alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### David August KILLE, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy O’BRIEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-17373.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

David August Kille, Sr., Carson City, NV, pro se.

*780Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

David August Kille, Sr., a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for failure to state a claim his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by conspiring to convict him of certain crimes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Osborne v. Dist. Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial Dist.,*423 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2005) (dismissal pursuant to *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)); *Ramirez v. Galaza,*334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.2003) (dismissal under screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *United States v. State of Wash.,*969 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kille’s section 1983 action as Heck-barred because his allegations necessarily implicate the validity of his conviction, and Kille failed to prove that his conviction was reversed, expunged, or otherwise called into question. *See Heck,*512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364.

To the extent Kille alleges a legal injury caused by a family court judgment against him, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine because Kille’s appeal amounted to a de facto appeal of a state court judgment. *See Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th Cir.2003) *(Rooker-Feldman*bars the federal plaintiff from complaining of a legal injury caused by a state court judgment, based on an allegedly erroneous legal ruling, in a case in which the federal plaintiff was one of the litigants).

Kille’s outstanding motions are denied. No further motions will be entertained in this case.

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
J -S26010-19 

### NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
v. DENNIS MCKEITHAN Appellant : No. 3753 EDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order October 10, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

### Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0101441-1983
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI*, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, P.J.: 

### FILED JULY 23, 2019 

### Dennis McKeithan appeals pro se from the order dismissing his fifth petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

### §§ 9541-9546, as untimely. Because this appeal is duplicative of an identical appeal filed at 3752 EDA 2017, we dismiss. 

### This appeal, listed at 3753 EDA 2017, stems from the PCRA court's October 10, 2017 order dismissing McKeithan's fifth PCRA petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On January 18, 2019, this Court issued 

### a Rule to Show Cause why this appeal should not be quashed, noting that it appeared to be identical to an appeal docketed at 3752 EDA 2017. McKeithan 

### responded, arguing that this appeal should not be quashed because it

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J -S26010-19 

### stemmed from a different order than the appeal at 3752 EDA 2017. Based upon this assertion, the Court discharged the Rule to Show Cause. However, upon further review, it appears both 3753 EDA 2017 and 3752 EDA 2017 stem from the October 10, 2017 order dismissing McKeithan's fifth PCRA petition.' Additionally, McKeithan has filed duplicative briefs and argued 

### identical issues in each of the two cases, rendering this appeal redundant to 

### its counterpart at 3752 EDA 2017. Accordingly, we dismiss it. See, e.g., 

### Neidert v. Charlie, 143 A.3d 384, 387 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2016) (summarily dismissing duplicative appeal). Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered.


### J seph D. Seletyn, Prothonotary


### Date: 7/23/19

' McKeithan later admitted that this appeal was duplicative of the appeal listed 

### at 3752 EDA 2017. See Application for Relief, 3/23/18, at 2 ¶ 4. - 2 -
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00346-CV

Juan J. MURILLO d/b/a J.J. Transport and Jose Guzman Hernandez,

Appellants

v.

James TURK,

Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 07-09-22905-MCVAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen A. Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 30, 2009

JOINT MOTION TO REVERSE AND REMAND GRANTED

The parties have filed a joint motion stating they have fully resolved and settled all issues in

dispute. The parties ask that we reverse the trial court’s judgment with respect to James Turk’s

recovery against appellants, and remand the cause to the district court for rendition of judgment in

accordance with the settlement agreement. See TEX.R.APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). They further request
04-09-00346-CV

-2-

that we release the obligations on the supersedeas bond and issue the mandate immediately. The

parties have agreed that each party shall bear its own costs.

We grant the motion. The judgment of the trial court, with respect to James Turk’s recovery

against appellants, is reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court for rendition of

judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

The costs of this appeal shall be borne by the party that incurred them. The obligations on the

supersedeas bond are discharged, and the Clerk of this court is ordered to issue the mandate

immediately upon issuance of this opinion and judgment. 

PER CURIAM
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7441

BENJAMIN H. LANEAVE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, an agency of the United States Department of Justice; REHABILITATION SERVICES, INCORPORATED II, a corporation; MALIK A. BRICE, individually and in his official capacity; FREDERICK W. WILLIAMS, individually and in his official capacity; AMISHA MCNEILL, individually and in her official capacity; LINDA MOORE, individually and in her official capacity as Community Corrections Manager; REDWOOD TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY, a commercial enterprise; WAYNE ROSS, individually and doing business as Redwood Toxicology Laboratory; ROBERT A. MOUNT, individually and doing business as Redwood Toxicology Laboratory; ROY L. MORRISON, individually and in his official capacity as Warden, FCI Elkton; MARK A. BEZY, individually and in his official capacity as Warden, FCI Elkton; NELSON APONTE, individually and in his official capacities as Associate Warden and Acting Warden, FCI Elkton; DOES I - L, being fictitious designations for certain unknown, identifiable persons serving as employees, agents, servants, officials or representatives of the United States Government, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants - Appellees.- 2 - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00329-REP)
Submitted: January 31, 2007 Decided: February 21, 2007
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin H. LaNeave, Appellant Pro Se. Robert P. McIntosh, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, Donald Cameron Beck, Jr., MORRIS & MORRIS, Richmond, Virginia, Andrew Joseph Terrell, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* We intend and discern no prejudice to LaNeave by denying his motion. We have fully considered the “formal” brief he tendered to the Clerk, but have construed it as his informal brief. Further, because the district court transmitted its complete record to this court for our use on appeal, our consideration of LaNeave’s proposed appendix is unnecessary.
- 3 - PER CURIAM: Benjamin H. LaNeave seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See LaNeave v. United States , No. 3:05-cv-00329-REP (E.D. Va. June 15, 2006). Additionally, we deny as unnecessary LaNeave’s request to file a formal brief and appendix in this case. * 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
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1294 

CA 11-02541 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

CRAIG MELVIN, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(CLAIM NO. 107704.)

 

GREENE & REID, PLLC, SYRACUSE (EUGENE W. LANE OF COUNSEL), FOR

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (LAURA ETLINGER OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Nicholas V. Midey,

Jr., J.), entered August 31, 2011. The judgment dismissed the claim

after trial. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimant, an inmate at a state correctional facility

operated by defendant, State of New York (State), commenced this

action alleging that the State was negligent and thus was liable for

injuries he sustained when he was assaulted by a fellow inmate. 

Following a nonjury trial on the issue of liability, the Court of

Claims determined that the State was not negligent and dismissed the

claim. Claimant now appeals, and we affirm.

“The State’s duty to an incarcerated person encompasses

protection from the foreseeable risk of harm at the hands of other

prisoners. Because the State is not an insurer of an inmate’s safety,

it will be liable in negligence for an assault by another inmate only

upon a showing that it failed to exercise adequate care to prevent

that which was reasonably foreseeable” (Schittino v State of New York,

262 AD2d 824, 825, lv denied 94 NY2d 752; see Sanchez v State of New

York, 99 NY2d 247, 252-253; Newton v State of New York, 283 AD2d 992,

993).

Here, the court found that it was not reasonably foreseeable that

a hotpot would be used to assault claimant. The court also found that

it was not reasonably foreseeable that the inmate assailant would

assault claimant inasmuch as the inmate assailant had not been cited

for any violent behavior for over three years and there was no history

of violence between the two inmates (cf. Blake v State of New York,
-2- 1294 

CA 11-02541 

259 AD2d 878, 879; Littlejohn v State of New York, 218 AD2d 833, 834-

835). “Where, as here, the court’s decision is based upon a fair

interpretation of the evidence, it will not be disturbed on appeal”

(Newton, 283 AD2d at 993). Thus, the claim was properly dismissed.

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
M. W., MOTHER OF R.K. AND 

E.K.,

Appellant,

v.

GUARDIAN AD LITEM 

PROGRAM,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1801

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 22, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

David M. Gooding, Judge.

M. W., pro se.

David Paul Krupski of the Guardian ad Litem Program, and Ward L. Metzger of 

Department of Children and Families, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit
10.41

    


    AMENDMENT
NUMBER TWO TO

    EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT

    


    This
Amendment Number Two is made as of December 30, 2008, to the Employment
Agreement dated as of April 28, 2006 (the “Agreement”), by and between Southern
Community Bank and Trust and Southern Community Financial Corporation and Robert
L. Davis, Jr. (“Executive”).

    


    1.  The
Agreement is amended by adding the following Paragraph:

    


    “8.12.   Compliance
with ESSA. To the extent that any payment under this Agreement would
constitute a prohibited parachute payment under Section 111(b)(2)(C) of the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”), the Employer agrees to
pay Executive an additional payment equal to the prohibited payment on July 1,
2012, or if later, the earliest date when Section 111(b)(2)(C) of EESA no longer
prohibits such payment.  Such payment shall be made in a single lump
sum in cash, without interest.  The Executive may be entitled to
severance payments from multiple agreements and plans with the
Employer.  The Employer, it its sole discretion, shall determine which
payments shall be delayed in order to comply with
ESSA.   Notwithstanding anything in this paragraph to the
contrary, the additional amounts due under the Agreement shall not be paid if
the Treasury Department or other governmental agency issues guidance subsequent
to the date of this Agreement that would prohibit such payment.  A
prohibited parachute payment shall be interpreted in a manner that is consistent
with Notice 2008-TAAP, Notice 2008-94 and all other current or future guidance
issued  pursuant to Section 111(b)(2)(C) of EESA or Section 280G(e) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.”

    


    2.  No
other terms and conditions of the Agreement are affected by this
Amendment.

    


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written
above.

    


    
      
        	
                SOUTHERN
      COMMUNITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION

              
	 
      
	 
      	
                By:

              	
                /s/ Jeff T. Clark 

              
	 
      	 
      	
                Jeff
      T. Clark, President

              
	 
      
	
                SOUTHERN
      COMMUNITY BANK AND TRUST

              
	 
      
	 
      	
                By:

              	
                /s/ Jeff T.
      Clark

              
	 
      	 
      	
                Jeff
      T. Clark, President

              
	 
      


      

    

    
      
        	
                EXECUTIVE

              
	 
      
	 
      	
                 /s/ Robert L. Davis,
    Jr.

              	
                (SEAL)

              
	 
      	
                Robert
      L. Davis, Jr.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN THE MATTER OF THE RESIGNATION OF JOHN W. AEBI, BAR NO. 2110. No. 83470
.1.7t; pli; ea

. Oft

. ;ere 2

7 7 -- 7 : 77 7:77 . ' • . ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RESIGNATION This is a joint petition by the State Bar of Nevada and attorney John W. Aebi for his resignation from the Nevada bar.

SCR 98(5) provides that Nevada attorneys who are not actively practicing law in this state may resign from the state bar if certain conditions are met. The petition includes staternents from state bar staff confirming that no disciplinary, fee dispute arbitration, or client security fund matters are pending against Aebi; and that he is current on all membership fee payments and other financial cornmitments relating to his practice of law in this state. See SCR 98(5)(a)(1)-(2).

Bar counsel has recommended that the resignation be approved, and the Board of Governors has approved the application for resignation. See SCR 98(5)(a)(2). Aebi acknowledges that his resignation is irrevocable and that the state bar retains continuing jurisdiction with respect to matters involving a past member's conduct prior to resignation. See SCR 98(5)(c)-(d). Finally, Aebi has submitted an affidavit of compliance with SCR 115. See SCR 98(5)(e).



### 2-11 SipThe petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5).

Accordingly, we approve attorney John W. Aebi's resignation. SCR 98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted.

It is so ORDERED. C.J.

cc: Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada John W. Aebi Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 loi
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         August 23, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 17, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 341 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-171, CP2017-272.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Compliance.

[FR Doc. 2017-17870 Filed 8-22-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EXHIBIT 11



COMMERCE GROUP CORP. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

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



SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE





Years Ended March 31





2010          2009

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

BASIC/DILUTED

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



Net income (loss) for primary

income per common share          $(4,877,960)  $(30,016,783)

============   ============



Weighted average number of

common shares outstanding

during the year - basic/diluted    30,750,869     30,723,711

============   ============

Income (loss) per common

share - basic/diluted            $      (.16)  $       (.98)

============   ============
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1776

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., and a minor JFD as next best 

friend,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHELLE JOY JAWORSKI; MELANIE A. SHEKITA; JEFF FORD; TONY 

BELL; OTHER UNKNOWN UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

AGENTS DEFENDANT’S,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,

Chief District Judge. (4:13-cv-00063-RBS-DEM)

Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006) and ordering 

him to show cause why a system of prefiling review should not be 

imposed upon him. This court may exercise jurisdiction only 

over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 

337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Davis seeks to appeal is 

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction. We deny Davis’ motion to appoint counsel. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
---

CERTIFICATION

I, Craig C. Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Beartooth Platinum
    Corporation (formerly Idaho Consolidated Metals Corp.); and
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.

|Date | October 23, 2003 | By | /s/ Craig C. Smith   
|---- | ---------------- | -- | -----------------------
|     |                  |    | Craig C. Smith         
|     |                  |    | Chief Financial Officer
|     |                  |    | & Corporate Secretary  

---
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM

 

 

We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on FormN-1A of our report dated November 11, 2014, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights of AmericanFunds Money Market Fund, which appear in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the references to us under theheadings "Financial highlights", "Independent registered public accounting firm" and "Prospectuses, reportsto shareholders and proxy statements" in such Registration Statement.

 

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Los Angeles, California

November 28, 2014