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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LARRY L. COX and RENEE M. COX,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

 v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-15225

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00454-RCJWGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 6, 2015** 

San Francisco, California

Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Larry and Renee Cox defaulted on a rural housing loan

granted by Defendant-Appellee U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”). When

USDA initiated foreclosure proceedings, the Coxes elected to participate in

FILED

JUL 13 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program. The mediator found that USDA did not

participate in mediation in good faith, chiefly because USDA regulations prevented

the agency from entertaining the loan modifications that the Coxes requested. The

Coxes petitioned in state court for an order modifying their loan. 

USDA removed the petition to the District of Nevada under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1442(a)(1) and moved to dismiss pursuant to sovereign immunity and other

doctrines. The district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and

remanded to state court. USDA now appeals, arguing that remand was improper

because USDA enjoys sovereign immunity from suit in Nevada state courts. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and reverse the district court’s order

remanding the petition to state court.

Because the record contains no evidence that USDA waived its sovereign

immunity to the Coxes’ petition, the Nevada state court lacked jurisdiction over the

action. See Neb. ex rel. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 679–80 (9th

Cir. 1998). Accordingly, under the derivative jurisdiction doctrine, the district

court also lacks jurisdiction over the petition on removal. See In re Elko Cnty.

Grand Jury, 109 F.3d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1997). The district court therefore was

bound to dismiss the petition rather than remand to state court. See id. 

Because we conclude that the district court erred in failing to dismiss the

2
petition for lack of jurisdiction, we do not reach the other issues raised on appeal.

The district court’s remand order is REVERSED and the action

REMANDED with instructions that the district court dismiss the Coxes’ petition

for lack of jurisdiction.

3
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

97-460.

#### State v. Jiwad.

Summit App. No. 17820. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and a claimed appeal of right. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       6,914,943
<SECURITIES>                                 9,511,595
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,382,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 36,311,187
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            59,447,053
<PP&E>                                       2,532,104
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,602,740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              60,774,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,632,657
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       178,715
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,963,113
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                60,774,485
<SALES>                                     13,170,277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,170,277
<CGS>                                        8,124,129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,124,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,123,246
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,123,246
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,123,246
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12



</TABLE>
**Exhibit No. 32**

** **

Barnwell Industries, Inc.

 

Certification ofChief Executive Officer and

Chief FinancialOfficer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section1350,

as Adopted by

Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) eachof the undersigned officers of Barnwell Industries, Inc. (the “Company”), doeshereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge that:

 

The Annual Report on Form10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2004 of the Company fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the consolidated financial condition as of September 30,2004 and consolidated results of operations for the year ended September 30,2004 of the Company and its subsidiaries.

 
| Dated: | December 22, 2004          |   | /s/  Morton H. Kinzler  |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Morton H. Kinzler         |
|   | Title: Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |                            |
|   |                            |
| Dated: | December 22, 2004               |   | /s/  Russell M. Gifford |   |
|   | Name:  Russell M. Gifford       |
|   | Title: Chief Financial  Officer |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not beingfiled as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.

 

A signed original of the written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 10.3



 





July 25, 2013


 


Bitzio, Inc.

San Francisco, CA


 


Consent to Act as President, Chief Executive
Officer, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer


 


I, Hubert Blanchette, of Mesa, Arizona hereby
consent effective this date to join the board of Bitzio, Inc and to assume the positions of President, Chief Executive Officer,
Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of Bitzio, Inc.


 


	 	 
	Hubert Blanchette
EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION

I, Brenda G. Gujral, President, certify that:

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.;

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included 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 periods presented in this report.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

> - designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
- evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
- disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

> - all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
- any fraud, whether o *r* not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.
By: Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation

    General Partner

 

/S/ Brenda G. Gujral                                   

Name: Brenda G. GujralTitle: President of the General Partner and        Principal Executive Officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P
Date: August 11, 2003
#### Freda Gates Pozefsky, Appellant, v Richard T. Aulisi et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted April 16, 2012;

decided June 5, 2012

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*18 NY3d 897 (2012)].
EXHIBIT 23.2   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-118845 and 333-141857) of Blue Ridge Real Estate Company (Blue Ridge) and Big Boulder Corporation (Big Boulder) of our report dated January 28, 2009, with respect to the combined financial statements of Blue Ridge and Big Boulder, which appears in the October 31, 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Blue Ridge and Big Boulder, for the year ended October 31, 2008.   /s/ ParenteBeard LLC   Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania January 28, 2011
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14572]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration  11778 and  11779]

Alaska Disaster  AK-00016

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of ALASKA (FEMA-1843-
DR), dated 06/11/2009.
    Incident: Flooding and Ice Jams.
    Incident Period: 04/28/2009 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 06/11/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/10/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/11/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 06/11/2009, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Alaska Gateway Reaa (03); Kuspuk Reaa (29); Lower 
Kuskokwim Reaa (31); Matanuska-Susitna Borough; Yukon Flats Reaa (51); 
Yupiit Reaa (54).
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit             4.500
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 117786 
and for economic injury is 117796.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-14572 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```
No. 4897.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### G. IMMORDINO vs. G. BIONDIO.

George Montgomery for plaintiff and appellee.

A. J. Peters and E. Laizer, Dinkelspiel, Hart & Davey and Geo. W. Flynn for defendant and appellant.

DUFOUR, J.

The facts leading to this controversy are up to a certain point recited in Immordino vs. Longo, *2295 Ct. of App. 293, in which we rendered the following decree:

February 9, 1910.

Rehearing refused February 21, 1910.

> “It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that there be judgment for plaintiff and against defendant, Guiseppi Longo, ordering said Longo to comply with said partnership agreement within ten days from the finality of this judgment, and in default of such compliance by said Longo, plaintiff is hereby declared to be the sole and absolute owner of the marionettes,” etc.

The evidence shows that Longo failed to renew the partnership relations and thus, under the decree, Immordino became the sole and absolute owner of the property; notwithstanding this fact, Longo sold the property to Biondio, and this suit aims at the annulment of the sale.

We need not consider whether the purchaser was in good faith or whether he acquired under circumstances of a suspicious nature and with full knowledge of surrounding facts.

The sale by Longo of Immordino’s property was null. (R. C. C., Art. 2452.) Hence, no title passed to Biondio, and the judgment upholding the sequestration and recognizing plaintiff as owner of the property is correct.

Judgment affirmed.
1

NO. 03-14-00528-CR

JAMES ALAN WEATHERFORD § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

§

v. § THIRD DISTRICT 

§

STATE OF TEXAS § AUSTIN, TEXAS 

STATE’S RESPONSE REGARDING STATE’S BRIEF

NOW COMES THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee, by and through her 

Assistant District Attorney, John C. Prezas, and would show the Court the following: 

1. On June 1, 2015, Appellant’s counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw as 

counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2. The State’s Brief in this case was due on July 1, 2015. The State did not file a brief 

and did not seek an extension of time. 

3. On July 7, 2015, this Court gave the State written notice that the State’s brief was 

overdue and that this Court expected a response by Friday, July 17, 2015, or it 

would submit the case on appellant’s brief alone.

ACCEPTED

03-14-00528-CR

6054859

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

7/14/2015 11:45:18 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/14/2015 11:45:18 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
2

4. The State apologizes for the lack of a timely brief and acknowledges receipt of the 

brief and motion to withdraw filed by Appellant’s counsel. 

5. However, because the brief filed by Appellant’s counsel presents no claim of error, 

the State has no points to which to respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.2(a)(2). 

6. Therefore, the State will abstain from filing any further response unless the Court 

decides that the appeal is not frivolous because one or more legal points arguable 

on their merits exists and orders a response or provides Appellant with new 

appellate counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1978).

7. If this Court does provide Appellant with a new appellate counsel, the State will, of 

course, respond to any brief filed by said counsel. If this Court directs the State to 

respond to a non-frivolous ground for relief in this matter, the State will, of course, 

do so.
3

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State of Texas respectfully 

requests that this Court notify the State if this Court decidesthe appeal is not frivolous. 

If this Court decides the case is wholly frivolous, the State requests this Court resolve

this matter on the basis of Appellate Counsel’s brief and motion to withdraw.

Respectfully submitted,

Jana Duty

District Attorney

Williamson County, Texas

/s/ John C. Prezas

John C. Prezas

Assistant District Attorney

State Bar Number 24041722

405 Martin Luther King #1

Georgetown, Texas 78626

(512) 943-1248

(512) 943-1255 (fax)

jprezas@wilco.org

Certificate of Service

This is to certify that on July 14, 2015, a copy of the foregoing motion has been 

sent to Appellant’s attorney of record, Dal Ruggles, Law Office of Dal R. Ruggles, 

1103 Nueces St., Austin, TX 78701 via eservice to dal@ruggleslaw.com.

/s/ John C. Prezas 

John C. Prezas
Growth in Gaming Revenue

($ in Billions)

$26.1 $24.9

$9.8 $11.0

$12.8

$14.7

$16.8

$19.5

$22.6

$0.0$5.0

$10.0$15.0$20.0$25.0$30.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
San il - - Gous< No
4 ;
, 3
eoeven y F LOV0)
GOURIT OF CRRANAL APPEALS
e P ae . JUL 13 —

Heople_ of The Stabe of Taxes Tis The Supreme court of
ys —Abelaata, he Stabe of Texas
Sheol. hee Reyes (Tobe. “supply By the Court)

—_ SESS.
~ Pabilon for unit af Habeas Corpus callie

Te The Henemble Siclus_of The Tékes_ Supreme Courts Apel Acosta, Cler

Comes Now Sebsetion hee Reyes, En the above- eniled & Trdicment Ms & iasves.
The Courk to_grom_ustit of Habeus Lio support_ef motion Shows :

2a

e Gebustian Lee Reyes t here itn. Ab her, Petitioner is Legally j estroiner! &
Confined to. 7 Tim Rudd _Unit. by the Te Tees Department of Crimine| Distice,
hoythe Clinecler of comecsion of : eail TDCT. Here \n_cfter R Retporent ;

Pelibioner twas Cell arrested F bay. 232012. recived 4 years Probation.
& wes_amested again cn June 2%,. 2014, December ib,20I4 Petitione
accepted, hwo years UDC. Time | Reti Noner did rat waive Gr any. credite or
Gorse 4 te. waive airy,

Felikione: contents his i Negally restrained by TDG: TOC Based on the tact __

' Nhe he twos wos Not given credit for time serre|_on Probation by
exhendity | his incarwenation Pest his dete Far Parle & Discharged.

Bebboner Hereby contends he's entitled to.A credit of 26 menth against
@ hie’ 2Y months This would ales, heave | Petitioner eligible for or Rwole

ke Short. toy,

~ as Rige oF,



Ty

Felibioner hereby stakes the due Process Cause of the 5”
Amendment to the US. Constition.& the due Process & Equal
; Hnbtin,_case Banh iby

wz

__ Prayer

Where fore _Vebiltoner Frys The_Cat_agree | Pehitoners Rights,

order The. Superior Couch & “T DCO Ta apply The time Credits

Requested.

ie spect full lly
Debosticn Reyes 3

. _ ot : - _ Page Lof 2. :
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 22-0223 REGINALD BALL,

Petitioner, v. JAMES SALMONSEN, Warden Montana State Prison,

Respondent. 

# FILED JUN 2 1 2022 ORDER "ori

In a May 18, 2022 Order, this Court directed the Attorney General or counsel for the Department of Corrections to file a response to self-represented Petitioner Reginald Ball'sPetition for Writ ofHabeasCorpus. Ball allegedthattheDepartment ofCorrections (Department) and the Montana State Prison (MSP) were not adhering to the Montana Interstate Corrections Compact, in applying the law ofVirginia, the sending state, to him. He arguedthat he was at risk oflosinggoodtime credit in Virginia, based on a hearing for a serious misconduct infraction at MSP. On June 13, 2022, Ball filed a Motion to Voluntarily Withdraw Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus. He states that on June 7, 2022, he has engaged in communication with counsel for the Department, MSP's Interstate Compact Coordinator, and Virginia's Department ofCorrections Coordinator "toresolvethese legal issues . . . ofquestion." He asserts that the legal issues presented in his Petition are being resolved and thus, making his matter moot at this time. Ball requests dismissal ofhis Petition without prejudice. Therefore, upon good cause, IT IS ORDERED that Ball's Motion to Voluntarily Withdraw Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED and this matter isDISMISSED without prejudice. 06/21/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0223IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ba11's pending Motion for Appointment of

Counsel is DENIED, as moot. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel ofrecord; to Wes Somogy, Department ofCorrections; and to Reginald Ball personally. DATED this (

-> --AAriA day ofJune, 2022.
ChiefJustice

._.. g was

7/1 401

1Z

2 Justices
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-1822
MICHAEL R. ANGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOGO D. WEST, JR., Secretary of the Army; MICHAEL DECK, Captain, Commander, 1450th Trans. Co., Defendants - Appellees, and NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-94-38-H3) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Michael R. Ange, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edwin Hamilton, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gene Allen Dickey, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing this civil action as moot. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ange v. West , No. CA-94-38-H3 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 1995). 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