alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IVAN KILGORE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ARNO NAPPI, Senior Librarian; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-15711

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01822-WBSKJN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 10, 2015** 

Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Ivan Kilgore, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access

to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

FILED

MAR 20 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th

Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kilgore’s action because Kilgore failed

to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual injury as a result of

defendants’ conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (access-tocourts claim requires the plaintiff to show that the defendants’ conduct caused

actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim); see also Silva v. DiVittorio, 658 F.3d

1090, 1101-04 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing “affirmative assistance” and

“interference” access-to-courts claims).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend the

second amended complaint because further amendment would have been futile. 

See Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir.

2008) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that denial of leave to

amend is improper unless it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by

amendment); see also Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d

1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (a district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is

particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended).

Appellees’ motion to take judicial notice, filed September 12, 2014, is

granted. 

2 14-15711
Kilgore’s “Motion Requesting Order Directing Clerk of the District Court to

Produce Record of Proceedings,” filed December 31, 2014, is denied as

unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

3 14-15711
cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge DeAnn Wiesner Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2
Order entered May 15 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00150
- CR No. 05
- 15
- 00151
- CR
CHRISTOPHER CHARLES BYNUM, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F14
- 53422
- Y , F14
- 53483
- Y 

### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeals. On May 1, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the reporter’s record had not been filed. On May 13, 2015, we received the r eporter’s record. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeals, we VACATE the May 1, 2015 order requiring findings. Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Sequoia Energy, LLC, Docket No. KENT 2008-1059              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Sequoia Energy, LLC, Docket No. KENT 2008-1059

KENT2008-1059-Meeting Notice.pdf

sol-vs.sequoia-energy-docket-kent2008-1059.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
Order entered January 26, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 01712
- CR LARRY DUNN, JR., Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F
- 1259904
- M



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATES this appeal. On January 13, 2015, we granted Lori Ordiway’s motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant and abated the appeal in o rder for the trial court to appoint new counsel

. We have received the trial court’s order appointing Ronald Goranson as appellant’s attorney.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to add Ronald Goranson as appellant’s appointed attorney of record and to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Ronald Goranson and to the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.
/s/ ADA BROWN PRESIDING JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1




                                  EXHIBIT 12.01



                       STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIO
                          OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                  (IN MILLIONS)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Year Ended December 31:

                                             1997       1996      1995       1994      1993 (1)
                                            ------     ------    ------     ------    ------
<S>                                         <C>       <C>        <C>        <C>      <C>

HISTORICAL INFORMATION

Earnings:

Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations
   before Income Taxes                       $17.7     $60.9     $104.6     $14.7     $(45.7)

Interest Expense (Excluding Amounts
   Capitalized)                               23.6      37.9       49.8      56.0       54.6

Amortization of Previously
   Capitalized Interest Expense                0.4       0.4        0.4       0.3        0.2
                                             -----     -----     ------     -----     ------

     Total Earnings                          $41.7     $99.2     $154.8     $71.0     $  9.1
                                             =====     =====     ======     =====     ======


Fixed Charges:

Interest Expense (Excluding Amounts
   Capitalized)                               23.6      37.9       49.8      56.0       54.6

Capitalized Interest                           0.9       0.6        1.5       1.2        0.4
                                             -----     -----     ------     -----     ------

    Total Fixed Charges
         Including Capitalized Interest       24.5      38.5       51.3      57.2       55.0
                                             =====     =====     ======     =====     ======

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges             1.7x      2.6x       3.0x      1.2x       0.2x
                                             =====     =====     ======     =====     ======

</TABLE>


(1) Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges in 1993. The coverage
    deficiency for 1993 was $45.9 million.


                                       52
-  Home 
-  Regulations 

# In This Section

-  Regulations 
-  Search Regulations 
-  Rulemaking Documents 
-  Notices 
-  Regulatory Enforcement 
-  Disclaimer 

# Adjudication Decisions

Please use the search below to find FMCSA adjudication decisions that are available on Regulations.gov. The Search field looks at the Title, Docket Number, and the contents of the document file and will return relevant results in the table below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000803016
<NAME> AMPLICON INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          59,337
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,553
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,658
<INVENTORY>                                     35,398
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,934
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,932
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 466,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,327
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           118
<OTHER-SE>                                     153,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   466,769
<SALES>                                         21,795
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,171
<CGS>                                           12,010
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,854
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,076
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  57
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,082
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,352
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,730
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,730
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.60


</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of Secured Income L.P. (the “Registrant”) on
      Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Neal Ludeke, Chief
      Financial Officer of Wilder Richman Resources Corporation, a general partner
      of
      the Registrant, 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
                Registrant.






/s/
      Neal
      Ludeke





Neal
      Ludeke


Chief
      Financial Officer of Wilder Richman


Resources
      Corporation, a general partner of


the
      Registrant


April
      17,
      2007
MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2013-1176.

#### State ex rel. Paluch v. Zita.

Summit App. No. 26849. On motion for oral argument. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, Lanzinger, and O’Neill, JJ., dissent.
ex10-3.htm


    Exhibit 10.3

    

August 29, 2007


Polaris Holdings, Inc.
Suite 120, 2411 Fountainview Drive
Houston TX 77057


Attention: Ingolf Grinde


Dear Ingolf,


Re: Acquisition & Participation Agreement


Velocity Oil & Gas, Inc. (“Velocity”) and Polaris Holdings, Inc. (“Polaris”) executed the above referred Agreement on or about August 8, 2007.


	 

      	1.The Closing Date was stipulated to be September 1, 2007 (Clause 4).

      


      
	 

      	2.[Deleted] The Seller was to prepare and submit to Buyer for its review the proposed form of assignment at least 5 days prior to the Closing Date (Clause 4, last sentence). [Deleted]

      


      
    "Will be prepared by Dave Tory Sunray"

      	 

      	3.The Buyer was to conduct due diligence and satisfy itself with a review if the technical and commercial data (Clause 6). No data has been received by Velocity and hence couldn’t complete its due diligence by the date (5 days prior to Closing) prescribed.

      


      


In view of the above facts I propose that we amend the Agreement and make the Closing Date October 1, 2007.


Please indicate your agreement by countersigning this letter.


Sincerely Yours,
/S/ Frank A. Jacobs                                                                                                    /S/ Ingolf Grinde
Frank A. Jacobs                                                                                                          Ingolf Grinde
President and CEO                                                                                                     Polaris Holdings, Inc.
i " February /7/ 7.016"

P.&. Bex /Z3 0B

Re.: App cIU/«- C&se. A/(/^£er //- //- 003/V- ^

7/1/*/ Coasf ^4se- A/*//nker /7®57 - 3

COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS

FEB 2 0 2015

£d4r £/?r/f AbelAG06l*.Ctork

O ©A/AW ^£- ^ CfWi->

3060 FM 2>St4

BeAutn&rtl f 7k> 77705-
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Pierce, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Pierce,*118 Ohio St.3d 1212, 2008-Ohio-2699.]

(No. 2007-1605

Submitted May 6, 2008

Decided June 11, 2008.)

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary H. McGrath, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Robert L. Tobik, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Cullen Sweeney, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

{¶ 1} Appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing appellant’s appeal as having been improvidently accepted.

{¶ 2} The motion for reconsideration is granted to the following extent: The order in this cause filed on April 2, 2008, dismissing the appeal as having been improvidently accepted, reported at 117 Ohio St.3d 1225, 2008-Ohio-1428, 884 N.E.2d 603, is vacated with respect to appellant’s Proposition of Law No. III. Jurisdiction is retained over this cause as to Proposition of Law No. Ill, the cause is held for the decision in case No. 2007-1427, *State v. Ferguson,*Cuyahoga App. No. 88450, 2007-Ohio-2777, 2007 WL 1644449, and the briefing schedule is stayed.

Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatement No. 333-109261 and No. 333-32819 of LOGIC Devices Incorporated onForm S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-16591 of LOGIC Devices Incorporatedon Form S-3 of our report, dated December 17, 2008, relating to our audit ofthe financial statements and financial statement schedule included in andincorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of LOGIC DevicesIncorporated for the year ended September 30, 2008.

 

 

 

  /s/  Hein & Associates LLP

 

 

 

 

Irvine, CA

December 17, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Porfirio GARCIA-BARAONA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40045

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 16, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Porfirio Garcia-Baraona (Garcia) appeals the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after a previous deportation. He argues that his within-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable.

As a threshold matter, Garcia argues that a presumption of reasonableness should not apply to his within-guidelines sentence on appellate review because the Guideline upon which it is based, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is penologically flawed and not the result of empirical evidence or study. As Garcia acknowledges, this argument is foreclosed. *See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009); *see also United States v. Duarte,*569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 378, 175 L.Ed.2d 231 (2009).

Citing cases from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, Garcia asserts that, even if the presumption of reasonableness applies, it is rebutted by the facts and circumstances of this case. He emphasizes the staleness of his 1999 conviction, which occurred ap*893proximately 11 years prior to the present offense and formed the basis of his 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2. During that 11-year interval, however, Garcia was imprisoned for about six to seven years and then committed the instant illegal reentry offense while on probation for his 1999 conviction.

The district court considered and rejected Garcia’s arguments for a sentence below his advisory guidelines range. With reference to the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the arguments made during allocution, the court determined that a sentence at the bottom of Garcia’s guidelines range was indicated. While Garcia provided mitigating evidence, he has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness attaching to his within-guidelines sentence. *United States v. Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008); *United States v. Rodriguez,*523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir.2008). The district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a 63-month sentence. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5tii 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 5tii Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.1


                            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 of Score One, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Hoi-ho Kiu, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, and Lai Ming Lau, 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:

          (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/ Hoi-hu Kiu
                                 --------------
                                 Hoi-ho Kiu
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 April 19, 2006


                                 /s/ Lai Ming Lau
                                 ----------------
                                 Lai Ming Lau
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                 April 19, 2006


                                       1
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About FMSHRC 
-  Latest FMSHRC News 
-                   Chief Administrative Law Judge Voisin Issues Order Resuming In-Person Hearings              

#   Chief Administrative Law Judge Voisin Issues Order Resuming In-Person Hearings

Order- Administrative Law Judge Hearings 12-03-21.pdf

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov