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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERALD CARLIN; et al.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v.

JOHN SPOONER; et al.,

Objectors

- Appellants,

v.

DAIRYAMERICA, INC.; CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 16166

D.C. Nos.

1:09

- cv

- 00430

- AWI

- EPG

1:09

- cv

- 00556

- AWI

- DLB

1:09

- cv

- 00558

- AWI

- DLB

1:09

- cv

- 00607

- AWI

- DLB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 1, 2020 * * Seattle, Washington

Before: GOULD, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

* 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

JUN 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Objectors appeal the district court’s order approving a $40

- million class

action settlement between Plaintiffs

- Appellees ( a class of almost 26,0 0 0 dairy

farmers ) and Defendants

- Appellees DairyAmerica, Inc. and California Dairies, Inc

.

(collectively, “Appellees”). 1 We dismiss th e appea l for lack of appellate

jurisdiction.

A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in civil cases ; we

“must dismiss civil appeals that are untimely for lack of jurisdiction, whether or

not the parties raise the issue.” United States v. Sadle r , 480 F.3d 932, 93 7 (9th Cir.

2007). 2

There is no valid notice of appeal in this case. The district court struck the

objectors’ notice of appeal for failure to comply with local and federal rules

because it was signed only by the objectors’ attorney, who was neither admitted to

the Bar of the Eastern District of California nor permitted to appear in the case pro

hac vice

. The objectors did not appeal the district court’s order striking the notice

of appeal or seek to cure the notice’s defici encies.

A valid notice of appeal is the mechanism that transfers jurisdiction from the

1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, we recite only those facts necessary to decide this appeal.

2 Appellees raised the jurisdictional issue in a prior motion for summary disposition, which was denied by a Ninth Circuit motions panel without prejudice. Because the motion was denied without prejudice, we may still consider the issue of appellate jurisdi ction. See Nat’l Indus., Inc. v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co. , 677 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1982).3

district court to the court of appeals

. See Ruby v. Sec’y of the Navy , 365 F.2d 385,

388 (9th Cir. 1966) (en banc) (“If, by reason of defects in form or execution, a

notice of appeal does not transfer jurisdiction to the court of appeals, then such

jurisdiction must remain in the district court; it cannot float in the air.”); see also

Nascimento v. Dummer , 508 F .3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2007) . Because there is no

valid notice of appeal, w e dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #14165 and #14166]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Hawaii dated 10/22/2014. *Incident:*
                         Tropical Storm Iselle. *Incident Period:*
                         08/07/2014 through 08/09/2014. *Effective Date:*
                         10/22/2014. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/22/2014. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         07/22/2015.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Hawaii. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Credit Available Elsewhere
4.125Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.063Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
6.000Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 141658 and for economic injury is 141660. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Hawaii. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: October 22, 2014._ Maria Contreras-Sweet, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2014-25826 Filed 10-29-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,284,444  
<SECURITIES>                                             0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,138,619  
<ALLOWANCES>                                       233,746  
<INVENTORY>                                              0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,750,339  
<PP&E>                                           5,102,519  
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,773,142  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,909,730  
<BONDS>                                                  0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,559,443  
<PREFERRED>                                              0  
<COMMON>                                            89,723  
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,435,954  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,773,142  
<SALES>                                         15,691,210  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,691,210  
<CGS>                                            9,109,758  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,109,758  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,204,553  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (20,665)  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    910,944  
<INCOME-TAX>                                       397,909  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                513,035  
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0  
<CHANGES>                                                0  
<NET-INCOME>                                       513,035  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .07  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .07  
                                               


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1035

JOSEPH COVELL BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARCUS PORTER, in his individual capacity; NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY; 

BOARD OF VISITORS OF NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY; 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; TRACCI K. JOHNSON, in her individual 

capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cv-00376-RBS-RJK)

Submitted: December 29, 2021 Decided: February 4, 2022

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Alastair C. Deans, Chesapeake, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark R. Herring, 

Attorney General, Samuel T. Towell, Deputy Attorney General, Sandra S. Gregor, 

Assistant Attorney General, Toby J. Heytens, Solicitor General, Michelle S. Kallen, 

Deputy Solicitor General, Jessica Merry Samuels, Deputy Solicitor General, Kendall T. 

Burchard, John Marshall Fellow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 
2

VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Following his expulsion from Norfolk State University, Joseph Covell Brown sued

the university and two of its officials, among others, alleging violations of his Fourteenth 

Amendment right to procedural due process, gender discrimination in violation of Title IX 

of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 to 1688, and breach of contract 

under Virginia law. On appeal, Brown challenges the district court’s dismissal of his due 

process claim against the university officials and its dismissal of his gender discrimination 

and breach of contract claims. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district 

court correctly determined that the university officials were entitled to qualified immunity 

on Brown’s due process claim and that Brown failed to plausibly allege gender 

discrimination or breach of contract. Moreover, Brown’s gender discrimination claim was 

too speculative to warrant discovery. Accordingly, we affirm. 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. 

AFFIRMED
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION

STEWART DAVIES,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LOANCARE, LLC,

 Defendant.

 Case No. 3:20-cv-50208

 Honorable Iain D. Johnston

 

ORDER

On December 01, 2022, Magistrate Judge Schneider entered a Report and 

Recommendation that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed under Rule 37(b)(2) for repeated 

failures to comply with discovery obligations and failure to obey court orders. Dkt. 

147, at 7. Before the court is Plaintiff’s objection to the December 01, 2022, Report 

and Recommendation. Dkt. 153.

The Report and Recommendation addresses a dispositive matter, so the 

Court applies the de novo standard of review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), 23 U.S.C §636 

(b). From conducting its own independent analysis, the Court is firmly convinced 

that the Judge Schneider’s Report and Recommendation is legally sound.

Throughout the two years this case has dragged on with little progress, in large 

part due to Plaintiff’s 24 motions to extend deadlines and discovery motions, and 

despite Plaintiff’s blatant disregard for this Court’s authority by ignoring Court 

Case: 3:20-cv-50208 Document #: 156 Filed: 03/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:498
2

orders to respond to discovery request and pay Defendant $10,697.50 in attorneys’ 

fees, Judge Schneider has remained generous with Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff’s objections are not grounded in law, nor do they cite to any legal 

authority. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. The Court adopts 

Magistrate Judge Schneider’s December 01, 2022, Report and Recommendation in 

its entirety. This case is dismissed with prejudice. 

Date: March 1, 2023

___________________________

Honorable Iain D. Johnston

United States District Judge

Case: 3:20-cv-50208 Document #: 156 Filed: 03/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:499
     

       

   

    

       







     

 

   

   

   

     

     

       

 



  

        

       

           

                 

             

            

      

              

              

 Case: 1:20-cv-02523 Document #: 26-1 Filed: 05/18/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:108


     

             

            

          



            

             

 

          

        

              

             

        

               

            

 

             

           

              

        

           

 Case: 1:20-cv-02523 Document #: 26-1 Filed: 05/18/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:109
Case: 1:20-cv-02523 Document #: 26-1 Filed: 05/18/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:110
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                        0
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                           840,056
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                             211,371
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      1,061,427
<PP&E>                                  247,166
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,522,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 1,937,065
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  2,344
<OTHER-SE>                             (514,879)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,522,186
<SALES>                               1,914,924
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      1,914,924
<CGS>                                   648,375
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         1,240,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       (258,018)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     (258,018)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (232,066)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                           (232,066)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (0.10)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Jay M. Short, Ph.D., the Chief Executive Officer of Diversa
Corporation (the Company), and Edward Shonsey, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:



1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as
Exhibit 32 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company
at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.



Dated: August 6, 2004



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ JAY M. SHORT        |  | /s/ EDWARD SHONSEY     
|Jay M. Short, Ph.D.     |  | Edward Shonsey         
|Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided by Diversa Corporation and will be retained by Diversa Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### WINN v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 149P97

Case below: 124 N.C.App. 788

Petition by plaintiff for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 June 1997.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________

No. 96-50947

Summary Calendar

_______________________________

JAIME ROSADO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATE AIR FORCE, 

KELLY AIR FORCE BASE,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA 96-CV-1020)

_________________________________________________________________

June 12, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM*:

Jaime Rosado, pro se, appeals the dismissal for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction of his complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the parties’ briefs, and note that appellant wholly

fails to brief any issue on appeal, contrary to the Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure. In any event, we affirm the dismissal of
Rosado’s complaint for essentially the reasons stated by the

district court. 

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.41

 

 

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 on Form 10-Q of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary L. Paxton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

 

 

/s/ Gary L. Paxton

Gary L. Paxton

Chief Executive Officer

May 7, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and will be retained by Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.