alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ruben T. HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary PENROD; et al., DefendantsAppellees.

No. 05-56682.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Ruben T. Hernandez, Tehachapi, CA, pro se.

Tristan Pelayes, Esq., Wagner *&*Pelayes, Riverside, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: 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 **

California state prisoner Ruben T. Hernandez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), *770*Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Hernandez’s own pleadings showed the deadline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court had passed long before prison officials allegedly conspired to delay receipt of his legal mail. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Hernandez’s claim for denial of access to courts. *See Sands v. Lewis,*886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir.1989) (“An ‘actual injury’ consists of some specific ‘instance in which an inmate was actually denied access to the courts.’ ”); *Eminence Capital, LLC v.*As*peon, Inc.,*316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding dismissal -with prejudice is appropriate only when the complaint could not be saved by amendment).

Hernandez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny Hernandez’s request for judicial notice. *See Flick v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*205 F.3d 386, 392 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding that facts not relevant on appeal are not subject to judicial notice).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Annual Report of Frontier Oil Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James R.
Gibbs, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to my knowledge, that:

| | (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                       
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
         operations of the Company.

/s/  James R. Gibbs
James R. Gibbs
Chairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive Officer

March 8, 2004
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.383 Madison Avenue31st FloorNew York, New York 10179  RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2013-C12 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C12 Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2013 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"): (a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and (b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  March 1, 2016 /s/ Brian SmithBRIAN SMITHVice President  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 77 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Patient Choice Res5 toration Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The following Acts, and the 

8 amendments made by such Acts, are repealed: 

9 (1) The Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

10 Act (Public Law 111–148). 

11 (2) The Health Care and Education Reconcili12 ation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–152). 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 77 IS

1 (b) EFFECT OF LAW.—The provisions of law amend2 ed by the Acts referred to in subsection (a) are restored 

3 as if such Acts had never been enacted. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Michael A. SAAVEDRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony LAMARQUE, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-16391.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Michael A. Saavedra, Tehachapi, CA, pro se.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Saavedra, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to the courts and retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may affirm the decision of the district court for any reason supported by the record. *See Brunson v. Nott,*62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir.1994). We review de novo the dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Saavedra’s claim for denial of access to the courts because Saavedra’s complaint failed to allege that defendants hindered his efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim in the U.S. Supreme Court. *See Phillips v. Hast,*477 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir.2007) (setting forth requisite elements for denial of access to the courts claim).

Although Saavedra had exhausted his administrative remedies, the district court did not err in dismissing Saavedra’s First Amendment retaliation claim because Saavedra failed to allege that defendants’ actions were based upon a retaliatory motive rather than a legitimate correctional goal. *See Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir.2005) (indicating elements of First Amendment retaliation claim are not satisfied when there is a legitimate correctional goal for action taken). Saavedra’s allegations, as well as exhibits attached to the complaint, state that the prison was placed on a “lockdown” and that law library access was curtailed during the time period at issue. *See Rizzo v. Dawson,*778 F.2d 527, 532 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Dismissal [of a retaliation claim] may have been warranted if there was no factual support for the allegations or the factual support was contradicted by facts that the court could notice or that were apparent in the record.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Saavedra leave to amend his complaint because an amendment in this case would have been futile. *See Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 18, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-668 Lower Tribunal No. 18-16976

________________ 

### GVB MD, LLC, etc., Appellant,
vs. 

### Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., etc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alexander Bokor, Judge. Di Pietro Partners, LLP, David Di Pietro, Lisandra Estevez, and Nicole Martell (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant. Hogan Lovells, US LLP, Allen P. Pegg and Daniel Balmori, for appellees. Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES, and HENDON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 164 (Friday, August 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18052]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


U.S. Air Force Exclusive Patent License

AGENCY: Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate, 
Department of the Air Force, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of intent to issue an exclusive patent license.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of agency regulations, the 
Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant The 
Curators of the University of Missouri, a public corporation of 
Missouri having a place of business at the Office of Technology 
Management and Industry Relations, 1601 S. Providence Road, #124, 
Columbia, Missouri 65211, an exclusive license in any right, title and 
interest the United States Air Force has in: In U.S. Patent Application 
No. 14/982,030 entitled ``Method for Fast Camera Pose Refinement for 
Wide Area Motion Imagery'', filed December 19, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An exclusive license for this patent 
will be granted unless a written objection is received within fifteen 
(15) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Written 
objections should be sent to: Air Force Research Laboratory, Office of 
the Staff Judge Advocate, AFRL/RIJ, 26 Electronic Parkway, Rome, New 
York 13441-4514. Telephone: (315) 330-2087; Facsimile (315) 330-7583.

Henry Williams,
Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-18052 Filed 8-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
Exhibit (23)(c)CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-8(Nos. 333-32229, 333-58686, 333-76347), S-3 (Nos. 333-125553, 333-52560, 333-27849, 333-74958,333-45556, 333-37241), and S-4 (Nos. 33-60007, 33-55805) of CMS Energy Corporation of our reportdated February 19, 2007 relating to the financial statements of Midland Cogeneration Venture L.P.,which appears in this Form 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPDetroit, Michigan
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND Petitioner V. PETER JEROME EIDE Respondent • IN THE • COURT OF APPEALS • OF MARYLAND
• Misc. Docket AG

• No, 0061

• September Term, 2015 ********************************************* ORDER The parties herein have jointly petitioned this Court to reprimand Respondent pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-772. Upon review of said Joint Petition and for the reasons set forth therein, it is this 18th day of Hay 2016, ORDERED, that Respondent, Peter Jerome Eide, be and he is hereby reprimanded for misconduct in violation of Rule 5.5 (a) of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct.
/s/ Clayton Greene TiSenior Judge
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) / Rule 15d-14(a), promulgated
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc.;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(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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):
   Date: August 5, 2005/s/ Bruce D. Given, M.D.Bruce D. Given, M.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 35.1





SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT





HARLEY-DAVIDSON CREDIT CORP.





I, James Darrell Thomas, Vice President, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary of Harley-Davidson Credit Corp. (“HDCC”), certify that:





(i) a review of HDCC’s activities for the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”) and of HDCC’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2013 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) among Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2013-1, Harley-Davidson Customer Funding Corp., HDCC, and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., has been made under my supervision; and





(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, HDCC has fulfilled in all material respects all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout the Reporting Period.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate in the name of and behalf of HDCC this 25th day of March, 2015.








By:/s/ James Darrell ThomasJames Darrell ThomasVice President, Treasurer and Assistant SecretaryHarley-Davidson Credit Corp.
Form of First Amendment to Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement



 Exhibit 10.18 
 KADANT INC. 
 FORM OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 DIRECTOR RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS 
 Preamble. This amendment is effective as of
December 9, 2008 with respect to the Director Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement granted to the Recipient named below on the date specified (the “Agreement”). This amendment is made by Kadant Inc. (the “Company”) pursuant
to the unilateral rights reserved under Section 7 of the Agreement to amend the Agreement to comply with Section 409A of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. 
 Recipient:
                                     
 RSU Award Agreement dated:
                                         
            
 1.    The last sentence of Section 3 is hereby deleted and
replaced in its entirety with the following sentence (revised language appears in bold face): 
 “As soon as administratively practicable after the Vesting Date, but in any event within the period ending on the later to occur of the date that is 2 1/2
 months from the end of the (i) Recipient’s tax year that includes the Vesting Date, or (ii) the Company’s fiscal year that includes
the Vesting Date, the Company shall cause its transfer agent to issue and deliver the Award Shares in the name of the Recipient, subject to payment of all applicable withholding taxes pursuant to Section 6 below.” 

 2.    Section 4(c) is hereby amended by adding the following sentence at the end of the paragraph: 
 “A date that a Change in Control occurs shall be a Vesting Date and the delivery requirements of Section 3 shall apply.” 
 3.    The first sentence of Section 7 shall be amended by deleting the words “an elective” immediately prior to the words
“deferral of compensation” and substituting the word “any” in replacement thereof, so that the first sentence shall read in its entirety as follows: 
 “Neither the Plan nor this Award Agreement is intended to provide for any deferral of compensation that would be subject to Section 409A (“Section 409A”) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended.” 
 4.    The last sentence of Section 7 shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following sentence
(revised language appears in bold face): 
 “Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12(i), the Company reserves the right,
to the extent the Company deems necessary or advisable in its sole discretion, to unilaterally amend or modify the Plan and/or this Award Agreement to ensure that all awards (including, without limitation the RSUs) are either exempt from
or compliant with the requirements of Section 409A.” 
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this First Amendment effective as of the 9th day of December, 2008, by order of the Board of Directors of Kadant
Inc. 
  

			
	KADANT INC.
		
	By:	 	 
		 	William A. Rainville
		 	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
**STATE
      OF DELAWARE**


**CERTIFICATE
      OF AMENDMENT**


**OF
      AMENDED AND RESTATED**


**CERTIFICATE
      OF INCORPORATION**





**EXPRESS
      SCRIPTS, INC.**





a
      corporation organized and existing under a by virtue of the General Corporation
      Law of the State of Delaware.





**DOES
      HEREBY CERTIFY:**





**FIRST:** That
      at a
      meeting of the Board of Directors of Express Scripts, Inc., held on February
      22,
      2006, resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the
      Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring
      said amendment to be advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholders of
      said
      corporation for consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed
      amendment is as follows:





**RESOLVED** ,
      that
      the first paragraph of Section 4 of the Express Scripts, Inc. Amended and
      Restated Certificate of Incorporation is amended to be and read as
      follows:





“The
      total number of shares of stock which the Corporation has authority to issue
      is
      655,000,000 shares, of which (i) 5,000,000 shares are preferred stock, par
      value
      $0.01 per share (the “Preferred Stock”), and (ii) 650,000,000 shares are common
      stock, par value $0.01 per share.”





**SECOND:** That
      thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, an annual meeting
      of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and held upon notice
      in
      accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
      Delaware at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute
      were voted in favor of the amendment.





**THIRD:** That
      said
      amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242
      of
      the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.





**FOURTH:** That the
      capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under or by reason of said
      amendment.





**IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF** ,
      said
      Express Scripts, Inc. has caused this certificate to be signed by George Paz,
      Chief Executive Officer, an Authorized Officer, this 24 th day of
      May, 2006.





****By: /s/
      George
      Paz


Authorized
      Officer


Title:  Chief
      Executive Officer


Name:
      George Paz
Presidential Determination No. 2017-10 of July 21, 2017

# Continuation of U.S. Drug Interdiction Assistance to the Government of Colombia

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State[ and] the Secretary of Defense

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2291-4), I hereby certify, with respect to Colombia, that: (1) interdiction of aircraft reasonably suspected to be primarily engaged in illicit drug trafficking in that country's airspace is necessary, because of the extraordinary threat posed by illicit drug trafficking to the national security of that country; and (2) Colombia has appropriate procedures in place to protect against innocent loss of life in the air and on the ground in connection with such interdiction, which includes effective means to identify and warn an aircraft before the use of force is directed against the aircraft.

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the 
                    *Federal Register*
                     and to notify the Congress of this determination.



[FR Doc. 2017-18291 Billing code 4710-10-P
VI 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 701 

For the relief of Tim Lowry and Paul Nettleton of Owyhee County, Idaho. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 10, 2015 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Tim Lowry and Paul Nettleton of Owyhee 

County, Idaho. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF TIM LOWRY AND PAUL 

4 NETTLETON FOR EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE 

5 AWARD. 

6 Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of section 

7 2412 of title 28, United States Code, Tim Lowry and Paul 

8 Nettleton of Owyhee County, Idaho, shall each be eligible 

9 for the award of fees and other expenses (including rea10 sonable attorney fees) incurred to defend the stock water 

11 rights of Tim Lowry and Paul Nettleton unsuccessfully 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 701 IS

1 claimed by the Bureau of Land Management in litigation 

2 relating to the Snake River Basin Adjudication. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Cite as 2015 Ark. 469

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-15-948

RANDY WILLIAM GAY

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered December 10, 2015

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS

ATTORNEY ON DIRECT APPEAL

MOTION GRANTED.

PER CURIAM

A jury in the Garland County Circuit Court found appellant Randy William Gay guilty

of capital murder for which he received a sentence of death. Gay is represented by Mark S.

Fraiser, who asks to be relieved on the ground that he is not eligible to be compensated for

services as appellate counsel. 

Arkansas Code Annotated section 19-4-1604(b)(2)(B) (Repl. 2007) provides that

persons employed as full-time public defenders who are not provided a state-funded secretary

are eligible to seek compensation for appellate work. Counsel affirms that he is a full-time

public defender with a full-time, state-funded secretary. Under these circumstances, he is not

entitled to be paid for services in this appeal, and his request to be relieved is well-founded. 

Craigg v. State, 2012 Ark. 95 (per curiam).

Therefore, we grant Fraiser’s motion to be relieved. We appoint attorney Dale Adams

to represent Gay on appeal. Our clerk is directed to set a briefing schedule for the appeal.

Motion granted.