alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-26-2002

Hughes v. MCI Worldcom Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 1-1918

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Hughes v. MCI Worldcom Inc" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 205.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/205
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ___________ 

 No. 01-1918 

 ___________ 

 BARBARA HUGHES, 

 

 Appellant

 v. 

 MCI/WORLDCOM, INC. 

 

 ___________ 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the District of New Jersey 

 District Court Judge: The Honorable Alfred M. Wolin 

 (Action No. 99-cv-04585) 

 ___________ 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) 

 March 1, 2002 

 Before: ROTH, FUENTES, and KATZ, Circuit Judges 

 (Opinion Filed: March 26, 2002) 

 ________________________ 

 OPINION OF THE COURT 

 ________________________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge: 

 Appellant Barbara Hughes ("Hughes") appeals the District Court's 

grant of 

summary judgment to her employer, Appellee MCI WorldCom ("WorldCom"), on 

Hughes's disparate treatment and equal pay claims. Hughes, an AfricanAmerican woman 

who is more than forty years old, alleged that her June 1999 demotion at 

WorldCom was 

motivated by discriminatory animus and that she was being paid less than 

certain white 

male WorldCom employees who held the same position that she did. 

 This case was properly removed to federal court, and we have 

jurisdiction over the 

instant appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1291. The applicable standard of 

review is plenary. 

See, e.g., Ersek v. Township of Springfield, 102 F.3d 79, 83 (3d Cir. 

1996). 

 Upon reviewing the evidence adduced, the District Court determined 

that there 

was no triable issue of fact in dispute as to whether WorldCom's proffered 

rationales for 

Hughes's demotion and alleged comparatively lower pay were pretextual. It 

further 

determined that Hughes's claim of discrimination based upon national 

origin should be 

dismissed, as it was not pursued in the course of arguing the motion. 

 After a careful review of the record and the parties' arguments, we 

find no basis 

for disturbing the District Court's well-reasoned findings. We will 

therefore AFFIRM the 

judgment for substantially the same reasons set forth in the District 

Court's opinion. 

 

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT: 

Kindly file the foregoing Opinion. 

 /s/ Julio M. Fuentes 

 Circuit Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1524

MAURICE A. DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LABAN WHITE, Attorney; CITY OF CLARKSBURG

SANITARY BOARD; WOODY THRASHER; THRASHER ENGINEERING; OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior

District Judge. (CA-00-9-1)

Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 27, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice A. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John Andrew Smith, SMITH,

CONLEY & WELLBORN, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Maurice A. Davis appeals the district court’s order granting

the Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion and dismissing this

civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Davis v. White, No. CA00-9-1 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 27, 2000). 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
### §1504. Effect on other standards and regulations

(a) Previously Existing Standards.—All cost accounting standards, waivers, exemptions, interpretations, modifications, rules, and regulations prescribed by the Cost Accounting Standards Board under section 719 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2168)— 1

(1) remain in effect until amended, superseded, or rescinded by the Board under this chapter; and

(2) are subject to the provisions of this division in the same manner as if prescribed by the Board under this division.

(b) Inconsistent Agency Regulations.—To ensure that a regulation or proposed regulation of an executive agency is not inconsistent with a cost accounting standard prescribed or amended under this chapter, the Administrator, under the authority in sections 1121, 1122(a) to (c)(1), 1125, 1126, 1130, 1131, and 2305 of this title, shall rescind or deny the promulgation of the inconsistent regulation or proposed regulation and take other appropriate action authorized under sections 1121, 1122(a) to (c)(1), 1125, 1126, 1130, 1131, and 2305.

(c) Costs Not Subject to Different Standards.—Costs that are the subject of cost accounting standards prescribed under this chapter are not subject to regulations established by another executive agency that differ from those standards with respect to the measurement, assignment, and allocation of those costs.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3699.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1504(a) | 41:422(j)(1), (2). | Pub. L. 93–400, §26(j), as added Pub. L. 100–679, §5(a), Nov. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 4062. |
| 1504(b) | 41:422(j)(3). | |
| 1504(c) | 41:422(j)(4). | |

Section

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 719 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, referred to in subsec. (a), is section 719 of act Sept. 8, 1950, ch. 932, title VII, as added Pub. L. 91–379, title I, §103, Aug. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 796, which was classified to section 2168 of the former Appendix to Title 50, War and National Defense, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–679, §5(b), Nov. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 4063.

1 See References in Text note below.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 95-30573 Summary Calendar

_____________________

PERCY BARTLEY, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney General, State of Louisiana; BURL CAIN, Acting Warden, Respondents-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 94-CV-2547-M

_________________________________________________________________ February 23, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Percy Bartley appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He argues that his trial counsel was ineffective; that impermissibly

sugge stive identification procedures were used; that the trial judge vindictively imposed a severe sentenc e as punishment for Bartley's refusal to accept a plea bargain; and that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate. We have reviewed the record,-2-

the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and the district
court's order adopting the ma gistrate judge's report. We AFFIRM
for essentially the reasons given by the magistrate judge. B artley v. Ieyoub , No. 94-CV-2547-M (E.D. La. Dec. 5, 1994).
A F F I R M E D.
§ 904.202 Filing of documents. ( a ) Pleadings, papers, and other documents in the proceeding must be filed directly with the Office of Administrative Law Judges, be served on all other parties, and conform with all applicable requirements of § 904.3.
( b ) Unless otherwise ordered by the Judge, discovery requests and answers will be served on the opposing party and need not be filed with the Judge.
[71 FR 12448, Mar. 10, 2006, as amended at 87 FR 38938, June 30, 2022]
### subpart ii—visibility protection

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

As originally enacted, subpart II of part C of subchapter I of this chapter was added following section 7478 of this title. Pub. L. 95–190, §14(a)(53), Nov. 16, 1977, 91 Stat. 1402, struck out subpart II and inserted such subpart following section 7479 of this title.
§ 970.522 Monitoring requirements. Each exploration license must require the licensee: ( a ) To allow the Administrator to place appropriate Federal officers or employees as observers aboard vessels used by the licensee in exploration activities to: ( 1 ) Monitor such activities at such time, and to such extent, as the Administrator deems reasonable and necessary to assess the effectiveness of the terms, conditions, and restrictions of the license; and
( 2 ) Report to the Administrator whenever such officers or employees have reason to believe there is a failure to comply with such terms, conditions, and restrictions;
( b ) To cooperate with such officers and employees in the performance of monitoring functions; and
( c ) To monitor the environmental effects of the exploration activities in accordance with a monitoring plan approved and issued by the Administrator as license terms, conditions and restrictions, and to submit such information as the Administrator finds to be necessary and appropriate to assess environmental impacts and to develop and evaluate possible methods of mitigating adverse environmental effects. This environmental monitoring plan and reporting will respond to the concerns and procedures discussed in Subpart G of this part.
ISOO Notice 2015-02: Message from OPM to Security Clearance 

Holders

June 16, 2015

ISOO provides the following message from OPM to security clearance 

holders:

Through the course of the ongoing investigation into the intrusion affecting 

the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) systems, it was recently 

discovered that additional systems were compromised. These systems 

included those that contain information related to the background 

investigations of current, former, and prospective Federal government 

employees, as well as other individuals for whom a Federal background 

investigation was conducted.

This incident was discovered as a result of the enhanced monitoring and 

detection system that OPM implemented as part of its aggressive effort in

recent months to strengthen their cybersecurity capabilities.

Given your status as a security clearance holder, we recognize that you may 

have questions and concerns about whether you, your family and friends 

have been impacted. 

OPM, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (FBI) are working as part of this ongoing investigation to 

determine the number of people affected by this separate intrusion. OPM 

will notify those individuals whose information may have been 

compromised as soon as practicable. You will be updated when we have 

more information on how and when these notifications will occur. OPM 

remains committed to continuing to improve its security capabilities and has 

invested significant resources in implementing tools to strengthen its 

security barriers. 

Please know that maintaining the trust of all clearance holders is of the 

utmost importance to our ability to protect the nation together. We are 

committed to resolving this issue in the most expeditious manner possible.
### SUBCHAPTER III—RURAL, AGRICULTURAL, AND FORESTRY BIOMASS ENERGY
Editorial Note on Part 8b
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 8b appear at 68 FR 51353, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 8b.23 Housing provided by the recipient. ( a ) A recipient that provides housing to its nonhandicapped students shall provide comparable, convenient, and accessible housing to handicapped students at the same cost as to others. At the end of transition period provided for in subpart C, such housing shall be available in sufficient quantity and variety so that the scope of handicapped students choice of living accommodations is, as a whole, comparable to that of nonhandicapped students.
( b ) *Other housing.* A recipient that assists any agency, organization, or person in making housing available to any of its students shall take such action as may be necessary to assure itself that such housing is, as a whole, made available in a manner that does not result in discrimination on the basis of handicap.
#### Utica Gas and Electric Company, Appellant, v. Perry Kingston, Respondent.

Motion granted to preclude respondent from being heard upon the appeal Unless respondent shall file and serve printed brief within twenty days and pay to respondent’s attorneys ten dollars and be ready to argue the appeal at the opening of November term.
Order entered December 13, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00141-CV

AMBER ETTA BUMPUS, Appellant

V.

BRENT WADE FITZGERALD, Appellee

On Appeal from the 196th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 773788

ORDER

On August 22, 2013, after we had earlier determined appellant was entitled to proceed 

without payment of costs, we ordered Becky Wheeler, Official Court Reporter for the 196th

Judicial District Court, to file by September 11, 2013 either the reporter’s record or written 

verification that appellant has not requested the reporter’s record in this case. She responded by 

letter informing us that the court reporter at the time this case was heard was Kelly Bryant. 

Subsequently, court reporter Michael Hurley informed us that he reported two temporary orders 

hearing, but was unaware appellant had been allowed to proceed without payment of costs. 

These communications suggest appellant requested the record, but, to date, the record has not 

been filed. 
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3 (b), “[t]he official or deputy reporter 

is responsible for preparing, certifying, and timely filing the reporter’s record if (1) a notice of 

appeal has been filed; (2) the appellant has requested that the reporter’s record be prepared; and 

(3) the party responsible for paying for the preparation of the reporter’s record has paid the 

reporter’s fee . . . or is entitled to appeal without paying the fee.” TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b). 

Accordingly, we ORDER Becky Wheeler to obtain the record from Kelly Bryant and Michael 

Hurley and file it no later than January 13, 2014. No extensions will be granted absent exigent 

circumstances. 

Based on this order, we DENY as moot appellant’s December 3, 2013 “motion for action 

by Fifth Court.”

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send copies of this order by electronic 

transmission to Becky Wheeler, Official Court Reporter for the 196th Judicial District Court, the 

Honorable Steve Tittle, Presiding Judge of the 196th Judicial District Court, and all parties to the 

appeal.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
LIONS GATE INVESTMENT LIMITED

A Nevada Corporation



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Lions Gate Investment Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, N. Desmond Smith, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Keith Ebert, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 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.









Dated October 21, 2003

/s/N. Desmond Smith



N. Desmond Smith,

President and Chief Executive Officer





/s/Keith Ebert



Keith Ebert,

Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                               CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors
Avistar Communications Corporation:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-43944 and 333-63914) on Form S-8 of Avistar Communications Corporation
of our report dated January 17, 2003, except as to Note 3, which is as of March
10, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Avistar
Communications Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash
flows for the year then ended, and the related financial statement schedule,
which report appears in the December 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Avistar Communications Corporation.

                                    KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
March 24, 2003
#### Max Itzkowitz et al., Doing Business as Itzkowitz & Friedman, Respondents, v. Le Roy Sanderson, Appellant.

Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.
No: II-15-015 March 31, 2015

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss Catawba Nuclear Plant 2014 Performance

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house and poster session for 

Wednesday, April 8 to discuss the agency’s assessment of the Catawba nuclear plant’s two units during 

2014.

The plant, operated by Duke Energy, is located near York, S.C., about 18 miles south of 

Charlotte, N.C.

 The open house and poster session is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. in the Rock Hill City Hall 

Rotunda, 155 Johnston St., Rock Hill, S.C. 

NRC staff members will be available to answer questions on the safety performance and 

regulatory oversight of the Catawba plant, as well as highlights of NRC inspections. 

“NRC inspectors continually evaluate each nuclear plant’s safety, and each year we take a 

detailed look at that information to identify any trends and help plan future inspections,” said NRC 

Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “Inspection results are available throughout the year, but these 

annual meetings allow us to talk to local residents and answer any questions they may have.”

The NRC Region II office sent a letter to plant officials addressing Catawba plant performance 

during 2014, and while that letter will serve as the main focus of the open house, NRC staff members 

will be available to answer other questions about the NRC’s role at the plant. 

The NRC review of the Catawba plant for 2014 concluded that the plant operated in a manner 

that preserved public health and safety and protected the environment. Because of that performance, it

will continue to receive the detailed routine or baseline inspections this year that all nuclear power 

plants receive.

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess plant 

performance. The colors start with green, which has very low safety significance, and then progress to 

white, yellow or red, based on the significance of the issues. 

Current performance information for both Catawba Unit 1 and Unit 2 is available on the NRC 

website, and that information is updated throughout the year.
### **CHAPTER 1A—THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS**
### **CHAPTER 109A—MEMBRANE PROCESSES RESEARCH**

Sec.
10341.
Findings.
10342.
Research program.
10343.
Goals of research program.
10344.
Coordination with other research.
10345.
Authorization of appropriations.
§ 1461.2 Definition. The definition of portable fuel container in the PFCSA (5 U.S.C. 2056d(b)(8)) applies to this part. Specifically, a portable fuel container is defined in the PFCSA as any container or vessel (including any spout, cap, and other closure mechanism or component of such container or vessel or any retrofit or aftermarket spout or component intended or reasonably anticipated to be for use with such container)— ( a ) ( 1 ) Intended for flammable liquid fuels with a flash point less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit, including gasoline, kerosene, diesel, ethanol, methanol, denatured alcohol, or biofuels;
( 2 ) That is a consumer product with a capacity of 5 gallons or less; and
( 3 ) That the manufacturer knows or reasonably should know is used by consumers for transporting, storing, and dispensing flammable liquid fuels.
( b ) [Reserved]
Documents in Support of a 

Significant New Use Rule for 

Premanufacture Notice (PMN) P-15-0115 

Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0220 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 21
 Table of Contents 

1. Sanitized SAT Report for P-15-0115 

2. Sanitized Engineering Report for P-15-0115 

3. Sanitized Exposure Report for P-15-0115 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 21
 

Sanitized SAT Report for P-15-0115 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 21
Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg ≥ mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: P3B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption nil thru skin based on physical/chemical 

properties; poor thru lungs based on physical/chemical properties; and poor thru GI tract based 

on the submitted 28-d toxicity test data. Concern for systemic toxicity and effects to the liver and 

GI tract based on submitted test data for Also concern for dermal sensitization based on 

phenols.

 Test Data: (-) Salmonella with and without activation; (-) 

E. coli with and without activation; (-) for chromosome aberrations in CHL cells with and 

without activation; rat oral LD0 = 2000 mg/kg; no eye irritation in rabbits; no skin irritation in 

rabbits

P15-116: (-) Salmonella with and without activation; (-) E. coli with and without activation; (-) 

for chromosome aberrations in CHL cells with and without activation; rat oral LD0 = 2000 

mg/kg; no eye irritation in rabbits; no skin irritation in rabbits; rat 28-day oral NOEL = 400 

mg/kg (highest dose tested)

(-) Salmonella with and without activation; (-) E. coli with and without activation; (-) for 

chromosome aberrations in CHL cells with and without activation; rat oral LD0 = 2000 mg/kg; 

no skin irritation in rabbits; mild eye irritation in rabbits; rat 28-day oral NOEL = 40 mg/kg, 

effects on the liver, GI tract and general systemic toxicity at 200 mg/kg and higher

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * 3.5

daphnid 48-h LC50 * 0.93

green algal 96-h EC50 * 3.7

fish _ chronic value * 0.048 analog

daphnid _ chronic 

value

* 0.093

algal _ chronic 

value

* 0.925

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for ; SAR chemical 

class = with 2.6%/1.6%<500 and 29%/30%<1000; solid with mp 

65/70 C (P); S = 0.005 mg/L at 25 C (P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 21
SARs

SAR Class

Ecotox Category 

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916

EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 21
 

Sanitized Engineering Report for P-15-0115 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 17 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 18 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 19 of 21
 

Sanitized Exposure Report for P-15-0115 

EPA SANITIZED Page 20 of 21
EPA SANITIZED Page 21 of 21
American Businesses in Tbilisi, Georgia

----

Last Updated:  07/22/98