alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy V. CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-6100.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 5, 2008.

Decided: June 13, 2008.

Troy V. Cleveland, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, James L. Trump, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Troy Cleveland seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). Because Cleveland’s motion did not directly attack his conviction or sentence, but rather asserted a defect in the collateral review process itself, it constituted a true Rule 60(b) motion under *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.2003).* To appeal an order denying a *221Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas action, Cleveland must establish entitlement to a certificate of appealability. *See Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 368 (4th Cir.2004).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cleveland has not made the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 Cleveland claims there existed a defect in the collateral review process with respect to the finding that his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion was untimely. We previously upheld the district court's untimeliness finding, denying a certificate of appealability and dismissing Cleveland's appeal from the denial of his § 2255 motion. *See United States v. Cleveland,*13 Fed.Appx. 71 (4th Cir.2001) (unpublished). Further relitigation of the untimeliness issue is therefore foreclosed under the law of the case doctrine. *See United States v. Bell,*5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir.1993) (stating the doctrine "compels compliance on remand *221with the dictates of a superior court and forecloses relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court”).
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8) pertaining to (i) the 1996 Equity Participation Plan (No. 333-
05233), (ii) the D.O.S. Ltd. 1993 Stock Option Plan (No. 333-05237), (iii) the
Tuboscope Vetco International Inc. 401(k) Thrift Savings Plan (No. 333-43385),
(iv) the Tuboscope Inc. Employee Qualified Stock Purchase Plan (No. 333-56039)
and (v) the Tuboscope Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan (No. 333-56041) of
Tuboscope Inc. of our report dated March 29, 1999, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedules of Tuboscope Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Houston, Texas
March 29, 1999
266 INDEPENDENT AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS

Location Position Title Name of Incumbent

Pay

Plan

Type 

of

Appt.

Level,

Grade, or

Pay

Tenure Expires

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

Washington, DC Chairperson, Martha B. Gould

Librarian/Information Specialist

PD PAS $426 5 Years 07/19/02

 Do........... Vice Chairperson, Public Member Joan R. Challinor PD PAS $426 5 years 07/19/04

 Do........... Public Member Charles E. Abramson PD PAS $426 5 years 07/19/00

 Do........... Public Member Walter Anderson PD PAS $426 5 years 07/19/00

 Do........... Permanent Member (Librarian of James H. Billington

Congress)

WC PAS ...... ......

 Do........... Librarian/Information Specialist Rebecca T. Bingham PD PAS $426 5 years 07/19/01

 Do........... Public Member Levar Burton PD PAS $426 5 years 07/19/00

 Do........... Librarian/Information Specialist Jose Marie Griffiths PD PAS $426 5 years 07/19/01

 Do........... Public Member Jack E. Hightower PD PAS $426 5 years 07/19/04

 Do........... Librarian/Information Specialist Bobby Roberts PD PAS $426 5 years 07/19/03

 Do........... Permanent Member (Director, Beverly Sheppard

Institute of Museum & Library 

Services)

WC PAS ...... ......

 Do........... Public Member Vacant PD PAS $426 5 years 07/19/02

 Do........... Public Member Vacant PD PAS $426 5 years 07/19/02

 Do........... Librarian/Information Specialist Vacant PD PAS $426 5 years 07/19/03

 Do........... Public Member Vacant PD PAS $425 5 years 07/19/03

 Do........... Public Member Vacant PD PAS $426 5 years 07/19/04

 Do........... Executive Director Robert S. Willard ES NA ...... ...... ......

Location Position Title Name of Incumbent

Pay

Plan

Type 

of

Appt.

Level,

Grade, or

Pay

Tenure Expires

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY

Washington, DC Chairperson Marca Bristo PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/98

 Do........... First Vice Chairperson Kate Pew Wolters PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/98

 Do........... Second Vice Chairperson Hughey Walker PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/96

 Do........... Member Yerker Andersson PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/99

 Do........... Member Dave N. Brown PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/98

 Do........... Member John D. Kemp PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/97

 Do........... Member Audrey McCrimon PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/97

 Do........... Member Gina McDonald PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/98

 Do........... Member Bonnie O'Day PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/98

 Do........... Member Lilliam Rangel-Diaz PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/96

 Do........... Member Debra L. Robinson PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/97

 Do........... Member Shirley W. Ryan PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/94

 Do........... Member Michael B. Unhjem PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/93

 Do........... Member Rae Unzicker PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/97

 Do........... Member Ela Yazzie-King PD PAS $469 3 years 09/17/99
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 45601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20856]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Institute 
of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; P41 BTRC Application Review 
(2018/01).
    Date: November 15-17, 2017.
    Time: 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Boston Hotel Buckminster, 645 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 
02215.
    Contact Person: John P. Holden, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of 
Biomedical Imaging, and Bioengineering, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
496-8947, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7913161117571116151d1c1739171011571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="046e6b6c6a2a6c6b6860616a446a6d6c2a636b72">[email protected]</span></a>.


    Dated: September 25, 2017.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-20856 Filed 9-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1
<CASH>                                          3,855,596
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     750,347
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (250,000)
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                4,812,984
<PP&E>                                         87,016,181
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 93,436,711
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           7,398,443
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           66,979
<OTHER-SE>                                     57,410,566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   93,436,711
<SALES>                                         8,428,015
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                8,428,015
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   8,673,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                242,766
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (488,675)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (488,675)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (488,675)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.07)
        


</TABLE>
#### John Raimondi, Appellant, v Board of Managers of Olympic Tower Condominium, Respondent.

[859 NYS2d 191]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered November 20, 2007, as amended by order entered February 4, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from, granted *331defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and in defendant’s favor on its first, second and third counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted to defendant in this action where plaintiff buyer entered into an agreement with defendant under which, in consideration for defendant waiving its right of first refusal to purchase the subject condominium unit, he agreed to pay 7.5% of his profit if he sold the unit within five years of purchase (Letter Agreement). Plaintiff failed to establish any basis upon which the Letter Agreement is void and unenforceable. Rather, based on the broad powers vested in defendant in the bylaws in carrying out the affairs of the condominium, its act of entering into the Letter Agreement with plaintiff as a condition for waiving its right of first refusal was well within the scope of its authority and did not deviate from the procedures contained in the bylaws regarding the exercise or waiver of its first right of refusal *(compare Lisenenkov v Kaszirer,*41 AD3d 282, 283 [2007]). Furthermore, defendant’s action of entering into the Letter Agreement is entitled to the protections of the business judgment rule inasmuch as the action furthered a corporate purpose and was not taken in bad faith *(see Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp.,*75 NY2d 530 [1990]).

Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the Letter Agreement did not constitute an unreasonable restraint on his ability to sell the unit, and plaintiff has not alleged any claim that the Letter Agreement was imposed upon him on the basis of “race, creed, color or national origin” (Real Property Law § 339-v [2] [a]). Plaintiff is a sophisticated businessman, and the record is devoid of evidence, other than plaintiff’s self-serving statements, to support his allegation that he was compelled to execute the Letter Agreement.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, including that the Letter Agreement constituted an unauthorized flip tax, and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 33725(11).]
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)
  (a)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007
(the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 February 21, 2008
    /s/ Dean J. DouglasDean J. DouglasPresident and Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SARA BA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY OFFICE OF EQUAL

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND

INCLUSION; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY; ALEJANDRO

N. MAYORKAS, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-35933

D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00720-MO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 10, 2024** 

San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

FILED

MAY 10 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Plaintiff Sara Ba appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action as a sanction for his discovery misconduct. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2)(A)(v). We review for abuse of discretion,1 and we affirm. 

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

because Ba willfully2 engaged in evasive conduct at two depositions and refused to

comply with the court’s order that he answer questions. See Toth, 862 F.2d at

1385; see also Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). Ba’s misconduct consumed time that the district court

could have devoted to other matters, prejudiced the defense, and persisted despite

the district court’s warning that his action could be dismissed. See Pagtalunan v.

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642–43 (9th Cir. 2002); Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913

F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990); Toth, 862 F.2d at 1385. Moreover, Ba did not

argue—in the district court or on appeal—that any alternative sanction would have

secured his compliance with the Federal Rules

3

 and the court’s order. See

Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1455 (9th Cir. 1994); Anderson

1

See Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1385 (9th Cir.

1988); see also United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–63 (9th Cir. 2009)

(en banc). 

2

See Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2003).

3

 See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A)(i)–(ii), 26(b)(1), 30(c)(2).

2
v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 525–26 (9th Cir. 1976). The record thus supports the

district court’s conclusion that dismissal was appropriate under our five-factor test. 

See Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 482 F.3d at 1096–97; Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191

F.3d 983, 990–92 (9th Cir. 1999). 

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters

not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett

v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). 

AFFIRMED.

3
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00144-CV

Harry L. Sivley, Special Deputy Receiver of Comprehensive Health Services of Texas, Inc.,

d/b/a Wellchoice, Appellant

v.

Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-00-001863, HONORABLE MARGARET A. COOPER, JUDGE PRESIDING

NO. 03-08-00148-CV

Harry L. Sivley, Special Deputy Receiver of Comprehensive Health Services of Texas, Inc.,

d/b/a Wellchoice, Appellant

v.

N.S. Rangarajan, Robert B. Low, James W. Patton, Stanley R. Kirk, 

Mark D. Keshishian, and Jeffrey Richardon, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-03-00001, HONORABLE MARGARET A. COOPER, JUDGE PRESIDING
 The parties ask that we dismiss the appeals with prejudice. The phrase “with prejudice” 1

is used when disposing of a case at the trial court level, but when this Court dismisses an appeal, it

does so without any such notation. See, e.g., Tex. R. App. P. 42.1 (appellate court may dismiss

appeal on motion of appellant or by joint agreement).

2

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On February 12, 2009, at the joint request of the parties, we abated these appeals to

give the parties time to resolve their disputes. On March 19, the parties filed joint motions to

dismiss, explaining that they have finalized the settlement of their disputes and asking that we

dismiss the appeals. We grant the motions and dismiss both appeals. 1

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Chief Justice Law Not Participating

Dismissed on Joint Motion

Filed: March 26, 2009
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 31.1



                Written Certification of Chief Executive Officer
            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, C. Thomas Faulders, III, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of LCC International,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



Date: October 24, 2003

/s/ C. Thomas Faulders, III
-----------------------------------------------------
C. Thomas Faulders, III
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer