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

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 AUGUST 31, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-12926

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-00276-CV-5-RS-MD

MELINDA CHURCHILL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus

CITY OF PANAMA CITY BEACH FLORIDA, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(August 31, 2010)

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and COX Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Melinda Churchill appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment

against her and in favor the City of Panama City Beach on her claims of gender

discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

Because the parties are fully aware of the evidence and procedural history of the

case, and in view of our more detailed discussion of the issues at oral argument,

we will be brief. 

On the gender discrimination claim, we agree with the district court that

Churchill failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate disciplinary treatment. 

None of the male comparators she points to engaged in misconduct that was even

substantially similar, much less nearly identical, to hers. Officer Boyer, who

received a lesser punishment than Churchill, would have been a nearly identical

comparator but for the fact that he recanted his false testimony when given an

opportunity to do so. Churchill, when given the same opportunity, failed to

recant. We note here, as we did during the oral argument, that it matters not

whether Churchill was telling the truth or lying. What matters is whether the

decisionmakers in good faith believed that she was lying, and there is no evidence

that they did not. Alternatively, for the same reason, there is no genuine issue of

material fact about the City’s proffered non-discriminatory reason for firing her:

she did not recant her false testimony when given a chance. 

2
On the retaliation claim, we are unconvinced by Churchill’s argument that

her refusal to recant her testimony was opposition to discrimination against

Corporal Miller-Goodwin. Lying is not protected conduct and, in any event, there

is no evidence at all that any of the decisionmakers knew that the reason she

refused to correct her testimony was her desire to oppose discrimination. See

Brungart v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 231 F.3d 791, 798-800 (11th

Cir. 2000) (holding that even where there is close temporal proximity, summary

judgment should be granted on a claim of retaliation where there is no evidence

that the decisionmaker was aware that the plaintiff had engaged in any protected

conduct). 

AFFIRMED.

3
Employment Letter Agreement between NewPage Corp. and James C. Tyrone



 EXHIBIT 10.14 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 
 EMPLOYMENT LETTER AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 1 is made effective as of January 28, 2007, and modifies and amends the Employment Letter Agreement dated May 2, 2005 (“Agreement”) between NewPage Corporation
(“Company”) and James C. Tyrone (“Executive”). Terms defined in the Agreement have the same meaning when used in this Amendment unless otherwise indicated. For good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, Company and Executive agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 2(c) of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

 “(c) Annual Bonus. For performance periods during the Term, Executive will be entitled to participate in the NewPage Corporation management incentive or bonus plan or plans approved annually by the Board
of Directors of the Company (the “Annual Incentive Plan”). Executive’s target bonus will be 65% of Base Salary for achieving targets set annually pursuant to the terms the Annual Incentive Plan. Each annual bonus (“Annual
Bonus”) will be paid on or before March 15th of the year following the tax year in which the relevant services required for payment have been performed. There will be no cap on the amount of any Annual Bonus.” 
  

	2.	Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. 

  


					
	Company:	 	Executive:
	NewPage Corporation	 	
			
	By:	 	 /s/ Mark A. Suwyn
	 	 /s/ James C. Tyrone

		 		 	James C. Tyrone
	Title:	 	Chairman and CEO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7509

KEVEN A. MORGAN,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent

- Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at

Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:19

- hc

- 02153

- M)

Submitted: February 25, 2022 Decided: April 20, 2022

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curia m opinion.

Keven A. Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Porter Babb, Sr., Special Deputy Attorney

General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

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

Keven A. Morgan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate o f

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositi ve procedural ruling is

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler

, 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel

, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Morgan has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability

and 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

2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLWY-957400-09-L14200000-BJ0000-TRST]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, Wyoming.

      ( print page 38220)    

# SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file the plats of survey of the lands described below thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This survey was executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and is necessary for the management of these lands. The lands surveyed are:

The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and a portion of the subdivision of section 10, and the survey of the subdivision of section 11, and the metes and bounds surveys of certain parcels, Township 1 South, Range 4 East, of the Wind River Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 787, was accepted July 27, 2009.

The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the Second Standard Parallel North, through Range 2 East, the subdivisional lines and adjusted meanders of the right bank of South Fork Owl Creek, and the survey of the subdivision of section 35, Township 9 North, Range 2 East, of the Wind River Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 788, was accepted July 27, 2009.

The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and a portion of the subdivision of section 9, and the metes and bounds survey of Parcel A, section 9, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, of the Wind River Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 789, was accepted July 27, 2009.

Copies of the preceding described plats and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $1.10 per page.

Dated: July 27, 2009.

John P. Lee,

Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Division of Support Services.

[FR Doc. E9-18287 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
jfourtlj Court of

gntomo,

April 29,2013

No. 04-13-00199-CR

Jorge MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR1083

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On April 22, 2013, the court reporter in this case filed notice of late record stating that

appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee for the reporter's record, and appellant

has failed to pay the fee for the reporter's record or make arrangements to pay the fee for the

reporter's record. The court reporter's notice of late record is NOTED.

Furthermore, on April 5, 2013, we issued an order warning appellant that this appeal will

be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless trial court

certification showing that appellant has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by

May 6,2013. The April 5, 2013, order suspends all appellate deadlines until further order of this

court.

Karen Angelini, JustioJ/

REOF, have hereunto set my/iand and afjnxed the seal of the said

il, 2013.

Kefth E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Fiscal Service

# AGENCY:

Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This is Supplement No. I to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2009 Revision, published July 1, 2009, at 74 FR 31536.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to the following company:

StarNet Insurance Company (NAIC # 40045). BUSINESS ADDRESS: 475 Steamboat Road, Greenwich, CT 06830. PHONE: (203) 542-3800. UNDERWRITING LIMITATION b/: $10,963,000. SURETY LICENSES C/: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY. INCORPORATED IN: Delaware.

Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2009 Revision, to reflect this addition.

Certificates of Authority expire on June 30th each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (see 31 CFR part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1st in the Circular, which outlines details as to the underwriting limitations, areas in which companies are licensed to transact surety business, and other information.

                    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at                     *http://www.fms.treas.gov/​c570.*

                    Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of                           ( print page 38684)                        the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782.                

Dated: July 24, 2009.

Rose M. Miller,

Acting Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division. 

[FR Doc. E9-18336 Filed 8-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 814 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 814

 To protect benefits provided under Social Security, Medicare, and any 
     other program of benefits administered by the Social Security 
   Administration or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2023

  Mr. Pocan (for himself, Mr. Doggett, and Mr. Frost) introduced the 
      following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To protect benefits provided under Social Security, Medicare, and any 
     other program of benefits administered by the Social Security 
   Administration or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Social Security and Medicare 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED TO CUT BENEFITS ADMINISTERED BY 
              SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OR CENTERS FOR MEDICARE 
              AND MEDICAID SERVICES.

    (a) Supermajority Vote Requirement.--A bill or joint resolution, or 
any amendment offered to a bill or joint resolution, which contains any 
provision which, if enacted, would result in the reduction of any 
existing benefit provided or administered by the Social Security 
Administration or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services may 
not be considered in the House of Representatives or the Senate unless 
two-thirds of the Members present and voting agree to a motion to 
consider the bill, joint resolution, or amendment with the provision 
included.
    (b) Exception for Payments to Medicare Advantage Plans.--Subsection 
(a) does not apply to any provision which, if enacted, would result in 
the reduction of any payment made to a Medicare Advantage plan under 
part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-21 et 
seq.), but only if the provision would, if enacted, result in an 
increase in the amount of payments made for other purposes under title 
XVIII of the Social Security Act in an amount equal to or greater than 
the amount of the reduction in payment made to the Medicare Advantage 
plan.

SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF REDUCTION OF BENEFITS.

    During the consideration of a bill, joint resolution, or amendment 
in the House of Representatives or Senate, any determination regarding 
whether a provision in the bill, joint resolution, or amendment would, 
if enacted, result in a reduction described in section 2(a) or a 
reduction or increase described in section 2(b) shall be made solely on 
the basis of a determination made by the Office of the Chief Actuary of 
the Social Security Administration.
                                 <all>
```
Company sanitized 

Does not contain Confidential Business 

Information (CBI)

Appendix D

Draft Facility Report on Product Content
2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program 

Draft Facility Report on Product Content

I. CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION

Identify the product (e.g fluoropolymer dispersion) for which you are submitting information:

Product name:___Fluorinated Surfactant (oligomeric)_______

Product description (including concentrations of perfluoroalkyl chemicals 

identified in Section IV below and year of production): 

All products under the name of “Fluorinated Surfactant (Oligomeric)” are 

considered to be precursors to PFOA and higher homologues.

II. COMPANY IDENTIFICATION

Identify the company and location of the facility submitting information:

Company name:_AGC SEIMI CHEMICAL CO.,LTD

Site location:3-2-10,Chigasaki,Chigasaki City,Kanagawa,253-8585 Japan

 :2276-2,Nada,Hirai,Kashima City,Ibaraki,314-0012 Japan

Identify a company technical contact who can respond to inquiries about the information 

submitted:

Technical contact:_Shunji Odaka 

Phone: _+81-467-82-4398____

Address: 3-2-10,Chigasaki,Chigasaki City,Kanagawa,253-8585 Japan

III. PRODUCTION

Calendar year for which you are reporting: Jan 1, 2011 to Dec 31, 2011

(Normalized data based on year end run rate.)

Provide the amount of the product for the reporting year at each specific site:

 Imported ___0____kgs/yr

Manufactured _CBI_kgs/yr
IV. PRODUCT CONTENT

A. CONCENTRATIONS OF RELEVANT PERFLUOROALKYL CHEMICALS

Please provide the concentrations (ppb) of various perfluoroalkyl chemicals in your product. For 

chemicals for which you do not have actual data, please provide range estimates.

B. ANALYTICAL METHODS

Analyses should be conducted using the most accurate instrumentation and procedures available 

as of the time of testing. Please provide detailed information on the methods used (including 

analytical standards used, sampling, sample treatment, analysis), assumptions made, uncertainties 

and detection limits (LOD, LOQ) for the data provided.
#### Otto J. ROSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-3203.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2002.

Decided June 24, 2002.

Before LOKEN, HEANEY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Otto J. Rose fell and was injured while shopping at a Wal-Mart store and brought this negligence action against the parent company. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict in Rose’s favor. After judgment was entered, Wal-Mart filed a motion to set aside the verdict and grant it judgment as a matter of law or grant a new trial on a number of grounds. The presiding magistrate judge decided to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion and heard from several witnesses, after which the court ordered a new trial in the interests of justice. The case went to trial again, and this time the jury verdict was in favor of Wal-Mart. Rose appeals, arguing that the court failed to comply with procedural rules and abused its discretion in granting a new trial. The decision whether to grant a motion for a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *Walzer v. St Joseph State Hosp.,*231 F.3d 1108, 1111 (8th Cir.2000). Upon examination of the record and the transcript, we cannot say that the court’s decision to grant a new trial represented an abuse of its discretion. We therefore affirm the judgment.
§ 1.897-5 Corporate distributions. ( a ) - ( d ) (1)(iii)(E) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.897-5T(a) through (d)(1)(iii)(E).
( d ) (1)(iii)(F) Identification by name and address of the distributee or transferee, including the distributee's or transferee's taxpayer identification number;
( d ) (1)(iii)(G) through (d)(4) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.897-5T(d)(1)(iii)(G) through (d)(4).
( e ) *Effective date.* This section is applicable to transfers and distributions after November 3, 2003.
[T.D. 9082, 68 FR 46083, Aug. 5, 2003]
§ 1.6654-3 Short taxable years of individuals. ( a ) *In general.* The provisions of section 6654, with certain modifications relating to the application of section 6654(d), which are explained in paragraph (b) of this section, are applicable in the case of a short taxable year.
( b ) *Rules as to application of section 6654(d).* ( 1 ) In any case in which the taxable year for which an underpayment of estimated tax exists is a short taxable year due to a change in annual accounting periods, in determining the tax: ( i ) Shown on the return for the preceding taxable year (for purposes of section 6654(d)(1)), or
( ii ) Based on the personal exemptions and rates for the current taxable year but otherwise on the basis of the facts shown on the return for the preceding taxable year, and the law applicable to such year (for purposes of section 6654(d)(4)), the tax will be reduced by multiplying it by the number of months in the short taxable year and dividing the resulting amount by 12.
( 2 ) If the taxable year for which an underpayment of estimated tax exists is a short taxable year due to a change in annual accounting periods, in annualizing the taxable income for the months in the taxable year preceding an installment date, for purposes of section 6654(d)(1)(C), the personal exemptions allowed as deductions under section 151 shall be reduced to the same extent that they are reduced under section 443(c) in computing the tax for a short taxable year.
( 3 ) If “the preceding taxable year” referred to in section 6654(d)(4) was a short taxable year, for purposes of determining the applicability of the exception described in section 6654(d)(4), the tax, computed on the basis in the facts shown on the return for the preceding year, shall be the tax computed on the annual basis in the manner described in section 443(b)(1) (prior to its reduction in the manner described in the last sentence thereof). If the tax rates or the taxpayer's status with respect to personal exemptions for the taxable year with respect to which the underpayment occurs differ from such rates or status applicable to the preceding taxable year, the tax determined in accordance with this subparagraph shall be recomputed to reflect the rates and status applicable to the year with respect to which the underpayment occurs.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12149, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7427, 41 FR 34033, Aug. 12, 1976; T.D. 9224, 70 FR 52301, Sept. 2, 2005]