alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cedric GREENE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. SANDERS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-16450.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Jan. 3, 2013.

Cedric Greene, Jr., Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Michael A. Terhorst, Beeson Terhorst, LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

*529Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Former California state prisoner Cedric Greene, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a ruling on a motion to continue, *Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp.,*263 F.3d 942, 961 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Greene’s motion for a continuance because Greene had not demonstrated diligence in his efforts to prepare his defense prior to the date set for trial, a continuance on the day of trial would have seriously inconvenienced the court and defendants, and Greene has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the denial. *See United States v. Flynt,*756 F.2d 1352,1359 (9th Cir.1985).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00065- CV

Juan E nriqu ez, Appellan t

v. Cristina Melt on Crain, In divid ually an d in her Off icial Capacity as form er C hair of the Texas Board of

Crim inal Ju stice; Brad Livi ngston, In divid ually an d in his O ff icial Capacity as Executive D irec tor of the Texas De partm ent of Crim inal Ju stice; Nathaniel Qu arte rm an, In divid ually an d in his O ff icial Capacity as form er D irec tor of the Texas Depart m ent of Crim inal Ju stice; and Joh n Rup ert , Ind ividu ally and in h is Of fi cial Capacity as form er War den of the Texas De partm ent of Crim inal Ju stice’ s Michael Unit, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 126 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-0 9-0 0207 9, H ONO RAB LE O RLINDA NARANJO , JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R P ER CURIAM

The mandate in this cause issued by this Court on August 14, 2014 , i s h er eby withdrawn. It is ordere d on September 3, 2014.

Be foreChief Justice Jones, J ustices Goodwin and F ield
#### In the Matter of Anthony Medina, Petitioner, v David Napoli, as Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[856 NYS2d 889]

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled and is no longer aggrieved, the appeal is dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Lewis v Goord,*45 AD3d 1140, 1140 [2007]; *Matter of Parkinson v McGinnis,*45 AD3d 1036, 1036 [2007]).

*1146Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CFO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Robert Copple, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cinemark USA,
Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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
quarterly report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer 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 have:  a)
    
    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 quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this quarterly report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this quarterly 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 5. The registrants other certifying officer 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
functions):  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in
the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: May 12, 2004 CINEMARK USA, INC. By:
    
    /s/ Robert CoppleRobert CoppleChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from The
Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Operations as of and
for the periods ended February 28, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              MAR-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                      11,513,026
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,900,114
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,312,086
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,996,388
<PP&E>                                         602,428
<DEPRECIATION>                               (924,163)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,829,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,190,045
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       142,563
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,847,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,829,373
<SALES>                                     26,570,707
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            46,327,322
<CGS>                                       25,112,691
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,328,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,022,611
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,200,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,822,611
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,822,611
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38984-38985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17327]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 10088]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported 
for Exhibition Determinations: ``Art and China after 1989: Theater of 
the World'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition 
``Art and China after 1989: Theater of the World,'' imported from 
abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Solomon R. 
Guggenheim Museum, in New York, New York, from on or about October 6, 
2017, until on or about January 7, 2018, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning in the Office of 
the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6469; 
or email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e3908680978a8c8dd1d7d6daa39097829786cd848c95"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80f3e5e3f4e9efeeb2b4b5b9c0f3f4e1f4e5aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257-1 of 
December 11, 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice

[[Page 38985]]

of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

 Alyson Grunder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2017-17327 Filed 8-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40794 Summary Calendar

__________________
MICHAEL ARTHUR MAGOON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus C.B. TURNER, Mail Room Supervisor, Louis C. Powledge Unit; R.L. SIMMONS, Cpt., Louis C. Powledge Unit; F.E. FIGUEROA, Warden, Louis C. Powledge Unit; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:95-CV-543

- - - - - - - - - - February 9, 1996 Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Michael Arthur Magoon appeal from the district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. He argues that false disciplinary reports were "vindictively" filed against him, that as a result, he was transferred to a more violent prison and passed over for parole, and that his mail is tampered with by prison officials.No. 95-40794 -2- Magoon does not allege a retaliatory motive, nor does he set forth any specific facts to support his conclusions that the filing of the disciplinary reports by defendant Turner was done "vindictively." See Woods v. Smith , 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, Magoon concedes that the disciplinary charges were ultimately dismissed, and his allegations do not establish that, but for the filing of the disciplinary charges, he would not have been transferred or denied parole. Finally, Magoon has not demonstrated that his position as a litigant was prejudiced by mail tampering. See Walker v. Navarro County Jail , 4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court thus did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Magoon's complaint as frivolous.
AFFIRMED.
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 19 -3546

___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee

v.
Leighton Lyle Leroy Munger
Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________
Submitted: June 15, 2020 Filed: August 3, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judge s.

____________
PER CURIAM.

After Leighton Lyle Leroy Munger admitted to violating the conditions of supervised release by failing a drug test and leaving a halfway house without permission
, the district court 1 gave him a within

- Guidelines

- range sentence of 14

1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.-2- months in prison. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
, including the weight placed on various mitigating factors

.

We conclude that Munger’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Miller , 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing the reasonableness of a revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion); United States v. Perkins , 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (statin g that a within

- Guidelines

- range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), and did not rely on an improper factor or co mmit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Larison , 432 F.3d 921, 923

– 24 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court

.

______________________________
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10(ac)

                           EXCERPT FROM MARCH 22, 1990
                       BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES



Mr. Clough then introduced a proposal for incentive compensation for the
corporate officers of Wyle, based on corporate performance against established
goals.  In particular, non-operating corporate officers would have part of their
bonus based on the return on equity ("ROE") of Wyle for fiscal 1991, i.e.,
actual ROE performance for fiscal  1991 would result in a predetermined factor
that would be multiplied by half of the prior year's bonus to determine the ROE
part of the fiscal 1991 bonus; the remaining bonus amount would be
discretionary.

For Messrs. Herring and Ozorkiewicz, the operating officers, their respective
operating group's RONA performance would each result in a predetermined factor
that would each be multiplied by 1/3 of the prior year's bonus to determine the
RONA and ROE portions of their fiscal 1991 bonus; the remaining bonus amounts
would be discretionary.

Mr. Irell indicated that a copy of the proposed plan had been sent to the
members of the Executive Compensation Committee and, after consideration, the
Committee recommended the plan for adoption to the Board of Directors.  Mr.
Sanders also spoke in favor of the motion and added a few comments concerning
the plan.  A copy of the performance goals and recommended plan is attached to
these minutes.

After further discussion among the directors, upon motion duly made, seconded
and unanimously carried, with Messrs. Clough, Freedman and Herring abstaining,
the incentive compensation plan for corporate officers of Wyle Laboratories was
adopted.


                   DESCRIPTION OF INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN
                   FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF WYLE ELECTRONICS



The Company's Board of Directors has extended the plan, originally effective for
its fiscal year ended January 31, 1991, on substantially the same terms for the
fiscal years ended December 31, 1995.  For the fiscal years after December 31,
1995, incentives are based solely upon financial performance against targets
based upon RONA and earnings growth established prior to the beginning of the
fiscal year. The Company believes that disclosure of specific performance
targets or criteria would place the Company at a competitive disadvantage and
may be misleading to shareholders.

                                       1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Donald M. Boone, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Jewett Cameron Trading Company Ltd.;

2.

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;

3.

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;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer 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 have:

a)

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;

b)

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

c)

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

5.

The registrants other certifying officer 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date:

January 11, 2007

By:

/s/  Donald M. Boone

Donald M. Boone,

President/CEO/Director
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129307 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129307 

 COA: 259787 

Otsego CC: 96-002103-FH 

JASON LEE SCHWESING,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 24, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p1121 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

November 29, 2005 

Clerk
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APRIL 28, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 10-12373

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 1:09-md-02036-JLK, 1:09-cv-23632-JLK

In Re: CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGATION

___________________________________________________

JEFFREY BUFFINGTON,

JEANETTE BUFFINGTON,

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 28, 2011)
Before PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges, and WATKINS, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM:

After oral argument in this case, the United States Supreme Court decided

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Conception, No. 09-893, 2011 WL 1561956 (April 27, 2011). 

The district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration is VACATED, and

this case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme

Court’s opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 

1

Honorable W. Keith Watkins, United States District Judge for the Middle District of *

Alabama, sitting by designation.

 This is an unlimited remand. 1

2