alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Telles HAGENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RIO DOCE PASHA TERMINAL, L.P., Defendant-Appellee,

No. 00-55224.

D.C. No. CV-99-12845-SVW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 4, 2001 *.

Decided June 14, 2001.

Before D.W. NELSON, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Telles Hagens appeals the district court’s dismissal of his state law cause of action against Rio Doce Pasha Terminal, L.P., (RDP) for breach of an implied contract and of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. We affirm.

*522When Hagens first obtained his job at RDP, it was pursuant to, and covered by, the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between that company and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. His job continued to be so covered throughout his employment. When he was terminated, he grieved under the provisions of the CBA. Nevertheless, he also filed this action in state court and asserted that during his employment an implied contract, which provided that he would only be terminated for good cause, had sprung into being. However, the alleged implied contract claim is preempted.1*See Aguilera v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp.,*223 F.3d 1010, 1014-16 (9th Cir.2000); *Beals v. Kiewit Pac. Co., Inc.,*114 F.3d 892, 894-95 (9th Cir.1997); *Chmiel v. Beverly Wilshire Hotel Co.,*873 F.2d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir.1989); *Stallcop v. Kaiser Found. Hosps.,*820 F.2d 1044, 1048-49 (9th Cir.1987); *Bale v. Gen. Tel. Co.,*795 F.2d 775, 779-80 (9th Cir.1986). Therefore, the claim was properly removed and dismissed.

Of necessity, the same defect inheres in Hagens’ breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. There is no free-standing tort claim for breach of the terms of an employment agreement. *See Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.,*47 Cal.3d 654, 693, 765 P.2d 373, 396, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 234-35 (1988). Either the claim emanates directly from the CBA or it emanates from the alleged implied contract of employment. But if it emanates from the former, it cannot stand. *See Newberry v. Pac. Racing Ass’n,*854 F.2d 1142, 1147-48 (9th Cir.1988). And if it emanates from the latter, that itself is preempted and the implied covenant is preempted along with it.2

AFFIRMED.

**

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

1

. Labor Management Relations (Taft-Hartley) Act § 301(a), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (1988).

2

. No separate claim based on public policy is shown here. *Cf. Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc.,*486 U.S. 399, 412-13, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 1885, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988) (dismissal in violation of state law for filing a worker's compensation claim).
(Reap. Dec. 10386)

#### R.C.A. Victor Mexicana et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 24, etc.

(Decided December 4, 1962)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiffs.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND ARGEED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise which is the subject of the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule B, hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of phonograph records exported from Mexico after April 1, 1959.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that phonograph records are not on the list of articles published in T.D. 54521 and are subject to ap-praisement under the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927 — 84th Congress 2nd Session).

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the prices shown on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement listed in Schedule B are hereby submitted on this stipulation.

*473On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the phonograph records in question is statutory export value and hold that such value therefor is the prices shown in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 August 13, 2014

jam

Order 

Clerk

August 13, 2014

149532 (32)

RANDALL A. RAAR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 149532

COA: 319423

KINROSS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The 

holding in Smith v Bennett, 365 US 708, 710 (1961), was based in part on the U.S. 

Supreme Court's earlier decision in Burns v Ohio, 360 US 252, 253 (1959), which held 

that a state cannot “constitutionally require that an indigent defendant in a criminal case 

pay a filing fee before permitting him to file a motion for leave to appeal in one of its 

courts.” [Emphasis added.] Although Smith v Bennett precludes a court from refusing to 

docket and decide a habeas corpus action because of the inability to pay the filing fee, 

nothing in the decision mandates that there be a complete waiver of court fees. 

Accordingly, the Clerk shall retain plaintiff’s pleadings for an additional 21 days to allow 

plaintiff to comply with the Court’s July 23, 2014 order.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OCT 1 0 2014 

MEMORANDUM 

OFFICE OF 

WATER 

SUBJECT: "Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 4 - Draft"- Executive Order 

12866 Docketing Requirements Compliance SAN 4745; (RIN: 2040-

A537) 

FROM: Meredith Russell, CCL 4 Team Lead rr~ d .t Tuvy~ 

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 

TO: Docket: EPA- HQ-OW-2012-0027 

OVERVIEW 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDW A) requires the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to publish a list of currently unregulated contaminants that are 

known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and which may require regulation. 

The EPA must publish the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) every five years. The EPA 

last published a CCL (CCL 3) on October 8, 2009. After publication of the CCL, SDWA 

requires the EPA to determine whether or not to regulate at least 5 contaminants from the 

most current CCL. This a separate process called regulatory determinations. The 

purpose ofthis action is to: 

• present the EPA's CCL (CCL 4), 

• describe the agency's approach for identifying contaminants on the Draft 

CCL 4, and 

• request comments on the Draft CCL 4 and on ways the agency can 

improve or refine the CCL process for future CCLs. 

This Draft CCL 4 includes 100 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbes. 

The list includes chemicals used in commerce, pesticides, biological toxins, disinfection 

byproducts and waterborne pathogens. The EPA conducted an abbreviated evaluation and 

selection process for CCL 4. This abbreviated CCL 4 process includes a three pronged 

approach: (1) carrying forward CCL 3 contaminants (minus those with regulatory 

determinations), (2) seeking and evaluating nominations from the public for additional 

contaminants to consider, and (3) evaluating any new data for those contaminants with 

previous negative regulatory determinations from CCL 1 or CCL 2 for potential inclusion 

on the CCL 4. 

1 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
OMB Transaction 

The Office of Management and Budget review of the Federal Register notice: 

"Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 4-Draft" was initiated on May 17, 2014. 

OMB requested only minor editorial and clarifying changes. OMB concluded its review 

on August 27, 2014, with a designation of"consistent with changes.'' 

2
Opinion issued October 25, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00113-CV

———————————

FIVE STAR DEVELOPMENT RESORT COMMUNITIES, LLC, Appellant

V.

UHY ADVISORS FLVS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-62355

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Five Star Development Resort Communities, LLC, has filed a

motion to dismiss the appeal because the claims between the parties have been 

settled. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion contains a certificate of 
2

service, but does not contain a certificate of conference. See TEX. R. APP. P.

10.1(a). Over ten days have passed, however, and appellee has not filed a response 

in opposition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(b), 10.3(a). No opinion has issued. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(c). 

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.1 See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

 

1 Appellant requests that the mandate issue immediately and that each party bear its 

respective costs of appeal. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 18.1 allows the 

Court to issue a mandate earlier than the timelines provided therein, “if the parties 

so agree, or for good cause on the motion of a party.” TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1(c). 

Rule 42.1 provides that “[a]bsent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs 

against the appellant.” TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). Appellant has not shown that an 

agreement exists between the parties with respect to the mandate or costs. Further, 

appellant has not offered any basis on which to conclude that good cause exists to 

vary from the prescribed timelines under the Rules.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD A. LONDON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0067 GEB GGH P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General

Order No. 262.

On April 1, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and

which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Case 2:04-cv-00067-GEB-GGH Document 28 Filed 05/19/05 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

2

Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 1,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Defendant Sogge’s motion to dismiss filed

December 6, 2004, is denied.

Dated: May 18, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00067-GEB-GGH Document 28 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 2
# Planning and Performance Documents

Back to OIG Reports page

The documents provided below address the OIG's internal planning, performance, and determinations.

## On this Page:

                                  - OIG Planning Documents
                                  - Internal Quality Assurance of OIG
                                  - Independent Quality Control Reviews of OIG
                                  - OIG Annual Performance Reports
                                  - OIG Annual Superfund Reports
                                  - Recovery Act Update Reports
                                  - OIG Budget Documents

## OIG Planning Documents

----

Our strategic and annual plans reflect the priority work that the OIG believes is necessary to keep the EPA Administrator, the CSB, and Congress fully informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of agency programs and operations.

## Internal Quality Assurance Reviews of OIG

----

## Independent Quality Control Reviews of OIG

----

## OIG Annual Performance Reports

----

## Annual Superfund Reports to Congress

----

These reports summarized the Office of Inspector General's activities related to the Superfund program during a given year from 1999 to 2010.

## Recovery Act Update Reports

----

## OIG Budget Documents

----
EXHIBIT 24

                          POWER OF ATTORNEY

    We, the undersigned officers and directors of Ionics, Incorporated (the
"Company"), hereby severally constitute Arthur L. Goldstein and Stephen
Korn, and each of them, to sign for us, and in our names in the capacities
indicated below, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 1996, and any and all amendments to such
Annual Report, hereby ratifying and confirming our signatures as they may be
signed by our attorneys to such Annual Report and any and all amendments
thereto.

    Witness our hands on the respective dates set forth below.

     Signature                      Title                    Date


/s/Douglas R. Brown                 Director               March 27, 1997
Douglas R. Brown

/s/William L. Brown                 Director               March 27, 1997 
William L. Brown

/s/Arnaud de Vitry d'Avaucourt      Director               March 27, 1997 
Arnaud de Vitry
   d'Avaucourt

/s/Arthur L. Goldstein              Chairman of the Board  March 27, 1997 
Arthur L. Goldstein                 of Directors, Chief
                                    Executive Officer and  
                                    President (Principal
                                    Executive Officer)

/s/William E. Katz                  Director               March 27, 1997 
William E. Katz

/s/Robert B. Luick                  Director               March 27, 1997 
Robert B. Luick

/s/John J. Shields                  Director               March 27, 1997 
John J. Shields

/s/Carl S. Sloane                   Director               March 27, 1997 
Carl S. Sloane

/s/Mark S. Wrighton                 Director               March 27, 1997 
Mark S. Wrighton

/s/Allen S. Wyett                   Director               March 27, 1997 
Allen S. Wyett

97
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 96 LT Case No. 2019

- CF

- 2840

_____________________________ S HAWN E DWARDS S IEBERG , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Adrian G. Soud , Judge

. Jessica J. Yeary
, Public Defender, and Richard M. Bracey , III
, Special Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General and Zac Lawton, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

February 20, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
W ALLIS , L AMBERT , and P RATT , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Wisconsin Power and Light Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Patricia L. Kampling

Patricia L. Kampling

Vice President-Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

 

February 27, 2009
**Exhibit 31.1**
CERTIFICATION
I, Robert J. Wenzel, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HorizonMedical Products, Inc.;
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;
 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for theregistrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 17, 2004
 
/s/ Robert J. Wenzel
EXHIBIT 32.2


            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Circle Group Holdings, Inc. on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Dana L.
Dabney, Chief Financial Officer of the Circle Group Holdings, Inc. certify,
pursuant Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Circle Group Holdings, Inc.

Dated:  May 15, 2006
                                    By  /s/ Dana L. Dabney
                                        ------------------
                                        Dana L. Dabney
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        (Principal Financial Officer)
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Organization Hierarchy Report

To view an Organization Hierarchy report, complete the following steps.

1. From the Reports tab, click Check Processing Reports. The View Reports page appears. 

2. Under Business Reports, click Organization Hierarchy Report. The Organization 

Hierarchy Report parameters page appears.

3. Click an OTC Endpoint to initiate the report. The Organization Hierarchy report preview page 

appears as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Organization Hierarchy Report Preview Page

4. Under Export as, 

• Select a PDF, Excel or Word

• Click Download

Or

• Click Print PDF Report
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

• Click Previous to return to the previous page.

Additional Button
#### Gary A. NEWCOMB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael V. HAYDEN, Lieutenant General, Director National Security Agency, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-2554.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2001.

Decided June 25, 2001.

Gary A. Newcomb, pro se. Tawana Elaine Davis, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Gary A. Newcomb appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Newcomb’s former employer on his claim filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 *&*Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Although we conclude that Newcomb established a prima facie case of discrimination, he faded to rebut the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason *183proffered by the employer for its decision to promote several women and not to promote Newcomb. *See Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co.,*80 F.3d 954, 959- 60 (4th Cir.1996); *Carter v. Ball,*33 F.3d 450, 458 (4th Cir.1994). Specifically, the employer justified its actions by asserting that the employees who were promoted had better management and interpersonal skills than Newcomb. Newcomb presented no evidence, other than his own assessment of his qualifications, to establish that the employer’s proffered reason for its decision was a pretext for discrimination; his self-assessment is simply insufficient to carry the day. *Evans,*80 F.3d at 960- 61. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*