alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-55169, 00-55324.

D.C. No. CV-99-04932-R-MCX.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 10, 2001.

Decided July 17, 2001.

*718Before HUG, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff John L. Williams filed this action under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, alleging retaliation by Defendant California Department of Corrections. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant. Defendant requested attorney fees, and the district court awarded $20,000 in fees under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). Plaintiff appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment and the award of attorney fees.

On de novo review, *Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence of a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Specifically, there is nothing in the record to contradict the sworn affidavits of Knox, Vidal, or Mihalyi, in which they assert that they were unaware, when they denied his security clearance in 1997, that Plaintiff had filed an EEOC complaint in 1990 or a civil rights action in 1992. Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on an element of his prima facie case of retaliation, summary judgment was proper.

 We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s award of attorney fees to a prevailing defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). *EEOC v. Bruno’s Rest.,*13 *719F.3d 285, 287 (9th Cir.1993). Such awards to prevailing defendants are proper only if a plaintiffs civil rights “claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless,” or was “brought or continued ... in bad faith.” *Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC,*434 U.S. 412, 422, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978) (emphasis omitted).

Here, Plaintiffs action, while unsuccessful, did not meet the *Christiansburg*standard on this record. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity and suffered an adverse employment action. His case ultimately fails because there is no evidence to link the two, but the action is not frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless on its face, and there is no showing of bad faith. Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Defendant.

The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant is AFFIRMED. The district court’s award of attorney fees is REVERSED and VACATED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# San Joaquin Valley AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
April 19, 2007

Mr. Mike Guzzetta, Manager Rule Evaluations Section Califorr~ia Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 9581 2 Dear Mr. Guzzetta: The District is submitting the supplemental documents for ,the RACT SIP analysis that was adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Colitrol District Governing Board on August 17, 2006. Attached are the complete rules and resolutions requested by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1. Rule 4104 (Reduction of Animal Matter) - Previous: Rule 4401 (Adopted 05/21/92) 2. Rule 4404 (Heavy Oil Test Station - Kern Co~lnty) - Previous: Rl-~le 4713 (Adopted 05121192) 3. Rule 4453 (Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems) 

### - Previous: Rule 471 1 (Adopted 05/21192) 4. Rule 4454 (Refinery Process Unit Turnaround) 

### - Previous: Rule 4712 (Adopted 05121 192) 5. Rule 4625 (Wastewater Separators) 

### - Previous: Rule 463.4 (Adopted 0411 1191) 6. Rule 4672 (Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning Operations) - Previous: Rule 467.2 (Adopted 0411 1 191) 7. Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations) - Previous: Rule 463.1 (Amended 09119191) 8. Rule 4402 (Crude Oil Production Sumps) - Previous: Rule 465.2 (Amended 09119191) The supplemental documents are being transmitted by e-mail to ARB staff. If you have any questions, please contact Koshoua C.X. Thao at (559) 230-5822 or by e-mail at koshoua:thao@valleyair.org. The District thanks you and your staff for your assistance. Sincerely,

Scott Nester Director of Planning Attachments
Northern Region Central Region (Main Office) Southern Region 4800 Enterprise Way 1990E. Gettysburg Avenue 2700 M Street, Suite 275 Modesto, CA 95356-8718 Fresno, CA 93726-0244 Bakersfield, CA 933012373 Tel: (209) 557-6400FAX: (209) 557-6475 Tel: (559) 230-6000FAX: (559) 230-6061 Tel: (661) 326-6900FAX: (661) 326-6985 www.valleyair.org

Printed on recycled paper.
APPENDIX E (1)

Abundance and cover summaries for tree, shrub and herbaceous species in sampled communities. Numbers in parentheses represent that portion

of the mean number of trees per plot that is Pinus contorta. + = less than 0.1% cover (from Zeigler, 1978).

http://www.nps.gov/crla/lodgepole/lodgepoleae1.htm

Date: 29-May-2001

CRATER LAKE

Report: Lodgepole Pine—History and Management

Community

No.

Plots

Total

No.

Tree

Species

Mean

No.

Tree

Species

Per

Plot

Mean

No.

Trees

Per

Plot

Total

No.

Shrub

Species

Mean

No.

Shrub

Species

Per

Plot

Mean

Cover

of

Shrub

Species

Total No.

Herbaceous

Species

Mean No.

Herbaceous

Species

Per Plot

Mean

Percent

Cover of

Herbaceous

Species

Total

No. of

Species

Mean

No. of

Species

Per

Plot

Pinus contorta/Carex-Stipa 15 5 1.8 234

(.96) 2 <.1 + 20 6 6 27 7.8

Pinus contorta/Carex-Lupinus 14 5 .9 210

(.97) 3 1.0 2 21 7 25 29 9.9

Pinus contorta/Purshia/Stipa 1 1 1

168

(1.0) 1 1 4 6 6 15 8 8

Abies magnifica var.

shastensisTsuga/Mertensiana/CarexLupinus

20 3 2.7 295

(.52) 3 .04 1 30 7.5 24 36 10.6

Abies

lasiocarpa/Haplopappus/AsterElymus16 4 3.5 283

(.61) 5 1.8 4 30 9.3 50 39 14.6

Abies lasiocarpa/CollomiaLathyrus 1 3 395

(.63) 3 3 + 22 22 92 30 28

Tsuga mertensiana/Vaccinium 6 4 3.5 293

(..69) 3 1.7 13 12 4.5 5 19 9.7

Mixed Conifer/Arctostaphylos 5 5 3.0 117

(.80) 1 1 17 7 3.2 5 13 7.2

Mixed

Conifer/ArctostaphylosPurshia/Carex1 4 4

79

(.78) 2 2 7 6 6 21 12 12

Abies concolor/Bromus

carinatus-Lupinus 2 3 2.5 278(.49) 3 2.5 11 17 12 47 23 17

<<< PREVIOUS CONTENTS NEXT >>>

Crater Lake NP: Lodgepole Pine: History and Management Page 1 of 1

http://web.archive.org/web/20081009013349/http://www.nps.gov/archive/crla/lodgepole/lodgepoleae1.htm 11/29/2011
Exhibit 31.1

I, Joseph S. Klimek, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Startech
     Environmental Corporation.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
     statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
     were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
     report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a.   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     b.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our report about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c.   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
     committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
     equivalent functions):

     a.   All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          control over financial report which are reasonably likely to adversely
          affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
          report financial information; and

     b.   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date: June 2, 2004

By: /s/ Joseph S. Klimek
-----------------------------
Joseph S. Klimek
Chief Executive Officer, President
[Cite as McCoy v. Unknown, 2011-Ohio-1944.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

CHARLES MCCOY 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

UNKNOWN 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-03142-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL 

{¶ 1} On February 22, 2010, plaintiff, Charles McCoy, filed a complaint against 

defendants, April D. Martin, Cale Saric, and the Heath Police Department. On February 

23, 2010, this court issued an entry dismissing these parties since they were not state 

entities and accordingly, could not be sued in the Court of Claims. On April 30, 2010, 

plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming the Heath City Police Department as 

defendant. On May 14, 2010, this court issued an entry of dismissal since the Heath 

City Police Department is not a state entity. On May 19, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to 

reopen his claim. On September 8, 2010, this court issued an entry requiring plaintiff to 

file an amended form complaint asserting the reasons he believes the Attorney General 

is responsible for the actions of the City of Heath Police Department and why their 

actions resulted in damage to plaintiff. Plaintiff also needed to submit either the filing 

fee or a poverty statement. 

{¶ 2} On September 22, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff 

asserts the Attorney General’s Division of Certification and Standards Division is 

responsible for the actions of the city police officers involved. The Certification and 
Case No. 2010-03142-AD - 2 - ENTRY

Standards Division ensures that all police training certification programs meet the 

applicable minimum standards established by the Ohio Revised Code and Ohio 

Administrative Code. Nothing in the statute or the Administrative Code provides a duty 

upon the Attorney General to insure the proper conduct of the officers throughout the 

state that receive this training. Plaintiff has cited no statute, rule, or case law which 

supports this proposition. Accordingly, plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED. The court shall 

absorb the court costs in this case. 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Charles McCoy, #488-128 

P.O. Box 7010 

Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 

 

DRB/laa 

Filed 1/28/111 

Sent to S.C. reporter 4/15/11
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

JOHN E DEYOE,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

CASE NUMBER: C06-5119JKA

JO ANNE B BARNHART, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its

verdict.

 / Decision by Court. This action came to consideration before the Court. The issues have been considered and a decision

has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

Court AFFIRMS the Social Security Administration’s final decision and this matter is DISMISSED in favor of the defendant.

December 20, 2006 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Date District Court Executive

s/Kelly A Miller 

By Kelly A Miller, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05119-JKA Document 17 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 1
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 4, 2017

No. 04-16-00603-CR

Belinda CISNEROS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-06-11022-CR

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record has been filed, but it does not contain the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) 

certification of the appellant’s right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). This court must 

dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been 

made part of the record.” Id. Appellant is given notice that this appeal will be dismissed unless, 

by January 23, 2017, unless a certification is filed showing he has the right to appeal is made part 

of the appellate record. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) 

(holding that timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke court of appeals’ jurisdiction); Tex. 

R. App. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, 

order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not 

designated for publication).

 If a supplemental clerk’s record is required, appellant must request a supplemental record 

from the trial court clerk and file a copy of the request with this court. If appellant fails to 

satisfactorily respond to this order within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed.

We order all appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of the court. We 

further order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorneys of record and the 

court reporter.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 4th day of January, 2017.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Case 3:06-cv-05194-RBL Document 18 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-05194-RBL Document 18 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-05194-RBL Document 18 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-05194-RBL Document 18 Filed 12/11/06 Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                                   VANS, INC.

                            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 for the period
ended November 30, 2002 of Vans, Inc. (the "Company"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew
J. Greenebaum, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

        (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 results of operations of the
Company.




                                        /s/ Andrew J. Greenebaum
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Andrew J. Greenebaum
                                        Senior Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        January 9, 2003
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MICHELLE BEARDSHEAR,

 Plaintiff,

v.

VANCOUVER HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC.,

a Washington limited liability company, and

WBM ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Washington

Limited liability company, d/b/a Quality Inn

and Conference Center,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5231RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for

Amended Scheduling Order [Dkt. #33].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

Plaintiff has been given leave to amend her complaint to name as defendant the current owner of the

hotel whose facilities she alleges violates the American With Disabilities Act. She seeks an order resetting trial

and related dates because she has yet to serve the new defendant. The Court will grant the motion insofar as

it requests that the current October 22, 2007 trial date be stricken. The motion is denied in all other aspects.

The Clerk shall issue a new Order Requiring a Joint Status Report and once that new Joint Status Report has

been filed, the Court shall issue a new Scheduling Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 3:06-cv-05231-RBL Document 35 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 2nd day of July, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05231-RBL Document 35 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 2
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROMCOURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308,CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

• FILE COPY



### 10/14/2015 COA No. 12-14-00073-CR 

## PIERCE, JOSEPHMICHAEL Tr. Ct. No. 114-0648-13 PD-0651-15 

## On this day, the Appellant's Pro Se petition for discretionary review has been refused. Abel Acosta, Clerk 12TH COURT OFAPPEALS CLERK CATHY LUSK 1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354 TYLER, TX 75701 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43704

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

MISTY LARAE MAY

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 477

Filed: April 12, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Melissa Moody , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of three years, for trafficking in heroin, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Def ender; Andrea W. Reynolds , Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney

General, Bois e, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Misty Larae May pled guilty to trafficking in heroin . Idaho Code § 37

- 2732B(a)(6) . The

district court sentenced May to a unified term of fifte en years with three years determinate

. May

appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be c onsidered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, May ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
No. 60588.

Suit 4874.

#### United States *v.*F. B. Vandegrift & Company, Inc.

C. D. 1757 reversed November 30, 1956. C. A. D. 628.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES
CONTAINED IN THIS FILING AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL INFORMATION, AS DISCUSSED IN NOTE 1. IN NOTES TO CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ALL AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RESTATED TO REFLECT THE
MERGER WITH RED PEPPER EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 16, 1996 AND ACCOUNTED FOR AS A POOLING
OF INTERESTS. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         124,644
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  137,960
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,735
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               314,143
<PP&E>                                         108,116
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 400,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          205,518
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,047
<OTHER-SE>                                     189,984
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   400,508
<SALES>                                        100,566
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               185,003
<CGS>                                            5,547
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                99,717
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   898
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  40
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,899
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,960
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,939
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,939
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>