alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADAM JONES, individually as an

aggrieved employee and on behalf of other

aggrieved employees,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-56778

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-05206-FMOAJW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 8, 2014*

Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, GOULD, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

This is an appeal, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c), of the district

court’s order remanding the underlying putative class action to state court. 

Reviewing the district court’s remand order de novo, Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem.

FILED

DEC 29 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Co., 443 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam), we reverse the district court’s

remand order and conclude that the district court has jurisdiction pursuant to the

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). 

The sole dispute on appeal was whether defendant has met its burden of

proof under CAFA to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million,

but this dispute no longer existed when we heard oral arguments of the parties. At

oral argument, plaintiff conceded that the evidence submitted by defendant, if

credited, is sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount

in controversy exceeds $5 million. Plaintiff also conceded in its answering brief

that “the district court may not have fully considered the sample data submitted by

[defendant]. If the estimated amounts from the sample data were extrapolated to

cover all eligible putative class members, then the figures provided for the waiting

time penalties alone would likely eclipse the $5 million threshold.” 

Parties cannot consent to subject matter jurisdiction, and a lack of subject

matter jurisdiction is a non-consentable defect. See Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v.

Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 377 n.21 (1978). Here, however, we agree with the parties

that defendant has submitted sufficient evidence to show by a preponderance of the

evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. We conclude that the

district court has jurisdiction over the underlying putative class action under

2
CAFA. 

REVERSED and REMANDED.

3
### Experiments in water spreading at Newark, Delaware

By: Durward Haye BoggessDonald Robert Rima

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1594B

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3990 Gastrointestinal microorganism multiplex nucleic acid-based assay. ( a ) *Identification.* A gastrointestinal microorganism multiplex nucleic acid-based assay is a qualitative *in vitro* diagnostic device intended to simultaneously detect and identify multiple gastrointestinal microbial nucleic acids extracted from human stool specimens. The device detects specific nucleic acid sequences for organism identification as well as for determining the presence of toxin genes. The detection and identification of a specific gastrointestinal microbial nucleic acid from individuals exhibiting signs and symptoms of gastrointestinal infection aids in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal infection when used in conjunction with clinical evaluation and other laboratory findings. A gastrointestinal microorganism multiplex nucleic acid-based assay also aids in the detection and identification of acute gastroenteritis in the context of outbreaks.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls are set forth in FDA's guideline document entitled: “Class II Special Controls Guideline: Gastrointestinal Microorganism Multiplex Nucleic Acid-Based Assays for Detection and Identification of Microorganisms and Toxin Genes from Human Stool Specimens.” For availability of the guideline document, see § 866.1(e).
[80 FR 67314, Nov. 2, 2015]
# C_2016364EN.01004902.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/49

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Esen v Commission

(Case F-45/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired before entering the service of the European Union under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Plea of inadmissibility - Concept of measure adversely affecting a person - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 364/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kerim Esen (Maputo, Mozambique) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and subsequently by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the EU pension scheme which applies the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Kerim Esen shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Kerim Esen shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014, p. 46.

---
* 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-10051

Summary Calendar

_____________________

BILLY GENE DE LONY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director; DAN MORALES,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(7:96-CV-233)

_________________________________________________________________

July 7, 1997

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Billy Gene De Lony appeals the district court’s dismissal, as

frivolous, of his pro se, in forma pauperis civil rights complaint.

He contends that the court abused its discretion by concluding that

his complaint was barred under the principles stated in Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).
- 2 -

Based on our review of the record and De Lony’s brief, we find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for the reasons stated

by the district court. See De Lony v. Scott, No. 7:96-CV-0233-X 

(N.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 1996); see also Edwards v. Balisok, ___ U.S.

___, 117 S. Ct. 1584, 1589 (1997). De Lony’s motions to enlarge

the record and for jury consideration are DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED
Exhibit 10.2





 





FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This First Amendment
to the Employment Agreement dated as of January 23, 2017 (the “Employment Agreement”), dated as of May 5, 2017
(this “Amendment”), is by and among Lilis Energy, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”),
Joseph Daches (“Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the parties
hereto desire to amend the Employment Agreement as hereinafter set forth.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and the representations, warranties, covenants and agreements set forth herein, and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally
bound hereby, agree as follows:


 


 1.       Cash Incentive Bonus. Section 5.2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety to read as follows: 




 


“5.2
       Reserved.”


 


2.       Additional
Representations and Warranties. This Amendment and the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, constitute the legal, valid
and binding obligations of the parties hereto and are enforceable against each of the parties hereto in accordance with their respective
terms, subject only to the effect, if any, of (i) applicable bankruptcy and other similar laws affecting the rights of creditors
generally and (ii) rules of law governing specific performance, injunctive relief and other equitable remedies.


 


3.       Governing
Law. This Amendment shall be governed, construed and enforced in accordance with the Laws of the State of New York without
giving effect to the principles of conflicts of law thereof.


 


4.       Effect
on the Employment Agreement. The Employment Agreement is not modified or amended other than as expressly indicated herein,
and all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The Employment Agreement,
as amended hereby, shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed. Except as expressly set forth herein,
the execution, delivery and effectiveness of this Amendment shall not operate as a waiver of any right, power or remedy of the
parties, nor constitute a waiver of any provision of the Employment Agreement (or an agreement to agree to any future amendment,
waiver or consent).


 


5.       Counterparts.
This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall
be considered one and the same agreement.


 


 


[Signature on the
following page]


 




     



     


    

 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
Lilis and Executive have caused this Amendment to executed as of the date first written above.


 





	 	LILIS ENERGY, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Abraham Mirman	 
	 	 	Name: 	Abraham Mirman  	 
	 	 	Title: 	Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/ Joe Daches	 
	 	 	Name: 	Joe Daches
Q14PortierConcentrationdailytimeseriesMaximumandMinimumEstimatedConcentrationTSAUCconcentrationdailytimeseriesAUCdailytimeseriesfromMaximumandMinimumconcentrationtimeandsimulatedconcentrationtsseriesfrom1000simulatedconcentrationEffectofaveragingonATZconcentrationtimeseriesAUCforindicateddurations
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.5570 Lactoferrin immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A lactoferrin immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the lactoferrin (an iron-binding protein with the ability to inhibit the growth of bacteria) in serum, breast milk, other body fluids, and tissues. Measurement of lactoferrin may aid in the diagnosis of an inherited deficiency of this protein.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 65 FR 2312, Jan. 14, 2000]
EXHIBIT 24.1


     POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Ambassadors International, Inc.,
     a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and the undersigned officers
     and directors of the Company, individually and in their respective
     capacities indicated below, hereby make, constitute and appoint John
     A. Ueberroth and Jeffrey D. Thomas, or either of them, its and their
     true and lawful attorneys with power of substitution, to execute on
     behalf of the Company, the Annual Report on Form 10-K, including all
     exhibits and any and all amendments thereto; that John A. Ueberroth
     and Jeffrey D. Thomas, or either of them, are each granted full power
     and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
     whatsoever as either may deem necessary or advisable to the same
     extent and with the same effect as the undersigned might or could do
     personally in their respective capacities.

     This Power of Attorney may be signed by the undersigned in as many
     counterparts as may be necessary, each of which so signed shall be
     deemed to be an original, and such counterparts together shall
     constitute one and the same instrument and notwithstanding the date of
     execution shall be deemed to bear the date as set forth below.
     Furthermore, facsimile signatures shall be deemed to have the same
     effect as original signatures.

     Dated as of the 25th day of March, 1998.

     /s/ Peter V. Ueberroth             /s/ John A. Ueberroth
     --------------------------------   ---------------------------------
     Peter V. Ueberroth, Chairman       John A. Ueberroth, Director,
                                          of the Board of Directors
                                          President and Chief Executive
                                          Officer (Principal Executive
                                          Officer)


     /s/ John C. Spence                 /s/ Jeffrey D. Thomas
     --------------------------------   ---------------------------------
     John C. Spence, Director           Jeffrey D. Thomas, Chief Financial
                                          Officer (Principal Financial and
                                          Accounting Officer)
**
**Exhibit 31**

**Certifications**

I,Richard Simpson, certify that: 

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Kand all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-P1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2.    Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.    Based on my knowledge, all of thedistribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of RegulationAB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and 

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described insuch reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above,I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; LNR Partners, LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; National TaxSearch, LLC; Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC; Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC; Berkeley Point Capital LLC; and Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association. 

Date:    March 28, 2019 

 

/s/ Richard Simpson

Richard Simpson

President, Citigroup CommercialMortgage Securities Inc. (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

 

 
CGCMT 2015-P1 Certifications (2018) 

**
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.2085 Caramel. ( a ) *Identity and specifications.* The color additive caramel shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 73.85(a)(1), (2), and (3) and (b).
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* Caramel is safe for use in coloring cosmetics generally, including cosmetics applied to the area of the eye, in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice.
( c ) *Labeling requirements.* The label of the color additive and any mixtures intended solely or in part for coloring purposes prepared therefrom shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirement of section 721(c) of the act.
[46 FR 38501, July 28, 1981]
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 10.40

                          (SUMMIT MEDICAL LETTERHEAD)



March 26, 1997



Richard Willemin
76 Cross Ridge Road
Chappaqua, NY  10514

Dear Richard:

This letter confirms our offer to you as interim Vice President of Finance and
Chief Financial Officer, effective March 17, 1997, reporting directly to me.
For matters relating to the filing of the 10K and other SEC items you will
report to Hud Connery, Interim Chairman of the Board.

The following covers the details of the arrangement we discussed:

1.   Effective March 17, 1997 you have assumed the role of interim Vice
     President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer for Summit Medical for an
     anticipated period of four months to July 17, 1997.  This position is a
     regular, full-time position, and you will be eligible to participate under
     Summit's benefit programs.

2.   During this interim period your compensation will be $6,730.76 gross on a
     bi-weekly basis ($175,000 annualized).

3.   We will provide you with an incentive stock option of 50,000 shares equal
     to the fair market value on March 17, 1997 ($3.4375).  Ten thousand
     (10,000) of these 50,000 shares will vest immediately, and the remaining
     40,000 shares will vest over the next four months (10,000 per month), and
     as detailed in the Stock Option Plan of 1993.  If you were terminated other
     than for cause during this interim period all options would vest.

4.   During this interim period, we will determine your role beyond the four
     months period, and to the extent it continues we will revisit compensation
     and stock options on a going forward basis.

5.   This offer is contingent upon your immediate execution of Summit's Non-
     Competition and Confidentiality Agreement.
<PAGE>
 
6.   This offer letter is not to be construed as an employment contract between
     you and Summit Medical and your employment is at-will.

Richard, we are excited to have you join Summit Medical, and look forward to
working with you to improve the overall effectiveness of your financial area and
have your perspectives become a key part of this management team going forward.

Sincerely

s/ Kevin Green
Kevin Green
President and Chief Executive Officer



Accepted By:

s/ Richard Willemin        3/26/97
----------------------------------
Richard Willemin              Date
#### § 810.3 Computation of time.

In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this part, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The computation of time is based only on working days.
#### LUTHER GEORGES, PLAINTIFF, v. ADOLPH WEGROCKI, DEFENDANT.

Argued February 11, 1939

Decided February 14, 1939.

*110Before Justice Parker, at chambers.

For the plaintiff, *Sidney A. Bierman.*

For the defendant, *Rospond & Rospond.*

Parker, J.

The plaintiff having recovered a money judgment against the defendant, the latter being a member of the house of assembly of New Jersey, whose salary for the present year has not been paid, issued execution on his judgment, which had been docketed in this court, levied upon the unpaid salary in the hands of the state treasurer, and by this rule seeks to have the court adjudicate that the state treasurer turn over the salary to the plaintiff in partial satisfaction of his judgment and execution. Several objections are raised. The first is, that the salary of a member of the house of assembly should be held exempt as a matter of public policy; the second is, a claim for the usual $200 exemption by the defendant ; and the third, that the salary is for the entire year 1939, and that the Executions act does not permit a levy against wages or salary unless in excess of $18 a week.

As to the first, the statute as now in force seems expressly to provide that a state salary is subject to this procedure. *R. S.*2:26-185.

With regard to the second, I am in doubt as to whether the exemption feature *(R. S.*2:26-99) is applicable in cases of this kind. No case is pointed out in which it has been so held and in quite a number of cases in our reports wherein the point might have been raised and considered, it seems to be ignored. *Russell*v. *Mechanics Realty Co.,*88 *N. J. L.*532; *Wortendyke*v. *Blauvelt,*91 *Id.*353.

But with regard to the $18 a week feature, I think it is fairly clear that the point is well taken. The salary of a member of the assembly is $500 and it seems to be payable at the beginning of the session of the assembly, or approximately at that time, but the salary is for the entire year of the assembly term. The regular session is of variable duration and the assembly is liable to be called into extra session *111at any time during the year, and of recent years this has been customary. Now a salary of $500 a year of fifty-two weeks is something less than $10 a week. Consequently, my result is that for this reason the rule to show cause must be discharged. Counsel may present a rule accordingly.

The moving papers and affidavits will be filed in the clerk’s office.