alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZACHARY KELSEY, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v. 

TIM GARRETT; et al., 

Respondents-Appellees.

No.22-15557 

D.C. No. 

3:18-cv-00174-

MMD-CLB 

District of 

Nevada, 

Reno 

ORDER

Filed September 21, 2023

Before: GRABER, GOULD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit 

Judges.
2 KELSEY V. GARRETT

ORDER

This case was originally argued to a panel consisting of 

Judges Graber, Gould and Watford. Judge Watford resigned 

from the court after the opinion was issued and before 

Appellees filed a petition for rehearing. Judge Friedland was 

drawn to replace Judge Watford pursuant to General Order 

3.2(h). Judge Friedland has reviewed the briefs, record, and 

video recording of the prior oral argument, as well as the 

petition for rehearing and response. 

Appellees’ petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. 

The opinion filed on May 24, 2023, and published at 68 F.4th 

1177, is hereby withdrawn, the case is resubmitted, and the 

opinion is replaced with the memorandum disposition filed 

concurrently with this order.1 Appellees’ petition for 

rehearing en banc is DENIED as moot.

Future petitions for rehearing will be permitted under the 

deadlines outlined in Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 

35(c) and 40(a)(1).

1 The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for 

disposition without reargument. See Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(4)(A).
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 313 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 313

  To amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify that persons who 
enter into a conspiracy within the United States to possess or traffic 
 illegal controlled substances outside the United States, or engage in 
   conduct within the United States to aid or abet drug trafficking 
 outside the United States, may be criminally prosecuted in the United 
                    States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2011

    Mr. Smith of Texas (for himself and Mr. Schiff) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
 and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period 
    to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify that persons who 
enter into a conspiracy within the United States to possess or traffic 
 illegal controlled substances outside the United States, or engage in 
   conduct within the United States to aid or abet drug trafficking 
 outside the United States, may be criminally prosecuted in the United 
                    States, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor 
Elimination Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT TO CLARIFY 
              CONSPIRACIES CONDUCTED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES MAY BE 
              CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED IN THE UNITED STATES.

    Section 406 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 846) is 
amended by--
            (1) inserting ``(a)'' before ``Any''; and
            (2) inserting at the end the following:
    ``(b) Whoever, within the United States, conspires with one or more 
persons, or aids or abets one or more persons, regardless of where such 
other persons are located, to engage in conduct at any place outside 
the United States that would constitute a violation of this title if 
committed within the United States, shall be subject to the same 
penalties that would apply to such conduct if it were to occur within 
the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2993 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2993

 To direct the Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers to revise certain 
authorized purposes described in the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir 
                  System Master Water Control Manual.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 21, 2011

 Mr. Graves of Missouri (for himself, Mrs. Emerson, Mrs. Hartzler, and 
 Mr. Luetkemeyer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers to revise certain 
authorized purposes described in the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir 
                  System Master Water Control Manual.

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

SECTION 1. MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVISION.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of the Army Corps of 
Engineers, shall revise the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System 
Master Water Control Manual and any related regulations to delete fish 
and wildlife as an authorized purpose of the Corps and elevate flood 
control as the highest priority of authorized purposes of the Corps at 
all times, not just during significant runoff events.
                                 <all>
```
### 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. 03-10-00273- CR

Lehi Barlow Jeff

s aka Lehi Barlow Allred, Appellant
v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F SCH LEICH ER COUNTY , 51S T JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 100 1, TH E H ONO RAB LE B ARB ARA L. WALTH ER, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant L ehi Ba

rlow J eff s aka L ehi Ba

rlow Allred pleade d no contest to
an i n d i ct ment acc using him of biga my . See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 25.01 (West 2011 ). T h e district court adjudicate d him guilty and assessed punishment at eight y ea rs ’ i mprisonment, in
acc ordanc e with a plea barg ain agr eeme nt. Appellant brings forwar d twenty -five points of error. The first twenty -one points asser t that the trial court err ed by deny ing his pretria l motion to suppress evidenc e. The rema ining four points complain about the trial court’s denial of his motion to quash the indictment. This appea l is a companion to appellant’ s appea l of his se x ual assault conviction in Jeffs v. State , No. 03-10-00272- CR (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 24, 2012, no pet. h.). The issues raisedand the arguments made are identical in both cause s. For the rea sons stated in our opinion in cause

number 03-10-00272- CR, we overr ule appellant’ s p o i n ts of err or and aff irm the judgme nt of convic tion.

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Henson Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 24, 2012 Do Not Publish

2
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 33-83492-01) and in the related Prospectus and in the Registrations
Statements (Forms S-8 No. 333-56106, No. 333-42932, No. 333-64167, No.
333-57781, No. 33-88426, No. 333-27835 and No. 333-27831) of GTECH Holdings
Corporation of our report dated March 21, 2003, except for Note 23, as to which
the date is April 23, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of GTECH Holdings Corporation included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended February 22, 2003.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
April 23, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 45915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21015]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

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): October 2, 
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 26, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Parcel Select 
Contract 23 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-211, CP2017-319.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-21015 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-2215

Lower Tribunal No. 2023-CA-002922-O

_____________________________

ALISSA PETITFRERE,

Appellant,

v.

SUMMERFIELD MULTIFAMILY PARTNERS, LLC,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. 9.130 from the County Court for Orange County.

Andrew L. Cameron, Judge.

May 31, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 

1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can 

not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial 

court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. 

Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably 

conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”).

TRAVER, C.J., and STARGEL and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
2

Alissa Petitfrere, Orlando, pro se. 

William J. McCabe, Longwood, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3149 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3149

 To amend title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to 
                   expand access to high risk pools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 11, 2011

 Mr. Price of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to 
                   expand access to high risk pools.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANDING ACCESS TO HIGH RISK POOLS.

    Section 1101(d)(2) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act (Public Law 111-148) is amended by--
            (1) inserting ``(A)'' after ``(2)'';
            (2) striking ``; and'' at the end and inserting ``; or''; 
        and
            (3) and inserting at the end the following:
            ``(B) has been covered under a State health benefits risk 
        pool (including a `qualified high risk pool', as such term is 
        defined in section 2744(c)(2) of the Public Health Service Act 
        (42 U.S.C. 300gg-44(c)(2))) during such 6-month period; and''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20461]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4335-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]


Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4335-DR), dated 
September 7, 2017, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 18, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this emergency is closed effective September 7, 2017.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-20461 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc; (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Norbert Sporns, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 27, 2007



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ Norbert Sporns                    
|Norbert Sporns Chief Executive
Officer
#### In re: Olliean GOBAUD, Debtor, Eugene Schneider, Appellant, v. Olliean Gobaud, Appellee.

No. 04-16993.

BAP No. NV-03-01381-SMaMo.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.*

Decided Oct. 19, 2005.

Olliean Gobaud, Las Vegas, CA, pro se.

Eugene Schneider, Oakland, CA, pro se.

Before T.G. NELSON, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Eugene Schneider appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s final order denying his motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal in an adversary proceeding in the debtor’s bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to1 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). On appeal from the BAP, we review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo and its factual findings for clear error. *Sticka v. Casserino (In*re *Casserino),*379 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

We reject Schneider’s contention that he should have received an extension of time to file a notice of appeal because notice of the underlying judgment was mistakenly mailed to his former counsel. *See*Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9022(a) (lack of notice “does not ... authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed, except as permitted in Rule 8002”); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002(c) (time to appeal may be extended — upon a showing of excusable neglect — only by motion filed not later than twenty days after the expiration of the time for filing a notice of appeal).

The bankruptcy court did not err in denying Schneider’s extension request be*413cause, even assuming a showing of excusable neglect, Schneider failed to file his request within Rule 8002(c)’s twenty-day period. *See Slimick v. Silva (In re Slimick),*928 F.2d 304, 306 (9th Cir.1990) (“Although Rule 8002 thus incorporates some flexibility, we strictly enforce its time provisions.”). We reject Schneider’s contention that Rule 8002 operates to deprive him of due process. *See Delaney v. Alexander (In re Delaney),*29 F.3d 516, 518 n. 3 (9th Cir.1994).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

|   | a) | the                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or                  78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b) | the                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  the Company                  as of the dates and for the periods covered by the                  Report. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November                  21, 2007 | /s/                  Deborah C. Wright |
|------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| Dated                              | Deborah                  C. Wright     |

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130001 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. SHEPLER’S INC., d/b/a SHEPLER’S 

MACKINAC ISLAND FREIGHT, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 130001 

 COA: 263151 

Mackinac CC: 04-005918-CZ 

CITY OF MACKINAC ISLAND,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0221 

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. 

February 27, 2006 

Clerk
Amendment to the Financing Agreement entered into & signed on May 27, 2010



 Exhibit 4.12 
 Amendment Agreement 
 Entered into and signed on May 27, 2010

 Between 

Orbotech Ltd. 
 Company no.
52-003521-3 

	 (the “Company”) 
	                    of the first part; 


And between 
 Israel Discount
Bank Ltd. 
 of 27 Yehuda Halevy St., Tel Aviv 

	 (the “Bank”) 
	                    of the second part; 


Whereas on December 21, 2009, an amended financing agreement was signed between the Company and the Bank (hereinafter the
“Financing Agreement”); and 
 Whereas the Parties to the Financing Agreement are interested in amending
the Financing Agreement as specified below; 
 Therefore, it has been agreed, stipulated and represented between the Parties as
follows: 
  

	 	1.	The preamble to this Amendment constitutes an integral part hereof; 

  

	 	2.	The following passage shall be added to Section 10.4 of the Financing Agreement: 


“Notwithstanding the above, it is hereby agreed that any material breach by the Company of an agreement and/or document to which the
Company is and/or shall be bound vis-à-vis Bank Hapoalim Ltd. (“Hapoalim”) regarding activities within the dealing room, factoring activities and activities of back-up performance of letters of credit with an aggregate amount
not exceeding a sum of US $25,000,000, shall not be considered as a breach of the Credit Documents and as an additional default cause, as aforementioned, unless seven (7) business days have passed since the earliest of: (a) the breach
becoming known to the Company, or (b) Hapoalim’s notice to the Company of the breach; and the Company has not remedied the aforementioned breach or received a confirmation from Hapoalim that Haopalim does not view the breach as a material
breach by the Company, as aforementioned, or has paid off any debit balance towards Hapoalim within the aforementioned seven (7) days.” 
  

	 	3.	In the event of any conflict between the provision of this Amendment and the provisions of the Financing Agreement, the directives provisions of this Amendment shall
prevail. 

  

	 	4.	Other than as set forth in this Amendment Agreement, the remaining provisions of the Financing Agreement shall not be amended and shall remain in effect.


 In witness whereof, we have hereto set our hands: 

 

	
/S/                          
       
	/S/                              
   


	 The Company 
	The Bank 


  
 4.12-1
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00176

- CV

MICHAEL NEUMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF ROCKPORT AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC.
v. KEITH HAMILTON, GEMMA ANTHONY, AND JENNIFER BRADSHAW, AS EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE B O ARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ROCKPORT AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC.

On Appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22

- 0279

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, conclude s that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged
against appellan t

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
February 29, 2024