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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RALPH NADER; DONALD N. DAIEN, Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. KENNETH BENNETT, in his official capacity as Arizona Secretary of State, Defendant - Appellee. No. 11-15548 D.C. No. 2:04-cv-01699-FJM
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 11, 2012 ** San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Plaintiffs-appellants Ralph Nader and D onald Daien appeal from the district court’s order denying attorney’s fees for hours spent seeking a preliminary 

# FILED
APR 02 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 injunction. This is the fourth time thatthe case has been before this court. See Nader v. Brewer , 386 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2004); Nader v. Brewer , 531 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008); Nader v. Bennett , 407 Fed. App’x 190 (9th Cir. 2010). Our most recent decision affirmed the district court’ s order in part, and remanded in part for the district court to determine whether “hours spent in the unsuccessful effort to obtain a preliminary injunction” counted toward “all of the hours that contributed to the eventual victory,” and therefore qua lified for the fee award. 407 Fed. App’x at 191. Upon remand, appellants had the burden to produce records to establish the number of hours that contributed to the ultimate victory on the merits. See Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles , 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986). Appellants did not produce such records. The district court relied on its earlier conclusion that the preliminary injunction effort was a d ilatory strategy meant to force a hasty decision, and that it did not contribute to the ultimate victory on the merits. The court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the hours spent litigating the motion for preliminary injunction and the appeal of the order denying the preliminary injunction “did not contribute to the ultimate victory in the lawsuit.” AFFIRMED
.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4064 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4064

  To require certain Federal service contractors to participate in a 
         pilot program for employment eligibility confirmation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 2004

   Mrs. Blackburn (for herself, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. 
Souder, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Issa, Mr. Goode, Mr. Royce, Mr. King of Iowa, 
     Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, and Mr. Gallegly) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
 the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the 
 Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require certain Federal service contractors to participate in a 
         pilot program for employment eligibility confirmation.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Contractor Security Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRING CERTAIN FEDERAL SERVICE CONTRACTORS TO PARTICIPATE IN 
              PILOT PROGRAM.

    Section 402(e)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
                    ``(C) Certain federal service contractors.--The 
                following entities shall elect to participate in a 
                pilot program and shall comply with the terms and 
                conditions of such an election:
                            ``(i) A contractor who has entered into a 
                        contract with the Federal Government to which 
                        section 2(b)(1) of the Service Contract Act of 
                        1965 (41 U.S.C. 351(b)(1)) applies, and any 
                        subcontractor under such contract.
                            ``(ii) A contractor who has entered into a 
                        contract exempted from the application of such 
                        Act by section 6 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 356), 
                        and any subcontractor under such contract.''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2014-26267) published on page 65659 of the issue for Wednesday, November 5, 2014.

Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago heading, the entry for First Busey Corporation, Illinois, is revised to read as follows:

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

                    1.                     *First Busey Corporation,*                     Champaign, Illinois; to merge with Herget Financial Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire Herget Bank, National Association, both in Pekin, Illinois.                

Comments on this application must be received by December 1, 2014.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 6, 2014.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2014-26721 Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### John S. Brook, etc., *v.*S. S. Nix.

Replevin — Pleading—Allegation of Conversion.

An allegation in a petition that defendant took the property of plaintiff and carried it off and never returned it, is in effect an allegation of conversion.

Trial — Replevin—Assessment of Damages.

The court in an action, of replevin may assess damages or adjudge the value of the property taken, where a jury has been waived.

APPEAL FROM CALLOWAY CIRCUIT COURT.

December 28, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

Appellant’s first objection to the judgment is that the court below allowed appellee to recover the value of the property, when he only *166sought damages for the taking, without an allegation of a conversion. This position, we apprehend, can not be maintained, for the allegation in the original petition is that he took the property of appellee, carried it off, and never returned it, which is in effect an allegation of conversion, and that .is the construction of the language of the petition put on it by appellant Brooks himself in his answer to the second petition of appellee.

*J.ames, for appellants.*

*W. J. Stiíbbleñeld, for appellee.*

The second objection is that as appellee sought the value of the property taken from him there should have been a jury to- assess the value; thg law does not require that to be done in an action' ordinarily; even the 153d section of the Civil Code provides the allegations of value, or amount of damages can not be taken as true without evidence, although the defendant may fail to answer thereto, or to controvert the same; but there must be evidence introduced on the trial, of value or amount of damages sustained.

The court, however, in an action ordinarily may assess the damages or adjudge the value where a jury is waived, proof having been introduced conducing to show value, or the amount of damages sustained, as was done here. These actions were transferred to equity and consolidated on motion of appellant, and it was the province of the chancellor to determine the value of the property from the evidence which appellee sought to- recover.

It would have been more regular for the court to have ordered a sale of the horse left by P'urdon with appellant if he had shown he still had the horse; but he in his answer admitted the'horse to be worth $125, the price with which he was charged in the judgment, and it is not alleged nor proved that Brooks had the horse when the judgment was rendered, and it is not for him to complain that he was charged with the value which he himself fixed, and admitted was a just valuation.

The evidence does not satisfy us that the demands claimed by appellant against Purdon- and disallowed were just and that the court below erred in rejecting them; there is no personal judgment against Purdon.

Perceiving no error in the judgment prejudicial to appellants, the same is *affirmed.*
Exhibit 32.2

Polypore International, Inc.    Chief Financial Officer Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Polypore International, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended
December 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Lynn Amos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | By: |  | /s/LYNN AMOSLynn Amos
Chief Financial Officer
| |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------

Date: March 14, 2007

---



QuickLinks
#### SOUTHERN FURNITURE COMPANY OF CONOVER, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

No. 175PA96

(Filed 9 May 1997)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 122 N.C. App. 113, 468 S.E.2d 523 (1996), affirming an order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), (2), and (6) entered by Wood, J., on 2 March 1995 in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 April 1997.

*Keziah, Gates & Samet, L.L.P., by Andrew S. Lasine, for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Eugene A. Smith, Senior Deputy Attorney General, and David R. Minges, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 29, 2010

y0322 

# Order

March 29, 2010

139797

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139797 COA: 293449 Wayne CC: 00-002628 MARCUS STAPLE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 28, 2009 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**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 Annual Report of Cogent, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ming Hsieh, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

2. That the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company. 

 

This certification has not been,and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

Date: March 22, 2005
Join the NIST EUV Scatterometry Team!

A multi-laboratory, multi-disciplinary team of experimentalists and theorists has recently received funding 

to develop a revolutionary tool that will use extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) radiation to inspect integrated 

circuits (ICs) on the nanometer scale. The tool will be built and evaluated at the National Institute for 

Standards and Technology (NIST) on the Synchrotron Ultraviolet Radiation (SURF III) light source. It will 

be further developed and refined to use a high-harmonic-generation (HHG) source, making it suitable for 

use in an IC fabrication facility. This new technique will fill a critical gap in existing measurement solutions 

by characterizing next generation structures with both chemical sensitivity and sub-nm precision. This will 

extend light-based chip inspection for several years beyond its current viability.

We are seeking 5-6 new team members with expertise in one or more of the following areas: simulation

and analysis of light interactions with patterned materials; design, construction, automation, and 

operation of complex optical and mechanical equipment; commissioning and operation of ultrafast laser 

systems; ultrahigh vacuum systems; optical properties of materials and interaction of light with 

matter. Potential roles include:

1. Electromagnetic simulations to understand interactions of EUV radiation with materials.

2. Experiments at SURF-III where the novel scatterometer will be designed and constructed for 

spectroscopic ellipsometry. 

3. Experiments in a new NIST laboratory-based VUV+EUV high harmonic generation (HHG source) 

where techniques from SURF-III will be expanded upon to make measurements of patterned 

nanoscale semiconductors.

4. Computations of electromagnetic scattering from patterned semiconductors to determine the 

dimensional and materials properties from the measured data (an inverse problem). 

5. Investigations into the role that transition edges at sub-50 nm wavelengths can play in 

decoupling parametric correlations among materials, to better solve for these nanoscale 

dimensions quantitatively.

The Department of Commerce is an equal opportunity employer. This research will be performed at the 

NIST campus in Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

If you or someone you know is interested in joining our multidisciplinary team, or if you would like further 

information, please contact Dr. Bryan Barnes (bmbarnes@nist.gov, 301-975-3947).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7130 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALLORIC TEWAN LANE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District

Judge. (CR-97-147)

Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alloric Tewan Lane, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alloric Tewan Lane appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion to compel the government to file a Fed. R. Crim.

P. 35(b) motion on his behalf. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See United States v. Lane, No. CR97-147 (D.S.C. June 22, 2004). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.2NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.CERTIFICATIONIn connection with the periodic report of Novellus Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), I, William H. Kurtz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of 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, and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for theperiods indicated.This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.       Dated: May 9, 2007 By: /s/ William H. Kurtz William H. Kurtz      Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer      (Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AVIALL,
INC.'S ANNUAL 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL 1997 FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,556
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,356
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,237
<INVENTORY>                                     73,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               153,511
<PP&E>                                          36,876
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,118
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 259,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,630
<BONDS>                                         28,004
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           199
<OTHER-SE>                                     127,162
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   259,392
<SALES>                                        386,060
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               386,060
<CGS>                                          288,863
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  288,863
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,520
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,096
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,424
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,673
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,097
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.45
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-10-090-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.M.A.

AND C.J.A., CHILDREN

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

FROM THE 325TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1

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

Appellant Wendy Archer attempts to appeal from a letter ruling signed March

16, 2010. We notified Appellant on April 13, 2009 of our concern that we lack

jurisdiction over this appeal because it appears that there is no final judgment or

appealable order in this case, and we also informed her that her notice of appeal

was filed prematurely.

2

 We indicated that this case would be dismissed for want of

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 27.1(a).
jurisdiction if the defect was not corrected.

3 Appellant responded that the letter ruling

is equivalent to a signed order or judgment.

The letter ruling contemplates future action in the matter below by the parties,

the attorneys, and the trial court. The letter ruling indicates that final trial is set for

December 13, 2010, and a scheduling order is attached. Consequently, even if the

letter ruling could be construed as an order, which we do not hold, it could be

construed at most as a temporary order, which is not appealable.

4

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

5

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: May 6, 2010

3 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

4 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 105.001(e) (Vernon Supp. 2009); see also

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(7) (Vernon 2008) (listing types of

appealable interlocutory orders); In re J.W.L., 291 S.W.3d 79, 83 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth 2009, orig. proceeding) (noting that temporary order is not appealable). We

note that Appellant’s mandamus in this court remains pending. See In re Archer,

No. 2-10-104-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth filed April 6, 2010).

5 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

2
#### NADEAU v. WILKES SENIOR VILLAGE

No. 222P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 747

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 July 1997.
#### Jno. F. Berry *v.*Jno. Martin.

Dower — Answer, Sufficiency.

rW-bere an answer alleges the facts sufficient, if true, to -constitute a potential right of dower in the land, which defendant had a right to have protected by the court, it is good as against a demurrer.

APPEAL PROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

December 7, 1872.

*W. H. Holt, for appellant.*

*Turner, French, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

The reply to the answer being withdrawn and the judgment rendered over.the answer, which was adjudged insufficient on demurrer, the only question for the decision of this court is, whether any valid defense is presented by it.

So far as it questions the validity of the assignment from' Yonts to the appellee, we concur in the conclusion that the answer is evasive and insufficient as a denial of the assignment, as the act and deed of Yonts. But, in another respect, the answer seems to1 present an equitable defense to the action. It sufficiently sets forth facts, which if true, constitute a potential right of dower in the land, in Mr. Yonts, against which the appellant had a right, by his answer and cross petition, to seek the protection of the court. The amendment of the answer being taken as confessed by the demurrer, the judgment can not be sustained. It is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings hot inconsistent with this affirmance.