alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL HOLM B ER G, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. ELDON VAIL, Se c re t a

ry DOC ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-36001 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-05449-B HS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington B e nja m in H. Se ttle , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. W a shington sta

te prisone r M ic ha e l Holm be rg a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing tha t de fe nda nt Sulliva n unla wfully re stric te d his outgoing m

a il. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wfor an a buse of disc re t ion disc ove ry issue s. 

# FIL ED JAN 02 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Unite d

State s v . K itsap Phy s ic ians Se rv . , 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th C ir. 2002). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Holm

b e rg’ s m otion to c o m pe l a dditional disc ove ry

or his re que s t to c o ntinuede fe nda nts’ sum m ary judgm e nt m otion until he re c e ive d a dditional disc ove ry be c a use Holm be rg fa ile d

to show how thea dditional disc ove ry wa s ne c e ssa

ry to de fe at sum

m a ry judgm e nt. Se eBlough v . Holland Realty , Inc ., 574 F.3d 1084, 1091 (9th C ir. 2009) (de nia l of c ontinua nc e to c onduc t furthe r disc ove ry a ppropria t e whe n the distric t c ourt c onside rs the m e rits of them otion a nd c onc lude s tha

t the re is no point to pursuing the re que ste d disc o ve ry ); Tatum v . C ity & C ounty of San Franc i

sc o , 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th C ir. 2006) (re quire m e nts for obtai ning a d ditional disc ove ry unde r form e r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 56(f)); Halle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C ir. 2002) (de sc ribing trial c ourt’ s broa d disc re tion to deny a m otion to c om

pe l). W e re je c t Holm

be rg’ s c onte ntions re ga

rding thea

pplic a b ility of Garre tt v . C ity & C o unty of San Franc isc o , 818 F.2d 1515 (9th C ir. 1987), a nd thedistric t c ourt’ s re voc ation of his in form a pa upe ris sta t us. AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 3 6 0 0 1 2
| Company      Name                            | Jurisdiction      of Incorporation | %      Held |
|----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-------------|
| Colorado      Interstate Gas Company         | Delaware                           |        |
| CIG Finance      Company, L.L.C.             | Delaware                           | 100.00      |
| CIG Funding      Company, L.L.C.             | Delaware                           | 100.00      |
| Colorado      Interstate Issuing Corporation | Delaware                           | 100.00      |
| WYCO Holding      Company, L.L.C.            | Delaware                           | 100.00      |
| WYCO      Development LLC                    | Colorado                           | 50.00       |
#### WILSON v. TRINIDAD CORP.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 16, 1951.

*192Purdy, Lamb & Catoggio, New York City, for plaintiff, by Thomas J. Irving, New York City.

Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, for defendant, by John J. Martin, New York City;

McGOHEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff seeks to examine, as a party, the master of the defendant’s vessel on which plaintiff's intestate met his death at sea. The defendant has heretofore produced the master for examination, - but only as a witness. The defendant insists that the master is not a “managing agent” of the defendant as the plaintiff contends.

The plaintiff’s intestate died as a result of injuries sustained at sea while serving on board the defendant’s vessel. The defendant does not claim that it had any officer or agent on board superior in authority to the master, or that the master was required to communicate with anyone ashore for instructions in the management or control of the vessel. It is suggested that in modern times a ship’s master has less authority than in the days of sail. However that may be, there is nothing to show that the authority of the master in this case was less than is customary for a master at sea. He. was, in my opinion, the defendant’s managing agent in full control of the ship at the time" of the alleged injuries and death of the plaintiff’s intestate.

The motion is accordingly granted.

Settle order. ■ 1
Dismissed and Opinion Filed August 26, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00403
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.K., H.K., AND K.K., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 469th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 469
- 50118
- 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Smith Opinion by Justice Molberg We questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal from a default divorce decree as it appeared to be moot. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass ’n v. Jones , 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999) (noting appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies)

. Specifically, no justiciable controversy appeared to exist as the clerk’s record reflected the trial court had granted a new trial and vacated the decree. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. , 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (case
becomes moot if controve rsy ceases to exist); R.M.O. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family and
Prot ective Servs. , No. 08

- 14

- 00067

- CV, 2014 WL 2180167 (Tex. App.

— El Paso May 23, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (granting of new trial mooted appeal). Although– 2

–

we directed appellant to file a letter bri ef addressing our concern and cautioned him that failure to do so by August 16, 2021 could result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice, appellant has not responded. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a) , (c). Accordingly, because the record before us reflects the appeal is moot, it is dismissed.
See id. 42.3(a).

210403f.p05 /Ken Molberg/ / KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF S.K., H.K., AND K.K., CHILDREN
No. 05

- 21

- 00403

- CV On Appeal from the 469th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 469

- 50118

- 2021. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg, Justices Goldstein and Smith participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 26 th day of August , 2021.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENT  OF THE COMPANY AS OF  SEPTEMBER  30, 1999  INCLUDED IN THE
10QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10QSB
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000886093
<NAME>                        VIKING CAPITAL GROUP, INC
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1
<CURRENCY>                                         US DOLLARS

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                              1
<CASH>                                                   34890
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           263972
<ALLOWANCES>                                            115160
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        188702
<PP&E>                                                  953999
<DEPRECIATION>                                          112024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         1121036
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  1472343
<BONDS>                                                  17263
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                 30888
<OTHER-SE>                                            (337682)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           1121036
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         44199
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          1379641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          7444
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     (23099)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (1366113)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (1366113)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (1366113)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.047)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (.047)



</TABLE>
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 28, 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 22, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 343 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-178, CP2017-279.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-18128 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00550-CR

IN RE David CEPEDA JONES

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 18, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED 

On July 27, 2010, relator David Cepeda Jones filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

complaining of the trial court’s removal of his previous counsel and the appointment of his new

counsel. 

However, in order to obtain a petition for writ of mandamus in a criminal proceeding, relator

must establish: (1) the act sought to be compelled is ministerial rather than discretionary in nature,

and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law. Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542,

548 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). To establish an act sought to be compelled is ministerial, relator must

demonstrate that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act; (2) was asked

1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-12902, styled State of Texas v. David Cepeda Jones,

pending in the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Philip Kazen presiding.
04-10-00550-CR

to perform the act; and (3) failed or refused to do so. In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). When a properly filed motion is pending before a trial

court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is ministerial, and mandamus

may issue to compel the trial judge to act. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). However, relator has the burden of providing

this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.7(a) (“Relator must file with the petition [ ] a certified or sworn copy of every document that is

material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”); see also

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). 

Here, relator has merely alleged the trial court improperly removed his previous counsel and

appointed him new counsel. Relator has failed to establish he has met any of the prerequisites

necessary to be entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d at 886; see also TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.7(a). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX.R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-
*AMENDED RESUBMIT CLD

- 254 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________
No. 1 8

- 1431

___________
GENNARO RAUSO

, Appellant

v.

WARDEN SCHUYLKILL FCI; CLERK OF COURTS FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE E ASTERN DISTRICT OF PA

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ( M .D. Pa. Civil Action No. 1

- 17

- cv

- 00720) District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 June 28, 2018 Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, Jr., and FUENTES

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : January 9, 2019

____________

OPINION*

____________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 Gennaro Rauso, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals order s of the United

States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and denying his motion for

reconsideration . For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

Rauso cl aims in his habeas petition that the Clerk of the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania failed to enter his motions and papers on

the docket of his criminal case and returned his papers to him in violation of his First

Amend ment right of access to the courts

. As recognized by the District Court

, Rauso’s

claim is not cognizable in a habeas action. See Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 484

(1973) (stating that the essence of habeas corpus is an attack upon the legality of c ustody

and that the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody);

Coady v. Vaughn , 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001) ( noting that § 2241 confers habeas

corpus jurisdiction over petitions by federal prisoners challenging the ex ecution of their

sentences).

Accordingly, because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will

affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1

1 Rauso’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal without prejudice or, in the alternative, stay disp osition of the appeal pending the adjudication of his September 6, 2018 filing in District Court is denied. To the extent Rauso requests in his motion additional time to file a response to possible summary action or dismissal of his appeal , his request is denied. Rauso has been afforded two extensions of time and has been advised that no further extensions would be granted. Rauso’s third motion for an extension of time and motion to consolidate his appeals is also denied.
* Pursuant to 5 THC IR . R. 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 5 THC IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________ No. 99-10216 Summary Calendar

_________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus CYNTHIA MIZELL, a/k/a Cynthia Walker, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (4:98-CV-408-Y & 4:92-CR-128-A) December 1, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Cynthia Mizell, federal prisoner # 23825-077, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her “Motion to Correct Sentencing Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).” Based on the issues Mizell sought to raise, the district court correctly construed Mizell’s motion as a successive challenge to her sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mizell’s Rule 60(b) motion was an obvious attempt to circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (“AEDPA’s”) prohibition against filing successive § 2255 motions. “Rule 60(b) cannot be used to circumvent restraints on successive habeas petitions. That was true before [AEDPA] was enacted, and it is equally true, if not more so, under the new act.” United States v. Rich , 141 F.3d 550, 553 (5th Cir. 1998) (alteration in original) (quoting Felker v. Turpin , 101 F.3d 657, (11th Cir. 1996)).-2-

Because Mizell did not obtain this court’s permission to file a successive § 2255 motion as required under § 2244(b)(3) and § 2255, the district court lacked jurisdiction over Mizell’s successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction over Mizell’s appeal, and her appeal is DISMISSED. Mizell’s motion to compel this court to allow her to proceed on appeal without a certificate of appealability is DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

GRAVADY NEVADA, LLC, A NEVADA 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND 

CIRCUSTRIX, LLC, A UTAH LIMITED 

LIABILITY COMPANY, 

Petitioners, 

VS. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE 

NADIA KRALL, DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

JESUS MEJIA, AN INDIVIDUAL, 

Real Party in Interest. 

No. 84534 

FILED 

JUN 1 7 2022 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

CLERitF RENE COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a 

district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a tort action. 

Having considered the petition and its supporting documents, 

we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth 

Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing 

that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is 

warranted). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and whether to 

consider a petition seeking such relief is within this court's sole discretion. 

Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 

851, 853 (1991). We generally decline to exercise that discretion as to 

petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment motions, and we 

are not convinced that any of the exceptions for doing so apply in this case. 

eV.- 19 2og 
See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 

280, 281 (1997) (discussing the exceptions to the general rule). We therefore 

ORDER the petition DENIED.' 

.J. 

P rraguirre 

cc: Hon. Nadia Krall, District Judge 

Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP/Las Vegas 

Bighorn Law/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

1The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the 

decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A 404,4
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, Declan Daly,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Inamed Corporation (the“Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based onmy knowledge:

(1)   the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certificationis attached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.
| Dated: March 16, 2005                              |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ DECLAN DALY                                         |   |
| Declan Daly,                                            |
| *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer* |
| *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)*          |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to Inamed Corporation and will be retained by Inamed Corporationand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

1

----