alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mark LUSHER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF MANSFIELD, Lydia J. Reid, Mayor, Michael Hartson, Fire Chief, Ronald S. Kreuter Director of Public Safety, The Center for Individual and Family Services and Rudy A. Nye, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 07-3640.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 15, 2008.

BEFORE: MARTIN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and STAMP, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The City of Mansfield terminated Mark Lusher (“Lusher”) from his employment as a firefighter with the City as a result of Lusher’s failure to comply with a “Last Chance Agreement” in which Lusher agreed to seek alcohol rehabilitation treatment as a condition of his continued employment. Lusher filed suit against the City and various City officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 alleging Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process violations and civil conspiracy and, pursuant to Ohio law, alleging breach of contract and disability discrimination. Lusher also sued The Center for Individual and Family Services (“The Center”), his alcohol rehabilitation treatment provider, and Rudy Nye, his alcohol treatment counselor at The Center, alleging due process violations, civil conspiracy and breach of contract. The district court reviewed the procedures afforded to Lusher both before and after his termination and found that Lusher was not denied procedural due process as to his protected property interest in continued employment as a firefighter. The district court further concluded that Lusher’s civil conspiracy claim fails because it is derivative of his procedural due process claims. Therefore, the district court granted summary judgment in favor the defendants on all of Lusher’s federal claims. As to Lusher’s state law claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed them without ruling on the merits.

Following consideration of the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties and the applicable law, we are persuaded that the district court was correct in granting summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiffs federal claims and in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state claims. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Opinion and Order of the district court dated March 8, 2007, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
{"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":"Statement of Commissioner Sola: Donating Surplus Vaccines to Caribbean & Central America Would Benefit American Industry & Security","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CcffpwnRVg\"><a href=\"\/donating-surplus-vaccines-to-caribbean-central-america-would-benefit-american-industry-security\/\">Statement of Commissioner Sola: Donating Surplus Vaccines to Caribbean & Central America Would Benefit American Industry & Security<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/donating-surplus-vaccines-to-caribbean-central-america-would-benefit-american-industry-security\/embed\/#?secret=CcffpwnRVg\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Statement of Commissioner Sola: Donating Surplus Vaccines to Caribbean & Central America Would Benefit American Industry & Security” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"CcffpwnRVg\" 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"}
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

SiliconGraphics, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (Form S-3 File No. 333-113116, Form S-4 File No. 333-110683, and Forms S-8 File Nos. 33-48890, 33-51275, 33-56017, 333-01211, 333-06403, 333-08651, 333-40849, 333-76445, 333-48780, 333-71628,333-90263, 333-100124, 333-112346, 333-140243, and 333-142169) on Form 10-K of Silicon Graphics, Inc. of our report dated September 12, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Silicon Graphics, Inc. as of June 29, 2007(Successor Company) and June 30, 2006 (Predecessor Company) and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for the nine months ended June 29, 2007 (Successor Company), the threemonths ended September 29, 2006 (Predecessor Company), and the year ended June 30, 2006 (Predecessor Company), the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of June 29,2007, which reports appear in the June 29, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Silicon Graphics, Inc. 

 

As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, on September 19, 2006, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of NewYork confirmed the Company’s Plan of Reorganization (the Plan). The Confirmation Order became a final order on September 29, 2006 and the Company emerged from Chapter 11 on October 17, 2006. In connection with its emergence fromChapter 11, the Company adopted fresh-start reporting pursuant to Statement of Position 90-7, Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the Bankruptcy Code as of September 29, 2006 as further described in Note 4 to theconsolidated financial statements. As a result, the consolidated financial statements of the Successor Company are presented on a different basis than those of the Predecessor Company and, therefore, are not comparable in all respects. 

 

Our report dated September 12, 2007, on the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting as of June 29, 2007, expresses an adverse opinion that Silicon Graphics, Inc. did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting related to accounting for income taxes as of June 29, 2007, becauseof the effect of a material weakness on the achievement of objectives of the control criteria. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Mountain View, CA

September 12, 2007
#### Evelyn Beatriz MEJIA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74405.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 19, 2010.

John E. Ricci, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*130MEMORANDUM **

Evelyn Beatriz Mejia-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

We reject petitioner’s claim that she is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal based upon an anti-gang political opinion or her membership in a particular social group, namely, parties who refuse to join or be coerced by criminal gangs. *See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence,” and holding that general aversion to gangs is not a political opinion”); *see also Parussimova v. Mukasey,*555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, because petitioner failed to demonstrate she was or will be persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims. *See Bardos v. Holder,*581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

In her opening brief, petitioner failed to challenge the BIA’s denial of her gender or family social group claims, as well as her claim for CAT relief. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY [***], HAS BEEN OMITTED BECAUSE IT IS NOT MATERIAL AND WOULD LIKELY CAUSE COMPETITIVE HARM TO THE COMPANY IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED.
​
​

Exhibit 4.7
​
AMENDMENT
This is to confirm the amendment to EMPLOYEE SECONDMENT AGREEMENT (TOPPAN) executed on March 29, 2018 (the “Agreement”) between Toppan Printing Co., Ltd. (“Toppan”) and VTS-TOUCHSENSOR Co., LTD (“VTS”).
	1.
	The parties agree that the term of the Agreement shall be extended for additional two (2) years, ending March 25, 2023.


	2.
	Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties acknowledge and agree that the Agreement will be terminated prior to the expiration date of the Agreement set forth in Article 1, if the parties reach an agreement in writing with respect to the transfer of Toppan employees to VTS as employees of VTS.


	3.
	The parties agree to change the Schedule 1 as attached hereto. The Schedule 1 may be changed when having request from Toppan and shall be discussed by both parties.


4.This amendment shall have the effect on March 26, 2021.
	5.
	Except as specifically provided hereinabove, both parties shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the dated indicated below.
​
​
	​


	​


	​


	​


	​



	Toppan Printing Co., Ltd.
	    
	VTS-TOUCHSENSOR Co., LTD.

	​
	​
	​

	Date:
	March 25, 2021
	​
	Date: 
	 March 25, 2021

	​
	​
	​
	​

	​
	​
	​
	​

	By:
	/s/ Tetsuro Ueki
	​
	By:
	/s/ Mario Bernardo N.Santos

	Name: Tetsuro Ueki
	​
	Name: Mario Bernardo N.Santos

	Title: Director & Senior Managing
	​
	Title: Managing Director



​
​
Executive Officer, Electronics Division
​

​



CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY [***], HAS BEEN OMITTED BECAUSE IT IS NOT MATERIAL AND WOULD LIKELY CAUSE COMPETITIVE HARM TO THE COMPANY IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED.
​
​

Schedule 1
[***]

​
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUCINE TRIM, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

REWARD ZONE USA LLC; DOES, 1-10

inclusive,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-55517

D.C. No. 

2:20-cv-01027-SVW-KS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 28, 2023** 

Pasadena, California

Before: N.R. SMITH, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Lucine Trim (Trim) appeals from the district court’s partial

judgment granting a motion to dismiss in favor of Defendant, Reward Zone USA,

FILED

AUG 8 2023

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).
LLC (Reward Zone), in a putative class action lawsuit brought under the

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Because the district court certified

its interlocutory order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), we have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See SEC v. Cap. Consultants LLC, 453 F.3d

1166, 1174 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We review de novo a district court’s

dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). See Brunette v. Humane Soc’y of Ventura Cnty., 294 F.3d 1205, 1209

(9th Cir. 2002). We affirm on the first cause of action. 

Trim’s argument in that cause of action is foreclosed by our decision in

Borden v. eFinancial, LLC, 53 F.4th 1230 (9th Cir. 2022). In Borden, we held that

a system constitutes an autodialer regulated by the TCPA only if it “generate[s]

and dial[s] random or sequential telephone numbers.” Id. at 1231 (emphasis

removed). Because Trim concedes that the subject dialing equipment did not

generate telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator,

Reward Zone’s text messages were not sent via use of an autodialer in violation of

the TCPA.1

AFFIRMED.

1

 We deny the Electronic Privacy Information Center and National

Consumer Center’s motion to become amicus curiae as moot. (Dkt. 14). We also

deny as moot Trim’s initial petition for rehearing en banc. (Dkt. 28).

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Timmie Durrell COLE, Sr., Appellant.

No. 07-2175.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 20, 2008.

Filed: May 23, 2008.

Shannon Leigh Olson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, Richard D. Westphal, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Appellee.

Timmie Dunell Cole Sr., Lewisburg, PA, pro se.

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Timmie Cole, Sr., appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for return of $2,450 in cash seized during the execution of a search warrant and arrest, and later forfeited to the government pursuant to administrative forfeiture proceedings under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). We reverse and remand.

Cole argued below that he had not received notice of the forfeiture proceedings, whereas the government asserted it had mailed notice of the proceedings to Cole and his attorney, and had received a return receipt indicating that someone in the attorney’s office had signed for the notice. In reply, Cole argued, as relevant to this appeal, that the government failed to submit proof substantiating its attempts to provide him with notice of the proceedings. Without requiring evidence from the government, the district court denied Cole’s motion, concluding that the government’s service of notice on Cole’s attorney satisfied due process. Because the government did not submit evidence below to support its assertions that it mailed notice of the forfeiture proceeding to Cole’s attorney and that someone in the office signed for the mailing, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings as to the sufficiency of notice regarding the forfeiture proceedings. *See Dusenbery v. United States,*534 U.S. 161, 168-71, 122 S.Ct. 694, 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002) (describing what constitutes notice “reasonably calculated” to apprise inmate of forfeiture proceeding); *cf*Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g) (person aggrieved by deprivation of property may move for return of property and court “must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion”).

*707Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-2000
<CASH>                                         504,453
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,082
<ALLOWANCES>                                       862
<INVENTORY>                                     20,928
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               541,846
<PP&E>                                          36,157
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,299
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 583,039
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,767
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                     563,972
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   583,039
<SALES>                                         22,250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,250
<CGS>                                           17,248
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,213
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   175
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  36
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,129)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,131)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,131)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-20576

Summary Calendar

____________

Jonathan Ridgley, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Tammy Currie, 

Defendant—Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:23-CV-2770

______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jonathan Ridgley, Texas prisoner # 2287725, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint against Tammy Currie, the District Court Clerk for San Jacinto 

County, Texas, alleging that she violated his due process rights by failing to 

notify counsel of his appointment to represent Ridgley on direct appeal. The 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 19, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-20576 Document: 36-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2024
No. 23-20576

2

district court dismissed his complaint without prejudice for failure to state a 

claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1), and Ridgley appealed.

District courts must dismiss a prisoner’s § 1983 complaint if it is 

frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. 

Dismissals under § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim are reviewed de 

novo on appeal using the same standard applicable to dismissals pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 

207, 209-10 (5th Cir. 2016).

Ridgley’s allegations amounted to a nothing more than a claim that 

Currie acted negligently by failing to notify counsel of his appointment, 

which does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Alderson v. 

Concordia Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415, 419–20 (5th Cir. 2017). 

Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Ridgley’s complaint 

for failure to state a claim under § 1915A(b). See Legate, 822 F.3d at 209-10.

For the first time on appeal, Ridgley asserts that Currie’s failure to 

perform her duties constituted reckless disregard and callous indifference to 

his right to a direct appeal and that the district court should have awarded 

him punitive damages. We will not consider this new claim. See Leverette v. 

Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).

The district court’s dismissal of the complaint counts as a strike for 

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534-

41 (2015). Ridgley is advised that if he accrues three strikes under § 1915(g), 

he will be unable to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal 

filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See id. § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

Case: 23-20576 Document: 36-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2024