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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

ELBERT THOMAS MARTIN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DONALD A. RAMBERG, M.D.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-56562

D.C. No. 5:08-cv-00827-SJO-JEM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Elbert Thomas Martin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

APR 26 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-56562

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Martin failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s treatment of

his back and leg pain constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1058 (prison

officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an

excessive risk to inmate health, and a difference of opinion concerning the

appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). 

Martin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before 

any court except for the purpose of 

establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the 

case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

STEPHEN T. OWENS GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Public Defender of Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

J. MICHAEL SAUER MONIKA PREKOPA TALBOT

Deputy Public Defender Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

CLAY R. FIRESTONE, )

)

Appellant-Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) No. 32A01-1201-PC-32

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE HENDRICKS SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Karen M. Love, Judge

Cause No. 32D03-0606-PC-3

November 8, 2012

OPINION ON REHEARING - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

SHARPNACK, Senior Judge
2

Clay Firestone has petitioned for rehearing of this Court’s decision in Firestone v. 

State, No. 32A01-1201-PC-32 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2012), in which we affirmed the 

post-conviction court’s denial of Firestone’s petition for post-conviction relief and 

remanded to the lower court to correct Firestone’s sentence by assigning his habitual 

offender enhancement to one of his convictions. We grant the petition for rehearing for 

the limited purpose of clarifying our reasoning but reaffirm our opinion in all respects.

Firestone contends that our decision contains factual mistakes, and he cites to our 

statement in the opinion that he did not “direct us to any testimony or evidence in support 

of his claim” that his trial counsel knew about the photo lineup and recorded interview 

prior to trial. Slip op. p. 2. In support of his argument, he points to a section from his 

appellant’s brief containing citations to discovery responses and exhibits in the appendix 

and to statements by counsel and between counsel and the court during trial in the trial 

transcript. 

To clarify, the statement in the opinion that Firestone had not directed us to any 

testimony or evidence in support of his claim was intended to refer to the lack of 

testimony or evidence from the post-conviction hearing. Trial counsel did not 

acknowledge at the post-conviction hearing that he was actually aware of the contents of 

these pieces of evidence, although he may well have been provided these items prior to 

trial. In any event, as we stated in our original opinion, counsel’s knowledge is of no 

moment because Firestone failed to meet his burden of showing prejudice. See id. at 2-3.
3

The remainder of Firestone’s arguments in his petition for rehearing merely 

restates the arguments submitted in his appellant’s brief. We determined in our original 

opinion that Firestone failed to demonstrate prejudice on his post-conviction claim of 

ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and his petition presents nothing that warrants

rehearing.

Subject to the foregoing clarification, our opinion is in all respects affirmed.

NAJAM, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013 of All In Blind, Inc.. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.  Very truly yours,   /s/ Adri Chimberoff Adri Chimberoff Chief Executive Officer   /s/ Adri Chimberoff Adri Chimberoff Chief Financial Officer   Dated: June 25, 2014   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to All In Blind, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### James Wilson, Adm’r, v. W. R. Griffin et al.

(No. 1201, Op. Book No. 3, p. 342.)

Appeal from Rusk County.

December 14, 1881.

Opinion by

Walker, R. S., P. J.

§ 1313. *Certiorari is not a writ of right; what petition for must show.*The writ of *certiorari*is not granted as a matter of right. The application for it is addressed to the discretionary power of the court, and should show that the applicant has rights, or a valid defense, of which he has been deprived by the erroneous action of the inferior tribunal, or that without fault or want of diligence on his part he has been unable to present .his rights or his defense. [Clark v. Hutton, 28 Tex. 123.] Where a party fails, without good cause shown for such failure, to present his case before the justice, he is not entitled to be relieved from the consequences of his own neglect, by granting him a writ of *certiorari.*[Haley v. Villeneuve, 11 Tex. 617.] The law exacts of a litigant vigilance at his peril. *“ Vigilantibus non dormientibus lex favet.”*The petition for *certiorari*in this case failing to show such facts as entitled appellant to the writ, the suit was properly dismissed.

Affirmed.
News United States Air Force
 AF ensures command visibility on substantiated sex-related offensesPublished Sept. 30, 2014
                **WASHINGTON, (AFNS) --**
                Air Force officials announced a new policy requiring the inclusion and command review of information on sex-related offenses in personnel service records Sept. 30.The change was directed in the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, requiring the services to document this information in service member personnel records.“Sexual harassment and sexual assault are not consistent with our core values, cause great harm to our Airmen who experience it and seriously degrade our mission readiness,” said Maj. Gen. Gina Grosso, the director of the Air Force sexual assault and prevention response.The new policy requires commanders to review all records to ensure substantiated complaints of sex-related offenses against Airmen, regardless of grade, assigned to, and transferred into their command, are annotated in the Airman’s performance report or permanent training report. Annotation of those complaints resulting in conviction by court-martial, non-judicial punishment or punitive administrative action will be filed in an Airman’s permanent personnel service record.“Actively engaged leadership and transparency are key to eliminating sex-related offenses,” said Brig. Gen. Brian Kelly, the director of force management policy. “This policy assists with that goal and helps leaders foster a climate of mutual respect, dignity and inclusion of all Airmen at every level.“This level of awareness should ensure commanders have knowledge of and familiarization with their assigned Airmen’s histories of sex-related offenses,” Kelly said. “This also reduces the likelihood repeat offenses will escape the notice of subsequent or higher level commanders.”The effective date for the notation is Dec. 26, 2013. Commanders will ensure substantiated offenses not previously documented on the Airman’s performance or training report that occurred on or after the effective date will be documented in the Airman’s next evaluation.The policy does not limit or prohibit the Airman from challenging or appealing such action using the existing appeal process in line with Air Force Instruction 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, or through the Air Force Board of Correction for Military Records, Kelly said.For this policy, the Air Force considers sex-related offenses as those defined in Articles 120, 125, 120a, 120b, and 120c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which range from rape to stalking.Air Force officials recognize the significant administrative burden associated with initially implementing this policy on the directed timeline, Kelly said. To alleviate this in the future, data codes are being developed to allow commanders to quickly identify Airmen who are assigned to or transferred into their unit.*(Information courtesy of the Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs Office)*OL-P 



SAPR 



sexual assault 



prevention 



SARC
News United States Air Force
 Mountain Home Fire Department receives DOD awardPublished June 9, 2014
                        
                        By Senior Airman Caitlin Guinazu
                        
                        
                        366th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **MOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCE BASE, Idaho (AFNS) --**
                The Mountain Home Air Force Base Fire Department was recently recognized as the winner of the 2013 Department of Defense Fire and Emergency Services of the Year award in the small fire department category.
In 2013 they distinguished themselves as the best, through their innovativeness and exceptional dedication. Their achievements included battling a 328,000 acre fire and developing an aggressive fire prevention program.
"We often fight fires and save lives, but it was more than the regular activities that won us this award," said Master Sgt. Collis Jeppesen, the 366th Civil Engineer Squadron fire deputy. "We've had to overcome challenges such as the upcoming personnel restructuring and budget cuts."
Each year the DOD recognizes outstanding accomplishments and honors fire departments and firefighters through the annual awards program.
"For this competition, not only did we go up against other departments in the Air Force, but also up against the Army, Marines and Navy," Jeppesen said. "I would definitely say the competition was substantial."
The fire and emergency services community is on duty 24-hours a day, every day, many times putting their own lives on the line while protecting those who defend America.
"A lot has happened this year; we responded to hostage situations, car fires, aircraft fires, wild fires, and multiple garage fires in addition to rescuing crash victims," said Staff Sgt. Bryan Buck, the 366th CES health and safety officer. "During which the department has proved to be top notch."
Achieving this recognition, the Mountain Home AFB Fire Department inspired those in the same profession and those with whom they serve.
"It's the civilians at our station that are really amazing, military members come and go, it's the civilians who dedicate 20 or 30 years of their lives to making the department what it is," Jeppesen said. "Training alongside military members, pulling new Airmen under their wings, just to train a new batch once they've moved on to their next station. It's our civilian fire fighters that we need to be recognizing."
Not only does the fire department achieve proficiency in day-to-day operations, they excel.
"If you are the very best at what you do, that's huge!" Buck said. "Here at Mountain Home (AFB) we not only can say that -- we've proved it."Mountain Home Air Force Base 



Fire Department 



2013 Department of Defense Fire and Emergency Services of the Year
#### LEE *v.*WELCH.

Appeal and Errob.

This court will not, on motion of the appellant, require part only of the record to be printed, the appellee having the right to insist upon the printing of the entire record. If, on the hearing, it appears that unnecessary matter has been required to be printed, the costs of the same will be taxed against the party causing it. (Citing *Smith*v. *Lancaster, ante,*25.)

No. 2260.

Submitted March 25, 1911.

Decided April 3, 1911.

Hearing on a motion by the appellant for an order directing the clerk to have the record in the case on appeal printed in accordance with a designation theretofore filed by the appellant, and to omit from the record to be printed the portions thereof designated by the appellee.

*Overruled.*

*Mr. Henry E. Davis*and *Mr. Chas. A. Keigwin*for the motion.

*Mr. ~W. D. Davidge*opposed.

*126Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the-Court:

The motion is denied. The court cannot undertake to examine an unprinted record to ascertain whether matter is relevant or important to the hearing. Counsel have the right to insist, upon the printing of the entire record. If the entire record be-printed, and on the hearing it is made evident that unnecessary or unimportant matter has been required to be printed, the costs of the same will be taxed against the party causing it. See *Smith*v. *Lancaster, ante, 25.*

Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed for failure to print,, and the mandate of this court was sent to the lower court. Subsequently, a motion by the appellant to recall the mandate- and reinstate the appeal was denied.
EX-35.2
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1086-120, 12th Floor
550 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334



ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement
dated as of November 1, 2011, by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage
Securities,Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, , as
Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, NA, as
Special Servicer, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, Wells
Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Tax
Administrator and Custodian, and Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Trust
Advisor, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series
2011-C5 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise
defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 11.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice
President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from
November 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, and of its performance per the
Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer,
has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material
respects throughout the period November 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the
12th day of March 2012.


/s/Daniel Bober
Daniel Bober
Executive Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(logo) Together we'll go far
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Ramsay Youth Services, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Luis E. Lamela, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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



                                       /s/ LUIS E. LAMELA
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Luis E. Lamela
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       November 13, 2002
Order entered June 4, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01385-CV

ANTHONY LEEARTIS HALL, Appellant

V.

OBINNA CHINEMEREM NJOKU, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-09-02988-B

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s June 2, 2014 motion for extension of time to file brief and 

ORDER the brief be filed no later than July 7, 2014. No further extensions will be granted 

absent exigent circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of BREF HR, LLC (the Company) for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William W. Warner, the principal executive officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b), as applicable, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                   |  |  |  |                            
|------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------
|Date: May 29, 2013 |  |  |  | /S/ William W. Warner      
|                   |  |  |  | Principal Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 55 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 55

To disapprove a final rule of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to 
                  the importation of cattle and beef.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 3, 2007

   Ms. Herseth Sandlin (for herself and Mr. Rehberg) introduced the 
  following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                              Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
To disapprove a final rule of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to 
                  the importation of cattle and beef.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture relating to bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy, minimal-risk regions, and importation of 
live bovines and products derived from bovines (72 Fed. Reg. 53314 
(2007)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 11.1

                           COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS, INC.


                  SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                        (In Thousands, Except Share Data)


                                                     Three Months  Fiscal Year 
                                                        Ended         Ended    
                                                      August 30,    August 30, 
                                                         1997          1997    
                                                      ----------    ----------

AVERAGE COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING                      375,000       375,000
                                                                 
COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES RESULTING FROM STOCK                    
     OPTIONS ISSUED                                          -             -
                                                                 
AVERAGE COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES                      
     OUTSTANDING                                       375,000       375,000
                                                      ---------     ---------
                                                      ---------     ---------

NET LOSS                                              $ (4,132)     $ (8,867)
                                                      ---------     ---------
                                                      ---------     ---------

NET LOSS AVAILABLE TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS             $ (4,432)     $ (9,717)
                                                      ---------     ---------
                                                      ---------     ---------

EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:                                       
     Net loss per common and common equivalent                   
      share                                           $ (11.82)     $ (25.91)
                                                      ---------     ---------
                                                      ---------     ---------

NOTE:

     Earnings per share have been computed by dividing net loss available to
     common shareholders by the average number of common and common equivalent
     shares outstanding.  The Company has outstanding warrants and stock options
     that are not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share
     because to do so would be antidilutive.  There is no difference between the
     number of shares for basic and fully diluted earnings per share in any
     period.  
     
     Commemorative Brands, Inc., completed the acquisitions of ArtCarved
     and Balfour on December 16, 1996, and until such date, engaged in no
     business activities other than those in connection with the Acquisitions
     and financing thereof.