request a specific short 

period of time in which to accomplish such service on any Defendant. If the Court 

believes your reason constitutes “good cause” it will authorize a brief additional period in 

which you can then serve the Defendant. 

 If you do not obtain an extension and any Defendant named in your Complaint is 

not served within 90 days, the Court is obliged, after notice to you, to dismiss the 

Case 2:18-cv-00287-JJT Document 8 Filed 01/30/18 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Complaint without prejudice (meaning that your Complaint is dismissed but you may 

refile the Complaint in a new action if you wish to do so). 

The only way that the Court knows that you have served the Defendant is that, the 

person who serves the Defendant with the Summons and Complaint is required, 

according to the rules, to file an affidavit with the Court which proves that the Defendant 

was served in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). Therefore, you need to be sure that, 

prior to 90 days from the date on which you filed your Complaint, whoever serves the 

Summons and Complaint on each Defendant files an affidavit with this Court 

demonstrating that they accomplished proper service. 

THIS CONSTITUTES YOUR NOTICE UNDER RULE 4(m) THAT 

IF YOU HAVE NOT APPROPRIATELY SERVED ANY 

DEFENDANT WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM THE FILING OF YOUR 

COMPLAINT THAT DEFENDANT WILL BE DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FROM YOUR LAWSUIT. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate any or all

Defendants in this matter, without further notice, that have not been served within the 

time required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) on April 27, 2018. 

 Dated this 29th day of January, 2018. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cv-00287-JJT Document 8 Filed 01/30/18 Page 2 of 2
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
&tw1e41lzaef theRoriacdci+il statutes pPom 

da.es tbtit F!mnw~ aaq Bdamr shall:be mtitrad te rplg amp 

or smm of Dsney not 

slra, eorporntioIl, a4Qdnistrutor* sxwutor, 

trustw, arising:out or rqy luplidutell UxMl mlaontestea 

efoig,suchaustcai8ndthcnmdsmtaypQ;oswewerte 

ale couoty Clerk Of the ocunw l.la rhieb said llduor resiaos for the acocunt~ ot wld SgluJr, ala the reooipt OS 

theco~ty clerkthemfor ehallbcfa*ererldnahgon~ 

Wnor as ot the dot0 aad tathe extent ai the 

OS alq pelwon uho wy hute the oustoay Of Cbe WSJXW 

mpjmokeepplleatioato the.CoimtyJrH&e and exemte ogre-' 

u&d fual frOm the Cormfo ClWk to be creed for t&e baaatif 

perboaatobee~wodbytbe~yJubge,aodcm~ 

of the F&MC, amt npcn the fuuhb beI wbsustcd the purty 

uho recaived the mcnsy may mike a 

fnabytsorumofthecountycon if- bzes~&%: 

tber llab~lity on Ma benIl. 

Art%ele1994 of tbeRsriee88tatutes~ paeswlim 

1893,ie~ortoliFt.4zrilto,rab.ssiC~.~M 

t&at ubwe B aqnor, uitlmut u ggumibn, rocww8 a 

car leas than $500.00, Us next friend1 oc s4me other perblnapprovalbyfha juagelnwboeewurttJlesldgasntuw 

3vbtOSDBd, 6q reeedve the mcney fro61 the c\lerk of ttm court 

bgexi30utingaboxmlindcublethewcuntof~~tr 

00nd.tticmea 08 pw%dea by LUUJ und wham the amom& o? the 

reowewy for the sdnor b sme than $600.00, the trl.ul Wge 

may order its f.nvestmmt in any swam that be, Uie trbl 

luago, nioy -et* 
141
**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**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of China Discovery Acquisition Corp. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 (the “Report”),
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I
      Michael Hsu, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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




By:
            /s/
              Michael Hsu
            
            
            Dated:
              November
              14, 2008Michael
                Hsu
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF**

**CHINA GREEN CREATIVE, INC.**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Green Creative, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ye Xing Zhang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, that: 

 
|  

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/ Ye Xing Zhang*      

**Ye Xing Zhang**

**Chief Executive Officer**

**May 23, 2011**

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. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3771

To amend the formula for determining the Official Mail Allowance for

Members of the House of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 10, 1996

Mr. CASTLE (for himself, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BLUTE, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GOSS, Ms. GREENE of Utah, Mr. JACOBS, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr.

MCHALE, Mr. PARKER, Mr. POSHARD, and Mr. SHAYS) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Oversight

A BILL

To amend the formula for determining the Official Mail

Allowance for Members of the House of Representatives.

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

3 SECTION 1. FORMULA FOR DETERMINING OFFICIAL MAIL

4 ALLOWANCE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 311(e)(2)(B)(i) of the

6 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C.

7 59e(e)(2)(B)(i)) is amended by striking ‘‘3 times’’.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

9 this section shall apply with respect to sessions of Con-
2

•HR 3771 IH

1 gress beginning after the date of the enactment of this

2 Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-20107

Virgil Smoot, III, Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendant.

_________________________________/

AMENDED ORDER STRIKING DOCKET ENTRY NO. 18

The Court received a letter from Defendant Virgil Smoot, III, (“Defendant”) on March

26, 2010, which the Court construed as a pro se motion (Doc. No. 18). 

Because Defendant is currently represented by counsel, David Koelzer, Defendant is

attempting to proceed in a “hybrid” fashion, both through his counsel and pro se by way of his

motion. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984). Although the Sixth Amendment

guarantees defendants the right to conduct their own defense and even represent themselves, see

Farretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the right of self-representation does not include the

right to proceed in a hybrid manner. McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 183; see also United States v.

Mosely, 810 F.2d 93, 97-98 (6th Cir. 1987). This Court will not allow Defendant to proceed in a

hybrid manner in this action will therefore strike Defendant’s pro se submission, Docket Entry 
No. 18. Defendant should seek relief from this Court through his counsel, David Koelzer. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Docket Entry No. 18 is hereby STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: April 1, 2010

I hereby certify that on April 1, 2010, a copy of the foregoing document was served upon

counsel of record by electronic means and upon Virgil Smoot via First Class Mail at the address

below:

Virgil Smoot # 43578-039

Sanilac County Jail

65 North Elk

Sandusky, MI 48471

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 34859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17121]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[WO-300-1310-00]


Green River Basin Advisory Committee, Colorado and Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting of the Green River Basin Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the dates, time, and schedule and 
initial agenda for a meeting of the Green River Basin Advisory 
Committee (GRBAC).

DATES: July 17, 1996, from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. and July 18, 1996, 
from 8:00 a.m. until 3:15 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Jeffrey Center, 3rd and Spruce Streets, Rawlins, WY 82301.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terri Trevino, GRBAC Coordinator, 
Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, WY 82003, telephone 
(307) 775-6020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The topics for the meeting will include:

    (1) Road standards, alternative funding, and the NEPA process.
    (2) Public comment.

    This meeting is open to the public. Persons interested in making 
oral comments or submitting written statements for the GRBAC's 
consideration should notify the GRBAC Coordinator at the above address 
by July 10. The GRBAC will hear oral comments from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 
p.m. on July 17. The GRBAC may establish a time limit for oral 
statements.

    Date Signed: June 28, 1996.
Mat Millenbach,
Acting Director, Bureau of Land Management.
[FR Doc. 96-17121 Filed 7-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

T. J. SUTTON,

Petitioner, 

v.

LLOYD RAPELJE,

Respondent. 

/

Case Number: 2:09-CV-10616

HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

Petitioner T. J. Sutton, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Thumb

Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion for

Appointment of Counsel and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. 

There exists no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in civil cases,

and the court has broad discretion in determining whether counsel should be appointed. 

Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 85 (6th Cir. 1985) (holding that a habeas petitioner is not

entitled to the appointment of counsel to assist in habeas corpus proceedings); Childs v.

Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (“[A]ppointment of counsel in a civil case

is . . . a matter within the discretion of the court. It is a privilege and not a right.”)

(internal quotation omitted). A habeas petitioner may obtain representation at any stage

of the case “[w]henever the United States magistrate or the court determines that the

interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The Court determines that

2:09-cv-10616-NGE-CEB Doc # 19 Filed 08/24/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 846
2

the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. 

Petitioner also has filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. He seeks

relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, which applies only to trials. See

generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 50. Therefore, it is inapplicable to the instant habeas corpus

proceeding. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of

Counsel [dkt. # 15] and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law [dkt. # 17] are

DENIED. 

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: August 24, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on August 24, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10616-NGE-CEB Doc # 19 Filed 08/24/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 847
#### Ex parte William Howard PHARR.

No. 71966

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

April 5, 1995.

Rehearing Denied May 10, 1995.

*796Appellant, pro se.

Michael R. Little, Dist. Atty., Anahuac, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.

*OPINION*

PER CURIAM.

This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted of two capital murders. Pursuant to a plea agreement, punishment was assessed at life imprisonment in each cause, to be served consecutively. No appeal was taken.

Applicant contends that the trial court improperly cumulated the sentences in these causes because they arose out of the same criminal episode and were prosecuted in the same criminal action. See V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 3.03; *LaPorte v. State,*840 S.W.2d 412 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). The trial court found that applicant was not tried in a single criminal action. We agree.

The Texas Legislature intended a “single criminal action” to refer to a single trial or plea proceeding. *LaPorte,*840 S.W.2d at 414. A defendant is prosecuted in a “single criminal action” when allegations and evidence of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode are presented in a single trial or plea proceedings. *LaPorte,*840 S.W.2d at 415.

Here, the statement of facts shows that in cause number 7760 applicant pleaded guilty, was admonished, was found guilty, and was sentenced. Immediately thereafter, in cause number 7761 applicant pleaded guilty, was admonished, was found guilty, and was sentenced. The record supports the trial court’s finding that applicant was not tried in a single criminal action. The cumu-lation order did not violate Section 3.03.

The relief sought by applicant is denied.
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 333-37347 and 333-57500) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, International Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and EveryWare
Replacement Option Plan of Pervasive Software Inc. of our report dated July 15, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and related financial statement schedule of Pervasive Software Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended June 30, 2002.





/s/ Ernst & Young LLP





Austin, Texas


September 25, 2002