alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stephen P. WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2007-5134.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 9, 2007.

Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 14, 2007.

Stephen P. Wallace, of Tulsa, OK, pro se.

Marla T. Conneely, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appel-lee. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General and Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Mark A. Melnick, Assistant Director.

*343Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and KEELEY,* Chief Judge.

*

 Honorable Irene M. Keeley, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Stephen P. Wallace filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging, among other things, that proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma resulted in the conversion of his assets. He asserted that the bankruptcy trustees denied him “all federally protected rights under Chapter 11-Reorganiza-tion.” After explaining that it had no jurisdiction to conduct a collateral review of the decisions of another federal court, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Wallace’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

On appeal, Mr. Wallace contends that the “trial court refused to take into account six separate filings which the trial court removed from the Record without explanation.” However, Mr. Wallace provides no evidence that these pleadings were properly filed with the trial court. Furthermore, the pleadings simply reiterate his challenges to decisions made during his bankruptcy proceedings, which the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to review. *See Allustiarte v. United States,*256 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2001). Therefore, even if these pleadings had been properly filed and considered by the trial court, they do not raise issues that the Court of Federal Claims has authority to address. Accordingly, we *affirm*the trial court’s dismissal of Mr. Wallace’s complaint.
#### § 29.6049 Undried.

The condition of unfermented tobacco which has not been air-dried or steam-dried.
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 MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 1, 2007,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sang Park, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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/ Sang Park                       
|Sang Park                           
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
|May 14, 2007                        

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Angelo Clark v. Carla Clark

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00577

- CV

Trial court case number: 2012

- 69700

Trial court: 257th District Court of Harris County

On Aug ust 13, 2013, appellant, Angelo Clark, filed an affidavit of indigence in this Court in the above referenced appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 20.1(a). No contest to the affidavit has been

filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(f). Accordingly, the allegations in t he affidavit are deemed true, and appellant is entitled to proceed without advance payment of costs. Id

.
The Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to make an entry in this Court’s records that appellant is indigent and is allowed to proceed on appeal without adv ance payment of costs.

It is further ORDERED that the District Clerk file with this Court, within 30 days of the date of this order and at no cost to appellant, a clerk’s record containing the items specified in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 34.5( a). See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(j).

It is further ORDERED that the Court Reporter file with this Court, within 30 days of the date of this order and at no cost to appellant, the reporter’s record in accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 34.6. S ee id

. Appellant’s brief is ORDERED filed with this Court within 30 days after the later of the clerk’s record is filed or the date the reporter’s record is filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.6(a). Appellee’s brief, if any, must be filed within 30 days after the date the appellant’s brief is filed.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 22, 2013
### Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________ Project No.: 0172.07.005.507 DISTRIBUTION

Page _1 _ of __1

_

Project Name: 304(m) Annual Review

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 8/31/2010 Time: 11:15 am

Company Name: Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) Contact Name: Donald Brown, ADEM

Phone No.: (334) 271-7812

Name: Elizabeth Sabol Eastern Research Group , Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT : 2008 DMR Mercury Discharges for AL St ate Docks – Mud Lakes (AL0002976)



## TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

I called the Alabama Department of Environmental Manageme nt (ADEM) on Tuesday, August 31, to speak Donald Brown to discuss mercury discharges from AL Stat e Docks – Mud Lakes facility. I asked Mr. Brown if he had any information on the facility, specifically D SCH 001. I also asked him to confirm the mercury discharges and flow data for Outfall 001 in September, June , and December 2008.

Mr. Brown confirmed the mercury concentrations. Mr. Brow n also retrieved the permit and stated that the facility was a former aluminum ore tailing impoundment la kes operated by Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA). These lakes are currently used to accumulate and treat aluminum ore tailing leachate prior to discharge to the Mobile River. Mr. Brown stated that mer cury does not have a permit limit. Mr. Brown stated that he would forward me the permit for the facility (A DEM, 2006).From: "Brown, Donald K" <dkbrown@adem.state.al.us>

To: "'elizabeth.sabol@erg.com'" <elizabeth.sabol@erg.c om>
Date: 8/31/2010 2:49 PM Subject: FW: Scan from a Xerox WorkCentre

Attachments: DOC001.PDF

Hi Elizabeth, here is the permit you were asking fo r. If you need anything else please feel free to co ntact me.

Donald K. Brown Alabama Department of Environmental Management

14oo Coliseum Blvd. Montgomery Al, 36110-2059

NPDES/SID Permits Branch

Industrial Section

E-Mail: dkbrown@adem.state.al.us Phone: (334) 271-7812 Fax: (334) 279-3051

-----Original Message----- From: xerox@adem.state.al.us [mailto:xerox@adem.sta te.al.us] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:49 PM
To: Brown, Donald K Subject: Scan from a Xerox WorkCentre

Please open the attached document. It was scanned and sent to you using a Xerox WorkCentre.

Attachment File Type: PDF

WorkCentre Location: machine location not set

Device Name: XRXWATER2

For more information on Xerox products and solution s, please visit http://www.xerox.com
#### § 29.6130 Nondescript (N Group).

Tobacco which does not meet the minimum specifications or exceeds the tolerance of the lowest grade of any other group.

| U.S. grades | Grade names, minimum specifications, and tolerances |
| --- | --- |
| N1 | First Quality Nondescript. Tolerances: 20 percent crude, 20 percent frozen, and 60 percent injury. |
| N2 | Second Quality Nondescript. Over 20 percent crude, over 20 percent frozen, or over 60 percent injury. |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-4161 SCOTT ALLEN SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-99-49) Submitted: July 25, 2000 Decided: August 7, 2000 Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL James B. Craven III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM:Scott Allen Smith appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, and possession of cocaine base with theintent to distribute. Smith raises two issues on appeal: (1) that the district court erred in not dismissing the entire jury panel following one juror's statement that Smith "wouldn't be this far if he hadn't done something;" and (2) that the district court erred in giving a flight instruction. We affirm. A trial court's findings of juror impartiality may"be overturned only for manifest error." Mu'Min v. Virginia , 500 U.S. 415, 428 (1991) (finding no error in trial judge's refusal to question prospective jurors about specific contents of news reports they had observed) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, a decision on whether to strike an entire jury panel is reviewed for a manifest abuse of discretion. See United States v. Trujillio , 146 F.3d 838, 842 (11th Cir. 1998). Because the record demonstrates that the district court carefully explained the presumption of innocence to the jury three times, and specifically asked if any jurors felt influenced by the one prospective juror's statements, to which it received a negative res ponse, we find that the district court did not commit a manifest abuse of discretion in denying Smith's motion to strike the entire jury panel. Addressing the flight instruction, this court reviews a district court's decision to deliver a flight instruction for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Russell , 971 F.2d 1098, 1107 (4th Cir. 1993). Aflight instruction is appropriate when "[t]he chain of inferences leading from evidence of flight to consciousness of guilt . . . [leads] to consciousness of guilt of the crime charged." United States v. Porter , 821 F.2d 968, 976 (4th Cir. 1987). Reviewing the facts of Smith's case under this standard, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to instruct the jury on flight. Accordingly, we affirm Smith's conviction. We dispense with oralargument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
#### § 3.90 Reporting discharged debts to the Internal Revenue Service.

When USDA discharges a debt, whether for the full value or less, it will report the discharge to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in accordance with current IRS instructions.
§ 248.21 Procurement and property management. ( a ) *Requirements.* State agencies shall comply with the requirements of 2 CFR part 200, subpart D and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415 for procurement of supplies, equipment and other services with FMNP funds. These requirements are adopted by FNS to ensure that such materials and services are obtained for the FMNP in an effective manner and in compliance with the provisions of applicable law and executive orders.
( b ) *Contractual responsibilities.* The standards contained in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D and Appendix II, Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415 do not relieve the State agency of the responsibilities arising under its contracts. The State agency is the responsible authority, without recourse to FNS, regarding the settlement and satisfaction of all contractual and administrative issues arising out of procurements entered into in connection with the FMNP. This includes, but is not limited to, disputes, claims, protests of award, source evaluation, or other matters of a contractual nature. Matters concerning violation of law are to be referred to such local, State or Federal authority as may have proper jurisdiction.
( c ) *State regulations.* The State agency may use its own procurement regulations which reflect applicable State and local regulations, provided that procurements made with FMNP funds adhere to the standards set forth in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D and Appendix II, Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415.
( d ) *Property acquired with program funds.* State and local agencies shall observe the standards prescribed in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415 in their utilization and disposition of real property and equipment acquired in whole or in part with FMNP funds.
[59 FR 11517, Mar. 11, 1994, as amended at 81 FR 66496, Sept. 28, 2016]
#### § 29.2299 Special factor.

A symbol or term authorized to be used with specified grades. Tobacco to which a special factor is applied may meet the general specifications but has a peculiar side or characteristic which tends to modify the grade. (See Rule 10, § 29.2401.)

[37 FR 13521, July 11, 1972. Redesignated at 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
#### § 225.20 Information collection/recordkeeping—OMB assigned control numbers.

| 7 CFR section where requirements are described | Current OMB control No. |
| --- | --- |
| 225.3-225.4. | 0584-0280 |
| 225.6-225.10 | 0584-0280 |
| 225.12-225.13 | 0584-0280 |
| 225.15-225.18 | 0584-0280 |

[61 FR 25554, May 22, 1996]
exv10w13



 








Exhibit 10.13




MGIC Investment Corporation

Other Compensation Agreements with Executive Officers and Directors




The following agreements, which are not evidenced by any formal instruments, have been entered into
with the Company by the persons referred to below.




Agreements Relating to Compensation of Senior Management




As previously reported in the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 1, 2004 (the
“8-K”), on January 26, 2005, the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee (the
“Committee”) of the Company’s Board of Directors approved the following new base salaries,
effective March 21, 2005, for the following executive officers: Curt S. Culver, Chief Executive
Officer — $750,000; J. Michael Lauer, Chief Financial Officer — $378,000; Lawrence J. Pierzchalski,
Executive Vice President — Risk Management — $371,000; Patrick Sinks, Executive Vice
President-Field Operations — $365,000; and Jeffrey H. Lane, General Counsel — $303,000. The
Committee also approved cash bonuses for these officers based on performance for the year ended
December 31, 2004 as follows: Mr. Culver — $780,392; Mr. Lauer — $299,888; Mr. Pierzchalski -
$292,687; Mr. Sinks — $279,184; and Mr. Lane — $243,177.




Agreements Relating to Compensation of Directors




     As previously reported in the 8-K, on January 27, 2005, the Company’s Board of Directors
established new annual compensation for serving as a Chair of a Committee of the Board as follows:
Audit Committee — $10,000; and Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee, Risk
Management Committee and Securities Investment Committee — $5,000.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1082

___________

Leonard Bright, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 5, 2011

Filed: June 13, 2011

___________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leonard Bright appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil action

1

claiming that the IRS’s seizure of his wages was unconstitutional. Reviewing de

novo, see Hastings v. Wilson, 516 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2008), we conclude that

to the extent Bright attempted to proceed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 or Bivens

v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),

he failed to state a claim. He alleged no facts showing state action or a conspiracy,

see Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 848 (8th Cir. 2010); Kurtz v. City of Shrewsbury,

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.
245 F.3d 753, 758 (8th Cir. 2001), he gave no indication as to the involvement or

identity of any individuals who allegedly committed constitutional violations, see

Ellis v. Norris, 179 F.3d 1078, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999), and a Bivens action cannot be

prosecuted against the United States, see Buford v. Runyon, 160 F.3d 1199, 1203 (8th

Cir. 1998).

Further, we agree with the district court that 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) did not

confer subject matter jurisdiction over this action, because Bright did not allege that

he filed a claim for a refund with the IRS or that he paid any assessment in full. See

26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 177 (1960). Based on the

record below, we also agree that 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) applied to bar the action insofar

as it sought relief from tax-collection activities. See Pagonis v. United States, 575

F.3d 809, 813, 815 (8th Cir. 2009); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir.

2004).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS
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
report of Ridgewood Energy P Fund, LLC (the Fund) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies,
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 Fund.

|       |             |  |     |        |  |                                                       
|------ | ----------- |  | --- | ------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: | May 6, 2008 |  |     |        |  | RIDGEWOOD ENERGY P FUND,
  LLC                        
|       |             |  |     |        |  |                                                       
|       |             |  | By: | /s/    |  | ROBERT E. SWANSON                                     
|       |             |  |     |       
|       |             |  |     | Name:  |  | Robert E. Swanson                                     
|       |             |  |     | Title: |  | President and Chief
  Executive Officer               
|       |             |  |     |        |  | (Principal Executive
  Officer)                       
|       |             |  |     |        |  |                                                       
|Dated: | May 6, 2008 |  |     |        |  |                                                       
|       |             |  | By: | /s/    |  | KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY                                  
|       |             |  |     |       
|       |             |  |     | Name:  |  | Kathleen P. McSherry                                  
|       |             |  |     | Title: |  | Executive Vice President
  and Chief Financial Officer
|       |             |  |     |        |  | (Principal Financial and
  Accounting Officer)        

A signed original of this
written statement or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement has been provided to Ridgewood Energy P Fund, LLC and
will be retained by Ridgewood Energy P Fund, LLC and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### ROSSMAN, Appellant, v. ROSSMAN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Harriet E. Rossman against Raymond C. Rossman, Catherine E. Rossman, and Mon-fort J. Wade.

No opinion.. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 3:20cv4698-TKW-HTC 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD 

OF COMMISSIONERS and 

RAYME EDLER, 

Defendants. 

_________________________________/

DEFENDANT RAYME EDLER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND 

TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Rule 6(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., defendant Rayme Edler (“Dr. Edler”) 

respectfully requests a one-week extension of time, up to and including May 15, 

2020, to file an answer, motion, or other response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

As grounds for the motion, Dr. Edler states as follows: 

1. Plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court for Florida’s First Judicial District in 

and for Escambia County alleging constitutional torts under 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

Defendant Escambia County Board Of Commissioners (“the County”) timely removed 

the case to this Court. Following removal, the County and Dr. Edler filed Rule 

12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. In lieu of responding to the motions, Plaintiff filed his 

first amended complaint, Doc. 20.

2. Per the Court’s order of April 24, 2020, Dr. Edler’s answer or motion is 

due on or before May 8, 2020.

3. Rule 6(b) provides for extensions of time on “good cause,” which exists 

here because Defendant needs this short extension to fully evaluate the amended 

complaint and prepare the appropriate motion. 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 28 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 3
4. This action is in its earliest stages, and this short extension will not 

cause undue delay to the schedule. 

5. The Court has already granted the County’s motion for additional time

and set May 15 as its deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the amended 

complaint. 

WHEREFORE Dr. Edler respectfully requests a one-week extension of time, up 

to and including May 15, 2020, to file an answer, motion, or other response to 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

Certification of Good Faith

I certify that counsel for the movant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and 

Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the extension of time. 

Dated: May 7, 2020

/s/ Cecily L. Kaffer

Cecily L. Kaffer

pro hac vice 

The Kullman Firm

A Professional Law Corporation

Post Office Box 1287

Mobile, Alabama 36633

Telephone: (251) 432-1811

clk@kullmanlaw.com

Attorney for Defendant Rayme Edler 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 28 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on May 7, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such 

filing to the following:

Katie Gudaitis

Stephanie Pidermann

Lydecker Diaz

495 Grand Blvd., Suite 206

Miramar Beach, FL 32550

kg@lydeckerdiaz.com

sp@lydeckerdiaz.com

J.J. Talbott

Law Office of Jerimiah J. Talbott, P.A. 

900 East Moreno Street

Pensacola, Florida 32503

jjtalbott@talbottlaw.com

/s/ Cecily L. Kaffer

Cecily L. Kaffer

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 28 Filed 05/07/20 Page 3 of 3