alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1The Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 99-3655WA

_____________

Charles Henry Johnson, *

*

Appellant, * On Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Arkansas.

*

William H. Henderson, Postmaster * [To Be Published]

General, United States Postal Service, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 29, 2000

 Filed: December 8, 2000 

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Johnson appeals the District Court’s1 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII lawsuit in which

he alleged that the United States Postal Service (USPS) did not hire him on account of
-2-

age and race discrimination. The Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment because Johnson had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies: he

initially submitted his Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint of Discrimination in

the Postal Service to the wrong office, then submitted it to the correct office after the

applicable time limit had run.

We agree with the District Court that the time for filing the complaint began

when Johnson received the complaint form and the filing instructions, not when he

retained counsel and furnished the materials to him. See Irwin v. Department of

Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 92 (1990) (time for filing Title VII suit runs from

claimant’s or claimant’s attorney’s receipt of Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission letter, whichever comes first). We also agree with the Court that the

materials unambiguously informed Plaintiff of the correct office with which to file the

complaint and of the deadline for filing, and that the erroneous filing was his or his

attorney’s--not USPS’s--fault, so that equitable tolling does not apply. See id. (no

equitable tolling where late filing is result of attorney’s ordinary neglect); Shempert v.

Harwick Chem. Corp., 151 F.3d 793, 798 (8th Cir. 1998) (no equitable tolling where

language of EEOC letter was not misleading and plaintiff had benefit of counsel), cert.

denied, 525 U.S. 1139 (1999); Harris v. Administrator, Veterans Admin., 924 F.2d

148, 149-150 (8th Cir. 1991) (plaintiff initially filed administrative appeal with wrong

agency, which returned it to him, and he then filed it late with correct agency; it was

thus properly dismissed, and equity did not require tolling).

Finally, we decline to consider Plaintiff’s argument, raised for the first time on

appeal, regarding the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act

of 1994. See Tarsney v. O’Keefe, 225 F.3d 929, 939 (8th Cir. 2000) (this Court

generally will not consider argument raised for first time on appeal).
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 80.705 Hours of service of Alaska-public fixed stations.

Each Alaska-public fixed station whose hours of service are not continuous must not suspend operations before having concluded all communications of an emergency nature.
No. 10-577.

No. 10-999.

No. 11-687.

No. 11-743.

No. 11-810.

No. 11-6460.

No. 11-6863.

No. 11-7579.

No. 11-7641.

No. 11-7717.

No. 11-7777.

No. 11-7876.

No. 11-7936.

No. 11-8015.

No. 11-8054.

No. 11-8107.

No. 11-8156.

No. 11-8211.

No. 11-8395.

#### Kawashima et ux. *v.*Holder, Attorney General, Allen *v.*United States, Callahan *v.*515 DC, LLC, et al., Fischer v. Global Connector Research, Inc., Burke *v.*Klevan, Washington et vir *v.*Louisiana et al., Reid *v.*Wyatt et al., DeBose *v.*Williams et al., Rivers *v.*Bickell, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, et al., Jones *v.*Mazda North American Operations, Riddick v. Miliotis et al., Glaser v. Colorado, Muniz v. McKee, Warden, Brown *v.*Virginia, Blyden *v.*United States, Shaykin *v.*Michigan, Geer *v.*United States, Jeep *v.*Obama, President of the United States, et al., Turner *v.*United States,

565 U. S. 478;

565 U. S. 1234;

565 U. S. 1198;

565 U. S. 1200;

565 U. S. 1235;

565 U. S. 1236;

565 U. S. 1204;

565 U. S. 1205;

565 U. S. 1168;

565 U. S. 1208;

565 U. S. 1210;

565 U. S. 1212;

565 U. S. 1214;

565 U. S. 1217;

565 U. S. 1218;

565 U. S. 1220;

565 U. S. 1221;

565 U. S. 1222; and

565 U. S. 1226. Petitions for rehearing denied.
No. 11-9084.

#### Marquardt *v.*Van Rybroek.

Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.
307P14-2

#### State v. Donald G. Barnette, Jr.

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Notice of Appeal (COA13-1076)

1. Dismissed *ex mero mo tu*

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

*2.*Denied
§ 80.21 Supplemental information required. Applications must contain supplementary information as indicated in this section. Other supplemental information may be required by other rule sections of this part concerning particular maritime services. ( a ) Each application for a new public coast station operating on frequencies in the band 156-162 MHz must include as supplementary information a chart, with supporting data, showing the service area contour computed in accordance with subpart P of this part.
( b ) Each application for a new public coast station operating on frequencies in the band 156-162 MHz to be located within the coordination boundaries of “Arrangement “A” of the Canada/U.S.A. Frequency Coordination Agreement above 30 MHz”, must comply with the provisions of the “Canada/U.S.A. Channeling Agreement for VHF Maritime, Public Correspondence” as contained in § 80.57.
( c ) A new station on a vessel not located in the United States must not be documented or otherwise registered by any foreign authority. The foreign authorities where the vessel is located will not or cannot license the vessel radio equipment and can not object to the licensing of the equipment by the United States. An applicant must provide verification of these facts upon request by the Commission.
[51 FR 31213, Sept. 2, 1986, as amended at 60 FR 50122, Sept. 28, 1995; 62 FR 55533, Oct. 27, 1997; 63 FR 68955, Dec. 14, 1998]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"18-2145: JOHNSTECH INTERNATIONAL CORP. v. JF MICROTECHNOLOGY SDN BHD [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zq6KumVZgU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/7-15-2019-18-2145-johnstech-international-corp-v-jf-microtechnology-sdn-bhd-rule-36-judgment-18-2145-rule_36_judgment-7-15-2019-1\/\">18-2145: JOHNSTECH INTERNATIONAL CORP. v. JF MICROTECHNOLOGY SDN BHD [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/7-15-2019-18-2145-johnstech-international-corp-v-jf-microtechnology-sdn-bhd-rule-36-judgment-18-2145-rule_36_judgment-7-15-2019-1\/embed\/#?secret=zq6KumVZgU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-2145: JOHNSTECH INTERNATIONAL CORP. v. JF MICROTECHNOLOGY SDN BHD [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"zq6KumVZgU\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: JOHNSTECH INTERNATIONAL CORP. v. JF MICROTECHNOLOGY SDN BHD [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-2145 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary 

          - [Docket No. [Transmittal No. 06-38] 

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency. 

# ACTION:

None. 

# SUMMARY:

 The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604-6575. 

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 06-38 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. 

Dated: August 1, 2006. 

C.R. Choate,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 44653)          ( print page 44654)          ( print page 44655)          ( print page 44656)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 06-6731 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
EX-10.27



 





Exhibit 10.27




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO THE

CORTLAND SAVINGS & BANKING COMPANY

AMENDED SPLIT DOLLAR AGREEMENT

DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2002




     THIS AMENDMENT is adopted this 11th day of December, 2006, by and between THE CORTLAND
SAVINGS & BANKING COMPANY, a state-chartered commercial bank located in Cortland, Ohio (the
“Bank”) and Marlene Lenio (the “Executive”).



     On September 9, 2002, the Bank and the Executive executed the Amended Split Dollar Agreement
(the “Agreement”).



     According to the terms of Article 7, the undersigned hereby amend, in part, said Agreement
for the purpose of updating (1) the definition of Insurer and (2) the definition of Policy.
Therefore,



     Section 1.1 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by the new Section
1.1 as follows:




	1.1	 	“Insurer” means each life insurance carrier for which there is a Split Dollar Policy
Endorsement for this Agreement.





     Section 1.2 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by the new Section
1.2 as follows:




	1.2	 	“Policy” means the specific life insurance policy or policies issued by the Insurer(s).





     IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the Company and Executive hereby consent to this First Amendment.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	EXECUTIVE:	 	THE CORTLAND SAVINGS & BANK COMPANY	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

MARLENE LENIO

	 	 	 	 	 	 

Stephen A. Telego, Sr.
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Title: Senior Vice President,
 Chief
of Corporate Administration
Resolutions adopted by the Cadiz Inc. Board of Directors on March 13, 2007,
      increasing the annual salary paid to Keith Brackpool and the monthly consulting
      fees paid to Richard E. Stoddard


    EXHIBIT
      10.15

    


    RESOLUTION
      OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CADIZ INC.

    


    


    WHEREAS,
      the Compensation Committee of the Board is recommending that the annual base
      salaries of certain key personnel of the Company be increased;

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby authorizes and approves an
      increase in the annual salary of Keith Brackpool under his employment agreement
      from $250,000 to $400,000, effective retroactively to January 1, 2007 (with
      Keith Brackpool abstaining); and

    


    RESOLVED,
      FURTHER, that this Board hereby authorizes and approves an increase in the
      monthly salary of Richard E. Stoddard under his consulting agreement from
      $20,833 to $25,000, effective retroactively to January 1,
      2007.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Interactive Intelligence,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Dr. Donald E. Brown, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Donald E. Brown, M.D              |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Donald E. Brown, M.D.                 |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| May 10, 2005                          |

 

----
313P15

#### Bruce Fletcher Nelson and Jan Nelson MacInnis v. State Employees’ Credit Union and Gwyn R. Parsons

1. Pits’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA14-1393)

1. Denied

2. Def’s (State Employees’ Credit Union) Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Dismissed as moot
#### Klein Bros. & Co., Plaintiff, *v.*The German Union Fire Insurance Company of Baltimore, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

March, 1910.)

Process — Service — Service on corporations — Person' designated to receive summons — Revocation.

The designation of the State Superintendent of Insurance, pursuant to section 30 of the Insurance Law, to receive service of process, is not terminated or revoked by the revocation by the State Superintendent of the license of the company to do business in this State.

Motion to set aside service of summons.

Fried & Czaki, for plaintiff.

Ellison, MacIntyre & Davis, for defendant.

Gerard, J.

Motion by defendant appearing specially to set aside the service of the summons. The summons was served on the State Superintendent of Insurance, who, pursuant to section 30 of the Insurance Law, had been designated by defendant to receive the service of process. The State Superintendent of Insurance revoked the license of defendant to do business in the State, and the summons was served on him after such revocation. The cause of action arose before defendant’s right to do business in this State was revoked. Ho notice of revocation of the designation to receive process was ever served on the State Superintendent of Insurance. It *539is contended by defendant that when the State Superintendent of Insurance revoked the license of defendant to do business in the State, that then and by that act the designation of the State superintendent to receive process on behalf of defendant was ended. I cannot agree with this contention. The designation of the State Superintendent of Insurance to receive process made him the agent of the defendant for that purpose; he received the process as agent of the corporation and not as a State officer. Flynn v. Union Surety & Guaranty Co., 170 N. Y. 145. If the corporation desired to revoke his authority as agent it should have done so formally, and no act of the State superintendent, acting as a State officer, could operate to revoke the personal designation which made him the agent of the corporation for the purpose of accepting service of process. Defendant relies upon the recent" case of Badger v. Helvetia Fire Ins. Co., 136 App. Div. 31. But in that case, after the company had ceased to do business in this State, it executed a formal revocation of its designation of" the State superintendent to receive process. This revocation the superintendent refused to receive, and the court held that the revocation was not affected by the refusal of the superintendent to receive it.

Motion denied, with costs.
#### Esther Maria Monzon DE RUBIO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-74005.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 2004.*

Decided March 23, 2004.

Thomas E. Higgins, Esq., Law Offices of Thomas E. Higgins Jr., Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, La-guna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, Robbin K. Blaya, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Esther Maria Monzon de Rubio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision, denying her application for suspension of deportation. Because the *985transitional rules apply, *Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for substantial evidence a factual finding that an alien has failed to demonstrate continuous physical presence, *id.*at 1151 (9th Cir.1997), and review de novo due process contentions, *Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft,*291 F.3d 594, 599 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Monzon de Rubio failed to establish the requisite seven years of continuous physical presence in the United States prior to issuance of her Order to Show Cause, rendering her ineligible for suspension of deportation. *See Otarola v. INS,*270 F.3d 1272, 1274 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2001). Munoz de Rubio’s contention that her due process rights were violated because she was denied the right to a full and fair hearing lacks merit because she did not suffer prejudice as a result of any alleged violation in her deportation proceeding. *See United States v. Corrales-Beltran,*192 F.3d 1311, 1318 (9th Cir. 1999).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
15 

16 

17 

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2010-12-23T16:23:30-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
----

            COUNCIL DECISION 2005/511/JHA

of 12 July 2005         

on protecting the euro against counterfeiting, by designating Europol as the Central Office for combating euro counterfeiting

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 30(1)(b) and 34(2)(c) thereof,

Having regard to the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1.   For the Member States which are Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention, Europol shall, in accordance with the Declaration in the Annex (hereinafter referred to as the Declaration), act as the central office for combating euro counterfeiting within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 12 of the Geneva Convention. For counterfeiting of all other currencies and for central office functions not delegated to Europol pursuant to the Declaration, the existing competencies of the national central offices shall remain in effect.

2.   The governments of the Member States which are Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention shall issue the Declaration and commission the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany to forward the Declarations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 12 July 2005.

For the Council

The President

G. BROWN            

----

(1)OJ C 317, 22.12.2004, p. 10.

(2)  Opinion delivered on 12 April 2005 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3)OJ L 140, 14.6.2000, p. 1. Framework Decision as amended by Framework Decision 2001/888/JHA (OJ L 329, 14.12.2001, p. 3).

----

ANNEX

Declaration of ... to designate Europol as the central office for combating euro counterfeiting

..., a Member State of the European Union, has given the European Police Office (hereinafter referred to as Europol) a mandate to combat euro counterfeiting.

In order for the Geneva Convention of 1929 to function more effectively,... shall in future fulfil its obligations as follows:

Name of Representative..., this... day of...

----

(1)OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 88, 30.3.1999 p. 1. Council Act as amended by Council Act of 28 February 2002 (OJ C 76, 27.3.2002, p. 1).

----
No. 11-171.

#### Osmolski et al. *v.*New Jersey.

Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.
§ 87.447 Supplemental eligibility. An applicant for an operational fixed station must certify that: ( a ) The applicant is the licensee of an aeronautical land station in the aeronautical mobile service; and
( b ) Common carrier facilities are not available to satisfy the aeronautical station's requirements.
[53 FR 28940, Aug. 1, 1988, as amended at 63 FR 68958, Dec. 14, 1998]