alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3823

___________________________

Shawn Mahler

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Schreiter Ready-Mix & Materials, Inc.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

 ____________

 Submitted: June 28, 2022

Filed: July 11, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri resident Shawn Mahler appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his employment discrimination action against his employer,

1The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.
Schreiter Ready-Mix & Materials, Inc. (Schreiter). We affirm the grant of summary

judgment. See Liles v. C.S. McCrossan, Inc., 851 F.3d 810, 817 (8th Cir. 2017). 

Upon careful review, we agree with the district court that Mahler failed to timely

exhaust administrative remedies as to his hostile work environment claims, as he did

not file his charge of discrimination within 300 days of his last day of work. See 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); AMTRAK v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 112, 122 (2002); Moses

v. Dassault Falcon Jet - Wilmington Corp, 894 F.3d 911, 920 (8th Cir. 2018); Hutson

v. Wells Dairy, Inc., 578 F.3d 823, 826 (8th Cir. 2009). While Mahler argues on

appeal that Schreiter failed to preserve the exhaustion issue by not sufficiently

pleading it, we conclude that Mahler waived this argument by not raising it below,

see Wever v. Lincoln County, 388 F.3d 601, 608 (8th Cir. 2004), and that Mahler had

sufficient notice of the issue, see First Union Nat’l Bank v. Pictet Overseas Trust

Corp., 477 F.3d 616, 622 (8th Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

-2-
<PAGE>   1

                      SUBSIDIARIES OF PENTON MEDIA INC.


1.   Penton Media Limited, a United Kingdom corporation, and its wholly-owned
     subsidiaries:

     A.   Penton Media Europe, a United Kingdom corporation, and its
          wholly-owned subsidiaries:

          a. Hillgate Communications Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation,
             and its subsidiary:
             (1.) Hillgate Custom Publishing Limited, a United Kingdom
                  Corporation.

          b. Penton Media International Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation;

     B.   Service Exhibitions Limited, a United Kingdom corporation; and

     C.   Equity Information Exchange Limited, a United Kingdom corporation.

2.   Donohue Meehan Publishing Company, Inc., an Illinois corporation.

3.   New Hope International Limited, a United Kingdom corporation.

4.   Stardust.com Inc., a California corporation.

5.   Internet World Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its wholly-owned
     subsidiaries:

     A.   One, Inc., a Colorado corporation;

     B.   Boardwatch Magazine, Inc., a Colorado corporation;

     C.   Penton Business Media London Limited, a United Kingdom corporation;
          and

     D.   Penton Internet, Inc., a Delaware corporation.


6.   Healthwell.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

7.   ComMunic Penton GmbH, a Germany corporation.

8.   Meko Limited, a United Kingdom corporation.

9.   Duke Investments, Inc, a Colorado corporation, and its wholly-owned
     subsidiary:

     A.   Duke Communications International, Inc., a Colorado corporation, and
          its wholly owned subsidiary:

          a.   Duke Communications Europe Limited, a United Kingdom corporation.


10.  Streaming Media, Inc., a California corporation.

11.  Professional Trade Shows, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

12.  Tech Conferences, Inc., a Connecticut corporation.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Gregory T. Lucier, Chief Executive Officer of Invitrogen Corporation (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 5, 2005 |  | /s/ Gregory T. Lucier  
|                   |  | Gregory T. Lucier      
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
Invitrogen and will be retained by Invitrogen and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

================================================================================

                                 UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549
                                ________________

                                  AMENDMENT 1
                                      TO
                                   FORM 10-Q

[X]  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
     ACT OF 1934
     For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2000

                                       OR

[ ]  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
     EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                        Commission file number 000-26275

                                drkoop.com, Inc.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


            Delaware                                95-4697615
     (State or other jurisdiction of             (I.R.S. Employer
     incorporation or organization)           Identification Number)

                          7000 North Mopac, Suite 400
                              Austin, Texas 78731
                    (Address of principal executive offices)
                                ________________


      (512) 583-5667 (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
                                ________________

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Sections 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days

     (1)  Yes    X                            No
              --------                           --------
     (2)  Yes    X                            No
              --------                           --------

     As of April 30, 2000 there were 34,724,249 shares of the Registrant's
common stock outstanding.

================================================================================
<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

                            drkoop.com, Inc.


Date:  May 15, 2000                           /s/   Susan M. Georgen Saad
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name    Susan M. Georgen Saad
                                              Title:  Chief Financial Officer


                                      28
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit
  No.             Description
-------           -----------

  27              FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
#### JOHNSON v STATE OF FLORIDA

Appellate Case No. 87-2122 (County Court Case No. 86-18298)

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County

November 5, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Donald M. Wylie, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

James M. Barton II, Assistant State Attorney, and Adelaide G. Few, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MANUEL MENENDEZ, JR., Circuit Judge.

The Defendant-Appellant, Thelmo Johnson (hereafter the Defendant) was charged with shoplifting petit theft. His case was scheduled for trial January 20, 1987 on a non-jury trial docket. On the date of trial the Appellee, State of Florida (hereafter the State) was ready for trial and had all of its subpoenaed witnesses present. Prior to the *134commencement of trial, the Defendant requested a trial by jury. The defendant had not previously waived, either orally or in writing, his right to a jury trial, *see*Rule 3.260, Fla. Rules of Grim. Proc. The trial court denied defendant’s request, and the case proceeded to non-jury trial. The defendant was found guilty and was sentenced to a one year term in the county jail.

On appeal the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his requested trial by jury. The State concedes that the defendant was entitled to a jury trial.

This court concurs, the Defendant was entitled to trial by jury. *Pino v. State,*492 So.2d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Rule 3.251, Fla. Rules of Crim Proc.. Accordingly, the judgment of the County Court is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for new trial.

DECIDED at, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida this 5th day of November, 1987.
#### Morris Standard, Respondent, *v.*Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Appellant.

Argued April 21, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*521
      *James D. Ewing*for appellant.

*Leo F. Sherman*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Pinch and Rippey, JJ.
AP9 R04

- 30

- 92 S: \ FormsLib \ Civil Bureau \ Civil Courts & Post Judg ment \ Post Trial \ Appeal Status Card Revised 01

- 18

- 20 13 R DATE 10/

21 /2015

NOTICE OF APPEALS

ASSIGNMENT OF COURT OF APPEALS

TO: 1ST COURT OF APPEALS

From: Deputy Clerk: IRMA MEDINA

Chris Daniel, District Clerk

Harris County, T E X A S



### CAUSE : 2011

- 49521

VOLUME PAGE OR IMAGE # 66856660

DUE 9/12/2015 ATTORNEY 1250700

NOTICE OF APPEAL HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE 1ST

DATE ORDER SIGNED: 8/21/2015

REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT FILED : N/A

REQUEST TRANSCRIPT DATE FILED N/A

NOTICE OF APPEAL DATE FILED 9/1/2015

NUMBER OF DAYS: ( CLERKS RECORD ) 10

FILE ORDERED : YES NO IMAGED FILED: YES NO

CODES FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL: D, OA

CHRIS DANIEL

Harris County, District Clerk

By: /s/ IRMA MEDINA

IRMA MEDINA , Deputy

BC NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED

BG NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED

– GOVERNMENT

C JUDGMENT BEING APPEALED

D

- ACCELERATED APPEAL

OA NO CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED

O CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED (W/NOTICE OF APPEAL )

NA AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL9/1/2015 1:58:15 PM

Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County

Envelope No. 6745896

By: Deandra Mosley

Filed: 9/1/2015 1:58:15 PMJU2FN (NSD#) JUSTICE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OCT 21, 2015(C1)

INT6510 CIVIL CASE INTAKE OPT:

_____ - INT

GENERAL PARTY INQUIRY PAGE: 1 - 1

CASE NUM: 201149521__ PJN>

__ TRANS NUM:

_________ CURRENT COURT: 189 PUB?

_ CASE TYPE: CONTRACT CASE STATUS: READY DOCKET

STYLE: HANKINS, MONICA VS BROWN, ARNOLD (DBA ARNOLD BROWN C

=============================================================================

**** ACTIVE PARTIES ****

PJN PER/CONN COC BAR PERSON NAME PTY ASSOC. ATTY

NUM NUMBER STAT

_ 00002-0003 XPL BROWN, ARNOLD (DBA ARNOLD BROW

_ 00002-0002 XPL 01250700 BROWN, ARNOLD (DBA ARNOLD BROW ANDREWS, THEA

_ 00001-0003 XDF HANKINS, MONICA

_ 00001-0002 XDF HANKINS, MONICA

_ 00003-0001 DEF 19764280 CARTER, EMBRY (DBA W C ROOFING TELFAIR, OSCA

_ 00002-0001 DEF 01250700 BROWN, ARNOLD (DBA ARNOLD BROW ANDREWS, THEA

_ 00001-0001 PLT 16350000 HANKINS, MONICA PROCTOR, TERR

==> (7) CONNECTION(S) FOUND

1=INACTIVE 2=ATY. INQ. 3=ACT.ENTRY 4=ISS. SERV. 5=DOC. INQ.

6=CASE INQ. 7=BACKWARD 8=FORWARD 9=PTY. ADDR. 10=REFRESH 11=HELP
#### BATAVIA MILLS, INC., v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 43176.

Decided June 1, 1937]

*Mr. Theodore B. Benson*for the plaintiff. *Messrs. Charles E.*Foster, *Jr.,*and *Henry 0. Harriman*were on the brief.

*Mr. Guy*Patten, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General James W. Morris*for the defendant. *Messrs. Robert N. Anderson*and *Fred E. Dyar*were on the brief.

*450GeeeN, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff on April 10, 1933, entered into a contract by which it agreed to sell and deliver to the defendant a certain quantity of shirting and the United States agreed to pay for the same $158,000. The contract further provided in substance that the purchase price included all imposts applicable to the supplies to be furnished under any Federal law in force at the date when the contract was made, and that if any new taxes were subsequently made applicable to such supplies by Congress the price named in the contract would be increased accordingly.

The supplies were furnished by the plaintiff and $158,000 paid by the defendant. After the contract was made, by the passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended, a processing tax was imposed upon the manufacturer from which the supplies were obtained amounting to $7,655.15 upon the “processing” of the goods so sold to plaintiff. The plaintiff’s contract with the manufacturer corresponded with the provision in its contract with the United States and the plaintiff was required by the “processor” to pay this additional amount for the goods which it had purchased to fill the contract with the Government.

October 9, 1933, the plaintiff made a claim and demand against the defendant for this additional amount of $7,655.15. This claim was denied and rejected by the Comptroller General on the ground that said amount was not paid by plaintiff directly to the United States.

The ruling made by the Comptroller General can not be sustained. This is not a suit for the refund of taxes paid but an action based upon the provisions of a contract. The provisions of the law with reference to refunds of taxes collected under the Agricultural Adjustment Act have therefore no application. All of the matters necessary to establish plaintiff’s claim under the contract are shown. After the contract was entered into a new and additional tax was imposed on the manufacturer from whom the contract supplies were purchased by plaintiff. The tax was passed on by the manufacturer and under the terms of plaintiff’s contract with the manufacturer it was obliged to pay it. Defendant expressly agreed that the amount of the tax *451should be added to the purchase price. The right of plaintiff to recover the amount so paid is clear and judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Whaley, *Judge;*Williams, *Judge;*Littleton, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief*Justice, concur.
§ 91.223 Terrain awareness and warning system. ( a ) *Airplanes manufactured after March 29, 2002.* Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a turbine-powered U.S.-registered airplane configured with six or more passenger seats, excluding any pilot seat, unless that airplane is equipped with an approved terrain awareness and warning system that as a minimum meets the requirements for Class B equipment in Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C151.
( b ) *Airplanes manufactured on or before March 29, 2002.* Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a turbine-powered U.S.-registered airplane configured with six or more passenger seats, excluding any pilot seat, after March 29, 2005, unless that airplane is equipped with an approved terrain awareness and warning system that as a minimum meets the requirements for Class B equipment in Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C151. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0631)
( c ) *Airplane Flight Manual.* The Airplane Flight Manual shall contain appropriate procedures for— ( 1 ) The use of the terrain awareness and warning system; and
( 2 ) Proper flight crew reaction in response to the terrain awareness and warning system audio and visual warnings.
( d ) *Exceptions.* Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to— ( 1 ) Parachuting operations when conducted entirely within a 50 nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operations began.
( 2 ) Firefighting operations.
( 3 ) Flight operations when incident to the aerial application of chemicals and other substances.
[Doc. No. 29312, 65 FR 16755, Mar. 29, 2000]
#### OBERLANDER v SEARS et

Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist, Crawford Co

No 1198.

Decided July 17, 1929

Charles F. Schaber, Bucyrus, for Ober-Iander.

J. Dudley Sears, Bucyrus, for Sears et.

HUGHES, J.

Section 11738 GC was formerly Section 5441 of the Revised Statutes, and any personal property, including money and credits, up until 1925, could be held exempt under this statute in lieu of a homestead not exceeding five hundred dollars in value. There was a provision, however, that such selection and exemption shall not be madff. by the debtor or allowed to him from any money, salary- or wages due from any person, partnership or corporation as against any claim, debt or demand for necessaries, excepting to the extent of ninety per cent of such money.

*623By the amendment of this Section in 1925, found in Volume 111 Ohio Laws at 383, it will be observed that the phraseology has been changed to read that such selection and exemption shall not be made by the debtor or allowed to him from money, salary or wages due to him from any person, and so forth. But nothing is now included.in this Section regarding necessaries, so that the statute now reads, this exemption shall not be made to the debtor out of ,any money, salarv or wages due him from any person. Hence, the court below was in error in allowing this money as exempt from execution, and the judgment is reversed.

Before Judges Hughes, Justice and Crow.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

736 

CA 13-00626 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF NATHANIEL JAY, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK

STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND

COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (LAURA ETLINGER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark

H. Dadd, A.J.), entered February 4, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to

CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding

seeking to annul the determination that he violated multiple inmate

rules. “Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the record does not

establish that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the

determination flowed from the alleged bias” (Matter of Amaker v

Fischer, 112 AD3d 1371, 1372; see Matter of Alvarez v Fischer, 94 AD3d

1404, 1406). “The mere fact that the Hearing Officer ruled against

the petitioner is insufficient to establish bias” (Matter of Edwards v

Fischer, 87 AD3d 1328, 1329 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Also

contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Hearing Officer did not

improperly deny petitioner his right to present evidence inasmuch as

the evidence petitioner sought to present, i.e., petitioner’s prison

disciplinary history, was not relevant to the instant charges against

petitioner (see Matter of Pujals v Fischer, 87 AD3d 767, 767). In any

event, the failure of the Hearing Officer to permit petitioner to

submit that evidence “does not require annulment of the administrative

determination, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of

petitioner’s guilt” (Matter of Auricchio v Goord, 275 AD2d 842, 842).

Finally, petitioner challenges the penalty imposed. Inasmuch as

petitioner failed to raise that challenge in his administrative

appeal, he “thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and
-2- 736 

CA 13-00626 

this Court has no discretionary power to reach that issue” (Matter of

Medina v Coughlin, 202 AD2d 1000, 1000; see Matter of Francisco v

Coombe, 231 AD2d 917, 917; see generally Matter of Nelson v Coughlin,

188 AD2d 1071, 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834).

Entered: June 13, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 21


                           RYMER FOODS INC.

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

                           OCTOBER 28, 2000

                               State of     Percent
 Subsidiary Name             Incorporation   Owned            Owner
 ------------------------    -------------  -------       ----------------
 Rymer Meat Inc.                Illinois      100         Rymer Foods Inc.

 Rymer Chicken Inc. (1)         Arkansas      100         Rymer Meat Inc.

 Rymer International
  Seafood Inc.                  Illinois      100         Rymer Meat Inc.

 Rymer Chicken Inc. -
   Plant City (2)               Florida       100         Rymer Meat Inc.

 Queen City Foods Inc.          Georgia       100         Rymer Meat Inc.


 (1)  Substantially all of the assets of Rymer Chicken Inc.
      were sold on December 10, 1993.

 (2)  Facility was sold in 1998.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S
NO. WR-63,573-03

EX P ARTE VINCENT SCOTT BROOKS, Appl icant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 02-335-K277 C IN THE 277TH DISTRICT COURT

F ROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R
A p p li c a n t was convicted of burg lary of a habitation and ag g rava ted assault and w a s s e n te n c e d
to imprisonment. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s co rp us in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X
. C O D E C R I M
. P R O C
. art. 11.07. Applicant contends, among other things, that he is actu al l y i n n ocent. He has filed a document with his application purporting to b e an aff idavit from the victim rec anting her trial testimony . The trial c ourt finds that the evide nce is fa brica ted, stating as follows: [I ]t is appar ent t hat Appli cant and his rela tives conspired to produce and subm it to this court a false aff

idavit. [The authentic] aff idavit this court has rec eived from [t he victim] herse lf makes clea r that Applicant did commit the offe nse for which he was convicted and that he is not actua lly inno ce n t

. . . . [A] ll of Applicant’s claims are barr ed as contained in a subsequent writ application without an exception. [Further,]2

[t ]hi s ty pe of decept i on and abuse of the writ proce ss must not be encour ag ed, fac ilitated, perpe t u at ed, or tacitly ignor ed. Theref ore, this court concludes that this subsequent Application for Writ of Habe as Corpus containing false asser tions and a fra udulent aff

idavit should constitute an abuse of the writ p rocess, and his application should be dismissed.
We ag ree and hold tha t A pplicant has abused the writ and filed a frivolous lawsuit. See Ex parte Jones , 97 S.W .3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); T E X
. G O V ’ T C O D E § 498.0045(a- 1). Should Applicant file future habea s applications in this cause , we will not consi d er the merits of his applications unless he show s that the fac tual or leg al basis of his g rounds was unavailable in a previously

filed applica tion. This application is dism issed. Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional
I nstitut ions Division and the Boa rd of Par dons and Paroles.

Filed: January

12, 2022 Do not publish