alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ALFONSO CERVANTES REYES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10369

D.C. No. 5:05-cr-00516-JF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Alfonso Cervantes Reyes appeals pro se his guilty-plea conviction for

conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

FILED

MAR 01 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-10369

§ 1291, and we dismiss.

Reyes contends that the district court erred by declining to rule on the merits

of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Reyes’ knowing and voluntary waiver of

his right to appeal precludes our consideration of this issue. See United States v.

Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011).

DISMISSED.
exv10w1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




	 	 	 
	

	 	The Farmers Citizens Bank
	

	 	P.O. Box 567
	Farmers Citizens Bank

	 	105 Washington Square
	

	 	Bucyrus, Ohio 44820
	

	 	Ph. 419-562-7040
	

	 	Fax 419-562-8322









January 19, 2005        




Jeff Wise

8345 Twp Rd 53

Mansfield, OH 44904



RE: Terms of Offer




Dear Jeff:




     We are pleased to offer you the position of Vice President/Chief Financial Officer of Farmers
Citizens Bank and Treasurer of FC Banc Corp. The position provides a biweekly salary of
$3,653.85, or $95,000, on an annual basis. You would also be a participant in the Officer and
Employee Incentive Plan. We would also offer you a two year “Change of Control” agreement which
would vest immediately upon your acceptance of the position. A copy of the agreement is enclosed
for your review and execution.



     We are also pleased to offer you 2,500 stock options (subject to the terms of the “Stock
Option Plan” with respect to vesting and rights) at the current price of $31.00 per share. It is
our anticipation to continue to reward keep employees such as yourself in the future in a
performance based Executive Compensation Plan which we will develop in the next 12 months.



     You would also be eligible for the employee benefits available immediately upon commencement
of your employment (including 4 weeks vacation). A schedule of those benefits is included with
this letter. Any questions regarding those benefits should be directed to Kriste Slagle at
419/562-7040, extension 239.



     I believe you will make a strong addition to our team and am excited about the opportunity to
work with you again. This offer is, of course, subject to receiving
all necessary regulatory approvals and favorable results from your drug screen and reference checks.



 









 





          If this offer is acceptable, please sign where indicated below and return.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours,

 	 
	 	/s/  Coleman J. Clougherty
 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Coleman J. Clougherty

Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 





Agreed to and accepted this 25th day of January, 2005.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	/s/  Jeffrey A. Wise
 	 
	 	 	Jeff Wise
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0645 IN THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL HEALTH OF T.W., Respondent and Appellant
. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 13 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 8 2023

08/08/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0645
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-9, PageID.400 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-9, PageID.401 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-9, PageID.402 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 3
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-10628 

 (consolidated with Case No. 15-11624) 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. et al.

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COUNTERCLAIMS (ECF #178) 

 On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) filed an answer 

to Defendants’ First Amended Counterclaims. (See ECF #166.) With its answer, 

Ford included ten counterclaims that it had not previously asserted (“Ford’s 

Counterclaims”). (See id.) Versata has now moved to strike or dismiss Ford’s 

Counterclaims (the “Motion to Dismiss”). (See ECF #178.) 

 The Court held a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss on January 6, 2016. For 

the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as 

follows: 

 (1) With respect to counts 1-9 of Ford’s Counterclaims, which relate to 

claims of patent invalidity and breach of contract, the Court exercises its discretion 

to treat these counts as a motion for leave to amend Ford’s Amended Complaint 

2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 215 Filed 01/09/17 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 11628
2 

(ECF #6) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The Court GRANTS

that motion. Ford shall file a Second Amended Complaint that includes these 

counts by no later than January 20, 2017.

 (2) With respect to count 10 of Ford’s Counterclaims, which relates to 

alleged inequitable conduct, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. However, 

when Ford files its forthcoming Second Amended Complaint, it may attempt to replead its inequitable conduct claim by pleading additional specific facts that 

address the Court’s concerns raised at the hearing. If Defendants believe that 

Ford’s re-pleaded count for inequitable conduct still fails to state a claim, they may 

move to dismiss the claim. 

 (3) In all other respects, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: January 9, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on January 9, 2017, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 215 Filed 01/09/17 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 11629
# C_2013252EN.01004301.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/43

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — BM v ECB

(Case F-78/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - ECB Staff - Retroactive extension of the probationary period - Decision to end the contract during the probationary period - Disciplinary proceedings)

2013/C 252/71

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BM (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented: initially by P. Embley, M. López Torres and E. Carlini, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. López Torres and E. Carlini, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the ECB’s decision to terminate the applicant’s contract during the probationary period because of a disciplinary fault punished by a reprimand.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank of 20 May 2011, which terminates BM’s contract as of 31 October 2011; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank of 20 May 2011, which terminates BM’s contract as of 31 October 2011;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Declares that the European Central Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by BM. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the European Central Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by BM.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.11, p. 30.

1

---
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000073

19-JUN-2015

08:53 AM
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.023-4 Approval and production tests. ( a ) *Approval tests.* The approval tests are those tests prescribed for the preproduction sample in MIL-S-18655. The approval tests must be conducted by an independent laboratory accepted by the Commandant under § 159.010 of this chapter.
( b ) *Production inspections and tests.* Production inspections and tests of each lot of signals produced must be conducted under the procedures in § 159.007 of this chapter. Signals from a rejected lot must not be represented as meeting this subpart or as being approved by the Coast Guard. If the manufacturer identifies the cause of the rejection of a lot of signals, the signals in the lot may be reworked by the manufacturer to correct the problem. Samples from the rejected lot must be retested in order to be accepted. Records shall be kept of the reasons for rejection, the reworking performed on the rejected lot, and the results of the second test. ( 1 ) *Inspections and tests by the manufacturer.* The manufacturer's quality control procedures must include inspection of materials entering into construction of the signals and inspection of the finished signals, to determine that signals are being produced in accordance with the approved plans. The manufacturer must select samples from each lot and test them as specified in the production lot procedures in MIL-S-18655.
( 2 ) *Inspections and tests by an independent laboratory.* An independent laboratory accepted by the Commandant under § 159.010 of this chapter must perform or supervise the inspections and tests under paragraph (b)(1) of this section at least 4 times a year, unless the number of lots is less than four. The inspections and tests must occur at least once during each quarterly period, unless no lots are produced during this period. If less than four lots are produced, the laboratory must perform or supervise the inspection and testing of each lot. If a lot of signals tested by the independent laboratory is rejected, the laboratory must perform or supervise the inspections and tests of the reworked lot and the next lot of signals produced. The tests of each reworked lot and the next lot produced must not be counted for the purpose of meeting the requirement for the annual number of inspections and tests performed or supervised by the independent laboratory.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.048-3 Materials. ( a ) *General.* All components used in the construction of buoyant cushions must meet the applicable requirements of subpart 164.019 of this chapter.
( b ) *Kapok.* The kapok shall be all new material complying with Specification subpart 164.003 of this subchapter and shall be properly processed.
( c ) *Fibrous glass.* The fibrous glass shall comply with the requirements of specification MIL-B-2766.
( d ) *Cover.* Cotton fabrics and coated upholstery cloth meeting the minimum requirements set forth in paragraphs (d) (1) and (2) of this section are acceptable for use as covers for buoyant cushions, but alternate materials will be given special consideration. Pro rata widths of like construction will be acceptable. ( 1 ) *Cotton fabrics.* Cotton fabrics shall comply with the requirements of Federal Specification CCC-C-426 for Type I, Class 3 material.
( 2 ) *Coated upholstery cloth.* Coated upholstery cloth shall comply with the requirements of Federal Specification CCC-A-700.
( e ) *Pad covering.* The covering for the buoyant pad inserts shall be flexible vinyl film not less than 0.008 inch in thickness meeting the requirements of Federal Specification L-P-375 for Type I or II, Class 1, film.
( f ) *Grab straps.* The grab straps shall be of materials permitted for the cover, or approved equivalent.
( g ) *Thread.* Each thread must meet the requirements of subpart 164.023 of this chapter. Only one kind of thread may be used in each seam.
( h ) *Welting.* The welting where used may be any fiber or plastic material suitable for the purpose.
[CGFR 65-37, 30 FR 11583, Sept. 10, 1965, as amended by CGD 78-012, 43 FR 27154, June 22, 1978; CGD 84-068, 58 FR 29493, May 20, 1993]
# C_2014395EN.01000201.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-114/12) (1)

((Action for annulment - External action of the European Union - International agreements - Protection of neighbouring rights of broadcasting organisations - Negotiations for a Convention of the Council of Europe - Decision of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States authorising the joint participation of the Union and its Member States in the negotiations - Article 3(2) TFEU - Exclusive external competence of the Union))

(2014/C 395/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Hetsch, L. Gussetti and J. Samnadda, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos and D. Warin, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Legal, J.-P. Hix, F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer, D. Hadroušek and J. Králová, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, B. Beutler and N. Graf Vitzthum, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and J. Langer, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna, M. Drwięcki and E. Gromnicka initially, then by B. Majczyna, M. Drwięcki and E. Gromnicka, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell, acting as Agent, assisted by R. Palmer, Barrister)

Operative part

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the Decision of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on the participation of the European Union and its Member States in negotiations for a Convention of the Council of Europe on the protection of the rights of broadcasting organisations, of 19 December 2011; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the Decision of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on the participation of the European Union and its Member States in negotiations for a Convention of the Council of Europe on the protection of the rights of broadcasting organisations, of 19 December 2011;

| 2) | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

| 3) | Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.

---
# C_2011226EN.01001301.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/13

---

Action brought on 19 May 2011 — French Republic v European Parliament

(Case C-238/11)

2011/C 226/25

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A. Adam)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the deliberations of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 relating to the calendar of periods of sessions of the Parliament for the year 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the deliberations of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 relating to the calendar of periods of sessions of the Parliament for the year 2013;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward a single plea in support of its action, alleging, first, infringement of the Protocol No 6 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, agencies and departments of the European Union, annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, and of Protocol No 3 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, agencies and departments of the European Union, annexed to the ECSC Treaty, and, second, non-compliance with the judgment of the Court of 1 October 1997 in Case C-345/95 France v Parliament [1997] ECR I-5235.

France

Parliament

According to the French Government, in providing that two of the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions which must be held each year in Strasbourg are to be reduced from four to two days and will take place, in 2013, during the same week of October, the European Parliament sought to circumvent the rule that the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session, must be held in Strasbourg. The contested deliberation leads, in reality, to one of the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions which must be held in Strasbourg being eliminated. Its sole objective is thus to diminish the length of time the MEPs are present at the seat of the European Parliament, without its being justified by internal organisational requirements relating to the work of the Parliament.

---
#### § 201.51 Computation.

In computing any period of time under these Rules, the time begins with the day following the act, event, or default, and includes the last day of the period, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or national legal holiday. When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than seven (7) days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays shall be excluded from the computation.
# C_2012098EN.01001203.xml

| 31.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 16 January 2012 — Město Žamberk v Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové

(Case C-18/12)

2012/C 98/19

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Město Žamberk

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | May non-organised, unsystematic and recreational sporting activities which can be carried on in that manner in an open-air swimming-pool complex (for instance, recreational swimming, recreational playing of ball games, etc.) be regarded as the exercise of sport or physical education within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

May non-organised, unsystematic and recreational sporting activities which can be carried on in that manner in an open-air swimming-pool complex (for instance, recreational swimming, recreational playing of ball games, etc.) be regarded as the exercise of sport or physical education within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1)

1

| 2. | In the event of an affirmative answer to Question 1, is the supply for consideration of access to such an open-air swimming-pool complex, which offers its visitors the above-mentioned opportunity of exercising sporting activities, although alongside other kinds of amusement or recreation, to be regarded as a service closely linked to sport or physical education supplied to persons taking part in sporting or physical education activities within the meaning of that provision of Directive 2006/112/EC, and hence as a service exempted from value added tax in so far as it is supplied by a non-profit-making organisation and the other conditions under that directive are satisfied? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event of an affirmative answer to Question 1, is the supply for consideration of access to such an open-air swimming-pool complex, which offers its visitors the above-mentioned opportunity of exercising sporting activities, although alongside other kinds of amusement or recreation, to be regarded as a service closely linked to sport or physical education supplied to persons taking part in sporting or physical education activities within the meaning of that provision of Directive 2006/112/EC, and hence as a service exempted from value added tax in so far as it is supplied by a non-profit-making organisation and the other conditions under that directive are satisfied?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
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.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# Time and Date:

10 a.m., Thursday, May 10, 2007.

# Place:

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

# Status:

Open.

# Matters to be Considered:

                        The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *Marfork Coal Co.,*                         Docket Nos. WEVA 2006-788-R, WEVA 2006-789-R, and WEVA 2006-790-R. (Issues include whether an operator may maintain a contest proceeding under section 105(d) of the Mine Act when it does not seek an expedited hearing.)                    

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

# Contact Person For More Info:

Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,

Chief Docket Clerk.

[FR Doc. 07-2321 Filed 5-7-07; 3:19 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-M