alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is 

not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

04-3415 

JAMES E. HAYNIE, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

 Respondent. 

 __________________________ 

 DECIDED: April 5, 2005 

 __________________________ 

Before MAYER, RADER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

 James E. Haynie appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board dismissing his claim that he was improperly removed from employment by the 

Department of Veterans Affairs for lack of jurisdiction. Haynie v. Dep’t of Veterans 

Affairs, CH315H040152-I-1 (MSPB Jun. 24, 2004). We affirm. 

 We must affirm the board’s decision to dismiss Haynie’s appeal unless he 

establishes that the decision is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, 

rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence. 
5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (2000). “The jurisdiction of the board is not plenary. Rather, it is

limited to those matters specifically entrusted to it by statute or regulation.” Serrao v. 

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 95 F.3d 1569, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a). A 

petitioner has the burden of establishing board jurisdiction by a preponderance of the 

evidence and we review the board’s decision de novo. See Serrao, 95 F.3d at 1573. 

We agree with the board that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Haynie’s appeal 

because he was a probationary employee. The board’s jurisdiction to hear an 

employee’s appeal of a removal is circumscribed by statute. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511-

7514, 4301-4305. Excluded from its jurisdiction are appeals concerning “the reduction 

in grade or removal of an employee . . . who is serving a probationary or trial period 

. . . .” Id. § 4303(f)(2). Haynie’s allegations of discrimination must also be dismissed 

because he failed to establish board jurisdiction over his probationary termination. See

Synan v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 765 F.2d 1099, 1100-01 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 

04-3415 2
228 So.2d 313

#### In the Interest of Henry Bart PALMISANO, Jr.

No. 50238.

Dec. 2, 1969.

In re: Henry Bart Palmisano, Jr., applying for writs of prohibition, certiorari and mandamus.

Application denied. The ruling complained of is correct.
# L_2023227EN.01003301.xml

| 14.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 227/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 227/33

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 167/2020

of 23 October 2020

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2023/1742]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1842 of 31 October 2019 laying down rules for the application of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards further arrangements for the adjustments to free allocation of emission allowances due to activity level changes (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1842 of 31 October 2019 laying down rules for the application of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards further arrangements for the adjustments to free allocation of emission allowances due to activity level changes (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 21apk (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2067) of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘21apl. | 32019 R 1842: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1842 of 31 October 2019 laying down rules for the application of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards further arrangements for the adjustments to free allocation of emission allowances due to activity level changes (OJ L 282, 4.11.2019, p. 20).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘21apl.

32019 R 1842: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1842 of 31 October 2019 laying down rules for the application of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards further arrangements for the adjustments to free allocation of emission allowances due to activity level changes (OJ L 282, 4.11.2019, p. 20).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1842 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 24 October 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 23 October 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 282, 4.11.2019, p. 20.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
#### § 784.10 Record of waiver determinations.

The Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property shall maintain and periodically update a publicly available record of waiver determinations.
###### Editorial Note on Part 51

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

#### § 51.90 Final environmental impact statement—general.

After receipt and consideration of comments requested pursuant to §§ 51.73 and 51.117, the NRC staff will prepare a final environmental impact statement in accordance with the requirements in §§ 51.70(b) and 51.71 for a draft environmental impact statement. The format provided in section 1(a) of appendix A of this subpart should be used.
#### § 820.30 Post-hearing filings.

Within fifteen days after the filing of the transcript of the hearing, or within such longer time as may be fixed by the Presiding Officer, any party may file for the consideration of the Presiding Officer, proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a proposed order, together with briefs in support thereof. Reply briefs may be filed within ten days of the filing of briefs. All filings shall be in writing, shall be served upon all parties, and shall contain adequate references to the record and authorities relied on.
#### WELCH, Respondent, v. WALRATH, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

December 2, 1914.)

Action by Michael E. Welch against Alfred Walrath.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Alfred F. Marietta et al., Respondents, v Antoinette Scelzo et al., Respondents, and Jeffrey Rogove, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 137]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Jeffrey Rogove appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated September 21, 2004, which, in effect, denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him, or in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Dennis Gatti on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the appellant is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The appellant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting the parties’ examinations before trial, which showed that the appellant’s vehicle was in the process of lawfully stopping behind the plaintiffs’ vehicle before it was struck from behind a vehicle operated by the defendant John C. Scelzo *(see Hoffman v Eastern Long Is. Transp. Enter.,*266 AD2d 509 [1999]).

*540The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to show, by admissible evidentiary proof, the existence of a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs’ proof, consisting of their attorney’s affirmation, which was based upon unsubstantiated hypotheses and suppositions, was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment *(see Hoffman v Eastern Long Is. Transp. Enter., supra).*

In view of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contention. Ritter, J.P., Mastro, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
(logo)**Prudential**

**PrudentialAsset Resources**

PGIMReal Estate Finance

2100Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel214-777-4500

 

Abusiness of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

WellsFargo Bank, National Association

CommercialMortgage Servicing

MACD1086

550South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte,North Carolina 28202

Attention:Asset Manager

 

 

RE:         **WFRBS 2013-C12**

Period: **January 1, 2018 to December 31,2018(the "Reporting Period")**

 

 

**Annual ComplianceStatement**

 

I, Joni Brown-Haas, in my capacity asPresident and Managing Director of Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the"Company") hereby certify with regard to the Company's role asSub-Servicer under the Sub-Servicing Agreement, (the "Agreement")dated as of March 1, 2013, pertaining to the above-referenced certificates,that:

 

       (i)           areview of the activities of the Company under the Agreement  during theperiod noted above, and  of the performance of the Company under theAgreement during the  relevant  period  has been made under mysupervision, and

 

     (ii)           to thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement throughout the relevant period, and

 

   (iii)           to thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled itsobligations under its sub-servicing agreement in all material respects, and

 

    (iv)           theCompany has maintained an effective internal control system over the servicingof mortgage loans including the Loans serviced by the Company, and

 

     (v)           theCompany has not received any notice regarding qualification or challenging thestatus of the Lower Tier REMIC or the Upper Tier REMIC as a REMIC, from the IRSor any other governmental agency or body.

 

Effectiveas of February 22, 2019

 

 

/s/Joni Brown-Haas

JoniBrown-Haas

Presidentand Managing Director

PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc.
H. Res. 397 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 27, 2017. 

Whereas more than 250,000 Americans died in the Second 

World War to liberate Europe from the scourge of genocidal fascism; 

Whereas in the wake of the cataclysm of the Second World 

War, the United States, Canada, and European partners 

founded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

in Washington in 1949; 

Whereas the foundation of NATO is collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty which 

states that, ‘‘The Parties agree that an armed attack 

against one or more of them in Europe or North America 

shall be considered an attack against them all.’’; 

Whereas NATO is one of the most successful military alliances in history, deterring the outbreak of another world 

war, protecting the territorial integrity of its members, 

and seeing the Cold War through to a peaceful conclusion; 

Whereas Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty has only been 

invoked once in history when alliance members came to 

the aid of the United States following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; 
2 

•HRES 397 EH 

Whereas NATO allies and partners, including Canada and 

countries in Central, Eastern, and Northern Europe, including countries of the Western Balkans, and the former 

Soviet Union have stood alongside the United States in 

joint operations in the Western Balkans, Afghanistan, 

Iraq, and elsewhere around the globe; 

Whereas NATO remains the foundation of United States foreign policy of promoting a Europe that is whole, free, 

and at peace; 

Whereas at the Wales Summit in 2014, NATO leaders 

agreed that each alliance member would spend at least 2 

percent of its nation’s gross domestic product on defense 

by 2024; 

Whereas multiple Presidents have reaffirmed the commitment 

of the United States to the collective defense guarantees 

in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty; and 

Whereas the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the sole power to declare war: Now, therefore, be 

it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) solemnly reaffirms the commitment of the 

United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty; 

(2) strongly supports the decision at the NATO 

Wales Summit in 2014 that each alliance member would 

spend at least 2 percent of its nation’s gross domestic 

product on defense by 2024; 
3 

•HRES 397 EH 

(3) condemns any threat to the sovereignty, territorial integrity, freedom and democracy of any NATO 

ally; and 

(4) welcomes the Republic of Montenegro as the 

29th member of the NATO Alliance. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### Hotel 57 LLC, Doing Business as Four Seasons Hotel New York, Respondent, v Harvard Maintenance, Inc., Appellant.

[816 NYS2d 420]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered May 18, 2005, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on spoliation of evidence, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendant’s motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this action seeking in excess of $300,000, representing the cost of replacing 16 windows that had been recently installed as part of plaintiff hotel’s renovation of its 52nd floor penthouse presidential suite, it is undisputed that defendant was hired “to perform an initial construction of the glass.” On May 20, 2002, defendant sent two window cleaners to “do an initial cleaning to remove construction dirt from the windows so that the Owner could inspect the glass for quality.” After the window cleaners *463had been working for a half hour, plaintiffs agent noticed scratches on all 16 windows on the north face of the penthouse, stopped work and summoned John McDermott, defendant’s employee in charge of window cleaning, “to see the situation.” He and plaintiffs agent as well as representatives of the general contractor inspected the scratches on the windows. Mr. Mc-Dermott denied that his workers had scratched the windows and believed the scratches were preexisting.

It is also undisputed that thereafter, plaintiff, without any notice to defendant of its intention to do so, destroyed and replaced the windows in question some six months after the alleged scratching and 16 months prior to commencement of this action. Such intentional destruction by plaintiff of evidence critical to its subsequent suit against defendant is particularly significant where, in its determining whether to replace the windows and in dealing with its claim to its own insurer, “numerous parties (owner, architect, glass manufacturing representatives, glass consultant) viewed the glass and stated it was scratched beyond repair.”

The court’s finding that defendant had the opportunity to inspect the windows both before and after the asserted damage is not fairly supported by the fact that Mr. McDermott was called to the scene after the window cleaners had been told to stop work and shown the scratched windows, and/or by plaintiffs letter two days later, advising defendant that it was “investigating the potential causes and cures for such scratches that were not there prior to the cleaning” and recommending that defendant notify its insurer “in the case that the glass may need to be replaced.” Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
Exhibit 10.8


[Rexnord Corporation Letterhead]


July 21, 2006


[                          ]


 


Re:          Plan
Participation Letter:  Rexnord
Corporation Special Signing Bonus Plan


Dear [                ]:


 


Rexnord Corporation (the “Company”) has adopted
the Rexnord Corporation Special Signing Bonus Plan (the “Plan”) pursuant
to which certain employees, directors, consultants and other service providers
of the Company (or any of its Subsidiaries) who are designated by the Company
as Participants in the Plan may receive a Bonus on the terms set forth in the
Plan and this Plan Participation Letter. 
Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Plan Participation Letter
have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Plan.


 


In consideration for services rendered or to be rendered
to the Company (or any of its Subsidiaries), you have been designated by the
Company as a Participant in the Plan. 
The amount of your Bonus under the Plan is $[            ],
such amount to be payable in accordance with the terms of the Plan on or within
30 days after [                      ],
unless an earlier Payment Date is called for under Section 1.3 of the
Plan.  As a Participant in the Plan, you
hereby agree to be bound by and subject to the terms and conditions of the
Plan, including, without limitation, the terms affecting the payment of the
Bonus and the mandatory arbitration and waiver of jury trial rights in Section
2.8 of the Plan.


 


Nothing in the Plan or this Plan Participation Letter
constitutes an employment or service commitment by the Company (or any of its
Affiliates).  You and the Company hereby
acknowledge and agree that this Plan Participation Letter and the Plan set
forth the entire agreement and understanding of the parties and supersede all
prior written or oral agreements or understandings with respect to the subject
matter hereof.


 


[Signature
Page to Follow]


 

















 


	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  REXNORD CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name:
  [                ]
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1417

SHELIA HALLMAN

- WARNER; ROSCOE OLIVER WARNER , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. BLUEFIELD STATE COLLEGE, WV State Government Entity/Higher Education Policy Commission; SHELIA JOHNSON, Vice

- President Financial Affairs, Bluefield State College; JASON BROOKS, Director of Public Safety, Bluefield State College; ANGELA LAMBERT, Provost/Vice

- President of Academic Affairs; JONETTA AUGHENBAUGH, Director, Human Resources; MARTHA EBORALL, Dean of Arts and Sciences; AMANDA MATOUSHEK, Chair, Social Sciences; SANDRA WYNN, Chair, Promotion and Tenure Committee; JOANNE ROBINSON, Vice

- President Student Affairs; JERRY PERDUE, Letter to the Editor, member Student Governing Association, Stu dent Representative, Bluefield State College Board of Governor's; MARSHA KROTSENG, President/Bluefield State College; CURRENT AND FORMER BOARD OF GOVERNOR'S BLUEFIELD STATE COLLEGE, Robert E. Perkinson, Jr., Chair, Governing Board of Bluefield State Colleg e; GARRY D. MOORE, Vice

- Chair, Governing Board of Bluefield State College , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Bluefield

. David A. Faber , Senior District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv
- 02882 )

Submitted : July 26, 2018 Decided: July 30, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.2 Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Shelia Hallman

- Warner; Roscoe Oliver Warner, Appellants Pro Se. Kevin John Robinson, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAG AN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Shelia Hallman

- Warner and Roscoe Oliver Warner seek to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing their civil complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s judgment was entered on March 13, 2018. The notice of appeal was filed on April 13, 2018

. Because Ap pellant s failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED

* Appellants also failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985) (noting failure to file specific objections to magistrate judge’s report waives appellate review)

.
Exhibit 32



                        President's Written Certification
                             Of Financial Statements
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350



     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 907 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity
as president of 4net Software, Inc. (the "Company") that

     (a)  the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
          June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     (b)  the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end
          of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such
          period.


Dated: August 12, 2009


                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President