alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lakeith AMIR-SHARIF, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DALLAS COUNTY JAIL SRT UNIT; Dallas County Sheriff; Texas Dallas County; SRT Officer NFN Martin, Team Leader Dallas County Jail; SRT John Doe, No. 1; SRT John Doe, No. 2; SRT John Doe, No. 3; SRT Officer NFN Weatherton; SRT Officer NFN Castillo; Lieutenant Mark Wooten, North Tower Shift Commander Dallas County Jail; Sergeant John Doe, 1st watch North Tower Shift Supervisor Dallas County Jail; Captain James Howell, North Tower Facility Commander Dallas County Jail; Chief Deputy Downs, Jail Administrator; Dallas County Commissioners; SRT NFN Lockwood, Dallas County Jail; Texas Commission on Jail Standards, TCJS, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-10914

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 22, 2008.

Lakeith Amir-Sharif, Dallas, TX, pro se.

*462Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Lakeith Amir-Sharif moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as duplicative. One who wishes to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is impecunious and that he will raise a nonfrivolous appellate issue. *Carson v. Polley,*689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982).

Amir-Sharif argues that the district court erred by dismissing his suit as duplicative without first specifying exactly which claims were duplicative of the claims filed in an earlier suit. He also maintains that his claims, which pertain to cell and body cavity searches, have merit. Amir-Sharif has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his suit as duplicative. *See Bailey v. Johnson,*846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.1988). He likewise has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous claim in his appeal. *See Carson,*689 F.2d at 586. Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Alvin Curry","title":"Filing a Formal Complaint - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"uXRWGRGEye\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/complaints-and-assistance\/filing-a-formal-complaint\/\">Filing a Formal Complaint<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/complaints-and-assistance\/filing-a-formal-complaint\/embed\/#?secret=uXRWGRGEye\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Filing a Formal Complaint” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"uXRWGRGEye\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"A formal complaint may be filed with the Commission to allege violations of the Shipping Act under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 411 and to seek reparations (damages). Commission rules for filing complaints should be consulted prior to filing. Formal complaints are assigned to an Administrative Law Judge and adjudicated pursuant to the Commission\u2019s Rules of Practice and Procedure at 46 CFR Part 502. [...]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/seal_final_sm.jpg","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":293}
#### YILIN ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-71669.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

David Z. Su, Esquire, Law Offices of David Z. Su, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.

Oil, Edward Earl Wiggers, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

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

*

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

*275MEMORANDUM **

Yilin Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Zhang’s claim that the transcript of the hearing testimony was incomplete because he failed to raise the argument before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in administrative proceedings below). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition with respect to that claim.

Zhang failed to raise any substantive challenge to the BIA’s denial of his claims for relief in his opening brief. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

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

                                EXHIBIT 11

              Net Income per Common and Common Equivalent Share
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                     Years Ended December 31,
                                           -------------------------------------------------------
                                              1999           1998           1999           1998
                                           -----------    ------------   ------------  -----------
<S>                                        <C>            <C>            <C>           <C>
             BASIC
             -----
Weighted average common shares used
  to compute basic earnings per
  share...............................     7,437,582       7,281,120      7,393,001    7,267,753
                                           ===========    ============   ============  =========

                   Net income..........    $ 342,000      $  420,000     $1,057,000    $ 745,000
                                           ===========    ============   ============  =========

Basic net income per share.............    $     0.05     $     0.06     $     0.14    $    0.10
                                           ===========    ============   ============  =========

             DILUTED
             -------
Weighted average common shares used to
  compute basic earnings per share....      7,437,582      7,281,120      7,393,001    7,267,753
                                           ===========    ===========    ============  =========

Dilutive preferred equivalent shares..        500,000        376,344        500,000       94,086
Dilutive effect of common stock
 issuable in connection with
 acquisition..........................                        45,000                      11,342
Dilutive common equivalent shares
 attributable to stock options
 (based on average market price).....         185,726              -        243,680            -
Dilutive common equivalent shares
 attributable to warrants (based on
 average market price)...............          19,600              -         20,838            -
                                           ----------     ----------     ----------    ---------
Weighted average common shares and
 equivalents used to compute
 diluted earnings per share..........       8,142,908      7,702,464      8,157,519    7,373,181
                                           ===========    ===========    ============  =========

               Net income...........       $  342,000     $  420,000     $1,057,000    $ 745,000
                                           ==========     ===========    ============  ==========

Diluted net income per share ......        $     0.04     $     0.06     $      0.13   $    0.10
                                           ===========    ===========    ============  ==========
</TABLE>
{"agency":"FMCS","generated":"2014-06-27 13:33:56","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"}],"value":"2014"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q2"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["FMCS"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["46"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["48"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["4"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2014","quarter":"Q2"}
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> ART. 5 FDS FOR 3rd QUARTER 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000825410
<NAME> LANDAUER, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                   3,617
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           10,613
<ALLOWANCES>                                                86
<INVENTORY>                                              1,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        16,983
<PP&E>                                                  27,345
<DEPRECIATION>                                          12,872
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          42,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   17,998
<BONDS>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                   866
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                              23,927
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            42,853
<SALES>                                                 33,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        33,022
<CGS>                                                   11,345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           11,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         11,823
<INCOME-TAX>                                             4,805
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      7,018
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                             6,956
<EPS-BASIC>                                              .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              .80



</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 245 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 65743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31277]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Hearings of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on Rules 
of Bankruptcy and Criminal Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committees 
on Rules of Bankruptcy and Criminal Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of open hearings.

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

SUMMARY: The following public hearings have been canceled:
     Bankruptcy Rules in Washington, DC on January 4, 2002; and
     Criminal Rules in Atlanta, Georgia on January 7, 2002.

(Original notice of hearings appeared in the Federal Register of August 
29, 2001 (66 FR 45693)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: December 13, 2001.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 01-31277 Filed 12-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
```
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3358 

To clarify that employees may seek recourse from the National Labor Relations Board if discriminated against by an employer for participating 

in an unfair labor practice strike. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2021 

Mr. STAUBER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To clarify that employees may seek recourse from the National Labor Relations Board if discriminated against 

by an employer for participating in an unfair labor practice strike. 

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 ‘‘Protecting Striking 

5 Workers Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3358 IH

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

2 Congress finds that it is the policy of the United 

3 States that workers have the right to participate in lawful 

4 strikes in protest of unfair labor practices. 

5 SEC. 3. CLARIFYING RECOURSES FOR WORKERS DISCRIMI6 NATED AGAINST FOR PARTICIPATING IN A 

7 LAWFUL UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE STRIKE. 

8 Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act 

9 (29 U.S.C. 160(c)) is amended by inserting before ‘‘And 

10 provided further,’’ the following: ‘‘Provided further, That 

11 in any case in which the Board finds that an employer 

12 unlawfully discriminated against an employee in relation 

13 to the employee’s participation in a lawful strike to protest 

14 an unfair labor practice of the employer, the Board may 

15 order reinstatement of the employee, require back pay, re16 quire the employer to post a notice to employees of its 

17 commitment to observe employee’s rights under this Act, 

18 or take such other affirmative action as the Board may 

19 consider appropriate:’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
# Third Amendment to Revolver Promissory Note

THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO
REVOLVER PROMISSORY NOTE dated this 1st day of July 2004, is by and among
Danzer Industries, Inc. (Borrower) and Fair Holdings, Inc.
(Fair), an Ohio corporation. The parties agree as
follows:

# Recitals

WHEREAS, Borrower and
Fair entered into that certain Promissory Note dated August 15, 2001in the
principal amount of $1,000,000 (Note) which was amended by that
certain First Amendment to Revolver Promissory Note dated September 31, 2003
whereby Fair agreed to increase the amount that Borrower may borrow under the
Note to $1,500,000.00;

WHEREAS, Borrower has requested
and Fair has agreed to increase the amount that Borrower may borrow under the
Note to $3,000,000.00;

WHEREAS, Fair is willing
to amend the Note subject to the terms herein and subject to the amendments of
the Note as herein provided;

NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises, and the mutual promises herein contained, the
parties agree that the Note shall be, and hereby is, amended as provided herein
and the parties further agree as follows:

| | 1. | Increase in the allowable principal balance: The Notes principal
balance of $1,500,000 is hereby increased to $3,000,000.00 such that Borrower
may borrow up to a total amended principal balance on the Note of $3,000.00.00.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All other terms and conditions contained in the Note shall remain the same and
shall continue in full force and effect that are not specifically amended herein
and shall continue during the amended term of the Note without
change.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower, and Fair have caused this First Amendment
to Promissory Note to be executed by its duly authorized by their
representatives as of the day first written above.

|Fair Holdings, Inc.

By:  /s/ Timothy S. Durham
Timothy S. Durham, Chief Executive Officer

Danzer Industries, Inc.

By:  /s/ Terry Whitesell
Terry Whitesell, Chairman of the Board
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 IBT  Bancorp,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2002 (the  "Report") as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof,  we,
Charles  G.  Urtin,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  and  Raymond G.  Suchta,  Chief
Financial  Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to 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 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.



/s/Charles G. Urtin                             /s/Raymond G. Suchta
------------------------------                  --------------------------------
Charles G. Urtin                                Raymond G. Suchta
Chief Executive Officer                         Chief Financial Officer




March 12, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6064

REGINALD PATTERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MARVIN L. POLK,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-98-525-5-H)

Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Patterson appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See Patterson v. Polk, No. CA-98-525-5-H

(E.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 1998). 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