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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: IN THE DISCIPLINARY MATTER 

OF NINA RAE RINGGOLD, California 

State Bar No. 133735, 

______________________________ 

NINA RINGGOLD, California State Bar 

No. 133735, 

Petitioner-Appellant.

No. 20-55199 

D.C. No. 2:19-ad-00196-VAP 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. 

Nina Ringgold appeals pro se from the district court’s orders in her 

disciplinary action. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of 

San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm in part and dismiss 

* 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

APR 29 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-55199 

in part.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ringgold’s request 

to file a motion in her separate civil action. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 

1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Broad deference is given to a district court’s interpretation 

of its local rules.”); C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-3.3 (“Any attorney previously admitted to 

the Bar of this Court who no longer is enrolled as an active member of the Bar, 

Supreme Court, or other governing authority of any State . . . shall not practice 

before this Court.”); see also Jackson, 746 F.3d at 958 (setting forth requirements 

for a preliminary injunction).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s orders entered on 

October 29, 2019 and December 11, 2019 because they are not final appealable 

orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (jurisdiction of appeals from “final decisions”); 

Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989) (“For purposes 

of [28 U.S.C. § 1291], a final judgment is normally deemed not to have occurred 

until there has been a decision by the District Court that ends the litigation on the 

merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, Ringgold did not file a notice 

of appeal within 30 days after entry of these orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) 

(notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order appealed 

from).
3 20-55199 

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

in the opening brief, including Ringgold’s request for relief under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1651. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); AcostaHuerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by 

argument in appellant’s opening brief are waived).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part.
COMMUNITY WEST BANCSHARES
                                  AMENDMENT TO
                             1997 STOCK OPTION PLAN


     This Amendment to the Community West Bancshares 1997 Stock Option Plan,
adopted by the Board of Directors of Community West Bancshares (the "Company")
on January 23, 1997, and approved by the shareholders of the Company on December
31, 1997, is made this 22nd day of May 2003, in consideration of the following:

                                    RECITALS
                                    --------

     WHEREAS, the first sentence of Section 4 of the Community West Bancshares
1997 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan"), provides that the maximum number of option
shares which may be granted to participants is 842,014 [as adjusted to reflect
certain changes in capitalization pursuant to Section 15 of the Plan]; and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company voted to amend the first
sentence of Section 4 of the Plan to increase the maximum number of option
shares which may be granted to eligible participants under the Plan by 450,000
to 1,292,014;

     NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed, as follows:

                                    AMENDMENT
                                    ---------

     1.     The first sentence of Section 4 of the Plan is hereby amended to
            read as follows:

          "Subject to adjustments as provided in Section 15 hereof, the maximum
     number of shares of Common Stock which may be issued upon exercise of all
     Stock Options granted under this Plan is limited to One Million Two Hundred
     Ninety-Two Thousand and Fourteen (1,292,014), in the aggregate."

     2.     Except as specifically set forth herein, the Plan shall remain in
            full force and effect.


                                        COMMUNITY WEST BANCSHARES



                                        By:___________________________

                                        Its:__________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

John Galvan, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04511

Honorable Joan B. Gottschall

Steven T. Mnuchin, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, August 3, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Attorney Patrick W.

Thomas's motion to appear pro hac vice [2] on behalf of the plaintiffs is granted. Mailed

notice(mjc, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04511 Document #: 5 Filed: 08/03/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:46
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-83,015]

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on November 5, 2013, applicable to workers of Fenner Precision, Inc., Buffalo, New York. The Department's notice of determination was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 26, 2013 (78 FR 70581-70583).                

At the request of state workforce office, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in activities related to the production of polyurethane CAST products.

The company reports that workers leased from Aerotek were employed on-site at the Buffalo, New York location of Fenner Precision, Inc. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.

Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Aerotek working on-site at the Buffalo, New York location of Fenner Precision, Inc.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-83,015 is hereby issued as follows:

                        All workers of Fenner Precision, Inc, including on-site leased workers from Aerotek, Buffalo, New York, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 21, 2012 through November 5, 2015, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for                               ( print page 69533)                            adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.                    

Michael W. Jaffe,

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2014-27617 Filed 11-20-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ SHERYL TAYLOR , Petitioner

,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD , Respondent.

__________________________
201 3- 303 7

__________________________
Pe tition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. AT1221120255 -W-1.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________
P ER C URIAM

.

O R D E R

Sheryl Taylor moves for leave to supplement her i nformal brief. She further moves for this court to order the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the United States Department of the Treasury /IRS to appoint or assign counsel to her, as well as to sanction the same for wit h holding federal funds and denying counsel to her Case: 13-3037 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2013SHERYL TAYLOR V

. M SPB 2 during her petition before the MSPB. Finally, Taylor moves to strike the respondent’s pleadings in this appeal.

Ms. Taylor had previously moved for this court to o rder the MSPB and the Department of the Treasury/IRS to appoint or assign counsel. Th at request was denied because this court has no procedure to appoint counsel for a pro se litigant. We treat her subsequent motion s for the same relief as a motion for reconsideration. Because this court does not have a procedure for appointing or assig ning counsel to pro se litigants, we deny the motion for reconsideration.

Ms. Taylor’s informal brief addresses her argument regarding the appointment of counsel by the MSPB

. Because it appears that Ms. Taylor’s request for sanctions relating to appointm ent of counsel is intertwined with the merits of her case, we deem it the better course to defer the motion for sanctions to the merits panel.

Ms. Taylor also asks the court to strike the respon dent’s brief because of their failure to appoint her couns el. We find that to be an insufficient basis to strike the briefs. The respondent’s brief addresses the issue of appointment of counsel by the MSPB. The merits panel has discretion to determine the relevance of the arg uments presented in the parties’ br iefs.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT :
(1) The motions for reconsideration of appointment or assignment of counsel are denied.

(2) The motion for sanctions is deferred for consider ation by the merits panel. Copies of that motion shall be transmitted to the me rits panel

. Case: 13-3037 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 04/18/2013SHERYL TAYLOR V

. M SPB 3 (3) The motion to strike the respondent’s brief is d enied.

(4) The motion to supplement petitioner’s brief is granted. Copies of the supplemental brief will be tran smitted to the merits panel.

F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

s2 4 Case: 13-3037 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 04/18/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

XYZ CORPORATION, 

 PLAINTIFF, 

V. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A” 

 DEFENDANTS. 

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:20-CV-05058 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

Plaintiff, XYZ Corporation (“Plaintiff”), by its undersigned counsel, hereby files this 

Motion requesting leave to file the following documents under seal: (1) Exhibit 1 to the Complaint; 

(2) Exhibit 2 to the Complaint; (3) the Amended Complaint which will identify and include 

additional allegations regarding Plaintiff and list the fully interactive, e-commerce stores operating 

under the seller aliases identified in Schedule “A” (collectively, the “Seller Aliases”) and 

accompanying exhibits; (4) Schedule “A” attached to the Complaint and Amended Complaint, 

which includes a list of the Seller Aliases and the e-commerce store URLs under the Online 

Marketplaces and Domain Names; (5) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining 

Order, including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery, 

and accompanying supporting memorandum, declarations, and exhibits, including screenshot 

printouts showing the e-commerce stores operating under the Seller Aliases; and, (6) Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Electronic Service of Process, and accompanying supporting memorandum, 

declaration, and exhibits. 
In this action, Plaintiff is requesting temporary ex parte relief based on an action for: 

trademark infringement and counterfeiting; false designation of origin, passing off and unfair 

competition; violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and, copyright 

infringement. Sealing this portion of the file is necessary to prevent the Defendants from learning 

of these proceedings prior to the execution of the temporary restraining order. If Defendants were 

to learn of these proceedings prematurely, the likely result would be the destruction of relevant 

documentary evidence as well as the hiding and/or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions, 

which would frustrate the purpose of the underlying law and would interfere with this Court’s 

power to grant relief. Once the temporary restraining order has been served on the relevant parties 

and the requested actions are taken, Plaintiff will move to unseal these documents. 

Dated: August 27, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Ann Marie Sullivan 

Ann Marie Sullivan 

Alison Carter 

AM Sullivan Law, LLC 

1440 W. Taylor St., Suite 515 

Chicago, Illinois 60607 

Telephone: 224-258-9378 

E-mail: ams@amsullivanlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas October 12, 2022 No. 04-22-00424-CV UNITED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ,

Appellant
v. Patricia Y. MAYERS , Appellee From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-CVH001030-D1 Honorable Joe Lopez, Judge Presiding 

### O R D E R Appellee’s brief was originally due on September 26, 2022 and was not filed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.6(b) (in an accelerated appeal, appellee’s brief is due twenty days after filing of appellant’s brief). This court notified appellee of the deficiency on September 28, 2022. On October 10, 2022, appellee filed an unopposed motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief until November 9, 2022. After consideration, we GRANT the motion and ORDER appellee to file her brief by November 9, 2022
.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 12th day of October, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Katie MacFarland

Re: RFI concerning “Developing a Privacy Framework”

January 10, 2019

Karen Greenhalgh, HCISPP

Managing Principal

Cyber Tygr

Healthcare and Public Health, designated as a national critical infrastructure sector1, has embraced 

the voluntary NIST Cybersecurity Framework to augment HIPAA compliance. Cyber Tygr, dedicated 

to helping healthcare providers create a culture of security and improve HIPAA compliance for 

privacy and security, anticipates this Privacy Framework will have an equally significant impact.

The recent revision of NIST SP 800-37, Risk Management Framework for Information Systems and 

Organizations - A System Life Cycle Approach for Security and Privacy 2(NIST-RMF) addresses the 

need to coordinate information security and privacy. Also, NIST-RMF states “...the NIST 

Cybersecurity Framework (NIST-CSF) can be aligned with the NIST-RMF and implemented using NIST 

risk management processes.” Therefore, I offer two suggestions concerning the Structuring of the 

Privacy Framework:

• Just as the NIST-CSF and NIST-RMF can be aligned, so should the NIST Privacy 

Framework. Ideally, the Privacy Framework development will parallel the Cybersecurity 

Framework structure of functions, categories, and subcategories, allowing detail with 

clarity. Following the familiar format of the Cybersecurity Framework will leverage an 

organization’s existing investment in the Cybersecurity Framework, particularly those in 

the healthcare industry.

• To assist the coordination of the Cybersecurity Framework with HIPAA, HHS worked 

with NIST to create the HIPAA Security Rule Crosswalk to the NIST-CSF3.The

Cybersecurity Framework is in accord with the HIPAA Security Rule; the Privacy 

Framework should be in accord with HIPAA’s Privacy Rule. Developing a HIPAA Privacy 

Rule Crosswalk to NIST Privacy Framework along with, or soon after, publication of the 

Privacy Framework will assist incorporation of the Privacy Framework into existing 

cybersecurity programs.

 

1

Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21): Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience

2 https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-37/rev-2/final

3

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/nist-csf-to-hipaa-security-rule-crosswalk-02-22-2016-final.pdf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1

Eastern Division

Christine Crawford, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−05132

Honorable Steven C. Seeger

McDonald's USA, LLC., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, August 7, 2023:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendants' motion to

withdraw the appearance of Raymond Rushing as counsel of record (Dckt. No. [111]) is

hereby granted. Attorney Rushing is terminated as counsel of record. Mailed notice. (jjr, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-05132 Document #: 112 Filed: 08/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2494
#### John Hayley *v.*John Kiernan, Assignee.

Pleading — Evasive Answer — Work Done and Materials Furnished.

In an action for work done and material furnished', an answer admitting that work was done, hut alleging that defendant is unable to say what work or how much, is evasive, and insufficient.

Pleading — Second Amended Inconsistent Answer.

In an action for work done and material furnished, where defendant admits performance of part of the work in his original and amended answer, he will not be permitted to file a second amended! answer denying such facts.

Appeal — Reversal—Inconsistent Pleading^.

Where the right to sue as assignee is admitted in one answer and denied in an amendment, without assigning some reason for making the admission in the first place, the Court of Appeals will not reverse for this alone where there is no valid defense relied on or pleaded.

*194APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 6, 1872.

*Craddock, Ford, for appellant.*

*Rodntcm, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor: .

The appellant must know the character -and kind and quantity of labor and material done and performed and furnished by Buckly for him. Each item in the appellee’s account is specifically set forth, the work alleged to have been done for the appellant, as well as the articles furnished him. ' He is not allowed bo say that he has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether the work was done or the material furnished. There must be a specific denial. He admits that some work was done but is unable to say-what work or how much. This is evasive and bad pleading; and if the allegations of the petition, such as is made in this case, is not specifically denied the plaintiff is entitled to’ his judgment. He admits the right of the party to sue in the original answer and denies it in the amended answer. He admits the performance of a part of the work in the original answer and amendment, and denies it all, in the last amendment offered; and for this reason the court properly refuses the filing of this amendment.

Paragraphs in an answer may, it is true, be inconsistent, and this is no cause of demurrer, but where the right to sue as assignee is admitted in the one answer and' denied in an amendment, without assigning some reason for making the admission in the first place, this court ought and will not reverse for this alone when there is no valid defense relied on or pleaded.

Judgment *affirmed.*
#### Nickerson, Appellee, *v.*Nickerson, Appellant.

(No. 2027

Decided November 29, 1948.)

*100
      *Mr. Irvin Carl Delscamp,*for the motion.

*Mr. Gus W. Byttner,*contra.

Bn the Court.

This cause is submitted on motion of plaintiff, appellee herein, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the defendant, appellant herein, failed to file an appeal bond as required by law. This is an appeal on questions of law and fact. The failure to file an appeal bond as required by Section 12223-6, General Code, does not require the dismissal of the appeal. Under Section 12223-22, General Code, when an appeal on questions of law and fact is dismissed, the appeal shall stand for hearing on questions of law. However, the appeal on questions of law and fact will be dismissed.

Under the provisions of Section 11564,’ General Code, this court is now required to make an order relative to the time within which the bill of exceptions shall be filed. Accordingly, this court allows the defendant 30 days from the date of the entry journalizing this decision within which to prepare and settle in the trial court a bill of exceptions. The court further orders that the defendant shall be required to file such bill of exceptions in this court within ten days after it is settled in the trial court. The defendant is allowed 50 days from the date of the entry journalizing this decision within which to file his assignments of error and brief in this court. The plaintiff will be allowed 15 days after the filing of defendant’s brief within which to file an answer brief, and the defendant will be allowed ten days thereafter within which to file a reply brief, if he desires to do so.

*Motion sustained.*

Wiseman, P. J., Miller and Hornbeck, JJ., concur.