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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GARY OWEN KENDALL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 35433

D.C. No. 1:20

- cv

- 00140

- BLW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021 * *

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

.

Gary Owen Kendall appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action concerning his veterans’ benefits. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

. Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo C o unty

,

863 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) ( dismissal for lack of subject matter

* 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 28 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 3543 3

jurisdiction); Watison v. Carter , 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) ( dismissal

under 28 U.S.C

. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) )

. We affirm

.

The district court properly dismissed Kendall’s action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction because the United States Courts of Appeals for Veterans

Claims and the Federal Circuit have exclusive jurisdiction over questions that

relate to benefits admini stered by the Veterans Administration. See 38 U.S.C.

§ 511(a); Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki , 678 F.3d 1013, 102 2

- 25 (9th

Cir. 2012) (en banc) ( the Veterans ’ Judicial Review Act generally precludes

district court jurisdiction over claims relating to or affecting veterans ’ benefits

decisions, “even if the veteran dresses his claim as a constitutional challenge, and

even where the veteran has challenged some other wrongful conduct that, although

unrelated to the [Department of Veterans Affair ’ s ] ulti mate decision on his claim,

affected his or her benefits proceeding” (citations omitted)). However, a dismissal

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice. Kelly v.

Fleetwood Enters., Inc.

, 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004). W e affirm the

dismissal, and instruct the district court to amend the judgment to reflect that the

dismissal of this action is without prejudice.

We reject Kendall’s contention that the denial of his petition for ex parte

injunction wa s unconstitutional as unpersuasive.

We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See3 20

- 3543 3

Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED ; REMANDED with instructions to amend the judgment.
1



### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22

- 0562

_________________ KILA SHEPHERD ,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rule 12 of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellant’s Opening B rief filed electronically
on December 29 , 2022 , this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with the below referenced Rule and must be resubmitted. Rule 12(1)(c) requires that an appellant’s brief include a statement of the case with the appropriate heading and information . Appellant’s brief is deficient because it does not include a statement of the case with the appropriate heading and information. IT IS ORDERED that the referenced brief is rejected. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of thi s Order the Appellants shall electronically file with the Clerk of this Court a revised brief containing the revisions necessary to comply with the specified Rule and that the Appellants shall serve copies of the revised brief on all parties of record; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additions, or deletions other than those specified in this Order may be made to the brief as originally filed; and IT IS ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the revised brief. The Clerk of this Court is directed to provide a true copy of this Order to all parties of record

. Electronically signed by: James Jeremiah Shea Justice, Montana Supreme Court December 30 2022

12/30/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0562
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22

- 10651 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Angel Nicole Gonzales,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:21

- CR

- 72

- 7

**______________________________** Before **Jones, Haynes,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Angel Nicole Gonzales has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzales has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 25, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10651 Document: 00516622419 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2023No. 22

- 10651

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further re sponsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. However, there is a clerical error in the written judgment. The judgment refers to the offense of conviction as “ possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of m ethamphetamine,” but the record reflects that Gonzales pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) , (b)(1)(B)(viii). Accord ingly,

we **REMAND** for the limited purpose of correct ing the clerical error in the written judgment

. See **Fed. R. Crim. P.** 36

. Case: 22-10651 Document: 00516622419 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             482,323
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,501,536
<ALLOWANCES>                                       438,000
<INVENTORY>                                      4,695,552
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,391,888
<PP&E>                                           8,081,731
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,988,706
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,520,286
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,473,143
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            92,710
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,182,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,520,286
<SALES>                                         12,870,939
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,870,939
<CGS>                                            8,422,826
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,204,532
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 229,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     14,189
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        12,389
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .00



</TABLE>
September 29 2004 8K Exhibit 10.4





                                                          Exhibit 10.4



MARKETWATCH, INC.

Amended and restated 2004 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR OPTION
PROGRAM

ARTICLE I

ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE OF
THE PROGRAM


1.01Establishment of Program

The MarketWatch, Inc. Amended and Restated 2004 Non-Employee Director
Option Program (the "Program") is adopted pursuant to the MarketWatch,
Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") and, in addition to the
terms and conditions set forth below, is subject to the provisions of the Plan.


1.02Purpose of Program

The purpose of the Program is to enhance the ability of the Company to
attract and retain directors who are not Employees ("Non-Employee
Directors") through a program of automatic Option grants.  

1.03Effective Date of the Program

The Program is effective as of the adoption of the Plan by the
stockholders of the Company.


ARTICLE II

DEFINITIONS


Capitalized terms in this Program, unless otherwise defined herein,
have the meaning given to them in the Plan.  

ARTICLE III

OPTION TERMS


3.01Date of Grant and Number of Shares

A Non-Qualified Stock Option to purchase 15,000 shares of Common Stock
shall be granted (the "Initial Grant") to each Non-Employee Director,
such Initial Grant to be made to Non-Employee Directors elected or appointed to
the Board after the adoption of the Plan upon the date each such Non-Employee
Director first becomes a Non-Employee Director.  In addition, immediately
following each annual meeting of the Company's stockholders commencing with the
annual meeting of the Company's stockholders in 2004, each Non-Employee Director
who continues as a Non-Employee Director following such annual meeting shall be
granted a Non-Qualified Stock Option to purchase 7,500 shares of Common Stock (a
"Subsequent Grant"); provided that no Subsequent Grant shall be made
to any Non-Employee Director who has not served as a director of the Company, as
of the time of such annual meeting, for at least eleven (11) months.  Each such
Subsequent Grant shall be made on the date of the annual stockholders' meeting
in question.

3.02Exercise Price

The exercise price per share of Common Stock of each Initial Grant and
Subsequent Grant shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the Fair Market Value
per Share on the date of grant.  

3.03Corporate Transaction 

Each Option under the Program shall be subject to the provisions of
Section 11 of the Plan relating to the exercisability or termination
of the Option in the event of a Corporate Transaction.

3.04Other Terms

The Administrator shall determine the remaining terms and conditions of
the Options awarded under the Program.
#  Delegation of Certain Functions Under Sections 603-604 and 699 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228)

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to you the functions conferred upon the President by sections 603-604 and 699 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228).

                    You are authorized and directed to transmit this determination and certification to the appropriate committees of the Congress and to publish it in the                     *Federal Register.*

[FR Doc. E9-11369

Billing code 4710-10-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              14
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      151
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         33
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   198
<PP&E>                                            3283
<DEPRECIATION>                                     866
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              246
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           252
<OTHER-SE>                                        2400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3217
<SALES>                                             40
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    44
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       46
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (5)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (5)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (5)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3927 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3927

  To require the placement of blast-resistant cargo containers on all 
                     commercial passenger aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2006

  Mrs. Boxer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the placement of blast-resistant cargo containers on all 
                     commercial passenger aircraft.

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

SECTION 1. BLAST-RESISTANT CONTAINERS.

    (a) Requirement.--Section 41704 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``Each aircraft used to 
provide air transportation for individuals and their baggage or other 
cargo shall be equipped with not less than 1 hardened, blast-resistant 
cargo container.''.
    (b) Distribution to Air Carriers.--Not later than 90 days after the 
completion of the Hardened Container Pilot Program, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall distribute sufficient blast-resistant cargo 
containers to air carriers to meet the requirement under section 41704 
of title 49, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 6-K Report of Foreign Private Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  For the month of:   October, 2004
    
    Commission File No.: 1-11796
 MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (Name of registrant)
 1600 Britannia Road East
Mississauga, Ontario
L4W 1J2 (Address of Principal Executive Offices)
 PREMDOR INC. (Former Name of Registrant)
 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F: Form 20-F     o
    
    Form 40-F     þ
 Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): Yes     o
    
    No     þ
 Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): Yes     o
    
    No     þ
 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information
contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934: Yes     o
    
    No     þ
 If Yes is marked, indicate the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b):   N/A




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.  MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONDate:   October 21, 2004
    By:
    /s/ Harley UlsterName:
    Harley UlsterTitle:
    Executive Vice-President and Secretary




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX  Exhibit
    
    Description of Exhibit99.1
    
    Press Release dated October 20, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,329                   5,329
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,553                  91,553
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,735                   1,735
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,016                 122,016
<PP&E>                                         237,361                 237,361
<DEPRECIATION>                                 135,177                 135,177
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 324,549                 324,549
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          100,675                 100,675
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           330                     330
<OTHER-SE>                                    (21,171)                (21,171)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   324,549                 324,549
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,837                 156,883
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,897                 131,285
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (29,335)                (25,492)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   570                     636
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,129                  13,639
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,146                  37,451
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,748                  14,244
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,398                  23,207
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,398                  23,207
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.71                    0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70                    0.73
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 1, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128884 & (84) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, COUNTY OF CRAWFORD and COUNTY OF Justices KALKASKA, Plaintiffs,

v SC: 128884 COA: 254182 Otsego CC: 02-010014-CZ COUNTY OF OTSEGO, Defendant-Appellee,
and

COHL STOKER TOSKEY & MCGLINCHEY PC Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of December 28, 2005, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pe nding the decision in 46 th

Circuit Trial Court v Crawford County (Docket No. 128878). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on July 28, 2006, 476 Mich 131 (20 06), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that th e questions presented
should be reviewed by this Court.

The miscellaneous motion is GRANTED. A public question being involved, and in light of the relationships between the parties, no costs are awarded.

d1025 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.

November 1, 2006

Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Calicchio, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 594]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J., at plea; Mondo, J., at sentence), rendered April 7, 2011, convicting him of petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Angiolillo, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.