alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 18a0094n.06

Case No. 17-1567

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

DENISE POLLINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC.; KEVIN BAKER, Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: BOGGS, BATCHELDER , and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Denise Pollingt on sued her former employer, G4S Secure Solutions, and former supervisor, Kevin Baker, for alleged violations of Michigan law. She brought her suit in Michigan state court. G4 S removed the case to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction. One problem: The partie s’ filings suggest that both Pollington and Baker are Michigan citizens. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis , 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (noting that the citizenship of each plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant to create diversity jurisdiction); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In its notice of removal, G4S claimed that the district court should “disregard ” Baker’s citizenship because Pollington failed to properly serve him, and in any event, that his presence in the suit would amount to fraudul ent joinder. InsteadCase No. 17-1567 Pollington v. G4S Secure Solutions

- 2 - of addressing these arguments and their effect on its jurisdiction, the district court allowed the litigation to proceed and ultimately gran ted both defendants summary judgment. The district court should not have proceeded to summary judgment until it resolved these lingering questions abou t its jurisdiction. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co ., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). Jurisdiction must be established as a threshold ma tter—“inflexibl[y] and without exception.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t , 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998). So anytime a defendant removes to federal court, it must show that it has the right to be there. See Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp. , 438 F.3d 544, 549 (6th Cir. 2006). An d it cannot do so merely by pointing to the other party’s consent or waiver. See Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de

Guinee , 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982). As such, even in the absence of an objection by Pollington, the district court was obligated to consider it s jurisdiction sua sponte, at which point it could have done one of two things. Had it determined that Baker was improperly served or fraudulently joined, it should have dismissed him from the suit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Probus v. Charter Commc’ns, LLC, 234 F. App’x 404, 407 (6th Cir. 2007). Alternatively, had it found that Baker was a proper party to the suit, it should have remanded the case to state court. See Saginaw Hous. Comm’n v. Bannum, Inc. , 576 F.3d 620, 624 (6th Cir. 2009). It should not, however, have skipped over these jurisdic tional issues and ru led on the merits. Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for

a determination of whether di versity jurisdiction exists.
# CA2007144DE.01000701.xml

| 29.6.2007 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | CA 144/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2007

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

CA 144/7

---

RESERVELISTE
   (1)

RESERVELISTE

1

ALLGEMEINES AUSWAHLVERFAHREN EPSO/AD/37/05

ALLGEMEINES AUSWAHLVERFAHREN

ÜBERSETZERINNEN UND ÜBERSETZER DEUTSCHER SPRACHE

ÜBERSETZERINNEN UND ÜBERSETZER DEUTSCHER SPRACHE

DER FUNKTIONS- UND BESOLDUNGSGRUPPE AD 5

DER FUNKTIONS- UND BESOLDUNGSGRUPPE AD 5

(VERWALTUNGSRÄTE IM SPRACHENBEREICH)

(VERWALTUNGSRÄTE IM SPRACHENBEREICH)

(2007/C 144 A/02)

Verdienstgruppe 1

| DLUGOSCH | MARTIN |
| --- | --- |
| FINKE | MARION |
| GABEL | FRANK |
| GRUBE | EKKEHARD |
| HAASE | BIANKA |
| HORN | GABRIELA |
| MUSS-GORAZD | DOERTE |
| RACKEBRANDT | WOLFGANG |
| SOSKA | ALEXANDRA |
| STEINHAGEN | RUEDIGER |
| TENHAGEN | WOLFGANG |
| WISNIEWSKI | MURAD |
| WITZLACK-MAKAREVICH | KAI |
| ZABKAR | BORUT |

DLUGOSCH

MARTIN

FINKE

MARION

GABEL

FRANK

GRUBE

EKKEHARD

HAASE

BIANKA

HORN

GABRIELA

MUSS-GORAZD

DOERTE

RACKEBRANDT

WOLFGANG

SOSKA

ALEXANDRA

STEINHAGEN

RUEDIGER

TENHAGEN

WOLFGANG

WISNIEWSKI

MURAD

WITZLACK-MAKAREVICH

KAI

ZABKAR

BORUT

Verdienstgruppe 2

| ALTMAYER | ANNE |
| --- | --- |
| BETSCH | MICHAEL |
| DRUDE-KOETH | SASKIA |
| ERLBACHER | ANNA ULRIKE |
| GRADEL | ANDREAS |
| HICK (MUELLER) | CHRISTINE |
| KIERMEIER | URSULA |
| KUSCHNERUS (BOETTCHER) | MAREN SUSANNE |
| LUDWIG | BARBARA |
| MUELLER | MICHAEL |
| TEICHNER | ROBERTO |
| WOHLGEMUTH | ANNE |
| ZOEBELIN | THOMAS |

ALTMAYER

ANNE

BETSCH

MICHAEL

DRUDE-KOETH

SASKIA

ERLBACHER

ANNA ULRIKE

GRADEL

ANDREAS

HICK (MUELLER)

CHRISTINE

KIERMEIER

URSULA

KUSCHNERUS (BOETTCHER)

MAREN SUSANNE

LUDWIG

BARBARA

MUELLER

MICHAEL

TEICHNER

ROBERTO

WOHLGEMUTH

ANNE

ZOEBELIN

THOMAS

Verdienstgruppe 3

| ALMS (SALENBAUCH) | NINA |
| --- | --- |
| BERGHOFF | ANDREAS |
| HORNBURG | HELGE |
| IVANUSCHA-GOMEZ | SILVIA |
| KARWEN | BERND |
| KRUPKA | MARKUS |
| LEHNERT | INGO |
| REITER | CORNELIA |
| SEMMELMANN | ULRIKE |
| WINKLER | ILSE |

ALMS (SALENBAUCH)

NINA

BERGHOFF

ANDREAS

HORNBURG

HELGE

IVANUSCHA-GOMEZ

SILVIA

KARWEN

BERND

KRUPKA

MARKUS

LEHNERT

INGO

REITER

CORNELIA

SEMMELMANN

ULRIKE

WINKLER

ILSE

Die Reservelisten gelten bis zum 31. Dezember 2008. Ihre Geltungsdauer kann verlängert werden.

31. Dezember 2008

---

(1)  Auf ausdrücklichen Wunsch einer erfolgreichen Prüfungsteilnehmerin oder eines erfolgreichen Prüfungsteilnehmers wird ihr bzw. sein Name nicht veröffentlicht.

1

---
#### Virginia J. Quin, App’lt, *v.*Herman T. Winter, Resp’t.

Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals.

*Ordered,*that the motion be denied, with ten dollars costs.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

KARLEEF KEBREAU,

Appellant,

v.

BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-842

[March 30, 2023]

Administrative appeal from the Broward County School Board; L.T. DOAH 

Case No. 19-4176TTS.

Melissa C. Mihok of CPLS, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

Denise M. Heekin and Elizabeth W. Neiberger of Bryant Miller Olive P.A., 

Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Copy of issued check
No. 49280.

#### Protest 107198-K of Yardley & Co., Ltd. (New York).

*279Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The uncontradicted evidence disclosed that these plaques are similar in all respects to the articles involved in Abstract 48890, which record was incorporated herein. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was therefore sustained.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2704

___________

Glenn R. Waite, M.D., *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Nebraska.

Judge Richard D. Sievers; Judge D. *

Nick Caporale; Lanet S. Asmussen, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 5, 1997

 Filed: December 23, 1997 

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Glenn R. Waite, brought an action seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983

and 1985(3) against two Nebraska judges and a Nebraska court clerk. Waite claimed

the defendants individually, and in conspiracy, denied him access to the courts and

equal protection by refusing to file his pleading seeking to reopen an appeal in which

the mandate had issued nearly three years earlier, and by concealing the judicial

determination that such post-mandate pleadings would not be filed. Waite also sought
The Honorable William G. Cambridge, Chief Judge, United States District

1

Court for the District of Nebraska.

-2-

declaratory relief. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants based 1

on absolute judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, and denied declaratory relief. Waite

appeals.

We conclude summary judgment was proper. The evidence showed the

defendant judges acted within their judicial capacity and jurisdiction regarding the postmandate document and notification to Waite of the procedure being followed. See

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam) (discussing parameters of

judicial immunity). The evidence also established the defendant clerk acted at the

judges& direction. See Rogers v. Bruntrager, 841 F.2d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 1988) (clerks

absolutely immune from actions for damages arising from acts that “they are

specifically required to do under court order or at judge&s direction”). Furthermore, any

conspiracy claim against defendants cannot overcome the bar of absolute immunity.

See Moses v. Parwatikar, 813 F.2d 891, 892-93 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 832

(1987). We agree Waite was not entitled to declaratory relief with respect to the

procedure the judges followed in his case. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 851 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 851

 To direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to 
        report on firearms trafficking along the I-95 corridor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2023

    Mr. Torres of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to 
        report on firearms trafficking along the I-95 corridor.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Iron Pipeline Review Act''.

SEC. 2. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES REPORT ON 
              FIREARMS TRAFFICKING ALONG THE I-95 CORRIDOR.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
and annually thereafter, the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, in consultation with State and local 
law enforcement entities, and other agencies or stakeholders as 
determined appropriate by the Director, shall submit to the Committee 
on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
the Judiciary of the Senate a report on firearms trafficked along 
Interstate 95 that contains the following:
            (1) An analysis of the number of firearms trafficked along 
        Interstate 95, that contains the following:
                    (A) Firearms listed by the State of origin, and the 
                make and model of the firearm.
                    (B) An analysis of the effectiveness of counter 
                firearm trafficking measures.
                    (C) An analysis of specific local, State and 
                Federal laws that affect the number of firearms 
                trafficked.
                    (D) A description of any actions directed as a 
                result of the analysis conducted under this section.
            (2) Recommendations, as appropriate, for Federal, State and 
        local law enforcement entities to improve firearm trafficking 
        measures referred to in paragraph (1).
            (3) Proposals, as appropriate, for legislative actions and 
        funding needed to improve measures to counter firearm 
        trafficking.
                                 <all>
```
Testimony on EPA Public Hearing on Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule 

### Good morn

### mg. I'm Br1an Levy, a resident ofthe District Foryears 

### Igrew up in

**th~** shadow of an oil refinery, where my father worked for Exxon. Some of myearliest childhood memories are of oil tankers passing by our home in Aruba, taking the refined Venezuelan crude oil to U.S. markets. Oil money paid for mycollege education, and even today Icontinue to receive royaltiesfrom shale gas extraction from family lands in Louisiana. If times hadn'tchanged, I believe both myfather and Iwould be here testifying against strengthening the Clean Power Plan. But this is not 1983. Solar power is not $18/watt, it's 73 cents. Childhood asthma rates have more than doubled. We're at 400ppm, not 340, and here in DC we can nowfind cherrytrees blooming in February. So as times are different, Icurrently serve as Vice President of PEAR, a startup that finances energy efficiency and renewable projects across the country. Through power purchase agreements (PPAs) we finance, we are able to provide clients solar powerfor a cost lowerthan whatthey currently payfor coal and gas powered electricity. And Gust as importantly), we can run a business, all while reducing carbon emissions. There's one thing I've learned from the private sector- and one thing that hasn't changed in the past 30 years- is the adaptive power of the marketto respond to new technology and new policy. As the EPA knows, when it comes to pollution, we makethe rules, and the rules make us. And usually somebody

- coal/oil/or renewables- makes money. Right nowthere is enormous climate wealth to be made in efficiency and renewables-andAmericans should be making it. And in the process, we do the right thing for our country and our kids. So I am here todayto thankthe EPAforthe good work undertaken to date. But I am also here to urge you to do more. Efficiency and renewables alone can achieve the current goals- indeed four states are alreadygenerating more renewable energythan the nonbinding target EPAsets in the proposed rule. I believewe can transition from dirtyto clean energyfarfaster than EPA predicts, because todaythe technology, the private sector, and the sobering moral demands ofour changing planet are uniquely aligned. So let us worktoward a larger national emission reduction goal- 40% reductions below 2005 leveis by 2020. Thankyou for yourtime.

Brian Levy 1321 FloridaAve NW Washington DC 20009 202-247-5106 levybd@gmail.com
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT  4.1


             ------------------------------------------------------
               INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
             ------------------------------------------------------

------                                                           --------------
  NO.                                                                 SHARES
------                                                           --------------
                               The State of Nevada

[LOGO]
                              Lennoc Ventures, Inc.
        One Forty Five Million Common Shares Authorized, $0.001 Par Value

This Certifies That SPECIMEN is the owner of ______________________ Common
Shares $0.001 par value each of the Capital Stock of

                              Lennoc Ventures, Inc.

transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person
or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

In Witness Whereof, the said corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officers, and to be sealed with the Seal of the
Corporation this ______ day of _____________ At

[SEAL]


-------------------------                               -----------------------
       President                                               Secretary

                               ------------------
                               SHARES $0.001 EACH
                               ------------------


                                   CERTIFICATE
                                       FOR

                                     SHARES

                               [SEAL APPEARS HERE]

                                     OF THE

                                  CAPITAL STOCK

                              Lennoc Ventures, Inc.

                                    ISSUED TO

                                      DATED



         For Value Received ______ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Shares of the Capital Stock represented by the written Certificate and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint __________________________________________ to
transfer the said Stock on the books of the within named corporation with full
power of substitution in the premises.

Dated _________________________

In presence of _______________________

NOTICE. THE SIGNATURE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN
ON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION AND
ENLARGEMENTS OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER
# C_2007140EN.01004202.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/42

---

Action brought on 9 May 2007 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-156/07)

(2007/C 140/69)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/94/07 published by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) in OJEU 2007 C 45 A of 28 February 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/94/07 published by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) in OJEU 2007 C 45 A of 28 February 2007;

| — | order the Commission to publish all notices of competitions to fill posts in the European Civil Service in the Official Journal in all languages; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to publish all notices of competitions to fill posts in the European Civil Service in the Official Journal in all languages;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/94/07, published by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) in OJEU 2007 C 45 A of 28 February 2007, in so far as that notice was published in only the English, French and German versions of the OJEU.

The applicant contends that by acting in that manner the defendant has infringed Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community and Council Regulation No 259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of the European Civil Service. The defendant has also infringed the principles of equality and non-discrimination for European citizens, proportionality and legal certainty, recognised in the EC Treaty and in the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice.

As regards, specifically, the principle of legal certainty, the applicant observes that the Staff Regulations of Officials provide, in Annex II, that notices of open competitions are to be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. In fact, in accordance with Article 5 of Council Regulation No 1/58, the Official Journal is to be published in the 23 official languages. However, the notice in question was published in only three official languages.

Official Journal of the European Communities

The applicant submits, last, that there has also been an interference with the exclusive competence of the Council, acting unanimously, to amend the rules on the languages to be used by the Community.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11


BONUS PLAN FOR OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

The corporate bonus plan is designed to provide annual financial incentives
to eligible officers and employees of the Company for the attainment of
certain financial objectives, which may be different from individual to
individual. For each plan period, the financial objectives of the Company are
established and individual objectives for each eligible officer and employee
are recommended by the Chief Executive Officer and approved by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. Depending on the extent to
which such objectives are achieved, a percentage of each eligible officer's
and employee's base salary will be paid as a bonus. The bonus percentage of
base salary may range from 0% to 60% for the President and Chief Executive
Officer and from 0% to 50% for the Executive Vice Presidents.
Searched for **http://www.oshrc.gov/index.html**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.oshrc.gov/index.html**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
No. 40255.

#### Protest 948187-G of V. Sabella & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of origan similar to that the subject of *United States*v. *Strohmeyer*(25 C. C. P. A 120, T. D. 49242). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1722 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 31.2





SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION FOR THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


I, Walter P. Mascherin , certify that:


1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Fortegra Financial Corporation (Registrant);


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(s) 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)) 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 conclusions 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 fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.


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


(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting 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: March 15, 2011/s/ Walter P. MascherinWalter P. MascherinChief Financial Officer
May 8, 1946

No. 51110.

Abstract 50992.

#### Protests 58086-K, etc., of Cluett Peabody & Co., Inc.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.