alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harold B. SHAMBURGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. KIRKLAND; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-15854.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 23, 2010.

Harold B. Shamburger, Crescent City, CA, pro se.

Kenneth T. Roost, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

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).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Harold B. Shamburger appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. *229§ 198S action alleging claims for retaliation and various constitutional violations stemming from his placement and continuing confinement in administrative segregation because of his validation as a prison gang member. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shamburger’s retaliation claim and his Eighth Amendment claim challenging the conditions of his confinement because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to these claims. *See Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing suit).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shamburger’s due process claim challenging his initial placement in administrative segregation as time-barred. *See Maldonado v. Harris,*370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir.2004) (California personal injury statute of limitations applies to section 1983 actions); *Elliott v. City of Union City,*25 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir.1994) (under California law, statute of limitations tolled for two years for prisoners).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shamburger’s claim that his revalidation as an active member of the Black Guerrilla Family prison gang in 2006 violated his due process rights, because the revalidation was based on “some evidence.” *See Bruce v. Ylst,*351 F.3d 1283, 1287-88 (9th Cir.2003) (prison gang validation proceeding subject to “some evidence” standard).

Shamburger’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We construe Shamburger’s motion for judicial notice as citations to supplemental authorities. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 28(j).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"id":50,"count":3,"description":"","link":"\/category\/industry-advisory\/","name":"Industry Advisory","slug":"industry-advisory","taxonomy":"category","parent":0,"meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/50"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/taxonomies\/category"}],"wp:post_type":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts?categories=50"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                              0
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    0
<PP&E>                              17,740
<DEPRECIATION>                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      657,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               1,372,832
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                            8,776
<OTHER-SE>                          (723,868)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        657,740
<SALES>                             636,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    636,781
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    1,421,571
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  16,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (801,290)
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (801,290)
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        (801,290)
<EPS-BASIC>                       (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (.11)


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6025** 

WYATT HESSING , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. GARY P. BRUNELLE, Police Officer; ERICCA FIGUEROA, Police Officer; JOSEPH GUZDOWSKI, Police Officer , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv - 00595

- HEH )

Submitted : May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Wyatt Hessing, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wyatt Hessing appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), for failure to comply with a prior
court order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Hessing v . B ru nelle , No. 3 : 13

- cv - 00595

- HEH (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRM ED
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Judi Irving certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of HemaCare Corporation.

2.     Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in the report:

4.     The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)    Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)    Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)    Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

Date:   March 20, 2006
| /s/ JUDI IRVING                  |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|
| Judi Irving                      |   |
| *Chief  Executive Officer*       |   |
| *(Principal  Executive Officer)* |   |

 

----
Filed 5/7/20 by Clerk of Supreme Court


### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOT A

2020 ND 95

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v. Shawn Glenn Helmenstein, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20190336

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable James S. Hill , Judge.

AFFIRMED

. Per Curiam

. Dennis H. Ingold (argued) , Assistant S tate’s Attorney, and Wayne D. Go ter (on brief), Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND , for plaintiff and appellee.

Kiara C. Kraus

- Parr, Grand Forks, ND , for defend ant and appellant.1 State v. Helmenstein No. 20190336
Per Curiam

. [¶1] Shawn Helmenstein appeals from an amended criminal judgment. In 1999, a jury convicted Helmenstein of murder, a class AA felony in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1

- 16

- 01(1) and robbery, a class A felony in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1

- 22

- 01. State v. Helmenstein , 2000 ND 223, ¶ 1, 620 N.W.2d 581 (affirming conviction). The dist rict court sentenced Helmenstein to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole on the murder charge and a consecutive ten

- year term of imprisonment on the robbery charge. The court’s judgment did not specify when Helmenstein would be eligible for pa role. In 2019, Helmenstein filed a motion to correct the criminal judgment requesting the court clarify when he would be eligible for parole. The court granted his motion, in part, and amended the criminal judgment to include a life expectancy determinat ion and a statement detailing N.D.C.C. § 12.1

- 32

- 09.1, which requires violent offenders to serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole.
[¶2] On appeal, Helmenstein argues his sentence is an unconstitutional ex post facto application of the law because the district court’s life expectancy determination was calculated according to the mortality table identified by N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 51, which did not become effective until after the date of Helmenstein’s crimes and sentence. He also argues t he violent offender sentencing statute, N.D.C.C. § 12.1

- 32

- 09.1, is unconstitutionally vague and therefore void. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). Helmenstein did not raise these constitutional issues before the district court, and there fore we will not consider them on appeal. See State v. Kieper , 2008 ND 65, ¶ 16, 747 N.W.2d 497 (explaining constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered). See also State v. Seidel , 2018 ND2 215, ¶ 1, 917 N.W.2d 514 (s ummarily affirming criminal judgment when constitutional argument was not raised before the district court).
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Lisa Fair McEvers Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Jerod E. Tufte
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3318 

To require the Secretary of Transportation to repay the credit risk premiums 

paid with respect to certain railroad infrastructure loans after the obligations attached to such loans have been satisfied. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2021 

Mr. PERLMUTTER (for himself, Mr. CROW, Mr. BUCK, and Ms. DEGETTE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Transportation to repay the 

credit risk premiums paid with respect to certain railroad 

infrastructure loans after the obligations attached to 

such loans have been satisfied. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Railroad Rehabilitation 

5 and Improvement Financing Equity Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3318 IH

1 SEC. 2. CREDIT RISK PREMIUMS. 

2 Section 502(f) of the Railroad Revitalization and 

3 Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 822(f)) is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(5) REFUND OF PREMIUMS.—The Secretary 

6 shall repay the credit risk premium of each loan in 

7 cohort 3, as defined by the Department of Transpor8 tation’s memorandum to the Office of Management 

9 and Budget dated November 5, 2018, with interest 

10 accrued thereon, not later than 60 days after the 

11 date on which all obligations attached to each such 

12 loan have been satisfied. For each such loan for 

13 which obligations have already been satisfied, as of 

14 the date of enactment of the Railroad Rehabilitation 

15 and Improvement Financing Equity Act, the Sec16 retary shall repay the credit risk premium of each 

17 such loan, with interest accrued thereon, not later 

18 than 60 days after the date of the enactment of such 

19 Act.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EX-10.4.3



 





Exhibit 10.4.3




AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE

SYNACOR, INC.

2006 STOCK PLAN




          Synacor, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), adopted the 2006 Stock Plan on
December 5, 2006, as amended on July 31, 2007 (the “Plan”). Unless otherwise defined
herein, all capitalized terms shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan.




          Section 4(a) of the Plan shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:




          “(a)     Basic Limitation. Not more than 1,271,197 Shares may be issued under the Plan (subject
to Subsection (b) below and Section 8). All of these Shares may be issued upon the exercise of
ISOs. The number of Shares that are subject to Options or other rights outstanding at any time
under the Plan shall not exceed the number of Shares that then remain available for issuance under
the Plan. The Company, during the term of the Plan, shall at all times reserve and keep available
sufficient Shares to satisfy the requirements of the Plan. Shares offered under the Plan may be
authorized but unissued Shares or treasury Shares.”




          Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and
effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed.




Adopted by the Company’s Board of Directors:     September 14, 2007
#### Thomas J. COFFELT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. DAWSON, Doctor, and Correctional Medical Services, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 09-35637.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*211Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 29, 2010.

Thomas J. Coffelt, Boise, ID, pro se.

John J. Burke, Hall Farley Oberrecht & Blanton, Boise, ID, for Defendants-Appel-lees.

Dawson, Doctor, Boise, ID, pro se.

Correctional Medical Services, pro se.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Thomas J. Coffelt, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, *Wyatt v. Terhune,*315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and its grant of summary judgment, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs prior to July 2007 because Coffelt failed to exhaust administrative remedies for those claims. *See Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“proper exhaustion” under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the remaining claims regarding medical care for Coffelt’s swollen ankle because he failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. *See Toguchi,*391 F.3d at 1057 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety); *Hallett v. Morgan,*296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir.2002) (prison officials manifest deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s medical needs when they deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment).

Coffelt’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Jose Joseph Allen ROBLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dora SCHRIRO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-15372.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*784Submitted May 12, 2008.*

Filed May 16, 2008.

Jose Joseph Allen Robles, Florence, AZ, pro se.

Before: 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 an appeal of the district court’s order denying without prejudice appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.

A review of the record, the opening brief, and the response to the court’s March 24, 2008 order to show cause indicates that the questions raised in this appeal 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).

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s order.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 21

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF ADVO, INC.
                           As of September 29, 2001

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                PERCENT OF VOTING
  STATE OF                                                     SECURITIES OWNED AS
INCORPORATION  NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                             OF SEPTEMBER 29, 2001
-------------  ------------------                             ---------------------
<S>            <C>                                            <C>
  Delaware     ADVO Investment Company, Inc.                           100
  Delaware     Value Fair, Inc.                                        100
  Delaware     MBV, Inc.                                               100
  Delaware     Stighen, Inc. (formerly Marketing Force, Inc.)          100(1)
  Delaware     MailCoups, Inc.                                         100
  Delaware     Coupon Distributors, Inc.                               100(2)
  Delaware     ShopWise.com, Inc.                                      100
  North
   Carolina    Netserts.com, LLC                                       100(3)
  Maryland     Mail Marketing Systems, Inc.                            100
  Delaware     New England Direct, LLC                                 50
</TABLE>
--------
(1) Owned by ADVO Investment Company, Inc.
(2) Coupon Distributors, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of MailCoups, Inc.
(3) Netserts.com, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of ShopWise.com
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3175 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3175

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 135 Main Street in Biloxi, Mississippi, as the ``Robert S. McKeithen 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ROBERT S. MCKEITHEN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 135 Main Street in Biloxi, Mississippi, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Robert S. McKeithen Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert S. 
McKeithen Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 20, 2021.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3175

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 135 Main Street in Biloxi, Mississippi, as the ``Robert S. McKeithen 
                        Post Office Building''.
```