alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
15-493 Platsky v. Food and Drug Administration 

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

# AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JA NUARY 1, 2007, IS PE RMITTED AND IS GOVERNE D BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT = S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ ). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 21 st day of June, two thousand sixteen. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, RICHARD C. WESLEY, BRENDA K. SANNES,  Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________ Henry Platsky, Plaintiff-Appellant , v. 15-493 Food and Drug Administration, Division of Freedom of Information, Defendant-Appellee .

_____________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFF-APP ELLANT: HENRY PLATSKY, pro se , New York, New York. FOR DEFENDANT -APPEL LEE: MATTHEW SILVERMAN, Assistant United States Attorney (Varuni Nelson, Assistant United

 Judge Brenda K. Sannes, of the United States Di strict Court for the Northern District of New York, sitting by designation.2 States Attorney, on the brief ) for Kelly T. Currie, Acting United States Attorn ey, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York. Appeal from a judgment of the United States Di strict Court for the Eastern District of New York (Townes, J .). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Appellant Henry Platsky, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Food and Drug Administra tion (“FDA”) with respect to his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) complaint. Platsky al leged that the FDA did notadequately respond to his request for a report of an FDA investigati on. The district court ruled that the FDA’s declarations showed that its search was reas onably calculated to uncov er responsive documents and that Platsky had not made a showing of bad fait h. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedur al history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We review orders gr anting summary judgment de novo

. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson,
LLP , 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). “In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a FOIA case, the defending agency has the burden of showing that its search was adequate and that any withheld documents fall within an exemption to the FOIA.” Carney v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994). We have considered all of Platsky’s argumen ts and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the distri ct court for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its th orough December 24, 2014 decision.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RENAL CARE GROUP, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          25,476
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,525
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,430
<PP&E>                                          27,292
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,779
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,204
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           126  
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,779
<SALES>                                         90,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                90,987
<CGS>                                           63,397
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   63,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,584
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,710
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,690
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,609
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,001
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,081
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
        

</TABLE>
583 A.2d 319

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. NICOLA CHALET.

February 6, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Steven C. Bierman, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2011-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.               I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.               All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.

 

 

March 29, 2012

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/   Steven C. Bierman                                          |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Steven   C. Bierman                                              |
|   | Title: | President   (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |

 

----
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT FRANCIS SCHMIDT.

March 13, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         305,382
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       4,899,312
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    409,218
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,421,308
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,537,400
<LOANS>                                     13,529,566
<ALLOWANCE>                                     60,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,164,887
<DEPOSITS>                                  16,139,404
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            577,662
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,232
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,443,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              23,164,887
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,113,803
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              271,746
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               261,524
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,647,073
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             826,587
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             826,587
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          820,486
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                727,726
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                123,911
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     123,911
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    93,345
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.67
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                60,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               60,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            60,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Doug Edward TAYLOR and Valerie Ann Taylor, Applying for the Private Adoption of SJB.

No. 2011-CJ-2258.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 2011.

In re Taylor, Doug Edward et al.; Taylor, Valerie Ann; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Union, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 353; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46954-JWC.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ application, with reasons.
News United States Air Force
 SecAF addresses women in national securityPublished April 2, 2014
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Torri Ingalsbe
                        
                        
                        Air Force Public Affairs Agency Operating Location-P
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James addressed the topic of women serving in combat roles during a Women In International Security-sponsored event to celebrate Women’s History Month at the Stimson Center, March 28.
“In the Air Force, we were already leading the pack in terms of integration of women,” said James, who was the keynote speaker at the event. “We already have 99 percent of our available positions open to women. The ones that are closed are in the areas of some special operations forces and some positions that serve with Army and Marine ground combat forces.
“We’re currently working on an implementation plan to validate gender-neutral job performance standards, and we’re working closely with the other services and the office of the (defense secretary) to get this done. It would be my expectation that these remaining career fields, which there are seven, will be open no later than Jan. 1, 2016,” James added.
She spoke about some of the challenges she has seen with ensuring women are at every echelon in every career field, the toughest being retention at the mid-career point.
“(You’re) trying to balance your professional life with your personal life and in the military when you add in those deployments, which we don’t see as much in the civilian world, before you know it, it becomes a very difficult thing to balance,” she said.
James shared many of her experiences, both professional and personal, to the collective audience of women and men from military and government jobs, as well as the private sector.
“I think she’s an example and role model for many,” said Chantal de Jonge Oudraat, the WIIS president and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute North America executive director.
“Her experience and expertise make her particularly well equipped to head up the Air Force at a time when it is facing many challenges,” she said.
James shared her own strategies that have helped her find success and balance throughout her career, primarily the ability to lean in and step back when needed.  
She provided her “top 10” list of things she feels everyone can benefit from in their personal and professional lives: Be prepared to zig-zag; seek and be a mentor; build and value a network; build competence; communicate; be a role model; don’t compromise ethics; be upbeat; persistence pays off; and along the way have fun, have balance, love your family and friends.
“It’s important to have that balanced life,” she said. “You’ll be happier for it.”Deborah Lee James 



Senior Leaders 



women's history month 



SecAF Related Links
        DEBORAH LEE JAMES
                                June 18, 2015
                                23rd Secretary of the Air Force
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23543]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the 
President's Cancer Panel.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: President's Cancer Panel.
    Date: October 26, 2010.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: The Future of Cancer Research: Accelerating Scientific 
Innovation.
    Place: Chemical Heritage Foundation, 315 Chestnut Street, 
Philadelphia, PA 19106.
    Contact Person: Abby B. Sandler, PhD, Executive Secretary, 
Chief, Institute Review Office, Office of the Director, 6116 
Executive Blvd., Suite 220, MSC 8349, National Cancer Institute, 
NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892-8349, (301) 451-9399, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cebdafa0aaa2abbcaf8ea3afa7a2e0a0a7a6e0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d2e3c333931382f3c1d303c343173333435733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp.htm, where an agenda and 
any additional information for the meeting will be posted when 
available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 15, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-23543 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CHRISTOPHER C. PRESTON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-30295

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-05537-BHS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

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

Christopher C. Preston appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction for failure to register and update his sex

offender registration under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

(“SORNA” or “the Act”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have

FILED

NOV 24 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review Preston’s challenge to the district

court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment de novo, see United States v.

Cabrera-Gutierrez, 756 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.

124 (2014), and we affirm.

Preston first contends that Congress violated the non-delegation doctrine

because it allows the Attorney General to legislate SORNA’s retroactive

application. This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Richardson, 754

F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (“SORNA’s delegation of authority

to the Attorney General to determine the applicability of SORNA’s registration

requirements to pre-SORNA sex offenders is consistent with the requirements of

the non-delegation doctrine.”).

Preston next contends that Congress lacked the authority under the

Commerce Clause to enact SORNA and to compel his registration under the Act. 

This contention is also foreclosed. See Cabrera-Gutierrez, 756 F.3d at 1129-32

(Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to enact SORNA and its

registration requirements).

Lastly, as Preston concedes, the application of SORNA’s registration

requirements to pre-Act offenders does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See

United States v. Elkins, 683 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED.

2 12-30295
#### Sun Mutual Ins. Co. v. M. Levy

(No. 2953.)

Appeal from Bowie County.

Estes & Henry and Henry & Henry, counsel for appellants.

Todd & Hudgins, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 128. *Limitation not interrupted by suit, ivhen; case stated.*Appellee sued appellant upon a policy of insurance and recovered judgment. The policy of insurance contained a stipulation that suit should not be brought thereon after the lapse of twelve months from the proof of loss. The original petition was filed within twelve months after the proof of loss, but said original petition misdescribed the premises insured, and because of this defect appellee, on the trial, not being able to introduce his evidence, took a nonsuit. He moved to set aside the nonsuit, which motion was granted, and he then filed an amended petition, correcting the mistake in his original petition. Appellant interposed the plea that the cause of action as set up in said amended petition was barred by said limitation stipulation in the policy, which plea was overruled. *Held,*that the cause of action was barred, more than twelve months having elapsed from the proof of loss to the time of the reinstatement of said cause and the filing of said amendment, although said nonsuit was set aside at the same term at which it was entered, and although said amendment was filed at the time said nonsuit was set aside. It is well settled that the institution and pendency of a suit, the prosecution of which is abandoned by the plaintiff, or in which he takes a nonsuit, does not, as a genei-al rule, interrupt the running of limitation. [1 App. C. C. § 806; Shields v. Boone, 22 Tex. 193; Hughes v. Lane, 25 Tex. 356; Angell on Lim. § 328; Wood on Lim. § 296.] It is well settled that the stipulation as to limitation in the policy is a valid *508one. [Ins. Co. v. Lacroix, 45 Tex. 159; Wood on Lim. pp. 80, 81, sec. 42.]

October 27, 1888.

Reversed and remanded.

Note.— Our supreme court lias recently held contrary to the above doctrine. Childs v. Shields, Sup. Ct., Galveston. Term, 1889.