alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Derrick Lang HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shelly THOMPSON, Supervisor Assistant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-35252.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.*

Filed Jan. 27, 2016.

Derrick Lang Hunter, Aberdeen, WA, pro se.

Timothy J. Feulner, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Derrick Lang Hunter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising out of alleged sexual and racial harassment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir.2015). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed as to defendants Vail, Morse, Parker, Scott, and Barlow because Hunter did not raise his claims of alleged failure to train and supervise in any grievance before filing this action. *See Morton v. Hall,*599 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir.2010) (“[A] grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed as to defendants Thompson and Burnette because, although Hunter made complaints of harassment through Prison Rape Elimination Act procedures, Hunter did not properly exhaust through the Offender Grievance Program, and did not show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. *See Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies ... ‘means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so *properly*(so that the agency ad*489dresses the issues on the merits).’ ” (citation omitted)); *Sapp v. Kimbrell,*623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir.2010) (describing limited circumstances where exhaustion might be excused); *Panaro v. City of N. Las Vegas,*432 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir.2005) (a prisoner cannot constructively exhaust through participation in an internal investigation, which is not “equivalent to [the] assertion of a grievance in the administrative procedure available at the [prison]”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NO. 2-04-184-CR

BLAKE ALAN HEADLEY        						APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO.5 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant's “Motion To Withdraw  Notice Of Appeal.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.  See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	WALKER, J., CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 3, 2004.
EXHIBIT 32.1

|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| August      12, 2010 | By:             | /s/ D. JONATHAN    MERRIMAN         |   |
|----------------------|-----------------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                 |            | D.      Jonathan Merriman                |   |
|                 |            | Chief Executive      Officer   |   |
|                 |            |                                     |   |
|                 | By:   | /s/ PETER V. COLEMAN                |   |
|                 |            | Peter      V. Coleman                    |   |
|                 |            | Chief Financial      Officer        |   |

----
**FEDERAL****MINE SAFETY ANDHEALTHREVIEWCOMMISSION**

** **

SUNSHINEACTNOTICEBAC6735-01

October25, 2016

 

 

TIMEANDDATE:                10:00a.m.,Tuesday,November 15,2016

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichardV.BackleyHearingRoom,Room511N,1331PennsylvaniaAvenue,NW,Washington,DC20004(enterfromFStreetentrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERS TO BE

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommissionwillconsiderandactuponthefollowinginopen

session:*Secretary****ofLaborv.PeabodyTwentymileMining,LLC,*DocketNo.WEST2014-930-R,etal.(IssuesincludewhethertheJudgeerredinrejectingconsiderationoftheoperator’sapprovedventilationplanbecauseitisinconsistentwiththelanguageofamandatorystandardgoverningventilation.)

 

Anypersonattendingthismeetingwhorequiresspecialaccessibilityfeaturesand/orauxiliaryaids,suchassignlanguageinterpreters,mustinformtheCommissioninadvanceofthoseneeds.Subjectto 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACT PERSON

FORMORE INFO:                Emogene Johnson (202)434-9935/ (202) 708-9300for TDD

Relay/1-800-877-8339for toll free.

 

PHONENUMBERFORLISTENINGTO

MEETING:                             1-(866)867-4769

Passcode:493-925

 

 

 

 

 

SarahL.StewartDeputyGeneralCounsel
Exhibit 10.8

                      SIXTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF LEASE

         THIS SIXTH AMENDMENT is made this 29th day of October, 1999, by and
between ROUSE AND ASSOCIATES - 7 GREAT VALLEY PARKWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a
Pennsylvania limited partnership ("Landlord") and TANGRAM ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS
formerly known as RABBIT SOFTWARE CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation
("Tenant").
                                   BACKGROUND:

         A. Landlord and Tenant entered into a Lease Agreement dated February
17, 1986 as amended by First Amendment to Agreement of Lease dated June 13,
1986, and a Second Amendment to Agreement of Lease dated June 1, 1989, as
amended by Third Amendment to Agreement of Lease dated October 12, 1992, as
amended by a Fourth Amendment to Agreement of Lease dated January 28, 1997, as
amended by a Fifth Amendment to Agreement of Lease dated March 10, 1997 (the
"Lease"), covering certain premises at 7 Great Valley Parkway, Suite 300,
Malvern, Pennsylvania, as more fully describe in the Lease (the "Premises").

         B. Whereas Tenant desires to extend the Term of this Lease and Landlord
has agreed to such extension subject to the provisions of this Amendment.
Accordingly, Landlord and Tenant desire to amend the Lease.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual
promises and covenants contained herein and in the Lease, and intending to be
legally bound hereby agree that the Lease is amended as follows:

1. Article 3 of the Lease entitled "Term" is amended by deleting the reference
to "February 29, 2000" and inserting "February 28, 2003" in its place.

2. Article 5(a) of the Lease entitled "Minimum Annual Rent" is hereby amended by
inserting the following minimum rent schedule:

                                               Annually       Monthly
                                               --------       -------
         March 1, 2000 - February 28, 2001  $  129,780.00   $  10,815.00
         March 1, 2001 - February 28, 2002     133,488.00      11,124.00
         March 1, 2002 - February 28, 2003     137,196.00      11,433.00

3. Except as expressly modified herein, the terms and conditions of the Lease
shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this Amendment as of the
day and year first above written.

LANDLORD:
ROUSE & ASSOCIATES - 7 GREAT VALLEY PARKWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By:      Liberty Property Trust, Sole General Partner

By:      /s/ Leslie R. Price
         -------------------
Name:    Leslie R. Price
Title:   Senior Vice President

TENANT:
TANGRAM ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS, INC.
By:      /s/ Nancy M. Dunn                  WITNESS: /s/ Jeanann Agioglassitis
         -----------------                           -------------------------
Name:    Nancy M. Dunn                      Name:
Title:   Senior V.P. - Legal                Title:
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20
- 0532 REC ADVANCED SILICON MATERIALS, LLC,

Petit io ner and Appellee, v . SARAH MACIAG,

Respondent and Appellant, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND IN DUSTRY, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,

Respondents. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parti es having failed to j oint ly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERE D THAT **Lawrence E.**  **Henke, (406)**  **782 -**  **1111** whose name appears next on th e list of attorneys desi ring appoint me nt a s mediators fo r Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediat io n process requi red by M .R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th at th e time peri ods set fo rth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appoint me nt . A true copy

of this order is being mailed to counsel of record f or the parti es, or to t he parties individually

if not represented by

counsel , on the date hereof. DATED thi s November 30, 2020.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court
c: Lee M. McKenna, Scott Louis Peterson, Patri ck Tho mas Fleming, Lawrence E. Henke 11/30/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0532
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF: NUMBED HOME HEALTH CARE, INC. AS OF AND
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED 12/31/99 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      282
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                             4,946
<ALLOWANCES>                                411
<INVENTORY>                                  23
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          5,057
<PP&E>                                      970
<DEPRECIATION>                              850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            8,811
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     5,140
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      6
<OTHER-SE>                                3,664
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              8,811
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          9,688
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             6,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          3,554
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (747)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (747)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                               (747)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.13)


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Requesting a Panel - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"bI9tUpr47c\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/arbitration\/requesting-a-panel\/\">Requesting a Panel<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/arbitration\/requesting-a-panel\/embed\/#?secret=bI9tUpr47c\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Requesting a Panel” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"bI9tUpr47c\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\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\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
#### BLOCKER v. HOWELL.

No. 6314.

Opinion Filed February 16, 1915.

(146 Pac. 701.)

APPEAL AND ERROR — Hypothetical Questions — Dismissal. In an action to enjoin defendant from trespassing on certain real estate belonging to plaintiff during the year 1914, defendant claimed the right of possession under a lease which expired on December 31, 1914. Judgment was rendered for defendant, and the ease was submitted here after said lease had expired. Held, the only matters presented for determination being abstract and hypotheti_ cal questions disconnected from the granting of any actual relief, the appeal is dismissed.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*Error from District Court, Washita County;G. A. Brown, Judge.*

Injunction by J. B. Blocker against G. T. Howell. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Dismissed.

*B.rett & Bülups,*for plaintiff in error.

*Massingale & Duff,*for defendant in error.

TURNER, J.

This suit was commenced -in the district court of Washita county, by J. B. Blocker, plaintiff in error, to enjoin G. T. Howell, defendant in error, from trespassing upon certain real estate during the year 1914. Defendant claimed the right to possession of the property by virtue of a lease which expired December 31, 1914. Defendant prevailed in the trial court, and plaintiff appealed.

The lease has now expired, and defendant has moved this court to dismiss the proceedings, for the reason that the appeal in this cause now involves only a moot question of law, and that no *611good purpose *can. now be*served by hearing or proceeding further. That “abstract and hypothetical questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of which no particular result can follow, other than the awarding of costs of the appeal, will not be decided by this court,” has beep held many times by this court. *McCullough et al. v. Gilcrease,*40 Okla. 741, 141 Pac. 5; *State ex rel. Lozier v. Bogle et al.,*40 Okla. 740, 140 Pac. 1153. This case is ruled by *Canadian Trading Co. v. Ralls et al.,*42 Okla. 759, 142 Pac. 1033, where in the syllabus it is said:

> “In an action by a tenant to enjoin and restrain a landlord from the violation of an oral rental Contract on certain -lands for the year 1912, and from interference with the tenant’s possession during said year, judgment is rendered on the pleadings for the defendants, and the case is submitted to this court in the year 1914. The only matters presented for determination are abstract and hypothetical questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief, and therefore will not be decided by this court.”

The appeal is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000825851
<NAME> WELLESLEY LEASE INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IV FDS 3/31/99
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          35,774
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,266
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,200
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,746
<PP&E>                                       1,388,564
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,203,272
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 249,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,414
<BONDS>                                         49,951
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       12,149,459
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,997,786)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   249,038
<SALES>                                         45,805
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,602
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               114,752
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (3,052)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 931
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (67,655)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (67,655)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (67,655)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**
**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION:**
I, Patrick G. Mackey, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report of Novo Networks, Inc.
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Quarterly Report.  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this Quarterly Report.  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inSecurities Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant, and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this Quarterly Report, isbeing prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this Quarterly Report, based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors(or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date: February 11, 2005                                                       /s/ Patrick G. Mackey   Patrick G. Mackey   Senior Vice President