alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 11/30/97
AGRIBRANDS INTERNATIONAL INC. BALANCE SHEEET AND STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001047598
<NAME> FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                          30,200
<SECURITIES>                                     6,100
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,400
<INVENTORY>                                    110,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               269,500
<PP&E>                                         319,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 169,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 473,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          238,300
<BONDS>                                         19,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     179,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   473,300
<SALES>                                        374,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               374,800
<CGS>                                          318,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  318,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>LOSS-PROVISION INCLUDED IN OTHER-EXPENSES ABOVE
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Commercial Crew Milestones Met; Partners on Track for Missions in 2017","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"yOhsvMVOcl\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/commercial-crew-milestones-met-partners-on-track-for-missions-in-2017\/\">Commercial Crew Milestones Met; Partners on Track for Missions in 2017<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/commercial-crew-milestones-met-partners-on-track-for-missions-in-2017\/embed\/#?secret=yOhsvMVOcl\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commercial Crew Milestones Met; Partners on Track for Missions in 2017” — NASA\" data-secret=\"yOhsvMVOcl\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/15-105c.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":457}
49
{"code":"oembed_invalid_url","message":"Not Found","data":{"status":404}}
0

HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
Server: nginx
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 00:53:00 GMT
Content-Type: text/xml; charset=UTF-8
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Connection: keep-alive
X-Robots-Tag: noindex
Link: <https://www.nasa.gov/wp-json/>; rel="https://api.w.org/"
X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff
Access-Control-Expose-Headers: X-WP-Total, X-WP-TotalPages, Link
Access-Control-Allow-Headers: Authorization, X-WP-Nonce, Content-Disposition, Content-MD5, Content-Type
Allow: GET
X-rq: mdw1 96 185 443
Age: 0
X-Cache: miss
Vary: Accept-Encoding, Origin
Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000

84
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><code>oembed_invalid_url</code><message>Not Found</message><data><status>404</status></data></oembed>

0
Motion Granted , Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

December 20 , 2022.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00 719

- CV

BUG STATE PEST CONTR OL, INC. , Appellant

V.

ACCUTROL EXTERMINATI NG & MOSQU ITO SYSTEMS, LLC; ACCUTROL PEST MANAGE MENT, LLC; AND BRYAN ZENTK OVICH , Appellee s

O n Appeal from the 1 65th District Court

Harris C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015

- 51567

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a final judgment signed August 30, 2021. On

Novemb er 30

, 2022

, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1 (a)

. The motion is g ranted.2

We dismiss the appeal

.
PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Ju stices Wise, J ewell, and Poissant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6082

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERITON LAVAR CURRY, a/k/a Cheese,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cr-00074-MOC-DSC-2; 3:19-cv00292-MOC)

Submitted: June 30, 2021 Decided: July 8, 2021

Before KING, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeriton Lavar Curry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeriton Lavar Curry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Curry has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Curry’s motion to amend and supplement 

the informal brief, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Carlene M. Coe,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04409-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 1/4/2018, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail to 

do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: January 12, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9629 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9629 Filed 01/12/18 Page 2 of 2
#### John Vincent Kite *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 2-174A10.

Filed November 6, 1974.]

*Harriette Bailey Conn IMrs.],*Public Defender of Indiana, *William B. Bryan,*Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.

*Theodore L. Sendalc,*Attorney General, *Henry O. Sitter,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Lybrook, J.

Petitioner sought and was denied relief pursuant to Ind. Rules of Procedure, Post-Conviction Remedies, Rule 1, from a plea of guilty entered November 20, 1970, at his arraignment on a charge of rape. We reverse.

This court has construed *Boykin*v. *Alabama*(1969), 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, as requiring an in-court advisement and waiver of a defendant’s right to trial by jury, right to confront his accusers, and privilege against compulsory self-incrimination prior to the acceptance of a plea of guilty. The court’s duty to advise is non-delegable and is not discharged by a showing, as in the instant case, that the defendant’s constitutional rights were explained to him by court appointed counsel prior to arraignment. See, *Bonner*v. *State*(1973), 156 Ind. App. 513, 297 N.E.2d 867; *Thomas*v. *State*(1974), 159 Ind. App. 224, 306 N.E.2d 136; *125
      *Goode*v. *State*(1974), 160 Ind. App. 360, 312 N.E.2d 109; *Toon*v. *State*(1974), 162 Ind. App. 77, 317 N.E.2d 875.

The record of petitioner’s post-conviction relief hearing reveals that his plea of guilty was entered pursuant to negotiations with the prosecuting attorney, wherein it was agreed that the State would move to dismiss a charge of armed robbery and refrain from filing other charges which, if prosecuted to conviction, could have resulted in a sentence of life imprisonment. Prior to arraignment, Kite’s counsel drafted a detailed memorandum explaining the agreement which had been reached. This memorandum was submitted to Kite for his examination and bears his signature. Included therein is an explanation of the various constitutional rights which would be waived upon entry of the plea. While it does not, due to the decisions of this court, cure or render harmless the trial court’s failure to advise, we believe such practice is deserving of compliment and should be encouraged.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant petitioner relief by vacating his judgment of conviction and plea of guilty.

Robertson, P.J. and Lowdermilk, J., concur.

Note. — Reported at 318 N.E.2d 390.
EXHIBIT 32



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 filing of the quarterly report of Ambient Corporation (the Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report") the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to such officers knowledge, that:

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

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



|                    |     |                                                                                                    
|------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |     |                                                                                                    
|                    |     |                                                                                                    
|Dated: May 15, 2007 |     |                                                                                                    
|                    |     |                                                                                                    
|                    | By: | /s/ John J. Joyce                                                                                  
|                    |     | JOHN J. JOYCE                                                                                      
|                    |     | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER(PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER)
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"XVS Pallet Installed onto X-59","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"B8HbeSXj6G\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/xvs-pallet-installed-onto-x-59\/\">XVS Pallet Installed onto X-59<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/xvs-pallet-installed-onto-x-59\/embed\/#?secret=B8HbeSXj6G\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“XVS Pallet Installed onto X-59” — NASA\" data-secret=\"B8HbeSXj6G\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/p20-169-11.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Johnny David Cato, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-01804-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal and a 

Report and Recommendation (Docs. 16 and 18) recommending that the motion be 

granted. 

 It appears to the Court that, following dismissal, any re-filed federal habeas 

petition may be barred by the statute of limitations.1

 It is unclear whether Petitioner has 

 

1

 As another Court in this district noted: 

The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) provides a one-year statute of limitations for state prisoners to file petitions for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). That 

period generally commences on “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The one-year limitations period is tolled during the time that a “properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (emphasis added). An untimely application for post-conviction relief is not properly filed and does not toll the limitations period. See Pace, 544 U.S. at 414 (When a 

post-conviction petition is untimely under state law, ‘that [is] the end of the matter’ for purposes of § 2244 (d)(2).”); see also Allen v. Siebert, 552 U.S. 

3, 7 (2007) (an untimely petition for post-conviction relief was not 

“properly filed” for purposes of tolling the AEDPA limitations period). 

Case 2:15-cv-01804-JAT-ESW Document 20 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

considered this. Accordingly, the Court will give Petitioner one opportunity to withdraw 

his motion to dismiss. Further, the Court also notes that Respondents assert that 

Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted. In the event Petitioner withdraws his 

motion to dismiss, his withdrawal should be filed with a proposed reply addressing the 

procedural default and other defenses raised in the Answer. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner has 14 days from the date of this Order to 

withdraw his motion to dismiss if he so chooses. If Petitioner does not withdraw the 

motion (and file his Reply in support of his Petition), the Court will accept the Report and 

Recommendation and grant the motion to dismiss. 

 Dated this 26th day of May, 2016. 

 

CV 15-915, Doc. 21 at 7. Regarding Petitioner Cato, the Court has not determined 

whether any filing in state court at this point would be untimely. 

Case 2:15-cv-01804-JAT-ESW Document 20 Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Jacquelyn FINNEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Thomas P. NUGENT, Judge of the San Diego Superior Court; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-55769.

D.C. No. CV-04-00148-MJL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Jan. 13, 2005.

Jacquelyn Finney, Encinitas, CA, pro se.

*764Arlene Prater, Best, Best & Krieger, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before GOODWIN, ALARCÓN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Appellant Jacquelyn Finney appeals the district court’s decision dismissing her action based on the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and judicial immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Thompson v. Davis,*295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam), *cert. denied,*538 U.S. 921, 123 S.Ct. 1570, 155 L.Ed.2d 311 (2003). We affirm.

The *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine provides that a federal district court may only exercise original jurisdiction, and thus may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions. *Doe & Associates Law Offices v. Napolitano,*252 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir.2001). Ms. Finney argues that the district court did not properly apply *Rooker-Feldman*because her claim is an “arising under” federal claim under the ADA. The relief she requests, however, clearly indicates that the federal district court could not hear her claim without passing on the merits of the state court’s decision. Ms. Finney requests that the federal district court “assume jurisdiction over this action” and order Judge Nugent to rule in her favor regarding the protective order.

This case is controlled by *Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam,*334 F.3d 895 (9th Cir.2003). In *Bianchi,*we explained that

> [i]f claims raised in the federal court action are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s decision such that the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to interpret the application of state laws or procedural rules, then the federal complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

*Id.*at 898. In this case, Ms. Finney has asked the federal district court to review the state court’s denial in a judicial proceeding by asking the federal district court to assume jurisdiction of her lawsuit, reverse the state court judge’s rulings on her protective order, and afford her the same individual remedy she was denied in state court. The district court properly dismissed Ms. Finney’s claim under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine because Ms. Finney seeks to overturn the state court’s denial of her request for accommodation and imposition of mandatory sanctions.

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.