alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > State Hour Laws for Women

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*State Hour Laws for Women : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 250*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1953,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5523,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
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). Accordingly, Stapleton’s

request for oral argument is denied.

JK/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT STAPLETON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF PHOENIX, an incorporated

municipality including, but not limited to,

the Mayor; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-17774

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00681-SRB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Robert Stapleton appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his

FILED

MAR 03 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JK/Research 2 08-17774

action alleging civil rights violations in connection with state criminal zoning

convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an

abuse of discretion. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for

violation of Rule 8 because the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support

federal jurisdiction or any federal claim for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (stating

that a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement” of the grounds for the

court’s jurisdiction and the claims for relief); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178-79

(concluding that a court may dismiss an action for noncompliance with Rule 8 after

considering less drastic alternatives).

Stapleton’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John L. Skibski, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ John L. Skibski
-------------------------------------
John L. Skibski
Chief Financial Officer
August 7, 2007
No. 47655.

#### Protest 871371-G of Italian Olive Oil Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the olives are the same in all material respects as tho§e the subject of *Skourtsis*v. *United States*(T. D. 48218). In accordance therewith the claim at 20 cents per gallon under paragraph 744 was sustained.
No. 96-7846.

#### Douglas *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
(Reap. Dec. 9628)

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States

Entry No. 6031, etc.

(Decided March 11, 1960)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*George Oochran Doulj,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the merchandise on the invoices covered by the reappraisement appeals listed in the attached Schedule A, which Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, consists of artificial flowers imported from Japan.

> That at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States such and similar merchandise was being freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, at the invoice unit prices, net packed, and that the “foreign value” as defined in Section 402(c) Tariff Act of 1930 was not higher.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the artificial flowers in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the invoice unit prices, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Trends in Multifactor Productivity, 1948-81

              																																										United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Office of Productivity and Technology.								*Trends in Multifactor Productivity, 1948-81 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 2178*.															Washington, D.C: 										U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 												September 1983,												https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5229,				accessed on September 25, 2024.										    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
No. 53255.

#### Reliance Sales *v.*United States,

protests 134623-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John L. Skibski,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ John L. Skibski
-----------------------------
John L. Skibski
Chief Financial Officer
October 29, 2003
#### Tony LYNN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-1494.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 23, 1998.

*39Tony Lynn, Appellant, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Sonya Roebuck Horbelt, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

SHIVERS, Douglass B., Senior Judge.

Tony Lynn appeals an order of the trial court denying his second motion for belated appeal of his 1993 conviction and sentence. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *Williams v. State,*324 So.2d 74 (Fla.1975) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional matter).

In accordance with the procedures then in effect, as set forth in *State v. District Court of Appeal, First District,*569 So.2d 439 (Fla.1990) (announcing that claims for belated appeal on grounds such as those presented in the case at bar were to be presented in the trial court by way of a motion for post-conviction relief), Lynn sought post-conviction relief in the circuit court. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Lynn’s 1995 timely first motion as facially insufficient, and that his 1996 second motion was time-barred under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b) (designating a two-year deadline for filing a motion for post-conviction relief after judgment and sentence become final). Compounding his two prior errors, Lynn waited eight months to file a notice of appeal challenging the denial of his post-conviction motion. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(3) (defendant wishing to appeal “a final judgment” must do so within “30 days following rendition of a written order”); *Williams, supra.*

The promulgation of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(j), effective January 1, 1997, superseded *State v. District Court. See Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure,*685 So.2d 773, 807 (Fla.1996) (Committee Notes). The new rule sets out a new procedure for requesting a belated appeal by initiating a habeas corpus proceeding directly in the district court of appeal. *Allen v. State,*707 So.2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). However, we find no basis to conclude that the new rule revived. *State v. District Court*claims such as Lynn’s that were already time-barred under Rule 3.850(b). *Finch v. State,*23 Fla. L. Weekly D2020, 717 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (promulgation of new Rule 9.140(j) did not revive appellant’s “belated appeal” claim that was already time-barred in 1994 under the two-year timetable set forth in Rule 3.850(b)).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

BARFIELD, C.J., and DAVIS, J„ concur.
Mr. Vincent Tudor 

County Attorney 

Hale County 

Plainview, Texas 

Dear Mr. Tudor: opinion No. o-11 

Re: Whether or not property purchased 

from proceeds of a War Risk Insurance 

Policy is taxable 

Your request for an opinion on the question of whether or not 

property purchased from proceeds of a War Risk Policy is taxable has been 

received by this office. 

Mr. A. J. Levis, County Attorney of Mllsm County, Cameron, Texas, 

presented almost the Identical question to this department and the opinion 

was rendered by the,Hon. F. 0. McKinsey, Assistant Attorney General, March 

17, 1931, which opinion evidences much research and with the conclusions 

of which I entirely concur. 

The land purchased by beneficiary with funds received from the 

United States Government as compensation and insurance granted by reason 

of the service and death of a World War Soldier, is not exempt from taxation. The recipient of such funds being sui jurls the Federal Government 

will not trace such funds through subsequent mutations so as to protect 

and preserve them to the beneficiary. 

I am enclosing herewith a copy of the above mentioned opinion 

ren+red by F. 0. McKinsey. 

Trusting that, this answers your inquiry, I remain 

AW:AW:IM 

ENCLOSURE 

APPROVED: 

/s/ Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS 

Yours respectfully 

A!4?ToRNEY GENERALOFTEXAS 

By /s/ Arae Williams 

Assistant
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SELOMI M. VILLALTA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General; 

et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-17579

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-03021-WHA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 10, 2015**

Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Selomi M. Villalta appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his action alleging that the government breached an immigration-related 

class action settlement agreement (the “ABC agreement”). We have jurisdiction 

 

* 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).

FILED

MAR 20 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-17579 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th 

Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Villalta’s claims because the complaint 

and attached exhibits failed to show that defendants breached the ABC agreement 

or violated the United States Constitution. See id. at 341-42 (although pro se 

pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a 

plausible claim); Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of 

Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (in determining whether a 

complaint states a claim for relief, a court may consider facts contained in 

documents attached to the complaint); Am. Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. 

Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (the ABC agreement).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Villalta’s motion for 

leave to file an amended complaint because the proposed amendment was untimely 

and would have been futile. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 

465 F.3d 946, 949, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review and 

grounds for denying leave to amend).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.14



Private & Confidential



Mr P Boon

[personal address information]



1st December 2010



Dear Phil



On behalf of the Board of Directors, I am delighted to confirm that the Board have decided to award you a special one off bonus to show their appreciation of what has been accomplished and the loyalty you
have shown to the Company over what has been an extended and testing period in the Companys history. The Board anticipates your continued loyalty and endeavour over the coming period as we grow the business both geographically and by
acquisition.



The main elements of this bonus are as follows:-



|1. | You will receive a one off bonus payment of $225,000. This will be paid in January 2011 using the relevant exchange rate at the time.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | You are required to use 1/3 of this bonus, after tax, to purchase Innospec stock in the open market. This should be done in the first stock trading window after you
receive this payment. Please make sure you let Nicola Earl in Ellesmere Port have the details of your stock purchase so the necessary filings can be completed.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | You will be required to hold the stock purchased in point 2 above for a minimum of 1 year.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | If you decide to end your employment with Innospec of your own accord, within two years of receiving this bonus, the Company reserves the right to require you to repay
some or all of this bonus payment. Any such repayment will be at the absolute discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board and you will be notified of their decision in writing.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Please sign the attached copy of this letter and return to Cathy Hessner in
Ellesmere Port, to confirm your acceptance of the above terms.



On
behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your contribution and loyalty to our company to date and to wish you continued success in the future as we focus on driving the business forward.



Kind regards

|              
|--------------
|/s/    BOB
BEW
|Bob Bew       
|Chairman
# United

S ta tes Cour t of

Appea ls F OR T H E D IS TR IC T OF C OL U MB IA C IRC U IT

__ __ __ __ __ __ 

## N o . 2 2 - 7 0 9 1 S e p t e m b e r T e rm , 2 0 2 2 1:22 -cv -0 13 43 -U N A F il ed O n : O cto be r 11 , 20 22 Ken t A lle n, J r. ,

A pp ell an t v . A nd y J as s y , C E Oo f A m az on a nd Ken t A lle n, A pp ell ee s O N AP P E A LF R O M T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S D IS T R IC TC O U RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC TO F C O L U MB IA B E F O R E : M ille tt

a nd R ao , C irc uit

J ud ge s , an d S en te lle , S en ior C irc uit J ud ge J U D G M EN T T hisa pp ea l w ascon s ide re d on t he record from t he U nit ed S ta te s D is tr ict C ou rt fo r th e D is tr ict of C olu m bia a nd o n th e br ief filed b y a pp ell an t. S ee F ed . R . A pp . P . 34 (a )(2 ); D .C . C ir. R ule3 4(

j). It i s O R D E R E D AN D AD JU D G E D t ha t th e dis tr ict cou rt ’so rd er fil ed M ay

3 1, 2 02 2, b e affirm ed . T he d is tr ict c ou rt d id no t ab us e it s d is c re ti on i n dis m is s ing t he com pla int w it ho ut p re jud ic e for failu re to c om ply w it h th e ple ad ing s ta nd ard of F ed eral R uleo f C iv il P ro c ed ure 8( a) , w hic h re qu ire s “ a s ho rt a nd p lai n s ta te m en t of th e c lai m s how ing t ha t th e ple ad er i se nt it led to re lie f.” F ed . R . C iv . P . 8( a) (2 ); s ee C ira ls ky v . C IA , 35 5 F .3 d 66 1, 66 8- 71 ( D .C . C ir. 2 00 4) . P urs ua nt to D .C . C irc uit

R ule3 6, t hisd is po s it ion w ill no t be p ub lis he d. T he C ler k isd ire cte d tow it hh old i s s ua nc e of th e m an da teh erein u nt il s ev en d ay s a fte r re s olu ti on of an y t im ely p et it ion fo r re he ar ing o r pe ti ti on fo r re he ar ing e n ba nc . S ee F ed . R . A pp . P . 41 (b ); D .C . C ir. R ule4 1. P er C u r ia m F O R

T H E C O U RT : M ar k J . La ng er , C ler k B Y : /s/ D an iel J . R eid y D ep uty C ler k
#### Jerome J. Piniewski, Respondent, v Donald Panepinto, Respondent, and Laborers International Union of North America, Local 210, Appellant.

[701 NYS2d 215]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and second amended complaint and cross claim against defendant Laborers International Union of North America, Local 210 dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he sustained as the result of an *1088alleged assault by defendant Donald Panepinto at a construction site. Plaintiff and Panepinto were employed as laborers for different employers at that construction site. Panepinto had been designated by defendant Laborers International Union of North America, Local 210 (Local 210) as a laborer steward. The second amended complaint alleges causes of action against Local 210 for assault and negligence in appointing, hiring and retaining Panepinto as a laborer steward. In his answer, Panepinto asserts a cross claim for contribution against Local 210.

Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of Local 210 for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint and cross claim against it. The cause of action for assault cannot be maintained against Local 210 because the complaint fails to allege that the individual members of Local 210 authorized or ratified the assault *(see, Martin v Curran,*303 NY 276, 279-280; *Walsh v Torres-Lynch,*266 AD2d 817; *Saint v Pope,*12 AD2d 168, 171). With respect to the negligence causes of action, plaintiff was not required to allege that the members of Local 210 authorized or ratified the alleged negligence of the business manager in appointing, hiring or retaining Panepinto as a laborer steward *(see, Grahame v Rochester Teachers Assn.,*262 AD2d 963; *Torres v Lacey,*3 AD2d 998). Local 210, however, established its entitlement to judgment dismissing those causes of action by submitting proof that it had no knowledge of Panepinto’s propensity for the type of behavior that caused plaintiff’s injuries *(see, Start v Sugarcreek Stores,*234 AD2d 933; *Curtis v City of Utica,*209 AD2d 1024, 1025). Plaintiffs submissions in opposition to the motion fail to raise a triable issue of fact *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.