alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-41038 

Conference Calendar

 

ERBEY FLORES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TRACII SHAVERS; SAMUEL SEALS;

DOYLE B. MCELVANEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-95-CV-453

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Erbey Flores, Texas state prisoner # 574931, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). He argues

that the court improperly dismissed his retaliation claim. We

have carefully reviewed the record and Flores’s brief. 

Essentially for reasons set forth by the district court, Flores

v. Shavers, No. G-95-453 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 1996)(unpublished),
No. 96-41038

-2-

we hold that Flores has failed to demonstrate that the district

court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint as

frivolous. 

Flores’s appeal is without merit and therefore frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R.

42.2. Flores is cautioned that future frivolous civil suits and

appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition

of sanctions. Flores is cautioned further to review any pending

suits and appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that

are frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

Created by Section 906

of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

The undersigned officer of FileNet Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

 (i)          the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal period ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 

Dated:  August 9, 2006
| */s/ Sam M. Auriemma*** |
|-------------------------|

Sam M. Auriemma

Executive Vice President

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
-----Original Message----- 

From: berkeleyani@yahoo.com [mailto:berkeleyani@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:41 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Juanita Ortiz 

375 Dunster Dr 

Campbell, CA 95008
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Mitchell D. Staples, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United Bancorporationof Alabama, Inc. (the “Registrant”);
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on suchevaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theRegistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting;
 

 

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: August 6, 2004          /s/ Mitchell D. Staples   Mitchell D. Staples   Principal Accounting Officer
§ 239.303 Electronic recordkeeping. Each railroad to which this part applies is authorized to retain by electronic recordkeeping the information prescribed in § 239.301, provided that all of the following conditions are met: ( a ) The railroad adequately limits and controls accessibility to such information retained in its database system and identifies those individuals who have such access;
( b ) The railroad has a terminal at the system headquarters and at each division headquarters;
( c ) Each such terminal has a desk-top computer (*i.e.,* monitor, central processing unit, and keyboard) and either a facsimile machine or a printer connected to the computer to retrieve and produce information in a usable format for immediate review by representatives of FRA and States participating under part 212 of this chapter;
( d ) The railroad has a designated representative who is authorized to authenticate retrieved information from the electronic system as true and accurate copies of the electronically kept records; and
( e ) The railroad provides representatives of FRA and States participating under part 212 of this chapter with immediate access to these records for inspection and copying during normal business hours and provides printouts of such records upon request.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

(Pro Se)

MINDY L. FOGEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. 20-980C

 (Filed: August 18, 2020)

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Mindy L. Fogel, brought this action to challenge the Social Security 

Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of her application for disability benefits. Compl. at 2, ECF No. 

1. She alleges that the denial was unfair because medical records that supported her claim were 

not added to the record, and because her attorney nonetheless persuaded her to go ahead with the 

hearing on her claim. Id. She seeks an opportunity to prove that she is disabled and unable to 

work, and requests that the Court “[o]verturn the [j]udgment and final [o]rder of [d]ismissal” and 

award her $84,000 in past due benefits. Id. at 3.1

Jurisdiction is a threshold matter, Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 

94–95 (1998), and the Court may raise the issue on its own at any time without a motion from a 

party, Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Further, while it is well 

established that complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs are held to “less stringent standards than 

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se 

plaintiffs must persuade the Court that jurisdictional requirements have been met, Harris v. 

United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 290, 292 (2013).

This Court does not have jurisdiction over claims alleging the wrongful denial of social 

security benefits. Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To the 

contrary, the Social Security Act confers jurisdiction over challenges to the final decisions of the 

Commissioner of the SSA on the district courts. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Indeed, Ms. Fogel currently 

has a lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon that appears to seek 

1 Ms. Fogel has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. That motion is 

GRANTED.
2

review of the same denial of benefits that she has challenged in this case. See Fogel v. 

Commissioner, No. 19-1545 (D. Or. Sept. 25, 2019).

For these reasons, the Court directs the Clerk to DISMISS Ms. Fogel’s complaint 

without prejudice based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Elaine D. Kaplan 

ELAINE D. KAPLAN

Judge
-----Original Message----- 

From: terri.hunter@fox.com [mailto:terri.hunter@fox.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:33 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone and 

Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (RIN 

1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from charging 

higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for mental 

health treatment than they would for other physical health care. Thank you 

for ensuring that mental health care and physical health care coverage are 

included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Terri Hunter 

4439 W. Lakeside Dr. C 

Burbank, CA 91505
EXHIBIT 21


         The following are the registrant's subsidiaries, other than
subsidiaries that, if considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would
not constitute a significant subsidiary:


                                                                 JURISDICTION
                                                                     OF
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                              INCORPORATION
------------------                                              -------------

BHC Communications, Inc.                                          Delaware
         Chris-Craft Television, Inc.                             Delaware
                  KCOP Television, Inc.                           California
                  Oregon Television, Inc.                         Oregon
         Pinelands, Inc.                                          Delaware
         United Television, Inc.                                  Delaware
                  UTV of San Francisco, Inc.                      California
                  UTV of San Antonio, Inc.                        Texas
                  UTV of Baltimore, Inc.                          Delaware
                  UTV of Orlando, Inc.                            Delaware
                  United Television Sales, Inc.                   Delaware
Chris-Craft Industrial Products, Inc.                             Delaware
-----Original Message----- 

From: c.j.walker1@verizon.net [mailto:c.j.walker1@verizon.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:41 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

cynthia walker 

617 De La Vina Street 

Santa Barbara, CA 93101
§ 29.917 What is the Department's role in processing a Contract Disputes Act claim? ( a ) The Department must document the date that the Self-Governance Official received the claim.
( b ) The Self-Governance Official must provide the Tribe with an opportunity to resolve the claim informally with assistance from Department officials who have not substantially participated in the disputed matter. Such informal mechanisms may include participating in dispute resolution pursuant to § 29.901.
( c ) If the Department and the Tribe do not agree on a settlement, the Self-Governance Official must issue a written decision on the claim by any method that provides a receipt.
#### § 260.13 Credit reform.

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, 2 U.S.C. 661, requires Federal agencies to set aside the subsidy cost of new credit assistance provided in the form of direct loans or loan guarantees. The subsidy cost will be the estimated long term cost to the Government of the loan or loan guarantee. The subsidy cost associated with each direct loan or loan guarantee, which the Administrator must set aside, may be funded by Federal appropriations, direct payment of a Credit Risk Premium by the Applicant or a non-Federal infrastructure partner on behalf of the Applicant, or any combination thereof.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.38

                             FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE
                         PREMCOR RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN

          WHEREAS, The Premcor Refining Group Inc. ("Company") previously
established the Premcor Retirement Savings Plan ("Plan"); and

          WHEREAS, the Company reserved the right to amend the Plan in Section
16.1 thereof; and

          WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan effective January 1,
2001;

          NOW, THEREFORE, effective January 1, 2001, the Plan is amended as
follows:

     1.   Section 2.12 is amended by deleting the following phrase from the end
of the first paragraph thereof:

          "and, if the Employer so elects for the look-back year, was in the
          top-paid group of Employees for such look-back year."

     2.   Section 4.1 is amended by deleting the last sentence thereof.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be
executed by a duly authorized officer this 28th day of February, 2003.



                                        THE PREMCOR REFINING GROUP INC.



                                        By: /s/ James R. Voss
                                            -----------------

                                        Name:  James R. Voss

                                        Title: Senior Vice President
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAnalysis and design of optimized truncated scarfed nozzles subject to external flow effectsRao's method for computing optimum thrust nozzles is modified to study the effects of external flow on the performance of a class of exhaust nozzles. Members of this class are termed scarfed nozzles. These are two-dimensional, nonsymmetric nozzles with a flat lower wall. The lower wall (the cowl) is truncated in order to save weight. Results from a parametric investigation are presented to show the effects of the external flowfield on performance.Document ID19900015790Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsShyne, Rickey J.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH., United States)*Keith, Theo G., Jr.*(Toledo Univ. OH., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberE-5553AIAA PAPER 90-2222NAS 1.15:103175NASA-TM-103175Meeting InformationMeeting: Joint Propulsion ConferenceLocation: Orlando, FLCountry: United StatesStart Date: July 16, 1990End Date: July 18, 1990Sponsors:ASME,ASEE,AIAA,SAEAccession Number90N25106Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-31Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900015790.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
**Exhibit
      10.9**






Marketing  Services
      Agreement





Party
      A:
      Shan Xi Kai Da Lv You Gu Wen You Xian Gong Si


Party
      B:
      Yachao Tuo (ID No.)





1.
            In
                compliance with the Law of People’s Republic of China and relevant
                Regulation and Ordinance, both parties come to an agreement that
                Party B
                responsible for the company promotion of Party
                A.





2.
            Scope
                of Service


Party
      B
      shall provide the promotion plan to Party A and perform the
      promotion.





3.
            Term,
                Location and Execution


The
      term
      of this agreement is from September 1  st  2005
      to
      June 15  th  2006.
      The
      promotion shall be executed in Xi An, Shan Xi, China. There will be 10 working
      days for Party A to review the plan provided by Party B. Then, Party A shall
      pay
      Parity B once it accepts the plan.





4.
            Service
                Fee


4-1
      The
      total amount is US$12,500.


4-2
      Party
      A may pay according to the first way of the following two ways , so long as
      final payment is made within 10 working days after the plan is
      accepted.


1)
            50,000
                freely tradable common shares of DKDY; or2)
            US$12,500.





5.
            Breach


Any
      party
      fails to execute this agreement shall take the liability according to the Law
      of
      People’s Republic of China and relevant Regulation and Ordinance.





6.
            Dispute


Any
      dispute arising from performing this agreement shall be handled under the
      principle of negotiation and compromise. Otherwise, shall be submitted to either
      of the following two ways:


6-1
      Arbitration Commission


6-2
      Peole’s Court





7.
            Term


This
      agreement is commence on September 1  st  2005,
      and
      terminate on September 1  st  2006.





Party
      A:
      Shan Xi Kai Da Lv You Gu Wen You Xian Gong Si





/s/
      Ming Lei


Ming
      Lei





AGREED
      TO
      AND ACCEPTED AS OF August 26, 2005:





Party
      B:
      Yachao Tuo (ID No.)





/s/
      Yachao Tuo


Yachao
      Tuo
From: jorr1948@earthlink.net [mailto:jorr1948@earthlink.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:32 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

James Orr 

2705 E Sussex Way 

Fresno, CA 93726
§ 24.306 Discretionary utility relocation payments. ( a ) Whenever a program or project undertaken by an agency causes the relocation of a utility facility (defined at § 24.2(a)) and the relocation of the facility creates extraordinary expenses for its owner, the agency may, at its option, make a relocation payment to the owner for all or part of such expenses, if the following criteria are met: ( 1 ) The utility facility legally occupies State or local government property, or property over which the State or local government has an easement or right-of-way;
( 2 ) The utility facility's right of occupancy thereon is pursuant to State law or local ordinance specifically authorizing such use, or where such use and occupancy has been granted through a franchise, use and occupancy permit, or other similar agreement;
( 3 ) Relocation of the utility facility is required by and is incidental to the primary purpose of the project or program undertaken by the agency;
( 4 ) There is no Federal law, other than the Uniform Act, which clearly establishes a requirement for the payment of utility moving costs that is applicable to the agency's program or project; and
( 5 ) State or local government reimbursement for utility moving costs or payment of such costs by the agency is in accordance with State law.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, the term extraordinary expenses mean those expenses which, in the opinion of the agency, are not routine or predictable expenses relating to the utility's occupancy of rights-of-way, and are not ordinarily budgeted as operating expenses, unless the owner of the utility facility has explicitly and knowingly agreed to bear such expenses as a condition for use of the property or has voluntarily agreed to be responsible for such expenses.
( c ) A relocation payment to a utility facility owner for moving costs under this section may not exceed the cost to functionally restore the service disrupted by the federally assisted program or project, less any increase in value of the new facility and salvage value of the old facility. The agency and the utility facility owner shall reach prior agreement on the nature of the utility relocation work to be accomplished, the eligibility of the work for reimbursement, the responsibilities for financing and accomplishing the work, and the method of accumulating costs and making payment. (*See* appendix A to this part, section 24.306.)
Exhibit
10.1


 


2006
Executive Officer Equity Award Plan


 


	
  Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  Stock Options

  	
   

  	
  Shares of 

  Restricted Stock

  	
   

  
	
  Caren L. Mason 

  President and Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  42,500

  	
   

  	
  81,000

  	
   

  
	
  Mark E. Paiz 

  Chief Operating Officer

  	
   

  	
  16,500

  	
   

  	
  27,000

  	
   

  
	
  Paul E. Landers 

  Senior Vice President, 

  Finance & Administration, 

  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

  	
   

  	
  16,500

  	
   

  	
  27,000

  	
   

  
	
  Thomas J. Foley 

  Chief Technology Officer

  	
   

  	
  16,500

  	
   

  	
  27,000

  	
   

  
	
  Robert J.
  Bujarski 

  Vice President and General Counsel

  	
   

  	
  11,000

  	
   

  	
  18,000