alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1202

___________________________

Robert M. Bry

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

City of Frontenac, Missouri; Jeremy Newton; James Ford; Matthew Loveless;

Brian Wuertz; Matthew Brune; Timothy Barnett; Rex Baumgartner

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

Megan Julian

Movant 

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: November 10, 2016

 Filed: November 16, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Robert M. Bry appeals after the District Court granted summary judgment to 1

defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm. See Gray v. FedEx Ground

Package Sys., Inc., 799 F.3d 995, 999 (8th Cir. 2015) (“We review grants ofsummary

judgment de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

party.”). 

First, we conclude that the DistrictCourt did not abuse its discretion in denying

Bry’s motions for sanctions. See Strutton v. Meade, 668 F.3d 549, 559 (8th Cir.

2012) (concluding that the decision not to impose sanctions was not an abuse of the

district court’s considerable discretion where the destruction of evidence, while

intentional, did not necessarily reflect a fraudulent intent to suppress the truth), cert.

denied, 133 S. Ct. 124 (2012). Second, Bry offers no valid basis for overturning the

well-reasoned determination that the record showed that the defendant police officers

had at least arguable probable cause to arrest Bry. See Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d

823, 832 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Officers may also be entitled to qualified immunity if they

arrest a suspect under the mistaken belief that they have probable cause to do so,

provided that the mistake is objectively reasonable.”). Accordingly, we affirm the

2

judgment of the District Court, and we deny as moot appellees’ motion to file a surreply to Bry’s reply brief.

______________________________

The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri. 

Bry has abandoned his claims against the City of Frontenac, as well as his

2

conspiracy and state-law claims, by not briefing this Court on why dismissal of those

claims was improper. See Hess v. Ables, 714 F.3d 1048, 1051 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013).

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                          13,428
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,356
<ALLOWANCES>                                       211
<INVENTORY>                                     19,089
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,245
<PP&E>                                         541,203
<DEPRECIATION>                                 241,949
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 382,329
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,616
<BONDS>                                        307,402
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                    (83,702)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   382,329
<SALES>                                        515,211
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               517,876
<CGS>                                          155,506
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  431,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,866
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,512
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,335
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,177
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,177
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
#### DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD et al., Appellants, v. DADE COUNTY CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 44449.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 5, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         382,093
<SECURITIES>                                   979,555
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,541,626
<ALLOWANCES>                                   254,000
<INVENTORY>                                    637,422
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,597,645
<PP&E>                                         528,685
<DEPRECIATION>                                 560,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,126,330
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,755,352
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,573
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,196,766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,126,330
<SALES>                                      4,662,558
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,662,558
<CGS>                                        2,123,553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,123,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,472,190
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,959,956)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,959,956)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,959,956)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.34)
        


</TABLE>
0).1&21)0 3)4&1)5&)*50 

# 0

667



,


6

# 6

,20896




7219:;,66,=









,66,




/


6




78301329

# 0

1

0 

# 2 

# 345+ 06 7 

### 4


8 

# 9 9 0 50&


	


0 0+0 

# 7 

# 0

2&
=/"2 

# 8 82/%6>2

4 38$

8 

# 67 1-.6?@6
**EXHIBIT 99.15**

** **

**CONSENT OF JOHN DIXON**

** **

March 27, 2013

 

Brigus Gold Corp.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

 

**Re: Brigus Gold Corp.**

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

I hereby consent to (i) the use of my name in connection withthe following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F forthe year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consentrelates: (A) the technical report entitled “Black Fox Project National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report” dated January6, 2011 (the “Report”), (B) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2012 and (C)the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2012, (ii) the inclusion or incorporationby reference of information derived from the Report in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889, 333-162558and 333-167757), as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, orto any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporatedby reference in the above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 858

To provide for the rehabilitation of historic structures within the Sandy

Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area in the State of New

Jersey, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1993

Mr. PALLONE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To provide for the rehabilitation of historic structures within

the Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreation

Area in the State of New Jersey, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MARINE ACADEMY AGREEMENT.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—In order to further the revitaliza5 tion, rehabilitation, and utilization of Fort Hancock within

6 the Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreation

7 Area, the Secretary of the Interior may enter into an

8 agreement with the Monmouth County Vocational School

9 District or a successor (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Dis-
2

•HR 858 IH

1 trict’’), to permit the use by the District of properties situ2 ated along Gunnison Road and Magruder Road for the

3 purpose of developing and operating, without cost to the

4 National Park Service, a secondary school program to be

5 known as the Marine Academy of Science and Technology.

6 (b) DESIGN OF FACILITIES.—The design of new fa7 cilities and landscape improvements, and the rehabilitation

8 of existing facilities for school and administrative use,

9 shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Na10 tional Park Service. In determining whether to approve

11 the design and rehabilitation, the Director shall use stand12 ards for rehabilitation and National Park Service guide13 lines and policies that are approved by the Secretary of

14 the Interior.

15 SEC. 2. REVERSION.

16 If the properties, facilities, and improvements re17 ferred to in section 1 are not used by the District for a

18 secondary school program, the agreement authorized by

19 section 1 shall be terminated and all use of the properties,

20 facilities, and improvements shall revert, without consider21 ation, to the National Park Service.

22 SEC. 3. REIMBURSEMENT.

23 (a) REHABILITATION.—As a condition of entering

24 into the agreement authorized by section 1, the Secretary

25 of the Interior may—
3

•HR 858 IH

1 (1) accept reimbursement expenses, of not more

2 than $500,000, to cover the cost of rehabilitating

3 other property within the Sandy Hook Unit of Gate4 way National Recreation Area for park uses that are

5 displaced from facilities used by the District under

6 the agreement authorized by section 1; or

7 (2) require the District to rehabilitate other

8 property for the park uses—

9 (A) under the direction of the National

10 Park Service; and

11 (B) at a cost of not more than $500,000.

12 (b) FEES FOR SERVICES.—The Director of the Na13 tional Park Service may collect and retain reasonable fees

14 for services provided to the District by the National Park

15 Service, including alarm monitoring, permit compliance,

16 fire and police protection, and snow removal.

Æ
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                     MODIFICATION TO PETER LUND OFFER LETTER
                                 DEFERRED BONUS

Paragraph C ("Deferred Bonus") of the July 24, 2000 Offer Letter is deleted and
replaced with the following:

      The three million dollar ($3,000,000) bonus called for in the Offer Letter
is fully vested and will be paid as follows:

            1.    If Dreamlife is successful in raising $8 million in new
                  capital (including, without limitation, convertible debt), the
                  $3 million bonus payment will be made in three equal payments
                  of $1 million each in July 2003, 2004 and 2005.

            2.    If Dreamlife is not successful in raising $8 million of new
                  capital, the $3 million bonus payment will be made in 5 equal
                  payments of $600,000 each in July 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and
                  2007; provided, however, that if Dreamlife is successful in
                  raising $8 million of new capital after payments have begun to
                  be made to you pursuant to this paragraph 2, payments will be
                  accelerated to coincide with the schedule provided for in
                  paragraph 1.

            3.    The unpaid portion of the Deferred Bonus will be paid within
                  three months of your termination if you are terminated by the
                  company other than for cause (as such term is defined in the
                  Plan) prior to having received payments totaling $3 million.

                                                DREAMLIFE, INC.


                                                By: /s/ Peter A. Lund
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                        Peter A. Lund
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
Agreed to and accepted by:


/s/ Peter A. Lund                        July 18, 2001
----------------------------             -------------
Peter Lund                               date
Chief Executive Officer
Dreamlife, Inc.

Acknowledged and accepted by:


/s/ Julius Koppelman                     7/17/01
----------------------------             -------------
Julius Koppelman                         date
Chairman of the Board
Discovery Toys, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 641 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 641

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that no deduction 
    shall be allowed for personal income taxes paid to a State (or 
   political subdivision thereof) which taxes nonresidents on income 
                  derived from certain Federal areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1993

Mr. Sundquist introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that no deduction 
    shall be allowed for personal income taxes paid to a State (or 
   political subdivision thereof) which taxes nonresidents on income 
                  derived from certain Federal areas.

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

SECTION 1. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR INCOME TAXES PAID TO STATES WHICH 
              TAX NONRESIDENTS ON INCOME EARNED IN CERTAIN FEDERAL 
              AREAS.

    (a) In General.--Section 164 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to deduction for taxes) is amended by redesignating 
subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by inserting after subsection (f) 
the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Denial of Deduction for Taxes Paid to States Which Tax 
Nonresidents on Income Earned in Certain Federal Areas.--
            ``(1) In general.--No deduction shall be allowed under this 
        section for personal income taxes imposed by any State (or 
        political subdivision thereof) which imposes a tax on income--
                    ``(A) from transactions occurring or services 
                performed in a specified Federal area located within 
                such State, and
                    ``(B) of any individual--
                            ``(i) who is not a resident or domiciliary 
                        of such State, and
                            ``(ii) who is a resident or domiciliary of 
                        an adjacent State.
            ``(2) Personal income taxes.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term `personal income taxes' means income taxes 
        which are not paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or 
        business or an activity described in section 212.
            ``(3) Specified federal area.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term `specified Federal area' means any Federal 
        area which is used in whole or in part for Federal military 
        defense purposes and which includes portions of Kentucky and 
        Tennessee.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1989.

                                 <all>
```
#### Oceanus McCALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-551.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender; and Michael J. Minerva, Asst.Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty.Gen., and Joseph W. DeMember, Asst.Atty.Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed. See Turner v. State, 99 Fla. 246, 126 So. 158 (1930).

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                         2384
<SECURITIES>                                   38153
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10342
<ALLOWANCES>                                   190
<INVENTORY>                                    10284
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               63758
<PP&E>                                         27929
<DEPRECIATION>                                 18448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 77502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3637
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9009
<OTHER-SE>                                     48038
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   77502
<SALES>                                        5464
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6204
<CGS>                                          3072
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5534
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (87)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             83
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                674
<INCOME-TAX>                                   230
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            444
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   444
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.06



</TABLE>
Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT)

Action Plan 

Demonstration of Compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Revenue Use Policy

Delaware Code; Title 30, Chapter 51, Subchapter 1: Gasoline, grants the authority to collect state 

excise tax on Aviation Gasoline (AvGas) to the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT).

Retailers of AvGas are required to obtain a license from DelDOT to engage in retail sale of gasoline. The 

excise tax assessed per gallon of AvGas is 23 cents and the license distributors are required to provide 

DelDOT a monthly report and remit the Delaware excise tax charged to the customer for AvGas sales. 

Also, there is a refund provision under this state code provided an applicant shows a receipt for the

AvGas used by airplanes or aircraft. All applications for refunds must be filed with the Department of 

Transportation within 12 calendar months from the date of the purchase or invoice of the AvGas with 

respect to which a tax refund is claimed. DelDOT does not tax Jet Fuel. For additional information on 

how to obtain a refund on state excise tax for aviation gasoline purchases, please contact (302) 744-

2711. Also, you may visit the Delaware Motor Vehicle website for refund forms, instructions, and 

additional detail on the Delaware gasoline refund program. You may access the website by clicking on 

the following link: http://www.dmv.de.gov/services/TransServ/MFSF/GasRefund/index.shtml. 

In compliance with the FAA’s Revenue Use Policy, DelDOT will publish annually a report of 

AvGas taxes collected. In conjunction with this report, DelDOT, through it’s Capital Transportation 

Program (CTP), can show how the AvGas tax collected is spent on Aviation System Planning for all 

general aviation airports within Delaware and also on state matches to FAA grants for the National 

Program for Integrated Airport System (NPIAS) airports. This information will also be published on the 

DelDOT website.
From: Dick Guldi <rlguldi@tx.rr.com>

To: Maria Martinez/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred 

Thompson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/16/2012 08:08 PM

Subject: further thoughts on today's EPA meeting on cement kiln emissions

I can't help thinking about today's EPA meeting in Arlington 

where Jan Pruzinski, Executive Director at Cement Council of Texas, 

told us that he was concerned about mercury poisoning of the 

Wilamette River Valley in Oregon from Chinese pollution while Texas 

cement kilns having been polluting the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex 

for more than thirty years. In the days of Margaret Keliher, they 

even opposed offers of millions of dollars of funding to install 

pollution abatement equipment. They just always want to operate with 

their good old ways, treating the air as their personal sewer.

Jan also said that cement manufacturing employs 1500 people in 

Texas. Assuming 1000 of them work near Midlothian and that the 

metroplex has 1 million people with asthma (since I learned today 

that we have double the asthma rate of the rest of the country), that 

works out to be 1000 metroplex residents with asthma for each cement 

worker. Astounding !

Cement producers need to become good corporate citizens like 

Texas Instruments and many other companies!

Dick Guldi