alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________ No. 96-60023 Summary Calendar

______________

GERALD MINGO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus PEARL RIVER VALLEY POWER ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

(2:95-CV-346)

_________________________________________________________________ August 6, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM * : Appellant Gerald Mingo ("Mingo") appeals the dismissal of his action brought pursu ant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court found that his action was barred by limitations and additionally that summary judg ment should be granted because Mingo failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination. After considering the briefs and record, we affirm for the following

reasons:2

1. Mingo does not challenge the district court's findings
and conclusions with respect to his failure to establish a prima facie case. 2. Mingo presented no summary judgment evidence to rebut Appellee's race neutral explanation th a t Mingo was terminated solely because of his inability to return to work. 3. The district court correctly determined that Mingo's cause of action was time barred. The trial court correctly noted that the alleged discriminatory act was the decision to terminate Mingo's employment. Mingo was well aware of that action more than three years prior to the date he filed his complaint in the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Item 77D - DWS Money Market Series (a Series of
DWS Money Market Trust)

DWS Money Market Series (the "Fund") became a feeder
fund of Cash Management Portfolio (the "Master
Portfolio") effective July 30, 2007.  As a feeder fund, the
Fund no longer invests directly in securities but invests all
or substantially all of its assets in the Master Portfolio,
which has the same goal as the Fund.  In connection with
this change, the Board of Directors of the Fund approved
a change in the Fund's goal from "to seek a high level of
current income consistent with liquidity and the
preservation of capital by investing in high quality short-
term securities, as well as certain repurchase agreements"
to "to seek a high level of current income consistent with
liquidity and the preservation of capital".


K:\Electronic Working Files\NSAR\2007\12-31-07\DWS Money
Market Trust (annual)\03-Exhibits\Item 77D.doc
# L_2005307EN.01005101.xml

| 25.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 307/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 307/51

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1934/2005

of 24 November 2005

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (2), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005 of 2 September 2005 on a special intervention measure for cereals in Finland and Sweden for the 2005/2006 marketing year (3),

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland and Sweden to all third countries, with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland and Sweden to all third countries, with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005.

| (2) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 18 to 24 November 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 November 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States

Done at Brussels, 24 November 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003 (OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 16).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 228, 3.9.2005, p. 5.

3

---
**EXHIBIT 10.4**

**THIRD SUPPLEMENTTOUNIT PURCHASEAGREEMENTDated August 13,2004 withCASCADEINVESTMENT, L.L.C.**

** **August 12, 2005

            Referenceis made to the above-captioned agreement (the "UPA"). Capitalized terms used herein without definition have the respective meaningsspecified in the UPA.

            1.         Section3 of the UPA, as modified by the First Supplement to the UPA dated June 4, 2005and the Second Supplement to the UPA dated July 1, 2005, makes provision withrespect to the Closing occurring on or before August 14, 2005.  The partieshave agreed that the Closing may occur on any Business Day through andincluding September 30, 2005.

            2.         Thisinstrument shall take effect as an amendment to the UPA pursuant to Section 13thereof.

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank;Signature Page Follows]

----

[Signature Page To THIRD Supplement]

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theparties have executed and delivered this Third Supplement to Unit PurchaseAgreement as of the date set forth above.

**PNM RESOURCES, INC.**

** **

By: s/ Terry R.Horn       Terry R. Horn       Vice President, CorporateSecretary       and Chief Financial Officer

 

**CASCADE INVESTMENT, L.L.C.**

**  **

By: /s/ MichaelLarson       Michael Larson       Business Manager

                                                                                         -2-
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASIITNGTON, D.C.

Hiroaki Nishio COMPLAINANT


### v. Commonwealth Ports Authority RESPONDENT. Docket No. 16-13-03

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with 

### FAA Rules of Practicefor Federally-AssistedAirport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFRPart 16 (Rules ofPractice). Pursuant to the Rules ofPractice, §16.ll(a), the date by which the Director, FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis will issue a Director's Determination in this matter is hereby extended to on orbefore February 27,2015.

# tJd415~ .Randall S. Fiertz' Director, Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis DateCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 

# Cf( ,2015, I placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid), a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime addressed to: Hiroaki Nishio P.O. Box 5910 CHRB Saipan, MP 96950 Complainant Maryann Q. Lizama Acting Executive Director Commonwealth Ports Authority Saipan International Airport P.O. Box 501055 Saipan, MP 96950-1055 Respondent
Robert Tenorio Torres Attorney at Law P.O. Box 503758 CK Saipan, MP 96950
Counsel to the Respondent Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100 /-1

. 

### I ;/; 1 / I ;/ "

## ~~~~ Claudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4548

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus DONALD RAYFIELD HANDY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00279-RDB) Submitted: September 17, 2007 Decided: October 10, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Jay Graham, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Richard C. Kay, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Donald Rayfield Handy pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced to 210 months in prison. He now appeals, claiming that the district court should have allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. Our review is for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Ubakanma , 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). Withdrawal of a guilty plea is not a matter of right. United States v. Bowman , 348 F.3d 408, 413 (4th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the burden of showing a “fair and just reason” for the withdrawal of his plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). “[A] ‘fair and just’ reason . . . is one that essentially challenges . . . the fairness of the Rule 11 proceeding.” United States v. Lambey , 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). “[A]n appropriately conducted Rule 11 proceeding . . . raise[s] a strong presumption that the plea is final and binding.” Id. Courts consider six factors in determining whether withdrawal of a guilty plea is proper: (1) whether the defendant has offered credible evidence that his plea was not knowing or otherwise involuntary; (2) whether the defendant has credibly asserted his legal innocence; (3) whether there has been a delay between entry of the plea and filing of the motion; (4) whether the defendant has had close assistance of counsel; (5) whether- 3 - withdrawal will cause prejudice to the government; and (6) whether withdrawal will inconvenience the court and waste judicial resources. Ubakanma , 215 F.3d at 424 (citing United States v. Moore , 931 F.2d 245, 248) (4th Cir. 1991) (footnote omitted)). With these factors in mind, we have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs on appeal. We conclude that Handy did not demonstrate a “fair and just” reason for withdrawing his guilty plea, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Further, ineffective assistance of counsel does not appear on the face of the record. We accordingly decline to address Handy’s claim of ineffective assistance. See United States v. DeFusco , 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). We therefore affirm Handy’s conviction. 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
#### Donald A. MARTIN and Carrie S. Martin, Appellants, v. Richard BONNER et al., Appellees.

No. S-5.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1973.

Lefferts L. Mabie, Jr., Levin, Warfield, Graff, Mabie & Rosenbloum, Pensacola, for appellants.

Robert P. Gaines, Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This case has been well-presented by both the appellants and appellees by their written briefs as well as oral argument.

After full consideration of the briefs, arguments and study of the record, we are of *128the opinion that the trial court was correct in its determination of the rights of the parties, although it may have been mistaken in its reasons therefor. Affirmed upon the authority of Justice v. Belford Trucking Company, Inc., 272 So.2d 131 (Fla.1972).

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
1 Brunner, Christine

From: Sargeant, Kathryn Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 5:06 PM To: Whiteman, Chad Subject: EPA Response to EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft f inal rule (RIN 2060-AQ86) Attachments: EPA_Response_EO_12866_ Tier 3_Final_Rule_Summary_Co mments_2_13_2014.docx; Ferrari Tier III Letter from David Wertheim to Will iam Charmley - includ....pdf; Meetings with Chrysler. Tier 3 NPRM Lead Time and ABT.PDF; Allian ce&GAM Credit Life Comment.pdf



### Attached are EPA’s responses to the summary comment s that you sent on February 13. (Note that yesterd ay I sent you EPA’s response to the other comments from February 13.) Also attached are a few documents that are re ferenced in
our responses.

From: Whiteman, Chad [ mailto:Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov ] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:45 AM To: Sargeant, Kathryn Subject: EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86)



### Kathryn, Attached are some of the EO 12866 comments on the Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86). Regards, Chad
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE GOLDEN
NORTHWEST ALUMINUM, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,343
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                     77,597
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,692
<PP&E>                                         135,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 377,193
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           98,603
<BONDS>                                        170,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     29,663
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   377,193
<SALES>                                        126,010
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               126,010
<CGS>                                          117,405
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  117,405
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,835
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (947)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,352
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,299)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,299)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (2,299)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2,299)


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stevens Resources, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Alex Li,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted 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 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o(d));
and





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





By:
              /s/
      Alex LiDate:
      December 29, 2010
              
              Alex
      LiChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial
  Officer)





This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>  1


                   CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF THE

                     CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                  OF
                       COGNITRONICS CORPORATION

                       Under Section 805 of the
                       Business Corporation Law


     WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, Brian J. Kelley and Harold F. Mayer,
being respectively the president and secretary of Cognitronics
Corporation, hereby certify:
     1.   The name of the corporation is Cognitronics
          Corporation.
     2.   The Certificate of Incorporation of the corporation was
          filed by the Department on the 2nd day of January
          1962..
     3.   The Certificate of Incorporation is amended to increase
          the number of authorized shares of Common Stock, par
          value $0.20 per share, of the corporation from
          10,000,000 shares to 20,000,000 shares.
     4.   To effect the foregoing, Article THIRD relating to the
          authorized capitalization of the corporation is amended
          in its entirety to read as follows:
                 THIRD:   The aggregate number of shares
          which the Corporation shall have authority to
          issue is 20,000,000.  All such shares are of one
          class, having a par value of Twenty Cents ($0.20)
          each, and are designated Common Stock.
     5.   The above amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation
          was authorized by the unanimous written consent of the
          Board of Directors of the corporation on the 6th day of
          April 2000 followed by the vote of the holders of a
          majority of all outstanding shares entitled to vote
          thereon at a meeting of the stockholders duly convened
          and held on the 11th day of May 2000.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have signed this certificate on
the 25th day of July 2000 and we affirm the statements contained
herein as true under the penalties of perjury.


                                        /s/ Brian J. Kelley
                                        Brian J. Kelley
                                        President


                                        /s/Harold F. Mayer
                                        Harold F. Mayer
                                        Secretary
The Honorable Ge orge F. Gunn, Jr., late a United States District Judge for the 1 Eastern District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1008

___________ Earl E. Stine, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri Storz Instrument Company, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 31, 1998 Filed: September 21, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Earl E. Stine appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court for 1 the Easter n District of Missouri granting summary judgment in favor of Stor z Instrumen t

Company, Stine's former employer, in this action involving a claim that Storz fir ed Stine because of his age, in violation of the Age Discrimination i n Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and the Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo.-2-

Re v. Stat. §§ 213.010-.095 (1994). For reversal, Stine argues genuine fact issue s ex ist as to whether after his termination his position remained open and was filled by a you nger person and as to whether Storz's proffered business reason for it s employment

decision was pretextual. He also maintains that his charge o f discriminat

ion was timely filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for purposes of his Missouri Human Rights Act claim. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we agree with the analysis and conclusions of the district court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in its memorandum and order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Mrs. Edith H. POLLARD, Appellant, v. ARMSTRONG RUBBER CO., Appellee.

No. 46100.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 1, 1971.

Mullins *&*Smith, Fred C. Berger, Natchez, for appellant.

*190Adams, Forman, Truly, Ward, Smith & Bramlette, Natchez, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

               DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS
               ------------------------------------------------
                   BETWEEN REGISTRANT AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
                   -----------------------------------------


Leased Automobiles

     The Registrant leases an automobile for each of its executive officers,
subject to certain lease "cap" limitations that vary by executive officer.  The
Registrant reimburses the executive officer for all fuel, maintenance and
repairs costs for the leased automobile, and the Registrant insures the
automobile under its insurance programs.  The Registrant also reimburses the
executive officer (by way of a "gross-up" payment) for taxes on imputed income
for personal use of the automobile.


Reimbursement for Financial and Tax Counseling

     The Registrant reimburses its President and Chief Executive Officer for up
to $15,000 (per year) of out-of-pocket expenses incurred to obtain financial
advice, estate planning advice, tax advice and/or tax return preparation.  The
Registrant reimburses each of its other executive officers for up to $6,500 (per
year) of out-of-pocket expenses incurred to obtain financial advice, estate
planning advice, tax advice and/or tax return preparation.  The Registrant has
made available (for an annual retainer fee) a financial counseling firm to
provide such services to the Registrant's executive officers.


Reimbursement for Annual Medical Examination

     The Registrant reimburses each of its executive officers for up to $650
(per year) of out-of-pocket expenses incurred for an annual medical examination.
#### MAEDER v. GRAYSON.

No. 39232.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 227 So.2d 308.