alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DE’MARIAN A. CLEMONS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ROBERT CLINTON HAYES, M.D.; et

al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-15679

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01163-KJDGWF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 10, 2014** 

Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner De’Marian A. Clemons appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs while he was a pretrial detainee. We have

FILED

MAR 17 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a

dismissal for failure to complete service in a timely manner. Oyama v. Sheehan (In

re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Clemons’s action

without prejudice because Clemons failed to effect proper service of the summons

and complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e), (m) (describing proper methods for

service of process on an individual and requiring service within 120 days after the

complaint is filed); Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(6) (setting forth requirements of service on

individuals under Nevada state law); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Clemons’s motion

for reconsideration because Clemons failed to establish grounds for such relief. 

See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63

(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for

reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-15679
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3128 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3128

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
  to adjust the date on which consolidated assets are determined for 
purposes of exempting certain instruments of smaller institutions from 
                          capital deductions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 6, 2011

Mr. Grimm (for himself, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Meeks, 
 Ms. Hayworth, and Mrs. McCarthy of New York) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
  to adjust the date on which consolidated assets are determined for 
purposes of exempting certain instruments of smaller institutions from 
                          capital deductions.

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

SECTION 1. DATE FOR DETERMINING CONSOLIDATED ASSETS.

    Section 171(b)(4)(C) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act is amended by inserting after ``December 31, 
2009,'' the following: ``or March 31, 2010,''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
32.2





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 Solar Thin Films, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Robert M. Rubin, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial
Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and 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.





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Solar Thin Films, Inc. and will be retained by Solar Thin Films,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


/s/  Robert
      M. RubinRobert
      M. RubinChief
      Financial Officer(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)




May 12,
2009
----

|   | 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 results of operation of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      L. Paul Latham                            |
|----------------------------------------------------|
| L.      Paul Latham                                |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer         |
| of      Southwest Royalties, Inc., the             |
| Managing      General Partner of                   |
| Southwest      Oil & Gas Income Fund X-B, L.P. |
|                                               |
| March      27, 2009                                |
|                                               |
|                                               |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs                              |
| Mel      G. Riggs                                  |
| Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer of |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc., the                |
| Managing      General Partner of                   |
| Southwest      Oil & Gas Income Fund X-B, L.P. |
|                                               |
| March      27, 2009                                |
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2822 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2822

   To require that the United States Attorney, and the United States 
   Marshal, appointed for the Northern Mariana Islands reside in the 
           Northern Mariana Islands; and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 16, 2011

 Mr. Sablan (for himself, Mr. Hinchey, and Ms. Norton) introduced the 
                             following bill

                            August 30, 2011

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require that the United States Attorney, and the United States 
   Marshal, appointed for the Northern Mariana Islands reside in the 
           Northern Mariana Islands; 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. RESIDENCE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY.

    Section 545 of title 28 of the United States Code is amended by 
striking the 3d sentence.

SEC. 2. RESIDENCE OF UNITED STATES MARSHAL.

    Section 561 of title 28 of the United States Code is amended--
            (1) in the 1st sentence of subsection (c) by striking ``, 
        except'' and all that follows through ``district'', and
            (2) in subsection (e)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``; and'' and 
                inserting a period,
                    (B) by striking ``that--'' and all that follows 
                through ``(1) the'', and inserting ``that the'', and
                    (C) by striking paragraph (2).

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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, 2018

a0226

Order 

Clerk

February 27, 2018

156986 & (13)(20)(27)(30)

In re ANGEL BARTLETT

___________________________________

LORRAINE POPE,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 156986

COA: 341256

Allegan Probate Court: 

ANGEL BARTLETT, 13-058016-MI

Respondent-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the December 5, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. The motions for miscellaneous relief are DENIED.
The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United Sta tes District Court for 1 the Northern District of Iowa.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2232

___________ Thomas A. Braun, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Larry Best; Casey Snyder; Kevin * Clefisch, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 7, 1998 Filed: November 3, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Thomas A . Braun appeals from the district court & s adverse grant of summary 1 judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit with related state claims, arising from his arrest for spe eding and failing to yield to an emergency vehicle. Having carefully reviewed t he record and the parties & submissions, we conclude that the judgment of the district court is correct for the reasons set forth in its orders. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20178

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ENRIQUE RUIZ-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-689-ALL

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

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Enrique Ruiz-Lopez (“Ruiz”) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326,

and resulting 24-month sentence. He renews his argument that his

prior felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance

did not merit the eight-level adjustment under U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) for an aggravated felony and that he should

have received only the four-level adjustment provided in

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) for “any other felony.” Ruiz’s arguments
No. 02-20178

-2-

regarding the definitions of “drug trafficking offense” and

“aggravated felony” were recently foreclosed by United States v.

Caicedo-Cuero, 312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir. 2002). The

district court thus did not err in assessing an eight-level

adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Id. 

Ruiz also argues, for the first time on appeal, that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional because it treats a

prior conviction for an aggravated felony as a mere sentencing

factor and not an element of the offense. He concedes that his

argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for

Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule

Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; see also

United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert.

denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         508,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,292,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (950,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    911,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,319,000
<PP&E>                                      37,391,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (16,404,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              70,089,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,424,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    17,919,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                70,089,000
<SALES>                                     58,808,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            58,808,000
<CGS>                                       34,967,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,967,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,271,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,626,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,947,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,668,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,279,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,279,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.55


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                     COMPUWARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                              AS OF MARCH 31, 2008

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   JURISDICTION
                                                                        OF
NAME                                                               INCORPORATION
----                                                              --------------
<S>                                                               <C>
Changepoint International SRL..................................   Barbados
Compuware A.B..................................................   Sweden
Compuware AG...................................................   Switzerland
Compuware Austria GmbH.........................................   Austria
Compuware A/S..................................................   Denmark
Compuware Asia Pacific Limited.................................   Hong Kong
Compuware Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd................................   Singapore
Compuware Asia-Pacific Pty. Ltd................................   Australia
Compuware B.V..................................................   Netherlands
Compuware Corporation of Canada................................   Canada
Compuware Covisint (Shanghai) Software Services Co. Ltd........   China
Compuware de Mexico............................................   Mexico
Compuware do Brasil S/A........................................   Brazil
Compuware Europe B.V...........................................   Netherlands
Compuware Finland OY...........................................   Finland
Compuware Foreign Sales Corporation............................   Barbados
Compuware GmbH.................................................   Germany
Compuware India Software Operations Private Ltd................   India
Compuware International I LLC..................................   Michigan
Compuware Japan Corporation....................................   Japan
Compuware Korea ...............................................   Korea
Compuware Ltd..................................................   United Kingdom
Compuware Nordic AS............................................   Norway
Compuware NV/SA................................................   Belgium
Compuware Overseas Holding Corporation.........................   Michigan
Compuware S.A..................................................   Spain
Compuware S.A.R.L..............................................   France
Compuware System Software B.V..................................   Netherlands
Compuware Sp. Z.o.o............................................   Poland
Compuware SpA..................................................   Italy
Compuware Ireland Ltd..........................................   Ireland
Proxima Technology Limited.....................................   United Kingdom
</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG

#### Gail T. Marshall v. Medical Facilities of Am., Inc.

August 28, 1986

By JUDGE RICHARD S. MILLER

On the defendant’s motion for Summary Judgment, I sustain said motion as to Counts One, Two and Three. Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew Count Six at the hearing on August 25, 1986. As to Counts Four and Five, I overrule the motion.

Under *Bowman*v. *State Bank of*Keysville, 229 Va. 534, 331 S.E.2d 798 (1985), cited in the briefs filed by both parties, Virginia is an employment "at will" state, subject to the very narrow public policy exception recognized in that case. I rule that the "at will" policy on the facts shown in the captioned case overrides and excludes the legal efficacy of any allegation of wrongful termination, breach of implied covenant of good faith and breach of contract. I further rule that the one-year statute of limitations under Section 8.01-248 applies to a suit for wrongful termination insofar as it is alleged in the motion for judgment.

As to Counts Four and Five, which I do not overrule, the allegations of slander and libel are subject to the one-year statute of limitations. *Morrissey*v. *William Morrow and Co.,*739 F.2d 962 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 1194, 84 L.Ed.2d 340 (1985). There is an issue of fact concerning the allegation of republication and the circumstances surrounding the same with reference to a communication from an employee (Bondurant) of the *411defendant to a third party (Meridian) within the one year prior to the filing of the motion for judgment and so the statute has not run as to the allegations of Count Five.

The question of qualified privilege is open to a factual determination by the trier of fact and should be ruled on at the time of trial.

As to Count Four’s allegation of intentional infliction of emotional harm, I rule that this tort, recognized in *Womack*v. *Eldridge,*215 Va. 338 (1974), is subject to the limitation of Section 8.01-243(A) of two years and is not time-barred. The factual basis surrounding the termination apparently being somewhat in dispute, summary judgment is inappropriate at this time, even though all the elements necessary to prove the cause of action in *Eldridge, supra,*must be proven by the plaintiff.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

April 1 4 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk April 14 , 2017

153110( 9 6 )

NL VENTURES VI FARMINGTON, LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 153110

v COA: 323144

Wayne CC: 13

- 004863

- CZ

CITY OF LIVONIA,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of the Detroit Water and Sewerage

Department and the Great Lakes Water Authority for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is

GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on March 21 , 2017, is accepted for filing.
Exhibit 15.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-190123, 333-171011, 333-147724, 333-14006 and 333-9546) of Luxottica Group S.p.A. of our report dated April 28, 2017, relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Luxottica Group S.p.A., which appears in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.   /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers S.p.A.  Milan, Italy April 28, 2017
Exhibit 10.1


 



	


	






55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 100


Cambridge, MA  02142


www.akceatx.com
















 


April 17, 2018







Sarah Boyce



55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 100


Cambridge, MA 02142









Dear Sarah,







It is my great pleasure to extend to you an offer to join Akcea Therapeutics, Inc., as President, reporting to me. In this position, you will receive an annual salary of $485,000.00 and be eligible for an annual increase to your base salary in accordance with our annual merit process. You are also eligible for an incentive bonus targeted at 45% of your base salary under our current Management by Objectives (MBO) program. Employees who join the company after October 1st of any given year will be eligible to participate in the MBO program the following calendar year.







I am also pleased to advise you that the Akcea Board of Directors has approved awarding to you 1,000,000 Akcea Stock Options and $500,000 in Akcea RSUs. These Akcea Options and RSUs will be granted and vest in accordance with your Grant Notice Agreement.







You also have the opportunity to participate in our employee benefits program. Please feel free to contact Martha Bradford at 617-207-0199 if you have any questions.







This offer is contingent on your signing in the space provided below, and signing the attached Employee Confidential Information, Inventions Assignment, Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreement.







We are very pleased that you will be joining us, and we look forward to working with you! We anticipate a start date as set forth below your signature.







Sincerely,







/s/ Paula Soteropoulos







Paula Soteropoulos


Chief Executive Officer







	
Accepted and agreed:

	
/s/ Sarah Boyce

	 



 


	
Date Accepted:

	
April 17, 2018

	 
	 	 	 
	
Start Date:

	
April 17, 2018