alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATRICIA A. GREGORY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55665

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01016-WQHJMA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Former California state prisoner Patricia A. Gregory appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging accessto-courts claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

 

* 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

NOV 3 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-55665 

341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gregory’s access-to-court claim 

stemming from her direct criminal appeal and habeas petition because Gregory 

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she suffered actual injury as a result of 

defendants’ conduct or policies. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 354-55 

(1996) (setting forth actual injury requirement); see also Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. 

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (setting forth requirements for municipal 

liability). 

The district court properly dismissed Gregory’s access-to-courts claim 

stemming from the State Bar decision against her because Gregory has no 

constitutional right of access to the courts to litigate an unrelated civil claim. See 

Simmons v. Sacramento Cty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1159-60 (9th Cir.

2003) (explaining that “a prisoner has no constitutional right of access to the courts 

to litigate an unrelated civil claim”). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

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

AFFIRMED.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3352

_____________________________
R USSELL T IMOTHY G ASKIN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Bruce Anderson , Judge

. July 26, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , R OWE , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Greg Caracci, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### LOUIS COPE v. JOSEPH RUSIGNOLA.

March 27, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5626]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                           STAY OUT OF BOSNIA

  (Mr. FUNDERBURK asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, as we speak the President is laying the 
groundwork for military action in Bosnia. Our troops are about to be 
put in harm's way by an administration with no Bosnia policy, no public 
support, and no idea how and when to stop our involvement once we get 
in.
  Mr. Speaker, what is happening in Bosnia is a tragedy, but I ask you, 
has the President defined any legitimate American interest in the 900-
year war in the Balkans, worth risking thousands of Americans? There is 
a better way--let the Bosnians defend Bosnia--lift the arms embargo.
  Those who think lifting the embargo will prolong the war assume that 
the Serbs will win. As we speak, the Bosnian Government is preparing to 
launch a campaign to reverse Serbian gains. Serbia is in the grip of a 
severe internal crisis. Why not let the people of Bosnia make the price 
of Serbian aggression high? Why not let the people of Bosnia fight for 
their own freedom?
  Mr. Speaker, this administration should start listening to the 
American people instead of the United Nations. Mr. President, stay out 
of Bosnia. Lift the arms embargo or be prepared to tell us why you want 
to leap into a war that will cost more American lives.

                          ____________________
```
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 79

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES 

4 ON CAPITOL GROUNDS. 

5 The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Associa6 tion (in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Association’’) 

7 shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, soap box
2

•HCON 79 EH 

1 derby races, on the Capitol Grounds on June 16, 2007, 

2 or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Rep3 resentatives and the Committee on Rules and Administra4 tion of the Senate may jointly designate. 

5 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS. 

6 The event to be carried out under this resolution shall 

7 be free of admission charge to the public and arranged 

8 not to interfere with the needs of Congress, under condi9 tions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and 

10 the Capitol Police Board; except that the Association shall 

11 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities 

12 incident to all activities associated with the event. 

13 SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT. 

14 For the purposes of this resolution, the Association 

15 is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds, subject 

16 to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, such stage, 

17 sound amplification devices, and other related structures 

18 and equipment as may be required for the event to be car19 ried out under this resolution. 

20 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS. 

21 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police 

22 Board are authorized to make any such additional ar23 rangements that may be required to carry out the event 

24 under this resolution. 
3

•HCON 79 EH 

1 SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

2 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce3 ment of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of 

4 title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertise5 ments, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, 

6 as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol 

7 Grounds, with respect to the event to be carried out under 

8 this resolution. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 79

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 

Greater Washington Soap Box Derby.
[Cite as State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold, 131 Ohio St.3d 54, 2012-Ohio-28.]

T HE S TATE EX REL . H OUGH , A PPELLANT , v. S AFFOLD , J UDGE , A PPELLEE . [Cite as State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold, 131 Ohio St.3d 54, 2012-Ohio-28.] Mandamus—Procedendo—Court has no duty to issue final, appealable order on denial of motion for recusal—Court has no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in denyi ng untimely successive petition for postconviction relie f—Writs denied. (No. 2011-1430—Submitted January 3, 2012—Decided January 10, 2012.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 96468, 2011-Ohio-3477.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the claims of appellant, Terrance Hough, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Co mmon Pleas Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to issue final, appealable orders on her October 7, 2010 denial of Hough’s motion for the judge to recuse herself and his motion to supplement his petition for postconviction relief. {¶ 2} Hough is not entitled to a final, appealable order on the judge’s denial of his motion to recuse herself, be cause a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction
to review these decisions. See Beer v. Griffith (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 440, 441- 442, 8 O.O.3d 438, 377 N.E.2d 775 (“Since only the Chief Justice or [the chief’s] designee may hear disqua lification matters, the Cour t of Appeals was without authority to pass upon disqualif ication or to void the judgment of the trial court upon that basis”); Goddard v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. (2000), 141 Ohio App.3d 467, 473, 751 N.E.2d 1062; State v. Ramos (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 394, 398, 623 N.E.2d 1336.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 {¶ 3} Moreover, as Judge Saffold now contends, the chief justice has since granted Hough’s affidavit to dis qualify her, so his claim is now moot. {¶ 4} Finally, contrary to Hough’s as sertions, Judge Saffold had no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying Hough’s motion to supplement his previously denie d, untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief. See State ex rel. James v. Coyne , 114 Ohio St.3d 45, 2007- Ohio-2716, 867 N.E.2d 837, ¶ 5 (court has no dut y to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when it dismisses an untimely petition for postconviction relief); see also State v. Jones , Mahoning App. No. 07 MA 81, 2008-Ohio-1536, 2008 WL 852245, ¶ 16-18 (amended petition for pos tconviction relie f filed after court had ruled on petition held to be an improper su ccessive petition). Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

__________________ Terrance Hough, pro se. William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Pr osecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

______________________
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I,
Joseph Rubinfeld, 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 of SuperGen, Inc.
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of SuperGen, Inc.

| |  | By:    |  | /s/JOSEPH RUBINFELD                  
| |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | Name:  |  | Joseph Rubinfeld                     
| |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

I,
Edward Jacobs, 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 of SuperGen, Inc. on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 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
Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of SuperGen, Inc.

| |  | By:    |  | /s/EDWARD L. JACOBS                               
| |  | ------ |  | --------------------------------------------------
| |  | Name:  |  | Edward L. Jacobs                                  
| |  | Title: |  | Chief Business Officer and Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 89 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    ORDERS FOR MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1995

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Monday, June 5, 1995, that following the 
prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no 
resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be 
dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time 
for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; there 
then be a period for the transaction of morning business not to extend 
beyond the hour of 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 
5 minutes each.
  I further ask consent at the hour of 11 o'clock the Senate resume 
consideration of S. 735, the antiterrorism bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I should have said at the outset, this has 
been cleared by the Democratic leader.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HEMASURE INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000
<CURRENCY>        US DOLLARS
       
<S>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                           Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             Sep-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1
<CASH>                                       2,239
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                    309
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,532
<PP&E>                                       3,270
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,766
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,887
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (540)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,589
<SALES>                                         25
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25
<CGS>                                          657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,347
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (128)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,974)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,974)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,974)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
               <LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM THE TRANS ENERGY, INC. FINANCIAL
               STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
               AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
               SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                    0
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        64,187
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     64,187
<PP&E>                                           10,293,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1,864,028
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   11,117,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             6,563,532
<BONDS>                                           1,852,468
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              2,139
<OTHER-SE>                                       12,867,963
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     11,117,348
<SALES>                                             849,419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    849,419
<CGS>                                               648,657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2,558,007
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  300,421
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,769,414)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,769,414)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,769,414)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.93)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                       AMERICAN PHYSICIAN PARTNERS, INC.
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
===============================================================================
SUBSIDIARY NAME                                        STATE OF INCORPORATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                         <C>
Pacific Imaging Partners, Inc.                               California
Total Imaging Partners, Inc.                                 California
Valley Imaging Partners, Inc.                                California
Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Imaging Partners, Inc.        Delaware
M&S Imaging Partners, Inc.                                   Delaware
M&S Imaging Investments, Inc.                                Delaware
M&S Imaging Partners, L.P.                                   Delaware
Mid Rockland Imaging Partners, Inc.                          Delaware
Ide Imaging Partners, Inc.                                   Delaware
Advanced Imaging Partners, Inc.                              Delaware
Advanced Radiology, L.L.C.                                   Maryland
Community Imaging Partners, Inc.                             Delaware


</TABLE>
422 A.2d 1176

#### Commonwealth ex rel. McCarrick v. McCarrick, Appellant.

Argued June 20, 1979.

Joseph P. Phelps, Jr., for appellant; Frank W. Jenkins, for appellee.

Before HESTER, HOFFMAN and CATANIA, JJ.*

*

 President Judge Franics J. Catania of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, is sitting by designation.

Order affirmed.
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 this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of MariMed Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A
for the year ended December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Robert Fireman, 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, based on my 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, our financial condition and result of operations.



|                         | MARIMED
    INC.
|------------------------ | ----------------
|                         | (Registrant)    
|                         |                 
|Date:
    April 29, 2020 | By:             
|                         |                 
|                         |                 
|                         |
EXHIBIT 13.2 - CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Allen Hugli, the Chief Financial Officer of Reynolds Group Holdings Limited (the "Company"), certify that:





(a)    The annual report of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2013 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








/s/ ALLEN HUGLIAllen HugliChief Financial OfficerMarch 28, 2014
#### J. R. Franklin and C. C. Stuart v. John T. Hardie & Co.

(No. 2032, Op. Book No. 2, p. 539.)

Appeal from McLennan County.

Opinion by

Walker, R. S., P. J.

§ 1219. *Trial by judge; judgment will not be reversed because of the admission of illegal testimony, where there is evidence to support it.*The cause having been submitted to the court without a jury, the admission of illegal testimony will not afford grounds for reversal of the judgment, if there is sufficient legal evidence to support it. The judge trying the cause, it will be presumed, *701gave proper weight to such evidence as was legal, and disregarded that which was not. Where the judgment is not without evidence to support it, nor against the evidence, it cannot be said to be clearly wrong, and will not be set aside on appeal.

November 9, 1881.

§ 1220. *Partnership; liability of partner,, notwithstanding secret understanding among partners.*Whenever credit is given to a firm, within the scope of the business of that firm, whether the partnership he of a general or limited nature, it will bind all the partners, notwithstanding any secret reservations between them which are unknown to those who give the credit. [Burnley v. Rice, 18 Tex. 494; Story on Part. § 105.]

§ 1221. *Partner not known to be such is liable to person dealing with the firm.*The fact that a partner was not known to be such to a party dealing with the firm, at the time of such dealing, will not relieve him from liability as a partner. It is immaterial, so far as his liability is concerned, whether the party dealing with the firm knevr the fact of his partnership in the firm or was wholly ignorant of it. [Devine v. Martin, *15*Tex. 31; Coons v. Rennick, 11 Tex. 134; 4 Cowen, 282.]

Affirmed.