alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 97-51030

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

MICHAEL IDROGO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE GARHART, individually and in enlisted capacity with the organization calling itself

“US Air Force”; D A LEWELLING, individually

and in official capacity Commanding Officer Naval Air Station Dallas, and NAS Fort Worth,

Tex a s; K L LAIN, individually and in Navy
Officer capacity; S A NOTT, individually and

in Navy Officer capacity; T A PEPPE, individually and in capacity with the organization calling itself “US Air Force”; S

IRWIN, individually and in capacity with the organization calling itself “US Air Force”; R

D MCELRAFT, individually and in Navy Officer capacity; J W MEHRMANN, individually and in

Navy Officer capacity; MIKE NO RMILE, individually and in Navy Officer capacity; JOHN DALTON, Secretary of the US Navy; S

BURTON; A NESSE R; J S KING; SHEILA WIDNALL, Secretary of the United States Air Force,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

June 3, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5 T H C IR

. R.

47.5.4.

1 Idrogo’s motion for leave to file amendment to brief is hereby denied.

-2- PER CURIAM: *

Michael Idrogo br o ught numerous state and federal claims

against the Secretary of the United States Navy, the Secretary of

the United States Air Force, and various personnel of each service.

The district court dismissed all of Idrogo’s claims with prejudice.

Having reviewed the briefs and submissions of the parties, as well

as the record, we conclude that the district court correctly

dismissed Idrogo’s claims. The decision of the district court is

hereby AFFIRMED. 1
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1227 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1227

 To amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 relating to the payment of 
          wages to employees who use employer owned vehicles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 1995

  Mr. Fawell introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
          Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 relating to the payment of 
          wages to employees who use employer owned vehicles.

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

SECTION 1. PROPER COMPENSATION FOR USE OF EMPLOYER VEHICLES.

    Section 4(a) of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C. 254(a)) 
is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1), by striking 
the period at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting ``; and'', and by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) use of employer owned vehicles for traveling to and 
        from the actual place of performance of the principal activity 
        which such employee is employed to perform.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Diane Murray, Respondent, v Hartford, Also Known as Hartford Insurance Company, et al., Appellants.

[804 NYS2d 416]

In an action to recover damages under the underinsured motorist provision of an insurance policy, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), dated February 22, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The excerpts from the plaintiffs deposition testimony, as well as the affirmed medical reports of the defendants’ examining physicians, sufficiently established a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]; *Batista v Olivo,*17 AD3d 494 [2005]; *Grant v Fofana,*10 AD3d 446 [2004]). The affidavit of the plaintiffs physician submitted in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit was based upon examinations conducted nearly four years prior to the date of the affidavit *(see Kauderer v Penta,*261 AD2d 365 [1999]; *see also Frier v Teague,*288 AD2d 177 [2001]; *Mohamed v Dhanasar,*273 AD2d 451 [2000]), as well as upon unaffirmed MRI reports which had not been placed before the court by the defendants *(see Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental,*216 AD2d 266 [1995]; *see also D’Amato v Mandello,*2 AD3d 482 [2003]; *Williams v Hughes,*256 AD2d 461 [1998]; *Merisca v Alford,*243 AD2d 613 [1997]). In addition, the plaintiffs physician failed to set forth the objective tests used in finding limitations in motion *(see Johnson v Burke & McCowen,*7 AD3d 674 [2004]; *Ersop v Variano,*307 AD2d 951 [2003]; *Carroll v Jennings,*264 AD2d 494 [1999]), and failed to account for the plaintiffs medical history subsequent to the accident *(see Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d 566 [2005]; *Barnes v Cisneros,*15 AD3d 514 [2005]; *Mooney v Edwards,*12 AD3d 424 [2004]).

Moreover, the plaintiffs claim that she was unable to perform *630substantially all of her daily and work activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days as a result of the subject accident was unsupported by any competent medical evidence *(see Sainte-Aime v Ho,*274 AD2d 569 [2000]; *Arshad v Gomer,*268 AD2d 450 [2000]; *DiNunzio v County of Suffolk,*256 AD2d 498, 499 [1998]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1107

To direct the Secretary of the Army to develop a watershed management

plan for the Lake George area of Indiana, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 1, 1995

Mr. VISCLOSKY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Army to develop a watershed

management plan for the Lake George area of Indiana,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Secretary of the Army, in cooperation with the

4 Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agri5 culture, shall develop a watershed management plan for

6 the Deep River Basin, Indiana, which includes Deep River,

7 Lake George, Turkey Creek, and other related tributaries

8 in Indiana. The plan developed by the Secretary shall ad9 dress specific concerns related to the Deep River Basin

10 area, including sediment flow into Deep River, Turkey
2

•HR 1107 IH

1 Creek, and other tributaries; control of sediment quality

2 in Lake George; flooding problems; the safety of the Lake

3 George Dam; and wetlands management.

Æ
#### In the Matter of Nichelle McF. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Vanessa F., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[808 NYS2d 2]

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara E Schechter, J.), entered on or about February 27, 2003, which, upon a fact-finding determination of neglect, awarded custody of the subject children to their father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence showing that on two occasions, while she was appearing in Family Court, appellant exposed her children to imminent danger of harm *(see Nicholson v Scoppetta,*3 NY3d 357 [2004]; Family Ct Act § 1012 [f]). On one occasion, when questioned by a court officer as to why she would not place her two-year-old child in the court’s nursery, appellant screamed at her child and *210forcefully pushed the stroller containing the child, narrowly missing a wall. On the second occasion, when advised by the court that custody of the children would be awarded to their father, appellant had a violent outburst in the presence of her children and broke the glass of the door to the courtroom *(see Matter of Child Welfare Admin. v Danielle R., 225*AD2d 692 [1996]). We reject appellant’s argument that her behavior did not constitute neglect. We also note that the fact this bizarre behavior took place in court evinces appellant’s dangerous lack of self-control.

The evidence at the dispositional hearing supported the court’s finding that the best interests of the children were met by awarding custody to their father, who was providing care for the children and attending to their special needs.

We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining contentions. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.
EX-10.1



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 Orion Energy Systems, Inc. 
 Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan 

Updated June 14, 2012 (Effective April 1, 2012) 
  


			
	 1.      Annual cash retainer:
	  	$40,000 (cash or stock)1 ($10,000 paid quarterly)
		
	 2.      Board meeting fee:
	  	None
		
	 3.      Committee meeting fee
	  	None
		
	 4.      Annual option grant:
	  	$45,000 grant date fair market value2
		
	 5.      Annual Chairman retainer:
	  	$40,000 (cash or stock)1
		
	 6.      Annual Lead Independent Director retainer:
	  	$20,000 (cash or stock)1
		
	 7.      Annual Audit Committee Chairman retainer:
	  	$30,000 (cash or stock)1
		
	 8.      Annual Compensation Committee Chair retainer:
	  	$20,000 (cash or stock)1
		
	 9.      Annual Governance Committee Chair retainer:
	  	$10,000 (cash or stock) 1
		
	 10.    Reimburse out-of-pocket expenses:
	  	Yes
		
	 11.    New independent director award:
	  	TBD cash or equity-based award (but potentially significant to attract highly-qualified additional independent directors)

  

	1 	 Form of compensation to be chosen by each individual prior to each fiscal year. Number of shares to be issued on third business day after release of
annual (or quarterly, in case of quarterly retainer payments) earnings announcement based on closing price on such date. 



	2 	 Annual option grant on third business day after annual earnings announcement with exercise price equal to closing sale price on such date – vest
1/3 each year.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Trinidad, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 876]

Appeal from a *1061judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P. Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered March 20, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). The valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to the police *(see People v La Bar,*16 AD3d 1084, *lv denied*5 NY3d 764 [2005]). The further contention of defendant that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily entered survives his waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]), but defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review by moving to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Sherman,*8 AD3d 1026 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 681 [2004]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation rule *(cf. People v Rodriguez,*14 AD3d 719 [2005]). Although the initial statements of defendant during the factual allocution may have negated the essential element of his intent to cause death, his further statements removed any doubt regarding that intent *(see People v Nestman,*239 AD2d 701 [1997], *lv denied*90 NY2d 908 [1997]; *see also People v Jennings,*8 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 676 [2004]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Pine, JJ.
www.gpo.gov

### §861b. Restoration of supervision as fulfilling other Federal statutory requirements

#### (a) Wyandotte, Peoria, and Ottawa Tribes; right or interest in tribal land

It is hereby declared that enactment of this subchapter fulfills the requirements of the first proviso in section 2 of the Act of January 2, 1975 (88 Stat. 1920, 1921), with respect to the Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma.

#### (b) Modoc Tribe; right or interest in tribal land

It is hereby declared that the organization of the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma as provided in subsection (a) of this section shall fulfill the requirements of the second proviso in section 2 of the Act of January 2, 1975 (88 Stat. 1920, 1921).

#### (c) Modoc Tribe; publication of notice in Federal Register of organization for purposes of compliance

Promptly after organization of the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish a notice of such fact in the Federal Register including a statement that such organization completes fulfillment of the requirements of the provisos in section 2 of the Act of January 2, 1975 (88 Stat. 1920, 1921), and that the land described in section 1 of said Act is held in trust by the United States for the eight tribes named in said Act.

(Pub. L. 95–281, §3, May 15, 1978, 92 Stat. 247.)

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 95–281, May 15, 1978, 92 Stat. 246, which enacted this subchapter and repealed subchapter XXXV (§791 et seq.), subchapter XXXVI (§821 et seq.), and subchapter XXXVII (§841 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

Act of January 2, 1975, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 93–588, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1920, and is not classified to this Code. The provisos in section 2 of such Act relate to right or interest in tribal land of the enumerated tribes.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ETHICON LLC, Appellant

v.

INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., Appellee

______________________

2020

- 1453

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018

- 00935.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

A NISH R. D ESAI , Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY, for appellant. Also represented by E LIZABETH
W EISWASSER ; B RIAN E. F ERGUSON

, C HRISTOPHER
M ARANDO

, P RIYATA P ATEL

, C HRISTOPHER P EPE

, Washington, DC.

S TEVEN K ATZ , Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA, for

app ellee. Also represented by J OHN C. P HILLIPS , San Diego, CA.

______________________ Case: 20-1453 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 03/05/2021T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (O’M ALLEY

, C LEVENGER

, and S TOLL

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 5 , 2021

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court Case: 20-1453 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 03/05/2021
#### David BRINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.D. RAMOS, Correctional Lieutenant of CCI Tehachapi Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-16263.

D.C. No. CV-00-05053-REC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*316Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 13, 2002.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

David Brinson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they effectively interfered with his access to medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) for failure to state a claim. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We reverse and remand.

Brinson alleged officials refused to postpone his transfer to another prison, knowing such a transfer would delay his scheduled surgery for a painful and disfiguring separated shoulder. To state a claim for deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs, a prisoner must allege officials acted to “deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment” in a manner constituting “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” *Hamilton v. Endell,*981 F.2d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir.1992) (citations omitted).

Accepting his allegations of material fact as true, and construing them in the light most favorable to him, we conclude Brinson has sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See *McGuckin v. Smith,*974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir.1992), *overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller,*104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997) (delay of surgery for seven months, accompanied by pain, could be sufficient to establish Eighth Amendment violation). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this order.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, Dissenting.

Judge O’SCANNLAIN dissents from the holding.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1170

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 29 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 25), 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To provide that an application for an injunction restraining

the enforcement, operation, or execution of a State law

adopted by referendum may not be granted on the

ground of the unconstitutionality of such law unless the

application is heard and determined by a 3-judge court.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1170 RFS

1 SECTION 1. 3-JUDGE COURT FOR CERTAIN INJUNCTIONS.

2 Any application for an interlocutory or permanent in3 junction restraining the enforcement, operation, or execu4 tion of a State law adopted by referendum shall not be

5 granted by a United States district court or judge thereof

6 upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such State

7 law unless the application for the injunction is heard and

8 determined by a court of 3 judges in accordance with sec9 tion 2284 of title 28, United States Code. Any appeal of

10 a determination on such application shall be to the Su11 preme Court. In any case to which this section applies,

12 the additional judges who will serve on the 3-judge court

13 shall be designated under section 2284(b)(1) of title 28,

14 United States Code, as soon as practicable, and the court

15 shall expedite the consideration of the application for an

16 injunction.

17 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

18 As used in this Act—

19 (1) the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the several

20 States and the District of Columbia;

21 (2) the term ‘‘State law’’ means the constitu22 tion of a State, or any statute, ordinance, rule, regu23 lation, or other measure of a State that has the

24 force of law, and any amendment thereto; and

25 (3) the term ‘‘referendum’’ means the submis26 sion to popular vote of a measure passed upon or
3

HR 1170 RFS

1 proposed by a legislative body or by popular initia2 tive.

3 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

4 This Act applies to any application for an injunction

5 that is filed on or after the date of the enactment of this

6 Act.

Passed the House of Representatives September 28,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
February 27, 1998


Mr. Donald C. Wright
4008 Iron Hill Lane
Woodstock, GA 30189
Tel: 770-516-5047

Dear Don:

WorldPort is pleased to provide you with the following offer to become its Vice
President of Finance.  We look forward to your positive response to this offer
and we look forward to having you as a member of the WorldPort team!

Terms of Employment:

Title:              Vice President of Finance

Reporting:          You will report to the Chief Financial Officer.

Responsibilities:   You will be responsible for all aspect s of the Company s
                    financial and human resources administration, including
                    personnel managment, policies and procedures; purchasing;
                    contract preparation; FCC & other regulatory filings; cost
                    containment; acquisition analysis; margin analysis;
                    collections; accounting; tax administration; bi-lateral
                    trade accounting agreements; budgeting and SEC reporting.

Compensation:       Base Salary:                   $125,000

                    Signing Bonus:                  $25,000
                       $12,500 to be paid on your Start Date.
                       $12,500 to be paid within 90 days of the Start Date.

                    Annual Performance Bonus:       50% of Base Salary
                       Based on objectives to be agreed to
                       by the CFO and the Board of Directors.
                       Such objectives will be established within
                       90 days of the Start Date.


                    Five Year Options to purchase:         150,000 shares

                       Options to purchase 150,000 shares of Stock
                       will vest and be issued 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 on the
                       first, second and third anniversary of the Start Date
                       at a strike price equal to $3.50 per share.

                       Upon a change of control of the Company, all options 
                    shall vest                 immediately.

Benefits:           You will receive a full health benefits package
                    of the same type held by all WorldPort executives.

Start Date:         March 16, 1998.

Termination:        In the event that you are terminated without cause, you
                    shall receive a severance payment equal to 50% of your
                    annual salary.

Don, if you are in agreement with these terms, please place your signature in
the space provided below, and fax this letter back to me.  We look forward to
working with you.

                         Sincerely,



                         Paul A. Moore
                         Chief Executive Officer

I hereby accept the above employment terms:


___________________________________          Date:  __________________
Donald C. Wright