alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20406

Summary Calendar

 

JOHN W. WINSLOW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES SMITH; ET AL.,

Defendants,

CHARLES SMITH; LINDA PATTERSON;

S. O. WOODS; M. COUNTZ, Warden; 

R. BELANGER, Asst. Warden;

R. JONES, Asst. Warden; 

L. HEUSZEL, Asst. Warden; 

G. PIERSON, Asst. Warden; 

H. TERRY, Asst. Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-94-CV-1777

- - - - - - - - - -

October 31, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John W. Winslow, Texas prisoner # 442811, appeals from the

district court’s grant of summary judgment as unopposed and
No. 97-20406

-2-

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of

prosecution. Winslow argues that the defendants intentionally

used the disciplinary process to prevent him from filing a timely

response to the summary judgment motion.

Even if his allegations are true, Winslow has not shown

prejudice because he was able to respond to the defendants’

summary judgment motion. Lewis v. Casey, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2180

(1996). Although the district court erred in granting summary

judgment on the basis that Winslow had not responded to the

summary judgment motion, the grant of summary judgment was

appropriate. Sojourner T. v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir.

1992) (permitting affirmance of judgment on any basis supported

by the record). The defendants met their initial burden of

showing that they were entitled to judgment, and Winslow’s

conclusional allegations and unsubstantiated assertions failed to

carry his burden of showing that they were not entitled to

judgment. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th

Cir. 1994) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
(June 18, 1970)

#### In the Matter of Barbara Haroche, Respondent, v. Gilbert D. Haroche, Appellant.

In a support proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated October 16, 1969, which *inter alia*directed appellant to pay respondent, his wife, $350 a week for support of respondent and the parties’ two infant children. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by reducing the amount of dollar support for respondent and the two children from $350 to $250 a week. As so modified, order affirmed in all other respects, without costs. On the record presented we find that the award of $350 a week is excessive and that it should be reduced to $250 a week. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.49


 


DESCRIPTION
OF CERTAIN COMPENSATORY ARRANGMENTS BETWEEN MOTOROLA, INC. AND GREGORY Q. BROWN
AND BETWEEN MOTOROLA, INC. AND SANJAY K. JHA


 


Voluntary
Compensation Reductions


 


In late 2008, Motorola
Co-CEOs Greg Brown and Sanjay Jha voluntarily agreed to a 25 percent decrease
in base salary for 2009, from $1.200.000 to $900,000 and agreed to forego 2008
bonuses under the Company’s annual cash incentive plan (“Annual Incentive Plan”).
On February 11, 2009, the Compensation and Leadership Committee granted
344,615 restricted stock units to Dr. Jha with a value equal to $2.4
million less the amount of cash that would have been payable to Mr. Brown
under the Annual Incentive Plan had he not foregone his 2008 annual cash
incentive. The restricted stock units had a total cash value on February 11,
2009 of $1,334,000, based on the closing price of Motorola common stock on February 11,
2009.   The restricted stock units vest in two equal
installments on February 11, 2010 and on October 31, 2010.


 


In 2010, Motorola Co-CEOs
Greg Brown and Sanjay Jha agreed to voluntarily have their base pay remain at
the reduced level of $900,000 for 2010.
223 So.2d 867

#### Percy H. PIERRE, etc. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and Opial Stinson, wife of/and Harry Brooks.

No. 49911.

June 27, 1969.

In re: Percy H. Pierre et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of St. Charles. 221 So.2d 846.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified. ’
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1098 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives to raise the awareness 

of alopecia areata. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2006 

Mr. RYAN of Ohio (for himself and Mr. TIERNEY) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives to 

raise the awareness of alopecia areata. 

Whereas alopecia areata is a common autoimmune skin disease resulting in the loss of hair on the scalp and elsewhere on the body; 

Whereas alopecia areata is a common but very challenging 

and capricious disease affecting approximately 2 percent 

of the American population, amounting to more than 4.7 

million people in the United States; 

Whereas, with alopecia areata, the affected hair follicles are 

mistakenly attacked by a person’s immune system, resulting in the loss of hair; 

Whereas, although not life-threatening, alopecia areata is 

most certainly life-altering, and its sudden onset, recurVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:00 Dec 08, 2006 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR1098.IH HR1098

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1098 IH 

rent episodes, and unpredictable course have a serious effect on a person’s life and functional status at work, 

school, and everyday life; and 

Whereas because much of the public is not familiar with alopecia areata, the reaction of the public to the disease can 

have a profound psychological impact on the lives of 

those disrupted by this disease: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that an appropriate week should be des3 ignated as National Alopecia Areata Awareness Week. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### Obdulio Sandoval, Appellant, v Raymond P. Martinez, Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 679]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring State Administrative Procedure Act § 301 (6) unconstitutional, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated April 29, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter *775is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a judgment declaring that State Administrative Procedure Act § 301 (6) is constitutional.

State Administrative Procedure Act § 301 (6) requires the state, inter alia, to provide a qualified, certified interpreter for “any deaf person” who is a party to or a witness in an “adjudicatory proceeding before an agency.” The plaintiff, allegedly a Spanish speaker with little facility with English, requested a Spanish-English interpreter when he appeared with counsel at a Department of Motor Vehicles hearing to determine whether his license should be revoked. The Administrative Law Judge denied the request on the grounds that State Administrative Procedure Act § 301 (6) did not require the state to provide such an interpreter. The plaintiff thereafter commenced the instant action, inter alia, for a declaration that State Administrative Procedure Act § 301 (6) was void on its face and unconstitutional as applied, on the ground, among others, that the statute provided interpreters for deaf persons but not for Spanish-speaking persons.

We reject the plaintiff’s equal protection challenge. The distinction in State Administrative Procedure Act § 301 (6) between hearing and deaf persons is reasonably related to the goal of ensuring that deaf persons understand and can fully participate in administrative proceedings *(see Nordlinger v Hahn,*505 US 1 [1992]). Moreover, the plaintiff has not set forth any evidence showing that State Administrative Procedure Act § 301 (6), a facially-neutral statute, was enacted with discriminatory intent *(see Personnel Administrator of Mass. v Feeney,*442 US 256 [1979]; *People v New York City Tr. Auth.,*59 NY2d 343 [1983]).

We decline to address the plaintiffs due process claim in the absence of evidence as to whether he could afford to hire an interpreter or had any ability to understand English.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Luciano, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 207 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2005 

Mr. HULSHOF submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of FarmHouse Fraternity, 

Inc. 

Whereas FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc. was founded on April 

15, 1905, by 7 students from the College of Agriculture 

at the University of Missouri-Columbia; 

Whereas FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc. is widely known and respected on college campuses throughout the United 

States and Canada as a fraternity that encourages values-based leadership, has a strong academic focus, and is 

dedicated to service; 

Whereas FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc. focuses on building the 

whole man—intellectually, spiritually, socially, morally, 

and physically; 

Whereas more than 24,000 men have been members of 

FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc., including governors, con-
2 

•HRES 207 IH 

gressmen, top scientists, innovators in agriculture, university presidents, Nobel Prize winners, Pulitzer Prize 

winners, doctors, lawyers, and Hall of Fame athletes; 

Whereas FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc. members volunteer 

countless hours of service each year to help improve the 

communities they serve; and 

Whereas hundreds of FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc. alumni 

and student members will gather in Columbia, Missouri, 

from April 14 to April 17, 2005, for the celebration of 

the 100th anniversary of the fraternity: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes the 100th anniversary of FarmHouse Fraternity, 

3 Inc. and commends the fraternity and its members for a 

4 century of service. 

Æ
Exhibit 35.2

Feb 28, 2014

Servicer Compliance Statement

For SEMT 2013-1(see Schedule A)



| | (i) | a review of the Servicers activities during the reporting period from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 and of its performance under the Agreement (each of the agreement and the reconstitution
Agreement as defined on Schedule A attached hereto) from the above referenced trust during such period has been made under such officers supervision, and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | to the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement and any applicable Reconstitution Agreement in all material respects throughout
such reporting period (or applicable portion thereof) or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, specifically identifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and the status thereof.
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



First Republic BankBy:

/s/ Lionel AntunesName:

Lionel AntunesTitle:

Vice President of Residential LendingDate:

Feb. 28, 2014




---

<for SEMT 2013-1>

SCHEDULE A



| | 1. | Flow Mortgage Loan Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2010, between Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation and First Republic Bank, as modified by Reconstitution Agreement dated January 15,
2013.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Flow Mortgage Loan Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2010, between Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation and First Republic Bank, as modified by Reconstitution Agreement dated
September 18, 2012, among Barclays Bank, Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation and First Republic Bank, and modified by Reconstitution Agreement dated January 15, 2013.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
158 So.2d 613

#### James Hartwell LOVE, Jr. v. Noah W. CROSS et al.

No. 47032.

Dec. 26, 1963.

In re: James Hartwell Love, Jr., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the *464Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish.of Concordia, 158 So.2d 614.

Writ refused. This Court will not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction when, due to the element of time, any judgment which might be rendered by it could not become effective to afford relator the relief sought.
#### § 1016.4 Communications.

Communications concerning rulemaking, *i.e.,* petition to change this part, should be addressed to the Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, EHSS-1/Forrestal Building, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. All other communications concerning the regulations in this part should be addressed to the cognizant DOE or National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) office.

[82 FR 41505, Sept. 1, 2017, as amended at 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023]
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

'\

)l ; I

1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276. (217) 782-2829

James R. Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-300, Chicago, IL 60601 • (312) 814-6026

PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR .., _ ... __

217/785-4140

217/782-9143 (TDD)

- ...., ..~,~ I

September 2, 2011

Ms. Cheryl A. Newton, Director

Office ofthe Air and Radiation Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V (RI8J)

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507

DearM~~~

illinois EPA has received comments from your staff identifying some typographical errors in our

recently submitted rule regarding YOM emissions from consumer products produced or sold in

lllinois (35 lAC Part 223). Illinois EPA concurs with the comments from your staff and commits

to correct the errors. To that end, Illinois EPA has already proposed to amend 35 lAC Part 223

to correct the errors. As these errors do not appear in the Illinois Pollution Control Board's final

order, and only appeared upon publication in the Illinois Register, we do not anticipate any

objection to the amendments and we fully expect this rulemaking to be completed within twelve

months.

I appreciate the efforts of your staffto review and approve the rules. If further information is

required or should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (217) 785-4140.

s~/

Laurel L. Kroack

Chief, Bureau of Air

Rockford, 4302 N. .'vIain St., Rockford, IL 61103' (815) 987-7760

Elgin. 595 S. State, Elgin, IL 60123 • (847) 608-3131

Bureau of land - Peoria. 7620 N. University St., Peoria, IL 61614. (309) 693-5462

Collinsville '·2009 Mall Street, Collinsville, IL 62234. (618) 346-5120

Des Plaines' 9511 W. Harrison 5t., Des Plaines, IL 60016' (847) 294-4000

Peoria. 5415 N. University St., Peoria, IL 61614 • (309) 693·5463

Champaign' 2125 S. First 5t., Champaign,lL 61820' (217) 278-5800

Marion. 2309 W. Main 5t., Suite 116, Marion, IL 629S9' (618) 993-7200

Printed on Recycled Papcl
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

ANGELA PRICE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-cv-742-MEF

)

ROANOKE CITY BOARD OF )

EDUCATION, )

)

Defendant. )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct (Doc. #27) filed on

August 27, 2007 and the response of the defendant thereto, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

DONE this the 7th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 31 Filed 09/07/2007 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 254 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                           May 4, 2005.
    Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the 
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved 
into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 366) to amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and 
Technical Education Act of 1998 to strengthen and improve programs under that 
Act. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined 
to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under 
the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now 
printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
be considered as read. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except 
those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 
against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate 
vote in the House or any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 7 Filed 02/13/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 7 Filed 02/13/2007 Page 2 of 2
156 So.2d 799

#### Vernon J. WILTY, Jr. v. JEFFERSON PARISH DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE and Mrs. Laura Verret Wilty (Qualification in the name of Mrs. Vernon J. Wilty, Jr.).

No. 46969.

Oct. 22, 1963.

Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit,

156 So.2d 800.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue;' that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### In the Matter of Julia BB. and Others, Children Alleged to be Severely Abused, Repeatedly Abused, Abused and/or Neglected. Saratoga County Department of Social Services, Appellant; Diana BB., Respondent. In the Matter of Julia BB. and Others, Children Alleged to be Severely Abused, Repeatedly Abused, Abused and/or Neglected. Saratoga County Department of Social Services, Appellant; Francis BB., Respondent.

(Proceeding No. 1.)

(Proceeding No. 2.)

Submitted December 10, 2007;

decided December 13, 2007

Reported below, 42 AD3d 208.

Motion by the National Council for Adoption for leave to file an affidavit amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the affidavit is accepted as filed.
2803.1004 Contract clauses.

The information required to be inserted in the clause at FAR 52.203-14, Display of Hotline Poster(s),

is the following: Office of the Inspector General, Fraud Detection Office, Attn: Poster Request, U.S.

Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530.

Parent topic: Subpart 2803.10 - Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct
Exhibit No. 32.3   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 this report of Questar Pipeline Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), R. Allan Bradley, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.  QUESTAR PIPELINE COMPANY   May 6, 2011 /s/R. Allan Bradley R. Allan Bradley President and Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 26
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear at 87 FR 71455, Nov. 22, 2022.

§ 26.415 Audits. ( a ) Licensees and other entities who implement an FFD program under this subpart shall ensure that audits are performed to assure the continuing effectiveness of the FFD program, including FFD program elements that are provided by C/Vs, and the FFD programs of C/Vs that are accepted by the licensee or other entity.
( b ) Each licensee and other entity shall ensure that these programs are audited at a frequency that assures their continuing effectiveness and that corrective actions are taken to resolve any problems identified. Licensees and entities may conduct joint audits, or accept audits of C/Vs conducted by others, so long as the audit addresses the relevant C/Vs' services.
( c ) Licensees and other entities need not audit HHS-certified laboratories or the specimen collection and alcohol testing services that meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 40, “Procedures for Department of Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs”, on which licensees and other entities may rely to meet the drug and alcohol testing requirements of this subpart.
[73 FR 17176, Mar. 31, 2008, as amended at 87 FR 71463, Nov. 22, 2022]