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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLAUDIA J. ROHR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION 

COMMISSION, of the State of Hawaiʻi, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-15051 

D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00162-LEK-RT 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2022**

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Claudia J. Rohr appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment 

in her action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s 

decision on cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. 

* 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

FEB 18 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-15051 

County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant 

because, assuming without deciding that 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) applies, Rohr failed 

to file her action within the applicable limitations period or establish any basis for 

equitable estoppel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a); Bibeau v. Pac. Nw. Rsch. Found. 

Inc., 188 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that under the discovery rule, 

the statute begins to run once a plaintiff has knowledge that she has been hurt and 

knowledge of who has inflicted the injury); see also Johnson v. Henderson, 314 

F.3d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that application of equitable estoppel 

under federal law requires active conduct by a defendant to prevent plaintiff from 

suing in time, above and beyond the alleged wrongdoing underlying the claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rohr’s motions for 

reconsideration and for relief from judgment because Rohr failed to demonstrate 

any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. 

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of 

review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b)).

We reject as without merit Rohr’s contention that the district court violated 

due process. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 
3 20-15051 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13405]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Part 204

RIN 0750-AH80

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Clarification 
of ``F'' Orders in the Procurement Instrument Identification Number 
Structure (DFARS Case 2012-D040); Correction

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the amendatory language to a final rule 
published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2013, 78 FR 30231, 
regarding the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: 
Clarification of ``F'' Orders in the Procurement Instrument 
Identification Number Structure (DFARS Case 2012-D040). This correction 
makes one correction to the amendatory language.

DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fernell Warren, telephone 571-372-
6089.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction

    In the Federal Register of May 22, 2013 (78 FR 30231) in the 
amendatory language, correct the following:

204.7003  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 30232, in the left hand column, amendatory instruction 2 is 
corrected to read as follows:
0
``2. Section 204.7003 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) and 
(vi) to read as follows:''

Kortnee Stewart,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
[FR Doc. 2013-13405 Filed 6-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
250 E Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20525

202-606-5000 | 800-942-2677 | TTY 800-833-3722

To: Deborah Jeffrey

Inspector General 

From: Lori Giblin/s/

Chief Risk Officer 

Subject: High-Dollar Overpayments for the quarter ending December 31, 2017 – Revised

to include susceptible program names

Date: May 24, 2018

The purpose of this document is to comply with the High-Dollar overpayments' reporting 

requirements in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Appendix C. 

Appendix C requires agency heads to submit reports quarterly on High-Dollar 

overpayments to the Office of Inspector General.

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) identifies high-dollar 

overpayments through improper payments testing, which has not yet begun for FY2017. 

Therefore, during the reporting period covering 10/01/2017 through 12/31/2017, CNCS 

has not identified any high-dollar overpayments in its four susceptible programs: 

AmeriCorps State and National, the Foster Grandparent Program (FGP), the Retired and 

Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), and the Senior Companion Program (SCP).

This report upholds the Corporation’s commitment to carrying out the Executive Order’s 

goals of eliminating payment errors. Reducing improper payments remains vital for the 

Corporation. We continue to monitor programs in order to reduce the amount of 

overpayments.
**Exhibit 12.2**I, Steve Lucas, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of National Grid plc; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control overfinancial reporting ( as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under oursupervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating tothe company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during theperiod in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Designed such internal controlover financial reporting or causedsuch internal control overfinancial reporting to be designedunder our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regardingreliability of financial reportingand the preparation of financialstatements for external purposesin accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of thecompany’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation;and  (d) Disclosed in this report anychange in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reportingthat occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting;and5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thecompany’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controlover financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adverselyaffect the company’s ability torecord, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves managementor other employees who have asignificant role in the company’sinternal control over financialreporting.   June 19, 2007 /s/ Steve Lucas
Exhibit 10.13

                              Employment Agreement


This agreement is dated as of April 1, 2003 and is between KSW, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation ("the Company") and Floyd Warkol ("Warkol").

WHEREAS, Warkol has been employed by the Company and its subsidiary, KSW
Mechanical Services, Inc. as their Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"); and

WHEREAS, the parties hereto which to confirm Warkol's continued employment as
CEO through March 31, 2004;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the
parties agree as follows:

           1. The Company agrees to employ Warkol as Chief Executive Officer of
the Company and its subsidiary through March 31, 2004.

           2. As compensation for Warkol's services, he shall continue to
receive an annualized salary of $420,000, payable weekly.

           3. In addition, Warkol shall be entitled to continue to receive the
same benefits as set forth in paragraph 2.3 of his Employment Agreement dated as
of January 1, 1994.

           4. This Agreement cannot be changed or modified except in writing
signed by both parties.



/s/ Floyd Warkol                                  KSW, Inc.
---------------------
Floyd Warkol                                      by  /s/ Stanley Kreitman
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Stanley Kreitman,
                                                      Director


                                                  by  /s/ Russell Molina
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Russell Molina,
                                                      Director
Exhibit








ATHENAHEALTH, INC.


DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLAN
(Effective January 1, 2017)
The Director Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) of athenahealth, Inc. (the “Company”) applies to non-employee directors (each, a “Director”), who shall receive the compensation set forth in this Plan for their service on the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”).


	
		
	Cash Compensation*

	Annual Cash Retainers
	Amount

	Director   
	$60,000

	Lead Director   
	$20,000

	Audit Committee Chair   
	$20,000

	Compensation Committee Chair   
	$15,000

	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chair   
	$12,500

	Special Per Meeting Fees
	 

	Special Committee of the Board   
	$2,000/mtg

	Irregular or unscheduled Board or Committee Meeting**   
	$2,000/mtg




    
*All cash compensation is payable quarterly, in arrears, and shall be pro-rated for any partial period.  
**To be paid at the discretion of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chair.


	
		
	Equity Compensation — Annual Equity Award^

	 
	Award Value

	Director   
	$225,000




    
^The Annual Equity Awards (“Equity Awards”) are subject to the following terms:  


		
	(1)
	The date of grant for the Equity Award shall be the first business day in the month of March (the “Grant Date”);


		
	(2)
	The grant amount of the Equity Award will be the number of whole common stock equivalents closest in value to the quotient of $225,000 divided by the Grant Date closing price;


		
	(3)
	The Equity Award will vest in full on the first anniversary of the Grant Date, subject to continued service on the Board;


		
	(4)
	Equity Awards granted to new Directors will be pro-rated for partial year service and granted on the first business day of the month immediately following the later of (a) the Director’s initial date of service, or (b) the date on which such Equity Award is approved; and


		
	(5)
	Equity Awards granted under this Plan are made pursuant to the Company’s 2007 Stock Option and Incentive Plan and subject to the terms and conditions thereof.  


In addition to the cash and equity compensation described above, the Company reimburses each Director for reasonable travel and other expenses in connection with their attendance at meetings of the Board or committees thereof.
This Plan is prospective from its effective date and will not affect compensation paid or granted before that date.  This Plan may be amended from time to time by vote of the Board of Directors.  This Plan does not affect the obligations of the Company to indemnify directors as set forth in relevant sections of the Company’s charter documents or indemnification agreements.  Questions or issues concerning Plan application and administration will be addressed by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors.
#### § 105-68.755 When will I know whether the suspension is continued or terminated?

The suspending official must make a written decision whether to continue, modify, or terminate your suspension within 45 days of closing the official record. The official record closes upon the suspending official's receipt of final submissions, information and findings of fact, if any. The suspending official may extend that period for good cause.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16004]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--CommerceNet Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 4, 2000, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), CommerceNet Consortium, 
Inc. (the ``Consortium'') has filed written notification simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, New England Financial/Metlife, Boston, MA joined the 
Consortium as a Portfolio member.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and CommerceNet Consortium, Inc. intends 
to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On June 13, 1994, CommerceNet Consortium, Inc. filed its original 
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on August 31, 1994 (59 FR 45012).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 14, 
2000. A notice has not yet been published in the Federal Register.

Constance E. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-16004 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00217-CV

Dan Thomas, Appellant

v.

Terry Keel, Former Sheriff of Travis County, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 96-10397, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Because appellant Dan Thomas failed to timely file his notice of appeal and his

motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal, we dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction on our

own motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). We also dismiss his motions to extend time to file a

notice of appeal and his motion to extend time to file a brief. 

According to the clerk’s record, the trial court signed an order of dismissal in this

cause on June 19, 2002. Thus, a notice of restricted appeal was due to be filed within six months

after the order was signed, or on or before December 19, 2002. See id. 26.1(c). Any motion for

extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due within fifteen days of the due date of the notice

of appeal, orJanuary 3, 2003. See id. 26.3. Thomas filed his notice of restricted appeal and a motion

for extension of time to file his notice of appeal on April 8, 2003. 
2

Because Thomas did not file his notice of appeal until more than six months after the

dismissal order was signed, his notice of appeal was untimely, as was his motion for extension of

time. The time period for filing a perfecting instrument is jurisdictional. Velasquez v. Harrison, 934

S.W.2d 767, 770 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ). When an appellant fails to file

timely a perfecting instrument or properly seek an extension of time to file a perfecting instrument,

the appellate court must dismiss the cause for lack of jurisdiction. Id. 

Because appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, this Court is without

jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and all related motions for want

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). 

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: June 19, 2003
### Description and correlation of Eocene rocks in stratigraphic reference sections for the Green River and Washakie basins, Southwest Wyoming

By: H. W. Roehler

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1506D

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

** SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE**

** AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

** SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, the President and ChiefExecutive Officer of American Science and Engineering, Inc. (the “Company”),does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

1.               the Company’s Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (“10-Q”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               the information contained in the Company’s10-Q being filed fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operation of the Company.

 
| Date: November 10, 2008 | /s/ Anthony R.  Fabiano           |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                         | Anthony R. Fabiano                     |
|                         | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to American Science & Engineering, Inc. andwill be retained by American Science and Engineering, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### § 105-68.410 May I approve a participant's use of the services of an excluded person?

After entering into a covered transaction with a participant, you as an agency official may not approve a participant's use of an excluded person as a principal under that transaction, unless you obtain an exception under § 105-68.120.
EXHIBIT 10.1



Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Celulosa Arauco y Constitución S.A. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.



|Dated: June 27, 2003 |  | /s/    Alejandro Pérez
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------
|                     |  | Name:                 
|                     |  | Title:                
|                     | 
|Dated: June 27, 2003 |  | /s/    Matías Domeyko 
|                     |  | Name:                 
|                     |  | Title:                



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Celulosa Arauco y Constitución S.A. and will be retained by Celulosa Arauco y Constitución S.A. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 301-70.902 Do we have any special responsibilities related to space available travel on our Government aircraft?

Yes, except for travel authorized under 10 U.S.C. 2648 and regulations implementing that statute, you must certify in writing before carrying passengers on a space available basis on your Government aircraft that the aircraft is scheduled to perform a bona fide governmental function. Bona fide governmental functions may include support for official travel. You must also certify that carrying a passenger in space available does not cause the need for a larger aircraft and does not result in more than minor additional cost to the Government. Your aircraft management office must retain this certification for two years. In an emergency situation, prior verbal approval with an after-the-fact written certification is permitted.

[FTR Amdt. 2004-02, 69 FR 34305, June 21, 2004, as amended at 85 FR 39849, July 2, 2020]