alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                     [TRANSLATION FROM THE ORIGINAL FRENCH]


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8
                                    ADDENDUM

                           TO THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT


BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED:

PEOPLESOFT FRANCE,
Corporation,
With a capital of 9.157.500 euros
The registered office of which is based Tour A, La Defense, 4110 Esplanade du
General de Gaulle, Coeur Defense, 92931 Paris La Defense Cedex,
Registered with the Nanterre Commercial Registry under number 391 338 076,

Represented for the purpose thereof by Christophe Letellier, President,

                                                     (Hereafter, the{ Company })


                                                             ON ONE HAND,

AND

GUY DUBOIS,
Residing at ___________________________ ,

                                                      (Hereafter,{ Mr. Dubois })

                                                          ON THE OTHER HAND,


IT HAS BEEN AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

As from the date of signature of this addendum, Mr. Dubois' employment contract
(as modified and/or completed by various mail and/or agreements considered as
addenda) will be modified in some of its elements by the following provisions,
which invalidates and replaces all the other provisions of the same nature.

ARTICLE 1

As from January 1st, 2004, the annual gross remuneration of Mr. Dubois will be
split as follows:

-     On one hand, an gross annual base salary of USD 273,285 converted in Euro
      at the conversion rate of USD1 = Euro 0.885;

-     On the other hand, a target bonus of an annual amount of USD 320,000 USD
      converted in Euro at the conversion rate of USD1 = Euro 0.885.
<PAGE>
                     [TRANSLATION FROM THE ORIGINAL FRENCH]


ARTICLE 2

Mr. Dubois's annual travel hardship allowance is estimated at USD 66,715 based
on 70 estimated foreign workdays for the year 2004. This will be converted in
Euro at the conversion rate of USD1 = Euro 0.885.

The exact amount of his annual travel hardship allowance will be determined in
December 2004 based on the exact foreign workdays for the year 2004 and the
necessary adjustment will then be made with application of the exchange rate of
USD1 = Euro 0.885.

ARTICLE 3

All the other provisions of the employment contract that are not incompatible
with or contrary to the provisions of this addendum will remain unchanged and
remain applicable.

Signed at Pleasanton


On  14 April  2004

In two original samples


                                                /s/ GUY DUBOIS
-----------------------------                   ------------------------------
For the Company                                 Guy Dubois
Christophe Letellier
President

(The signatures must be preceded by the words:{LU ET APPROUVE. BON POUR ACCORD.}
and each page must be initialled.)



/s/ TERRY BOWDEN
-----------------------------
Terry Bowden
No. 61083.

protest 284329-K (New York).

#### Dreyfus, Ashby & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is similar in all material respects to that involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that case Nos. 2975, 2977, 2978, 2979, and 3081, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon the cases of liqueurs reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL J. SCALZI,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-15450

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01399-MMDVCF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 13, 2015** 

San Francisco, California

Before: NOONAN, W. FLETCHER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Michael Scalzi appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the

City of North Las Vegas in this lawsuit brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing the

FILED

MAR 18 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, Guatay Christian Fellowship

v. Cnty. of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm.

Scalzi first argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment

to the City on his Title VII gender discrimination claim. We disagree. Although

Scalzi made out a prima facie case of gender discrimination, the City articulated

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not promoting him and then terminating

him. Scalzi has not introduced evidence sufficient to “raise a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether the [City’s] proffered nondiscriminatory reason[s] [are]

merely a pretext for discrimination.” Dominguez-Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dep’t,

424 F.3d 1027, 1037 (9th Cir. 2005). To the contrary, Scalzi’s evidence confirms

the City’s account: it shows that the city manager hired Joyce Lira, not Scalzi,

because he believed she shared his priorities for the city, and that Lira fired Scalzi

because he repeatedly challenged those priorities, sometimes in inappropriate

ways. The district court did not err in concluding that no reasonable jury could

find that Scalzi was the victim of gender discrimination.

Scalzi also argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment

to the City on his claim that the City has violated section 281.645 of the Revised

Statutes of Nevada, which requires localities to establish procedures for handling

whistleblower claims. Again, we disagree. The district court correctly held that

2
section 281.645 does not provide for a private right of action to challenge a city’s

failure to establish these procedures. See Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 194

P.3d 96, 101 (Nev. 2008). The state statute “focus[es] on the [entity] regulated,”

the City, “rather than the individuals protected.” Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S.

275, 289 (2001). It reveals no intent to create a private right of action. 

AFFIRMED.

3
EXHIBIT 32-1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund III, L.P. (the  "Partnership") for the period ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  and  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I,  Wilfred N.  Cooper,  Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner
of the General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

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

2.   The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects,   the  financial  condition  and  result  of  operations  of  the
     Partnership.




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
February 28, 2005
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 74

Expressing the sense of the Congress relating to the European Union’s

ban of United States beef and the World Trade Organization’s ruling

concerning that ban.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 11, 1998

Mr. GRASSLEY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Finance

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress relating to the European Union’s ban of United States beef and the World

Trade Organization’s ruling concerning that ban.

Whereas the European Union has banned imports of United

States beef treated with hormones since 1989;

Whereas 9 out of 10 United States cattle are treated with

growth promoting hormones;

Whereas growth promoting hormones have been deemed safe

by all countries that have reviewed the use of such hormones, including reviews by European Union scientists in

2 separate studies;

Whereas since the implementation of the European Union

ban, United States cattle producers have lost hundreds of

millions of dollars in exports;
2

•SCON 74 IS

Whereas the United States beef industry loses approximately

$250,000,000 in annual sales due to the ban;

Whereas the United States beef industry, the United States

Department of Agriculture, and the United States Trade

Representative have invested substantial resources to

comply with strict dispute settlement procedures of the

World Trade Organization;

Whereas the Dispute Settlement panel and the Appellate

Body of the World Trade Organization have ruled that

the European Union’s ban of United States beef is not

based on sound science or supported by a risk assessment

and is therefore in violation of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Measures; and

Whereas noncompliance by the European Union regarding

the ban on United States beef threatens the integrity of

both the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Measures and the World Trade Organization as a dispute settlement body: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the United States expects the European

4 Union to immediately and completely comply with

5 the World Trade Organization’s ruling and grant

6 United States beef producers access to the European

7 market; and

8 (2) the United States Trade Representative

9 should take immediate action to open European

10 markets to United States beef producers in the event
3

•SCON 74 IS

1 the European Union fails to comply with the World

2 Trade Organization’s ruling.

Æ
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICAT I ON File Name: 20a0449n.06
No. 19

- 5964
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff
- Appellee ,

v.
PATRICK RYAN SMITH , Defendant
- Appell ant . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

OPINION

Before: MOORE , CLAY , and Mc KEAGUE , Circuit Judges.
KAREN NELSON MOORE
. Patrick Smith was indicted for being a felon in possession
of firearms and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after police searched his car and discovered multiple guns and sets of ammunition. A nearby business owner noticed Smith’s car parked in the drivewa y of a vacant

- looking house and asked the police to investigate. Initially suspecting Smith of trespass, the officers asked who he was and to who m the house belonged.
A bout eleven minutes into the stop, the officers discovered that Smith had guns and amm unition in his car, and after the officers saw the guns, Smith told the officers that he was a felon. Smith moved to suppress the evidence coming out of that encounter under the Fourth and
Fifth Amendments , but the magistrate judge recommended that the dis trict court den y Smith’s
request. R. 28 (R. & R. at 36) (Page ID #138). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) and denied Smith’s motion to suppress. R. 29 (Mem. &No. 19

- 5964 , United States v. Smith

2

Order) (Page ID #139). The case proceeded t o trial, and a jury convicted Smith of multiple counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. R. 43 (Jury Verdict) (Page ID #204). Smith timely appealed and solely challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress
on F ourth Amendment grounds under Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968). We hold that Smith
forfeited his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress because his counsel did not object
to the R&R. “In this circuit, the failure to object to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation
results in a [forfeiture] of appeal on that issue as long as the magistrate judge informs the parties of the potential [forfeiture].” United States v. Wandahsega , 92 4 F.3d 868, 878 (6th Cir. 2019) ; see also Berkshire v. Beauvais , 928 F.3d 520, 530

– 31 (6th Cir. 2019) (clarifying that the failure to file objections to an R&R results in forfeiture, not waiver). The magistrate judge informed Smith of the potential forfei ture here

— noting that any objections must be filed within fourteen days and
that the failure to file timely objections forfeits the right to an appeal

— but Smith failed to submit objections. See R. 28 (R. & R. at 36 n.7) (Page ID #138). As Smith concedes, no exception to
forfeiture previously enumerated in our cases applies

. A nd Smith’s argument that we should excuse the forfeiture because his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the R&R is better
suited to a collateral proceeding

. W e accordingly deem Smith’s argument forfeited and AFFIRM
the district court ’s decision denying Smith’s motion to suppress

.
----

|   | 1. | The Report containing the financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: June 30, 2011 | By:  /s/ Terry Fields                              |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                | Terry Fields, Principal Executive and Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                       |
From: delainedc@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:56:07 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Delaine Brannen

Montgomery, AL 36117
EX-10.23



 Exhibit 10.23 

SECOND AMENDMENT 

TO THE UNIMIN CORPORATION PENSION RESTORATION PLAN 

AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JULY 31, 2008 

WHEREAS, Unimin Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Unimin Corporation Pension Restoration Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit
of certain of its executives; 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section V(2) of the Plan, the Company reserves the right to amend the Plan at any time, subject
to certain conditions not now relevant; 
 WHEREAS, the Company deems it advisable to amend the Plan to exclude new participation under the Plan.

 NOW THEREFORE, it is 
 RESOLVED, that the
Plan is amended effective August 15, 2017 in the manner described below: 
 Section III of the Plan is amended by adding the following
sentence to the end thereto: 
 “However, no such participant in the Pension Plan shall become eligible to participate in the
Restoration Plan whenever such participant’s benefits that would otherwise be accrued under the Pension Plan as from time to time are reduced by the limitations upon compensation instituted pursuant to Section 401 (a)(17) of the Code for
the first time, on or after August 15, 2017.” 
 and be it further 

RESOLVED, that the Administrative Committee of the Unimin Corporation Pension Plan be, and hereby is, authorized to take any other actions on the
advice of counsel which may be necessary or appropriate to implement the foregoing resolutions. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Unimin Corporation has caused
this amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer, this 28th day of August 2017. 
  

			
	Attest:	  	UNIMIN CORPORATION

  

			
	 /s/ Eric Sherman
	  	 /s/ Jennifer L. Fox

	Assistant Secretary	  	Vice President, Human Resources
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             473
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               298,223
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,378,223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          848,428
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       172,787
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,378,223
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,627
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,627)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,627)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,627)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

May 11, 1967

No. P67/161.

#### American Customs Brokerage Co. and Hong Kong Imports et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/15105, etc. (Honolulu).

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” consist of Samen and similar styled alimentary pastes containing eggs or egg products similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Fujii Junichi Shoten, Ltd., et al.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 277, C.D. 2544), and that the items of merchandise marked “B” consist of Ramen and similar styled alimentary pastes, not containing eggs or egg products similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Shirokiya, Incorporated,*and *American Customs Brokerage Company*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 463, Abstract 69374), the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
JVl Yl#-"5 4 3'1:aDuPont Chambers WorksEC!: tu 

Trailer L-l OPPT CBIC 

Deepwater, NJ 080M2 -8 A['110= 58 

(LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 


To: 	 Document Control Office Director, Chemical Control Division 

Office of Pollution Prevention & T oxlcs Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics 

EPA East, Room 6428 EPA East, Room 4146 

US Environmental Protection Agency US Environmental Protection Agency 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 Washington, DC 20004 

From: 	 Chris Ward 

Date: 	 December 14, 2011 

Re: 	 Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0012 

1. Second Semester 2011 Semi-Annual NJPDES-DGW Report, 04/27/2012 

2. PFOA Monitoring Program - Groundwater Results 2nd Semester 2010, 1/4/2010 

3. PFOA Monitoring Program - Groundwater Results 1st Semester 2011,05/09/2011 

4. PFOA Monitoring Program - Groundwater Results 2nd Semester 2011, 11/9/2011 

5. PFOA Monitoring Program - Groundwater Results 1st Semester 2012,04/26/2012