alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alvin E. BIRKHOLZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard A. SIMONTON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-35198.

D.C. No. CV-01-21-JDS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.*

Decided June 1, 2001.

*591Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alvin E. Birkholz appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing on judicial immunity grounds his action alleging a Montana state court judge violated his due process rights by holding him in contempt and dismissing his state court action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Moore v. Brewster,*96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm on the ground that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, *Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment,*523 U.S. 83, 94-95, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (noting that jurisdiction is a threshold issue that must be raised sua sponte).

Because federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review state court decisions, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Birkholz’s action. *See Worldwide Church of God v. McNair,*805 F.2d 888, 890-93 (9th Cir.1986) (citing *Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,*263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923) and *D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983)).

We reject Birkholz’s contention that the district court improperly relied on the findings of a magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4531 

To authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and 

support research using human pluripotent stem cells. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2004 

Mr. ACKERMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

to conduct and support research using human pluripotent 

stem cells. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ronald Reagan Memo5 rial Stem Cell Research Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR FEDERAL SUPPORT OF RESEARCH 

7 USING HUMAN STEM CELLS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

9 Human Services, acting through the Director of the Na10 tional Institutes of Health, shall in accordance with this 
2 

•HR 4531 IH 

1 section conduct and support research using human 

2 pluripotent stem cells. 

3 (b) CONDITIONS FOR FUNDING OF RESEARCH; COM4 PLIANCE WITH 2000 NIH FINAL GUIDELINES.—A condi5 tion for the conduct or support of research under sub6 section (a) is that the research be conducted in compliance 

7 with the final guidelines regarding such research that were 

8 issued by the National Institutes of Health and published 

9 in the Federal Register on August 25, 2000 (65 FR 

10 51976 et seq.), including provisions regarding informed 

11 consent and provisions regarding areas of research that 

12 are ineligible for funding. The preceding sentence applies 

13 without regard to any Federal administrative policies re14 garding such research established after the publication of 

15 such guidelines, including restrictions on the sources of 

16 human pluripotent stem cells. 

17 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—For the 

18 purpose of carrying out this section, there are authorized 

19 to be appropriated $87,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 

20 such sums as may be necessary for each subsequent fiscal 

21 year. 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4647 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4647

To provide for certain lands to be held in trust for the Utu Utu Gwaitu 
                             Paiute Tribe.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 2004

  Mr. McKeon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for certain lands to be held in trust for the Utu Utu Gwaitu 
                             Paiute Tribe.

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

SECTION 1. LANDS TO BE HELD IN TRUST.

    Section 902(b) of the California Indian Land Transfer Act (Public 
Law 106-568; 114 Stat. 2921) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``3,525.8'' and inserting ``3,765.8''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(9) Utu utu gwaitu paiute tribe.--Lands to be held in 
        trust for the Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe, Benton Paiute 
        Reservation are comprised of the approximately 240 acres 
        described as follows: Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, Township 
        2 South, Range 31 East Section 11: SE \1/2\ and E \1/2\ of SW 
        \1/4\.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Income  Partners  1988-A,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement  of  operations
contained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         212,202
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  56,879
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               269,081
<PP&E>                                         9,663,785
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,039,569)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 901,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,978
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     852,868
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   901,975
<SALES>                                        100,289
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,898
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  41,817<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                33,125
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            33,125
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   33,125
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>



</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4466 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to exclude the Preble’s 

Meadow Jumping Mouse from lists of endangered species and threatened 

species published under that Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2004 

Mr. TANCREDO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to exclude 

the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse from lists of endangered species and threatened species published under 

that Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF PREBLE’S MEADOW JUMPING 

4 MOUSE FROM ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST 

5 AND THREATENED SPECIES LIST. 

6 Section 4(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

7 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 

8 following: 
2 

•HR 4466 IH 

1 ‘‘(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

2 Secretary shall not include the Preble’s Meadow Jumping 

3 Mouse in any list of endangered species or threatened spe4 cies published under this subsection.’’. 

Æ
H. R. 4731

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National

Estuary Program.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

Section 320(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33

U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by striking ‘‘2005’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 19, 2018

a1016 

# Order

Clerk October 19, 2018

156161 & (58)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant/

Cross

- Appellee,

v SC: 156161

COA: 331594

Wayne CC: 12

- 007733

- FH

WILBERT JOSEPH McKEEVER,

Defendant

- Appellee/

Cross

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On October 10, 2018, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to

appeal the May 25, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave

to appeal as cross

- appellant. On order of the Court, the applications are again considered.

MCR 7.305(H)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the

Court o f Appeals and we REINSTATE the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

Assuming, without deciding, that either the trial court or trial defense counsel was

responsible for the failure of a witness to appear on the defendant’s behalf, it was still

incumbent u pon the defendant, as the appellant, to establish at the evidentiary hearing

that the witness would provide materially favorable testimony on retrial. See People v

Pickens , 446 Mich 298, 327 (1994); People v Ginther , 390 Mich 4 3 6, 442

- 443 (1973).

The def endant failed to produce the witness or otherwise establish that her anticipated

testimony would be materially favorable.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4465 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4465

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend loan forgiveness 
          for certain loans to certified or licensed teachers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2004

 Mr. Stenholm introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend loan forgiveness 
          for certain loans to certified or licensed teachers.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF NEW BORROWER ELIGIBILITY FOR STUDENT LOAN 
              FORGIVENESS FOR TEACHERS.

    (a) FFEL Loans.--Section 428J(b) of the Higher Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-10(b)) is amended by striking ``October 1, 1998,'' 
and inserting ``October 17, 1986,''.
    (b) Direct Loans.--Section 460(b)(1) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
1087j(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``October 1, 1998,'' and inserting 
``October 17, 1986,''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.42
                                                               Mel G. Todd F.S.A
                                                                 President & CEO


                         [CLARK/BARDES INC. LETTERHEAD]

  August 14, 1998


  VIA FACSIMILE

  Nationwide Life Insurance Company 
  Attention:  Mr. Mark Poeppelman 
  One Nationwide Plaza (1-32-05)
  Columbus, Ohio 43215-2220

  Ladies and Gentlemen:

  In consideration of our continued business relationship and current financing
  activities, this letter of amendment shall serve to amend Amex A
  (Consideration for Purchase of Warrants) of our letter of June 11, 1998.
  Specifically, the amount $1,600,000 contained in clause (b) of item 1) shall
  be replaced, pursuant to this letter agreement, with $1,200,000. All other
  terms and conditions of the June 11th letter, including Annex A and other
  attachments, shall remain unchanged by this letter of amendment.

  If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please sign in the space provided
  below and fax a copy to this letter of amendment to Clark/Bardes, Inc. at
  (214) 871-7690, Attention: Melvin G. Todd, whereupon this letter of amendment
  shall become a binding agreement between us.




  Nationwide Life Insurance Company

  By: /s/ MARK W. POEPPELMAN
      --------------------------------------

      Mark W. Poeppelman
      -------------------------------------
      [Printed Name]

      Investment Officer
      ---------------------------------
      [Title]




  Clark/Bardes, Inc.

  By: /s/ MEL TODD
      ----------------------------------
  
      Mel Todd
      -------------------------------
      [Printed Name]

      President & CEO
      ------------------------------
      [Title]
Exhibit
10.3


 





 


Date,  2006


 


Name


 


Dear Name,


 


We are pleased to confirm your eligibility and participation in the
Performance Retention Plan (PRP) as part of your executive compensation
package.  Congratulations!  This letter 
highlights the terms of your 2006 PRP grant.


 


Under the PRP, you are awarded, in the form of a grant, an amount equal
to       % of your salary at target.  The 2006 grant is effective January 1,
2006, and is based upon your salary rate in effect at that time.


 


Awards earned under this plan will be based on company EBITDAR and
capital expense results and have the potential to be earned at a value above or
below the target grant value.  After a
one-year waiting period, this grant will vest on a monthly basis in 36 equal
installments.


 


Should the sale of the assets of the company be consummated, the PRP
plan provides that both the vested but unpaid and the unvested portion of your
award(s) shall be paid in cash in a lump sum, on the date on which the Change
in Control occurs.  The unvested portion
of all awards will be paid based on either the value established for each grant
based on performance or 100% achievement for any unvalued grants.  The year 2006 grant will therefore be paid at
100% should the Change in Control occur in 2006.


 


Please refer to the PRP plan document previously furnished to you for
additional information on the operation of the Plan.  If you have questions please call Jerry Rybin
on 303-268-6366.


 


It is important that we continue a sharp focus on our operating strategy
and deliver superior results.   Thank you
for your continued dedication and commitment to Adelphia Communications.


 


Sincerely,


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Bill Schleyer

  	
  Ron Cooper

  
	
  Chairman and CEO

  	
  President and COO
**EXHIBIT 31.B****CERTIFICATION**     I, John R. Sult, certify that:1.      I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ANR Pipeline Company;2.      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;4.      The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.5.      The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: March 3, 2006     */s/ John R. Sult*     John R. Sult  Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer  and Controller  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  ANR Pipeline Company
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Renaissance EntertainmentCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles S. Leavell, Chief Executive andChief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Charles S. Leavell                      |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Charles S. Leavell                          |
|   | Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | November 14, 2003                      |

 

----
#### Jay SEGAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-17182.

D.C. No. CV-98-01264-GEB/PAN.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 2001.*

Decided March 23, 2001.

*452Before HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM **

Correctly concluding that no material issues of fact remained for trial, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (“Mass Mutual”). The district court correctly interpreted the unambiguous terms of the policy. The recurrent disability provision takes into account the earlier disability period with respect to the calculation of certain time periods, but did not forever establish the applicable benefit payment amount or the applicable benefit period for that recurrent injury. Pursuant to the terms of the policy, the amount of benefits and the benefit period could be changed at the insured’s election, as they were in this case, and this intervening change was effective at the time Segal’s disability recurred. As Mass Mutual effectively reissued the disability policy in its entirety, Cal. Ins.Code § 10321, which applies to changes “after issuance,” is inapplicable. The district court also properly concluded that the modified policy was not an unenforceable exclusion of existing benefits without notice, but simply a change of benefits at the insured’s specific request.

Segal has waived his argument that the district court abused its discretion by considering the declarations of two Mass Mutual employees because Segal does not explain in his brief to this court how the district court erred or cite any authority to support his argument. Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); *Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc.,*841 F.2d 918, 924 (9th Cir.1988).

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Segal’s motion to amend the judgment and permit amendment of his complaint. A Rule 15(a) motion to amend a complaint after judgment may be considered “only if the judgment is first reopened under Rule 59 or 60.” *Lindauer v. Rogers,*91 F.3d 1355, 1356 (9th Cir.1996). Segal failed to demonstrate a legitimate reason to reopen the judgment, and the court therefore properly denied his motion. *See School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

*

 The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 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.
Orange Cryostat Top

Lifting Eye "Cryostat"

Sensor

Helium Fill

Port

Vacuum Valve

Cold Valve Annulus Valve

Nitrogen Fill

H Port elium Exhaust

Level Sensor

Connection

3-way Valve for Sample Well

Sample Well

Warm Valve