alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Remedios MIRANDA-DE PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74807.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2008.*

Filed May 15, 2008.

Remedios Miranda-De Perez, pro se.

Nicole N. Murley, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*752Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review from the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of petitioner’s motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review this determination by the BIA for abuse of discretion. *See Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002).

The regulations provide, with certain exceptions that do not apply to this case, that “a party may file only one motion to reopen ... and that motion must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered....” *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Here, the BIA issued its final administrative decision on March 29, 2006. Petitioner filed the motion to reopen on June 26, 2007. The BIA correctly determined that the motion to reopen was untimely filed. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2. While ineffective assistance of counsel may justify tolling the time period for filing a motion to reopen, a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel must generally meet the procedural requirements set forth in *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). The BIA correctly found that petitioner failed to establish that she complied with these requirements. *See Reyes v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 592, 596-99 (9th Cir.2004). The BIA therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2; *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted in part because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to sua sponte reopen proceedings. *See Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir.2002). We therefore dismiss in part this petition for review.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
No. 846.

#### Lillian F. Slocum, Executrix, etc., Petitioner, *v.*New York Life Insurance Company.

April 18, 1910.

*Mr. Daniel B. Henderson*for the petitioner.

No appearance for the respondent.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Clint JOSEPH, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 04-1477.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

May 23, 2008.

Elaine Mittleman on brief for appellant.

Aixa Maldonado-Quifiones, Assistant United States Attorney, and Thomas P. Colantuono, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

Before TORRUELLA and LYNCH, Circuit Judges, STAFFORD,* Senior District Judge.

*

 Of the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

This is a sentencing appeal. Clint Joseph pled guilty in December 2003 to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(B)(iii). On March 19, 2004, he was sentenced to eighty-seven months’ imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a special assessment of $100. The sentence was at the low end of the Guidelines range. The court rejected Joseph’s argument that he receive the mandatory minimum sentence of sixty months.

The sentence was imposed before the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Joseph’s first argument is that his sentence should be vacated and the case remanded to the sentencing court under *Booker.*But Joseph plainly does not meet the standards for such a remand under the circuit’s plain error standard for unpreserved claims of *Booker*error, set out in *United States v. Antonakopoulos,*399 F.3d 68, 75 (1st Cir.2005). We affirm his sentence.

Joseph also argues the case should be remanded in light of two arguments he has never presented to the district court. First, he argues that he should be resentenced in light of a recent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines reducing the base offense level for most crack cocaine offenses. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1; *id.*app. C, amend. 711 (effective Nov. 1, 2007). On March 3, 2008, this amendment to the Guidelines was made retroactive, which allows defendant to file a post-sentencing motion with the district court to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). *See id.*§ 1B1.10. Second, he argues that the Guideline which makes the amendment retroactive, section 1B1.10, is itself unconstitutional, because according to Joseph, the provision provides limitations on the court’s discretion once the court calculates the amended Guidelines range.

If Joseph so chooses, he may file appropriate motions to raise these issues in the district court. Nothing in this judgment precludes that. We simply affirm his original sentence and remand the matter to the district court to entertain any motions defendant may promptly file. *See United States v. Connell,*960 F.2d 191, 197 (1st Cir.1992).

So ordered.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants – April 23, 2018","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pa9ERQ506I\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-april-23-2018\/\">Applicants – April 23, 2018<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-april-23-2018\/embed\/#?secret=pa9ERQ506I\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – April 23, 2018” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"pa9ERQ506I\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
EX-10.1


  Exhibit 10.1

  SECOND AMENDMENT (“AMENDMENT”) TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

  BETWEEN

  ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

  AND

  PAUL M. BLACK

  WHEREAS, Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) and Paul M. Black (“Executive”) previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated December 19, 2012, and an Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement dated October 1, 2015 (collectively, the “Agreement”); and

  WHEREAS, the Company and Executive previously entered into the Agreement and now mutually wish to amend certain terms contained therein.

  NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that effective as of May 6, 2022 (the “Amendment Effective Date”), the Agreement is amended as follows:

  1.The first sentence of Section 1 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:


  “Company hereby agrees to employ Executive, and Executive hereby accepts employment, (i) as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company from December 19, 2012 through May 5, 2022 and (ii) as Executive Consultant to the Company commencing on May 6, 2022, in each case pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.”

  2.Section 2 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:


  “The term of Executive’s employment by Company under this Agreement (the “Employment Period”) shall commence on the 19th day of December 2012 (the “Effective Date”) and shall continue in effect through June 30, 2022 (the date of termination being the “Termination Date”), unless earlier terminated for Cause as provided herein.  This Agreement shall not renew thereafter. Such non-renewal shall be treated as a termination of Executive’s employment without Cause by Company and shall determine the payments and benefits available to Executive (e.g., Executive shall be entitled to the severance benefits set forth in Section 4.5.1 commencing on the Termination Date).”

  For the avoidance of doubt, the definition of “Termination Date” above shall supersede the definition of “Termination Date” in Section 4 of the Agreement.

  3.During the Employment Period, Executive will continue to receive health insurance and other employee benefits, as applicable.   


  4.Executive expressly consents to the terms of the Amendment, and acknowledges and agrees that such changes will not entitle Executive to terminate his employment for “Constructive Discharge” as set forth in Section 4.4 of the Agreement.


   

  

   

  5.Except as provided herein, the Agreement remains in effect as drafted.


  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the Amendment Effective Date.

  EXECUTIVE

   

  /s/ Paul Black

  By:  Paul M. Black

   

  ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

  /s/ Tejal Vakharia

  By:   Tejal Vakharia				

  Title: SVP, General Counsel, Marketing & 
          Government Affairs
**EXHIBIT
      13.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Embraer - Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica
      S.A. (the "Company") on Form 20 F/A for the fiscal year ended December 31,
      2006,
      as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Report"), I, Antonio Luiz Pizarro Manso, Executive Vice President
      Corporate and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes Oxley Act of
      2002,
      that to the best of my knowledge:




(i)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




Date:
      November 26, 2007





By:  /S/
      ANTONIO LUIZ PIZARRO MANSO


Antonio
      Luiz Pizarro Manso


Executive
      Vice-President Corporate and Chief Financial Officer
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A of Huntsman International LLC (the
"Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Kimo Esplin, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|/s/J. KIMO ESPLINJ. Kimo Esplin Chief Financial
OfficerFebruary 10, 2004 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 35.1
            SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
         HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-HI1 (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer (the "Servicer")  pursuant to the Servicing  Agreement,  dated as of
March  29,  2006  (as  amended  from  time  to  time,  the  "Agreement"),  among
Residential Funding Company, LLC (formerly Residential Funding Corporation),  as
master servicer,  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as indenture trustee,  and the Home
Loan Trust 2006-HI1, as the issuing entity, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material  respects  throughout
such  period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      -------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Max Vekich Sworn-In as FMC Commissioner","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UQHpdtJDNq\"><a href=\"\/max-vekich-sworn-in-as-fmc-commissioner\/\">Max Vekich Sworn-In as FMC Commissioner<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/max-vekich-sworn-in-as-fmc-commissioner\/embed\/#?secret=UQHpdtJDNq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Max Vekich Sworn-In as FMC Commissioner” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"UQHpdtJDNq\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Document

Exhibit 10.1
On-Going Storage Fees and Final Move Costs Relating to Relocation Expenses
WHEREAS, effective March 23, 2020, the board of directors of Commercial Vehicle Group, Inc. (the “Company”) appointed Harold C. Bevis (the “Executive”) as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, in addition to the Executive remaining a member of the board of directors of the Company;
WHEREAS, as part of the Executive’s employment, the Executive moved from the Atlanta area to Central Ohio and the Company agreed to reimburse the Executive for documented, reasonable and customary relocation expenses;
WHEREAS, the Executive has encountered construction delays of his house in Central Ohio primarily as a result of COVID-19;
WHEREAS, as a result of such construction delays, the Executive has continued to incur storage fees of his belongings from his move from the Atlanta area to Central Ohio;
WHEREAS, in recognition of such ongoing storage fees due to construction delays of the Executive’s house in Central Ohio primarily as a result of COVID-19, the Company agrees to continue to pay documented storage fees of up to $10,000 per quarter through December 31, 2023 and the documented final move costs incurred no later than December 31, 2023.
The Company hereby agrees to continue to pay, in recognition of such ongoing storage fees due to construction delays of the Executive’s house in Central Ohio primarily as a result of COVID-19, documented storage fees of up to $10,000 per quarter through December 31, 2023 and the documented final move costs incurred no later than December 31, 2023.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of February 3, 2022.


COMPANY


By:____/s/ Robert C. Griffin___________                        
Name:    Robert C. Griffin            
Title:    Chairman of the Board of Directors    




EXECUTIVE


                        
By:___/s/ Harold C. Bevis_______________                        
Harold C. Bevis
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto URIBE-SALAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-51466

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 30, 2008.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Roberto Uribe-Salas raises arguments that are foreclosed by *AlmendarezTorres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872, *407169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
----

|   | (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 operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Kenneth A. Martinek                   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   | Kenneth A. Martinek                       |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer     |
|   |                                      |
|   |                                      |
|   | /s/ Salvatore Randazzo                    |
|   | Salvatore Randazzo                        |
|   | Executive Vice President, Chief Operating |
|   | Officer and Chief Financial Officer       |

----
#### Karl WHITE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE ATTORNEY, Michael J. Statz Kenneth Farnsworth, Assistant State Attorney, Howard Finkelstein, Public Defender Madeline Torres, Assistant Public Defender, Andrew J. Smallman, Assistant Public Defender, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-14349

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 15, 2008.

Karl White, Thornton, PA, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 07-60056-CV-CMA.

PER CURIAM:

Karl White appeals *pro se*the dismissal without prejudice of his civil complaint for failure to serve the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). We affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion a dismissal without prejudice of a complaint for failure to serve a defendant under Rule 4(m). *Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll County Comm’rs,*476 F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir. 2007). The record is undisputed that White did not serve the defendants under Rule 4(m), and in his brief, White makes *963no argument that the district court erred in its application of the Rule. The district court did not abuse its discretion.

White’s argument that his motion for court-appointed counsel should have been granted also fails. To the extent "White is seeking reconsideration of our order, his request is untimely because it was filed more than 21 days after this Court denied his motion for court-appointed counsel. 11th Cir. R. 27-2. To the extent "White is challenging the denial of his motion by the district court, his argument fails because his complaint was not novel or complex. “Court appointment of counsel in civil cases is warranted only in ‘exceptional circumstances,’ and whether such circumstances exist is also committed to district court discretion.” *Steele v. Shah,*87 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir.1996) (quoting *Kilgo v. Ricks,*983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir.1993)). “The key is whether the *pro se*litigant needs help in presenting the essential merits of his or her position in the court.” *Kilgo,*983 F.2d at 193. The district court did not abuse its discretion.

We also deny White’s motion to reconsider his request to file a supplemental brief.

The dismissal of "White’s complaint is

AFFIRMED.