alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Roberto HERRERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BURGETT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-15872.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Decided April 14, 2014.

Roberto Herrera, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

*519Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, 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 Roberto Herrera appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to refill his pain medication prescription. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, *Pagtalunan v. Galaza,*291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002), and an order denying a request for appointment of counsel, *Terrell v. Brewer,*935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice Herrera’s action because Herrera failed to comply with the court’s order to submit timely service documents or present good cause for his failure to do so. *See Pagta-lunan,*291 F.3d at 642-43 (discussing factors relevant to dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); *see also*Fed. R.Civ.P. 4(m) (requiring service within 120 days after the complaint is filed unless “plaintiff shows good cause for the failure” to serve); *Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Shee-han),*253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir.2001) (discussing “good cause”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Herrera’s motion for appointment of counsel because Herrera failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. *See Terrell,*935 F.2d at 1017 (explaining that counsel may only be appointed in “exceptional circumstances”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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



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 I, John F. Wilkens, as Chief Financial Officer of AESP, Inc. (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 to my knowledge: (1) The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, 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. Date: August 20, 2004
    /s/ John F. WilkensJohn F. WilkensChief Financial Officer
#### Sunil Singh JASWAL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-71532.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*637Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 23, 2007.

Judith Lott, Newark, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sunil Singh Jaswal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider its order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, *see Oh v. Gonzales,*406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005), and review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, *see Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Jaswal’s motion to reconsider as untimely where it was filed more than 30 days after the BIA’s final decision. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Moreover, the BIA acted within its discretion in not construing the motion as a motion to reopen where it faded to offer new facts or evidence. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (explaining that “a motion to reopen shall state the new facts that will be proven ... if the motion is granted”).

Jaswal’s contention that the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider violated due process is unavailing. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, a petitioner must show error).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying order dismissing Jaswal’s direct appeal from the immigration judge’s decision because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Food Safety and Inspection Service

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Indices

2023 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

FSIS Demographics at a Glance

Employees 

Completed the Survey

Overview

Performance Dimensions

Questions Had More Than 

35% Negative Responses 

Questions Had More Than 

65% Positive Responses

Employee 

Engagement 

Global

Satisfaction 

Employee 

Experience 

Diversity, Equity, 

Inclusion and 

Accessibility

Performance 

Confidence

Response Rate

4,247 50%

81% Field Employee

Strengths and Challenges

Planning to retire in

more than 5 years 74%

20+ Years FSIS Tenure 27% 33% 50-59 Years Old

Non-Supervisory Status 73% 80% GS 7-12

Certification/Some 

College/Associate Degree 35%

20+ Years working with 

the Federal Government 30%

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) is an annual survey administered 

by OPM that measures federal government employees’ perceptions about their work experiences, their agency, their 

satisfaction and their leadership. For additional information visit FEVS - OPM.gov or Governmentwide Reports (opm.gov).

64

0

Survey Demographic

Employee Focus

68%

Goal Oriented

72%

Agile

60%

Foundation

68%

73% 65%

77%

82% 72%

These dimensions reflect a comprehensive assessment of the workplace, aligning with OPM’s commitment to fostering a positive work environment.

Assess employee development, opportunities for employee voice in 

decision-making, and a focus on employee welfare and work-life needs.

Assess resilience, innovation, 

and employee autonomy.

Assess communication, cooperation, customer 

responsiveness, merit principles, and performance resources.

Assess accountability, clarity about goals, 

performance feedback, and recognition.
9

THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO

CONNECTICUT NATURAL GAS CORPORATION

UNION EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN

(As Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 1989)

The Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation Union Employee Savings Plan (AsAmended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 1989), as heretofore amended(the "Plan"), is hereby amended as follows effective immediately prior to theeffective time of the consummation of the merger of CTG Resources, Inc. with andinto Oak Merger Co. pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as ofJune 29,1999, by and among CTG Resources, Inc., Energy East Corporation and OakMerger Co.:

1.	By deleting the last sentence of Section 9.03 of the Plan and insertingin lieu thereof the following:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective as of the date of a Change ofControl, as defined in Section 2.05A, each Participant who both is employed byCNG or any of its parent, subsidiaries or other affiliates (e.g., The EnergyNetwork, Inc.) and is a Participant immediately prior to the effective time ofthe consummation of the merger of CTG Resources, Inc. with and into Oak MergerCo. pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 29, 1999, byand among CTG Resources, Inc., Energy East Corporation and Oak Merger Co., shallhave a fully vested interest in his Company Matching Account without regard tothe number of years of Continuous Service completed."

2.	By deleting clause (b) of the first sentence o Section 10.05 of thePlan and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(b) each Participant as of the later of such dates who has at least three(3) Years of Service and whose vested percentage is or may be reduced by suchamendment may elect to have his vested percentage determined under the priorvesting schedule."

2.	Except as hereinabove modified and amended, the amended and restatedPlan (as amended) shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation executes thisThirteenth Amendment this 14th day of December, 1999.

ATTEST:					CONNECTICUT NATURAL GAS CORPORATION

By Jean S.McCarthy                                          
Its Vice President - HumanResources
#### Sotero ALVARADO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73685.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*646Submitted Feb. 20, 2006.*

Filed Feb. 26, 2007.

Sotero Alvarado, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Vianey Alvarado, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC — District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Paul Fiorino, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offíce of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sotero Alvarado and Vianey Alvarado, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review.

The Alvarados contend the BIA erred in denying their motion to reopen based on their continuous physical presence in the United States. Petitioners, however, have not demonstrated that the BIA abused its discretion in denying their motion to reopen. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 596-600 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5302]


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

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m. (est) March 12, 2001.

PLACE: 4th Floor, Conference Room 4506, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, 
DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Approval of the minutes of the February 12, 2001, Board member 
meeting.
    2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Date: February 27, 2001.
Elizabeth S. Woodruff,
Secretary to the Board, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 01-5302 Filed 2-28-01; 4:28 pm]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The Financial Statements in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Storage
Dimensions, Inc. for the six month period ended June 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,590
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,165
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,863
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,334
<PP&E>                                           2,051
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,538
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,808
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,385
<SALES>                                         37,470
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,470
<CGS>                                           24,196
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,535
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 294
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        23
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (480)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (480)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7830
ROBERT JOHN MOES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JEFFREY L. BANEY, Case Manager Coordinator, CMC; ROBERT E. BRIGHT, Unit Manager; STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-05- 1148-RWT) Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 19, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert John Moes, Appellant Pro Se. James A. Frederick, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert John Moes appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Moes v. Baney , No. CA-05-1148-RWT (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             678
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,536
<INVENTORY>                                        457
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,226
<PP&E>                                          65,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,506
<BONDS>                                         34,567
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            57
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,962
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,672
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,460
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   544
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 551
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    314
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                314
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       314
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tajrick CONAWAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-12154

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 9, 2010.

Sharon T. Ratley, U.S. Attorney/Middle District of Georgia, Donald L. Johstono, George F. Peterman, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Macon, GA, Dean Soble Daskal, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Tajrick Conaway, Beaver, WV, pro se.

*248Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On August 29, 2000, appellant having pled guilty to a two-count indictment charging him with possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and possession of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844, was sentenced by the district court to concurrent prison terms of 292 months.1 Subsequently, in *United States v. Conaway,*326 Fed.Appx. 545 (11th Cir.2009), we affirmed the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to reduce his sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).

Following the issuance of the mandate, appellant, on August 18, 2009, moved the district court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) to amend its order denying him § 3582(c) relief. The court denied the motion on April 7, 2010. Appellant moved the court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(c) to reconsider its April 7 order denying Rule 60(b)(6) relief. The court denied the Rule 59(c) motion on April 27, 2010, and appellant now appeals that ruling.

A motion filed under § 3582(c)(2) “is not a civil post-conviction action, but rather a continuation of a criminal case.” *United States v. Fair,*326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir.2003). Thus, a defendant cannot employ Rule 60(b) to challenge the district court’s denial of § 3582(c) relief. *Id.*(holding that appellant could not use Rule 60(b)(4) to attack the district court’s order denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion). In short, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain appellant’s motions under Rule 60(b)(6).

AFFIRMED.

1

. Appellant was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § IB 1.1. The Guidelines sentencing range was 292 to 365 months.
#### Peter BOGGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MISSISSIPPI CONFERENCE OF the UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-60782

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 1, 2007.

Louis Hanner Watson, Jr., Law Offices of Louis H. Watson Jr., Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*353Joseph E. Lotterhos, Bennett, Lotterhos, Sulser & Wilson, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.

BEFORE SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Peter Boggan, a Methodist minister previously employed as a pastor by Defendant-Appellee Mississippi Conference of the United Methodist Church (“MCUMC”), appeals the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action grounded in race discrimination. As fully explained by the court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order of May 5, 2006, Boggan’s claims failed to present any basis for possible recovery, as they are among the larger class of employment discrimination claims that are barred by the so-called minister-clergy exception, which is firmly rooted in the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court rejected both of Boggan’s alternative arguments, viz., that (1) our holdings in *Combs v. Central Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church,*173 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1999) and *Starkman v. Evans,*198 F.3d 173 (5th Cir.1999), which continued to approbate this exception, are not good law and should be rejected by this court, and (2) alternatively, his claim remains cognizable because elimination of race discrimination, as compelling government interest, should be addressed under the two-part test of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), by application of Title VII and § 1981, *if*— as Boggan contends — the Supreme Court’s declaration of the RFRA’s unconstitutionality in *City of Boerne v. Flores,*521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997) does not apply to federal law.

Having thoroughly reviewed the facts of this case and the applicable law as reflected in the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are convinced that the district court ruled correctly in dismissing Boggan’s action under Rule 12(b)(6). Our 1999 holdings in *Combs*and *Starkman*remain fully viable and controlling. Unless they are nullified by some future holding of the Supreme Court of the United States or by this court en banc, the courts of this circuit continue to be bound by the holdings of *Combs*and *Starkman.*For essentially the reasons cogently and correctly expressed by the district court, its judgment of dismissal is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
MEDIATION REFERRALS

2010-0610.

#### Clay v. Lakeview Farms, Inc.

Allen App. No. 1-09-55, 2010-Ohio-603.

The following case has been referred to mediation pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.1(A):
2009-1562.

#### Smith v. Martin.

Franklin App. No. 08AP-692, 2009-Ohio-3440.