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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MITCHELL NELSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

THE BOEING COMPANY; MICHAEL

CUMMINS,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 35401

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 00251

- RSM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020 * *

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Mitchell Nelson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his employment action alleging violations of Title VII. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Am. Towe r Corp. v. City of San

Diego , 763 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 35401

The district court properly grante d summary judgment on Nelson’s sex

discrimination and retaliation claims because Nelson failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact as to whether the legitimate, non

- discriminatory reasons for

defendants ’ actions were pretextual. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc. , 281

F.3d 1054, 106 1

- 6 2 , 1 0 64 (9th Cir. 2002) ( burden

- s hifting framework applies to

sex discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII; circumstantial evidence

of pretext must be specific and substantial).

T he district court properly granted summary judgment on Nelson’s hostil e

work environment claim because Nelson failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether defendant ’ s alleged conduct was based on his gender, or

that defendant ’ s conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions

of his em ployment. See Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1108

- 09

(9th Cir. 2008) ( elements of a prima facie Title VII hostile work environment

claim ).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Nelson’s untimely

demand for a jury trial

. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co ., 302 F.3d 1080, 1086

-

87 (9th Cir. 2002) ( setting forth standard of review and explaining that

inadvertence does not justify granting a n untimely jury demand ).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 12.1 Uniform relocation assistance and real property acquisition.

Regulations and procedures for complying with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Pub. L 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894, 42 U.S.C. 4601), as amended by the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (title IV of Pub. L. 100-17, 101 Stat. 246-255, 42 U.S.C. 4601 note) are set forth in 49 CFR part 24.

[52 FR 48020, Dec. 17, 1987, and 54 FR 8912, Mar. 2, 1989]
#### § 102.93 Alternative procedure.

If, either before or after service of the Notice of Hearing, the parties submit to the Regional Director satisfactory evidence that they have adjusted the dispute, the Regional Director will dismiss the charge and will withdraw the Notice of Hearing if Notice has issued. If, either before or after issuance of the Notice of Hearing, the parties submit to the Regional Director satisfactory evidence that they have agreed-upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute, the Regional Director will defer action upon the charge and will withdraw the Notice of Hearing if Notice has issued. If it appears to the Regional Director that the dispute has not been adjusted in accordance with such agreed-upon methods and that an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act is occurring or has occurred, the Regional Director may issue a complaint under § 102.15, and the procedure prescribed in §§ 102.9 through 102.51 will, insofar as applicable, govern; and §§ 102.90 through 102.92 are inapplicable, except that if an agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment results in a determination that employees represented by a Charged Union are entitled to perform the work in dispute, the Regional Director will dismiss the charge as to that union irrespective of whether the employer has complied with that determination.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-77,091

RONALD LEE HASKELL, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. 1434395

IN THE 351 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ST

HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam. MCCLURE, J., not participating.

ORDER

The above-styled and numbered cause is pending before this Court as a result of

Appellant’s capital murder conviction and resulting sentence of death in the 351 Judicial

st

District Court of Harris County, Cause No. 1434395, styled The State of Texas v. Ronald

Lee Haskell. Appellant has filed a motion requesting this Court to abate the appeal and to

“order the trial court to complete findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to

Appellant’s two denied motions to suppress.”

During a motions hearing on June 27, 2019, the trial court denied Appellant’s
Haskell – 2

“Motion to Suppress Custodial Oral Statements and All Evidence Derived from Any

Unlawful Seizure of the Accused” and “Motion to Suppress Evidence Derived from

Unlawful Search Warrants A-G.” Defense counsel asked the trial court “to make findings

of fact and conclusions of law” on the two denied motions, and the trial court agreed to

do so. Appellant now asserts: “Despite this request and despite the trial court’s

agreement, the record does not contain any trial court findings of fact and conclusions of

law.”

In State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), we held that the

trial court must make findings when requested by the losing party on a motion to suppress

evidence. Appellant asks that we abate the appeal of this case in order for the trial court

to supplement the record with the required findings and conclusions. However, under

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(c)(2), an appellate court can order the trial court

to “prepare and file findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by law” and have

the clerk supplement the record with those findings and conclusions without abating the

case. Assuming that the findings and conclusions appellant seeks to include in the record

were required by law to be made, then the record can simply be supplemented without

abating the case.

Therefore, the trial court is directed to prepare and file findings of fact and

conclusions of law regarding Appellant’s two denied motions to suppress evidence. The

trial court clerk must then prepare, certify, and file in this Court a supplemental clerk’s

record containing the findings and conclusions. The findings and conclusions are to be
Haskell – 3

made, and the supplemental clerk’s record is to be filed, within 30 days of the date of this

order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 10 DAY OF MARCH, 2021.

TH

Do not publish
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4762 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4762

  To designate the airport traffic control tower located at Piedmont 
   Triad International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina, as the 
          ``Senator Kay Hagan Airport Traffic Control Tower''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 30 (legislative day, September 29), 2020

   Mr. Burr (for himself, Mr. Tillis, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Warner) 
 introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read 
                       the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the airport traffic control tower located at Piedmont 
   Triad International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina, as the 
          ``Senator Kay Hagan Airport Traffic Control Tower''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The airport traffic control tower located at Piedmont Triad 
International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina, and any successor 
airport traffic control tower at that location, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Senator Kay Hagan Airport Traffic Control Tower''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the airport traffic control tower 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Senator Kay Hagan Airport Traffic Control Tower''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 450.7 Duration of a vehicle operator license.

A vehicle operator license is valid for the period of time determined by the Administrator as necessary to conduct the licensed activity but may not exceed 5 years from the issuance date.
§ 77.37 General. ( a ) If you are the sponsor, provided a substantive aeronautical comment on a proposal in an aeronautical study, or have a substantive aeronautical comment on the proposal but were not given an opportunity to state it, you may petition the FAA for a discretionary review of a determination, revision, or extension of a determination issued by the FAA.
( b ) You may not file a petition for discretionary review for a Determination of No Hazard that is issued for a temporary structure, marking and lighting recommendation, or when a proposed structure or alteration does not exceed obstruction standards contained in subpart C of this part.
#### CLEVELAND (city) v PURCELL et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21218.

Decided Feb 6, 1929

Syllabus by

DAY, J.

APPEAL-Real Estate (510 E3)

(30 12) In a proceeding by a municipality to appropriate land, begun in the insolvency court, appeal lies for the benefit of either party from the judgment of such court to the court of common pleas.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

(140 S) Section 3696, General Code, providing for an appeal to the court of common pleas from the probate court by a party interested in a case involving the appropriation of property by a municipal corporation, is not in conflict with Section 6, Article IV, of the Constitution of Ohio.

Marshall, CJ, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ, concur.
#### HENDERSON v. CRAFT.

(Decided June 30, 1916.)

Appeal from Mobile Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. Saffold Berney.

Ervin & McAleer, for appellant. Francis J. Inge, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Affirmed by agreement.
From: O’Hare, Andrew <AOhare@cement.org>

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 10/15/2010 09:37 AM

Subject: Another Compliance Deadline Issue

Keith, 

Another issues has been brought to my attention regarding the effective date/compliance date 

matter. 

This involves the requirements for clinker production monitoring requirements, specifically the 

provisions in Section 63.1350(d)(2). The language in (d)(2), appears to require that these 

clinker monitoring systems need to be in place within 30 days of the effective date. In PCA’s 

comments on the proposal, we requested that the Agency clarify this matter and explain that it 

was 30 days after the COMPLIANCE date, not the effective date. In the EPA response to 

comments document, excerpt below (page 215), the agency explains that the compliance date 

is 3 years from the date of promulgation in responding to the comment suggesting that the 

clinker monitoring requirement be implements 30 days after the COMPLIANCE date. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. This matter also needs to be addressed in the 

clarification that you are presently preparing to address the compliance/effective date matter. 

Regards,

Andy 

Page 215, Comment Response Document
#### § 101.36 Compliance with determination; further proceedings.

After the issuance of determination by the Board, the Regional Director in the Region in which the proceeding arose communicates with the parties for the purpose of ascertaining their intentions in regard to compliance. Conferences may be held for the purpose of working out details. If satisfied that the parties are complying with the determination, the Regional Director dismisses the charge. If not satisfied that the parties are complying, the Regional Director issues a complaint and notice of hearing, charging violation of section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, and the proceeding follows the procedure outlined in §§ 101.8 to 101.15, inclusive. However, if the Board determines that employees represented by a charged union are entitled to perform the work in dispute, the Regional Director dismisses the charge against that union irrespective of whether the employer complies with the determination.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11664]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Public Workshop To Discuss the Technical Basis Document for Dose 
Modeling To Support Decommissioning

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Workshop.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public workshop to discuss a Technical 
Basis Document for dose modeling to support the decommissioning of 
nuclear facilities. The purpose of this workshop is to provide a forum 
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, the nuclear 
industry, other regulatory agencies, and interested stakeholders to 
discuss the Technical Basis Document developed by the NRC to support 
the decommissioning of nuclear facilities.

DATES: June 7 and 8, 2000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 21, 1998, (63 FR 56237) NRC 
announced that it was sponsoring a series of public workshops to 
support that staff's development of a Standard Review Plan (SRP) and 
other guidance for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. NRC staff 
held a series of workshops on dose modeling, surveys, demonstrating 
ALARA, and restricted use/alternate criteria on December 1-2, 1998, 
January 21-22, 1999, March 18-19, 1999, June 16-17, 1999, August 18-19, 
1999 and February 17-18, 2000. In addition, as draft SRP modules were 
completed, they were posted on the NRC website, for review and comment 
by interested individuals.

ADDRESSES: An agenda for the workshop will be posted on the NRC's 
website at: http://www.nrc.gov/NMSS/DWM/DECOM/decomm.htm. The workshop 
will be held at the NRC Headquarters, in the Auditorium of Two White 
Flint North Building, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. NRC 
staff strongly encourages interested stakeholders to attend and 
participate in this workshop, as it will offer a unique opportunity to 
provide the staff with insights, perspectives, and information that 
stakeholders feel is important for the NRC staff to consider as it 
finalizes the Technical Basis Document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dominick A. Orlando, Decommissioning 
Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards (DWM/NMSS), at (301) 415-6749, or Rateb (Boby) Abu-Eid, 
High-Level Waste and Performance Assessment Branch, DWM/NMSS, at (301) 
415-5811.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day of May, 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Nelson,
Acting Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Waste Management, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 00-11664 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
EXHIBIT 21.1


                         COLUMBUS MCKINNON CORPORATION
                  SUBSIDIAIRES AND AFFILIATES OF THE REGISTRANT


Audubon Export, Inc. (FSC) (US)
Automatic Systems, Inc. (US)
         ASI of Australia Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
         Automatic Systems Conveyors Limited (Canada)
         LICO Steel, Inc. (US)
CM Insurance Company, Inc. (US)
Columbus McKinnon do Brazil Ltda. (Brazil)
Columbus McKinnon Finance Corporation (Canada)
Columbus McKinnon Limited (Canada)
Crane, Engineering & Service Group, Inc. (US)
         Handling Systems and Conveyors, Inc. (US)
         Larco Industrial Services, Ltd. (Canada)
Endor, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
Societe d'Exploitation des Raccords Gautier (France)
Univeyor A/S (Denmark)
         Ejendomsselskabet Lupinvej 11 (Denmark)
         Univeyor AB (Sweden)
         Univeyor Conveying Systems Ltd. (England)
         Univeyor Electronic A/S (Denmark)
Yale Industrial Products, Inc. (US)
         Egyptian-American Crane Co. (Joint Venture)(Egypt)
         Spreckels Development Company, Inc. (US)
         Spreckels Land Company, Inc. (US)
         Spreckels Water Company, Inc. (US)
                  Spreckels Consolidated Industries, Inc. (US)
         Yale Industrial Products Ltd. (England)
         Yale Industrial Products GmbH (Germany)
                  Camlok Lifting Clamps Ltd. (England)
                  Hangzhou LILA Lifting and Lashing Co. Ltd. (China)
                  Manutention Connection (France)
                  Yale Elevacion Iberica S.L. (Spain)
                  Yale Hangzhou Industrial Products Ltd. (China)
                  Yale Industrial Products B.V. (The Netherlands)
                  Yale Industrial Products GmbH (Austria)
                  Yale Industrial Products Pty. Ltd. (South Africa)
                  Yale Industrial Products Asia (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (Thailand)
                  Yale Lifting & Mining Products (Pty.) Ltd. (South Africa)
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11707]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 16, 2000.

PLACE: NTSB Board Room, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20594.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  
7257--Special Investigation Report: Actions to Reduce Fatalities, 
Injuries, and Crashes Involving the Hard Core Drinking Driver.
7258--Special Investigation Report: Truck Parking Areas.
7154A--Brief of Accident/Safety Recommendation: Resulting from a spill 
of hydrogen peroxide in cargo compartment on Northwest Airlines Flight 
957 from Orlando, Florida to Memphis, Tennessee on October 28, 1998.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
    Individuals requesting specific accommodation should contact Mrs. 
Barbara Bush at (202) 314-6220 by Friday, May 12, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhonda Underwood (202) 314-6065.

    Dated: May 5, 2000.
Rhonda Underwood,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-11707 Filed 5-5-00; 2:42 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
ELECTRICITY PRICE PROJECTIONS

LIST OF PROJECTIONS : -

1 Constant 19992 AEO 2000 - Reference Case3 GRI 19984 AEO 2000 - High Growth Case5 AEO 2000 - Low Growth

Electricity Price Projections Electricity Price Trends

Const. AEO2000 GRI 98 High Low Const. AEO2000 GRI 98 High Low

cents / kWh (in 1998 dollar)

1995 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.821996 8.63 8.63 8.63 8.63 8.631997 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001998 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.961999 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.952000 7.92 7.86 8.50 7.98 7.85 0.95 0.94 1.01 0.95 0.942001 7.92 7.74 8.38 7.83 7.71 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.93 0.922002 7.92 7.63 8.27 7.77 7.56 0.95 0.91 0.99 0.93 0.902003 7.92 7.59 8.15 7.77 7.52 0.95 0.91 0.97 0.93 0.902004 7.92 7.56 8.03 7.78 7.46 0.95 0.90 0.96 0.93 0.892005 7.92 7.47 7.92 7.72 7.37 0.95 0.89 0.94 0.92 0.882006 7.92 7.48 7.82 7.76 7.32 0.95 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.872007 7.92 7.48 7.73 7.76 7.29 0.95 0.89 0.92 0.93 0.872008 7.92 7.46 7.64 7.71 7.22 0.95 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.862009 7.92 7.37 7.54 7.66 7.15 0.95 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.852010 7.92 7.39 7.45 7.71 7.13 0.95 0.88 0.89 0.92 0.852011 7.92 7.33 7.39 7.63 7.07 0.95 0.87 0.88 0.91 0.842012 7.92 7.30 7.32 7.62 7.03 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.91 0.842013 7.92 7.29 7.26 7.60 7.00 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.91 0.842014 7.92 7.32 7.20 7.61 7.01 0.95 0.87 0.86 0.91 0.842015 7.92 7.33 7.14 7.63 7.02 0.95 0.88 0.85 0.91 0.842016 7.92 7.32 7.14 7.62 7.01 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.842017 7.92 7.32 7.14 7.60 7.00 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.842018 7.92 7.32 7.14 7.63 7.02 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.842019 7.92 7.29 7.14 7.59 7.01 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.842020 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832021 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832022 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832023 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832024 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832025 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832026 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832027 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832028 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832029 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832030 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.83

2021-2030 Electricity price are kept constant after 2020 for AEO 2000 Reference, High Growth and Low Growth Cases

2016-2030 Electricity price are kept constant after 2015 for GRI 1998
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- 2012-1214 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-071-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model EC 155B, EC155B1, SA-366G1, SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS365N2, and AS 365 N3 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 46 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions are intended to prevent accumulation of fuel in an area with electrical equipment or 

other ignition source, which may lead to a fire.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $11,154 for drain replacement; 

Labor per Helicopter

(16 x $85/work-hour for drain 

replacement)

(17 x $85/work-hour for drain 

replacement for a helicopter 

with a sixth fuel tank)

(1 x $85/work-hour for 

removal)

(2 x $85/work-hour for 

removal for a helicopter with 

a sixth fuel tank)

$1,360

$1,445

$85

$170

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $12,514 for drain replacement.

$12,599 for drain replacement for a helicopter with 

a sixth tank.

$85 for removal.

$170 for removal for a helicopter with a sixth tank.

Total US Fleet Cost $

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Chinh Vuong
[No. 28033-7-II.

Division Two.

October 18, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Kimberly Kay Heinzman, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 01-1-00902-5, James E. Warme, J., entered November 8, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Quinn-Brintnall, J., concurred in by Hunt, C.J., and Bridgewater, J.