alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-74-01-SM

Vickie A. Worthington

O R D E R

Defendant Worthington’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference

and trial is granted (document 13). Trial has been rescheduled for the February 

2009 trial period. Defendant Worthington shall file a waiver of speedy trial

rights not later than January 30, 2009. On the filing of such waiver, her

continuance shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: February 6, 2009 at 3:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: February 18, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00074-SM Document 14 Filed 01/15/09 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

January 15, 2009

cc: Michael J. Sheehan, Esq.

Mark A. Irish, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00074-SM Document 14 Filed 01/15/09 Page 2 of 2
U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF N.H.

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stev n A. Swan

N.

United States of America

nol FEB - 8 A 11, 13

Civil No. 06-cv-404-JAW

O RDER

Pursuant to the provisions of LR 77.5, the above-captioned case has been referred to the

District of Maine for consideration by a Maine judicial officer, sitting by designation, due to the

recusal of the District of New Hampshire and District of Rhode Island judges. Jurisdiction of the

case remains with the New Hampshire District Court.

All original pleadings, motions, memos, and filings will continue to be filed with the Clerk

in New Hampshire in accordance with this district's Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case

Filing. Pro se litigants, however, are not required to file electronically and may continue to file

documents in paper format. Absent a court order to the contrary, no courtesy filings need to be filed

in the District of Maine.

By the Court,

February 5, 2007 Jsl Janice E. Boucher

Janice E. Boucher

Deputy Clerk

cc: Steven A. Swan, pro se

William E. Morse, AUSA

Clerk, U.S. District Court, Maine

Case 1:06-cv-00404-JAW Document 19 Filed 02/08/07 Page 1 of 2
U.S: DESTRICT COURT

D!STRICT OF N.H.

FILED

Concurring Order 1001FEB- 8 A11: 13

I concur that an emergency exists as specified above and

that for the duration of this case Magistrate Judge K as,

is assigned to perform such duties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c)

as may be assigned to him/her by the district judge to whom this

case is assigned.

Date: x/ 4fiP -fcc: Steven A. Swan, Pro se

2

Case 1:06-cv-00404-JAW Document 19 Filed 02/08/07 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellant 

 v. 

KIP EDDINGER, 

 Appellee 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 64 MAP 2014 

Appeal from the Order of Montgomery 

County Court of Common Pleas at No. 

CP-46-CR-0008857-2012 dated May 19, 

2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2015, the Order of the Court of Common 

Pleas is hereby AFFIRMED. See Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015).
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 Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ending  November  30,  2003 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David
Weisman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
  1350, as adopted pursuant to  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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.

Date: June 1, 2004

/S/David A. Weisman
David A. Weisman,
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. Case No. 08-cr-92-01-SM

Moses Ehiabhi,

 Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Ehiabhi’s motion to continue the trial is granted (document no.

12). Defendant Ehiabhi has filed a waiver of speedy trial. Trial has been

rescheduled for the month of November 2008. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial,

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Change of Plea Hearing: October 29, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. 

Final Pretrial Conference (if necessary) is scheduled for

October 27, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. 

Case 1:08-cr-00092-SM Document 15 Filed 10/03/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Jury selection, if necessary, will take place on November 4, 2008 at

9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 3, 2008

cc: Jessica Brown, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00092-SM Document 15 Filed 10/03/08 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                         114,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,400
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 117,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,057,800
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       131,150
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,595,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   117,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               642,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             359,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,002,300)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,002,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,002,300)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .008
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .008



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1724 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1724

To provide that service of the members of the organization known as the 
United States Cadet Nurse Corps during World War II constituted active 
military service for purposes of laws administered by the Secretary of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2001

  Mrs. Lowey (for herself and Mr. Oberstar) introduced the following 
bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in 
    addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that service of the members of the organization known as the 
United States Cadet Nurse Corps during World War II constituted active 
military service for purposes of laws administered by the Secretary of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``United States Cadet Nurse Corps 
Equity Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. SERVICE DEEMED TO BE ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of section 401(a)(1)(A) of the GI 
Bill Improvement Act of 1977 (38 U.S.C. 106 note), the Secretary of 
Defense is deemed to have determined that qualified service of a person 
constituted active military service.
    (b) Determination of Discharge Status.--(1) The Secretary of 
Defense shall issue an honorable discharge under section 401(a)(1)(B) 
of the GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977 to each person whose qualified 
service warrants an honorable discharge.
    (2) Such discharge shall be issued before the end of the one-year 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF RETROACTIVE BENEFITS.

    No benefits may be paid to any person as a result of the enactment 
of this Act for any period before the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

SEC. 4. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of this Act, the term ``qualified service'' means 
service of a person as a member of the organization known as the United 
States Cadet Nurse Corps during the period beginning on July 1, 1943, 
and ending on December 15, 1945.
                                 <all>
```
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1046

To require cigarette products to be placed under or behind the counter

in retail sales.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 15, 2001

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To require cigarette products to be placed under or behind

the counter in retail sales.

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

3 SECTION 1. RETAIL SALES OF CIGARETTE PRODUCTS.

4 (a) PRODUCT PLACEMENT.—Any person engaged in

5 the retail sales of cigarette products shall place such prod6 ucts under or behind a counter and not out on the floor

7 of the retail sales facility.

8 (b) PENALTY.—A person who violates subsection (a)

9 shall be considered to have engaged in a deceptive act or
2

•HR 1046 IH

1 practice in violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade

2 Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy Ray KNIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4406.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2002.

Decided Jan. 15, 2003.

*11John D. Elliott, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Corley Lucius, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Tommy Ray Knight appeals the revocation of supervised release and imposition of a nine-month sentence of imprisonment. Knight’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Knight to the maximum sentence within the applicable range. Knight, notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, has not done so. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Knight pled guilty to aiding and abetting the counterfeiting of United States twenty dollar bills, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 471 (2000). He was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Knight was released from custody in December 2001. In 2002, Knight’s probation officer petitioned the district court, asserting two violations of supervised release. Knight did not deny the violations. The district court imposed a sentence of nine months imprisonment, at the top of the applicable guidelines range. *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 7B1.4(a) (2000).

This court reviews a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Davis,*53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995). Here, Knight conceded the violations, and the sentence was within the proposed range. Sentencing was in accordance with the relevant statutory provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000). This court does not review a sentence within the guideline range that was not imposed in violation of the law. *United States v. Porter,*909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir.1990). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Knight’s supervised release and imposing a sentence at the top of the guideline range.

Pursuant to *Anders,*this court has reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm the revocation of supervised release and resulting sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. *12Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.*
B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks

Loan volume Percent change from Percent change from

(billions of dollars) previous quarter previous year

Real Non-real- Real Non-real- Real Non-realTotal estate estate Total estate estate Total estate estate

Quarter loans loans loans loans loans loans loans loans loans

1991: Q4... 53.0 18.4 34.6 -1.6 .6 -2.7 5.7 7.0 5.1

1992: Q1... 51.9 18.9 33.0 -2.1 2.7 -4.6 4.9 8.2 3.1

 Q2... 55.1 19.5 35.6 6.2 3.3 7.8 4.9 8.1 3.2

 Q3... 56.2 19.9 36.2 1.9 1.9 1.9 4.2 8.6 1.9

 Q4... 54.5 19.9 34.7 -2.9 -.2 -4.4 2.9 7.8 .2

1993: Q1... 52.8 20.0 32.8 -3.2 .5 -5.3 1.7 5.6 -.5

 Q2... 56.0 20.6 35.4 6.0 3.1 7.8 1.6 5.4 -.6

 Q3... 58.0 20.8 37.1 3.5 1.2 4.9 3.2 4.7 2.4

 Q4... 57.7 20.9 36.8 -.5 .1 -.8 5.8 5.0 6.2

1994: Q1... 56.8 21.2 35.5 -1.5 1.8 -3.4 7.6 6.4 8.3

 Q2... 61.1 21.9 39.2 7.6 3.2 10.2 9.1 6.4 10.7

 Q3... 63.0 22.4 40.6 3.1 2.2 3.6 8.7 7.5 9.3

 Q4... 61.3 22.6 38.7 -2.7 .7 -4.6 6.2 8.2 5.2

1995: Q1... 59.9 22.9 36.9 -2.3 1.6 -4.6 5.4 8.0 3.9

 Q2... 63.5 23.6 40.0 6.1 2.7 8.2 4.0 7.5 2.0

 Q3... 65.3 23.8 41.5 2.9 1.1 3.9 3.7 6.3 2.3

 Q4... 63.7 23.9 39.8 -2.5 .4 -4.1 3.9 5.9 2.8

1996: Q1... 61.7 24.0 37.7 -3.1 .5 -5.3 3.1 4.8 2.0

 Q2... 65.7 24.7 41.0 6.5 2.7 8.9 3.4 4.7 2.7

 Q3... 66.6 24.9 41.6 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.9 4.7 .3

 Q4... 65.5 25.0 40.5 -1.6 .3 -2.8 2.8 4.6 1.8

1997: Q1... 63.8 25.4 38.4 -2.6 1.4 -5.1 3.4 5.5 2.0

 Q2... 69.0 26.2 42.8 8.2 3.3 11.5 5.1 6.2 4.4

 Q3... 71.1 27.0 44.2 3.0 2.9 3.1 6.8 8.1 6.0

 Q4... 71.3 27.1 44.2 .3 .7 .0 8.9 8.5 9.1

1998: Q1... 70.1 27.6 42.4 -1.7 1.8 -3.9 9.8 9.0 10.4

 Q2... 75.0 28.5 46.5 7.1 3.2 9.6 8.6 8.8 8.5

 Q3... 76.3 28.9 47.4 1.7 1.3 1.9 7.2 7.2 7.3

 Q4... 74.7 29.3 45.5 -2.0 1.3 -4.0 4.8 7.8 3.0

1999: Q1... 72.7 29.7 42.9 -2.8 1.7 -5.6 3.7 7.6 1.1

 Q2... 75.8 30.8 45.1 4.4 3.5 5.0 1.1 8.0 -3.1

 Q3... 76.8 31.4 45.5 1.3 1.9 .9 .7 8.6 -4.1

 Q4... 76.0 31.8 44.2 -1.0 1.5 -2.8 1.7 8.8 -2.8

2000: Q1... 71.5 31.4 40.1 -5.9 -1.4 -9.2 -1.6 5.5 -6.5

 Q2... 79.7 33.7 45.9 11.4 7.5 14.4 5.0 9.6 1.9

 Q3... 80.1 33.9 46.2 .6 .5 .6 4.3 8.1 1.6

 Q4... 80.9 34.0 46.9 1.0 .3 1.5 6.4 6.8 6.1

2001: Q1... 79.4 34.3 45.1 -1.9 .8 -3.9 11.0 9.2 12.4

 Q2... 82.9 35.1 47.7 4.4 2.5 5.8 4.0 4.2 3.9

 Q3... 82.5 35.4 47.1 -.4 .8 -1.3 3.0 4.5 2.0

 Q4... 82.2 35.6 46.7 -.3 .4 -.9 1.6 4.6 -.5

2002: Q1... 80.1 36.0 44.1 -2.6 1.2 -5.5 .9 4.9 -2.2

 Q2... 83.7 37.0 46.7 4.4 2.7 5.9 1.0 5.1 -2.1

 Q3... 84.4 37.7 46.7 .9 2.1 -.1 2.3 6.5 -.9

 Q4... 83.9 38.0 45.9 -.6 .6 -1.6 2.0 6.8 -1.7

2003: Q1... 82.0 38.7 43.3 -2.3 1.9 -5.7 2.4 7.5 -1.9

 Q2... 84.5 39.6 44.9 3.1 2.5 3.7 1.1 7.3 -3.9

 Q3... 85.5 40.2 45.4 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.4 6.5 -2.8

 Q4... 86.1 40.6 45.5 .6 1.1 .2 2.7 7.0 -.9

2004: Q1... 84.3 41.4 42.9 -2.1 1.9 -5.7 2.8 7.0 -.9

 Note. Data are as of end of quarter.

21
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 190 (Tuesday, September 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 56918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22744]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision


Ameribank, Northfork, WV; Notice of Appointment of Receiver

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
section 5(d)(2) of the Home Owners' Loan Act, the Office of Thrift 
Supervision has duly appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation as sole Receiver for Ameribank, Northfork, West Virginia 
(OTS No. 14177).

    Dated: September 23, 2008.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Sandra E. Evans,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E8-22744 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

GT Solar Incorporated 

v. Civil No. 08-cv-249-JL 

Fabrizio Goi 

O R D E R 

Based on today's teleconference, the plaintiff is ordered to supplement its previously 

ordered November, 30, 2009 disclosure in the following ways: 

(a) by identifying any additional design specifications that it alleges were 

misappropriated, converted, or disclosed without authorization in violation of the Trade Secrets 

Act or the defendant's duties under applicable law, whether or not the plaintiff has conclusively 

established to its own satisfaction that such misappropriation, conversion or disclosure took 

place; 

(b) by identifying any and all design or fabrication drawings, whether or not bearing the 

VRV nameplate, depicting the 36-Rod reactor that VRV was manufacturing for GT Solar at the 

time that Goi was employed as VRV's sales director, that it alleges were misappropriated, 

converted, or disclosed without authorization in violation of the Trade Secrets Act or the 

defendant's duties under applicable law, whether or not the plaintiff has conclusively established 

to its own satisfaction that such misappropriation, conversion or disclosure took place; and 

(c) by identifying any of the underlying documents that are referenced in the disclosure or 

the supplementation ordered herein. 

Case 1:08-cv-00249-JL Document 62 Filed 12/23/09 Page 1 of 2
This ordered supplementation does not require the immediate production, as part of this 

ordered disclosure, of all documents that "describe, relate or refer in any way" to the disclosed 

design specifications, design or fabrication drawings, or documents. 

To the extent that any design specifications, design of fabrication drawings, or documents 

not identified, disclosed or produced by the plaintiff are identified by the plaintiff through 

discovery, or are revealed during discovery to be, or to have been, under the possession, custody 

or control of the defendant or PPP, the plaintiff will be permitted to supplement its disclosure 

accordingly until the close of discovery, and prior to the summary judgment deadline. 

SO ORDERED. 

December 23, 2009 

Joseph N. Laplante 

United States District Judge 

cc: Adam Gill, Esq. 

Elisa Miller, Esq. 

Luke Dauchot, Esq. 

Michael Shipley, Esq. 

R. Matthew Cairns, Esq. 

Richard Harlan, Esq. 

James Ball, Esq. 

John Pitts, Esq. 

Lanny Davis, Esq. 

M. Brendan Smith, Esq. 

Michael Connolly, Esq. 

Robert Isackson, Esq. 

2 

Case 1:08-cv-00249-JL Document 62 Filed 12/23/09 Page 2 of 2
#### William M. SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Hardy MYERS, individually and in his official capacity as Oregon Attorney General; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-35291.

D.C. No. CV-01-00318-ALH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 14, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner William M. Smith appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that state officials violated his constitutional rights in opposing Smith’s state habeas proceeding in state court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, *Milstein v. Cooley,*257 F.3d 1004, 1007 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Smith alleged that the term of imprisonment he received upon revocation of parole violated his constitutional rights, and that various state employees hindered his attempts to rectify the situation through a habeas petition in state court. The district court correctly dismissed certain of Smith’s claims without prejudice because, if successful, they would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence. *See Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 486-89,114 S.Ct. 2364,129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

We vacate the judgment to the extent it dismisses two of Smith’s claims with prejudice, and remand for entry of judgment dismissing the entire action without prejudice under *Heck. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,*49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). The record is not sufficiently developed to support the district court’s determination that defendants Myers, Van Valkenburgh, Alexander and Lloyd are entitled to absolute immunity as prosecutors.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

*367AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

**

 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.