alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DELTON L. TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

HARISHKUMAR PATEL, Medical Doctor 

at Wasco State Prison; RICHARD LE, 

Medical Doctor at Wasco State Prison, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16425

D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01754-DAD-JDP 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Delton L. Taylor appeals pro se from the district 

court’s order denying for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his post-judgment 

motion to enforce a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-16425 

§ 1291. We review de novo. Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 

2016). We affirm.

 The district court properly denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

Taylor’s post-judgment motion to enforce the settlement agreement because the 

court did not incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement into the dismissal 

order. See id. (a district court maintains ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a 

settlement agreement only where the court incorporated the terms of the settlement 

agreement into the dismissal order). Even if the terms of the settlement agreement 

were incorporated in the dismissal order, Taylor has not shown a breach of the 

settlement agreement.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             902
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,483
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                      1,011
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,273
<PP&E>                                           5,725
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,961
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,000
<BONDS>                                             94<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        273
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,094
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,961
<SALES>                                          3,534
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,534
<CGS>                                              940
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   651<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    624
<INCOME-TAX>                                       187
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                437
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       437
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.83
<FN>
<F1>Does not include guarantee of ESOP debt of $190.
<F2>Only includes R&D expense.
</FN>


</TABLE>
# C_2011294EN.01000102.xml

| 6.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6384 — Zurich/Santander/ZS Insurance)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 294/02

On 29 September 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6384. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6384. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2012134EN.01000302.xml

| 8.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6483 — PGGM Vermogensbeheer/Barclays Bank/UPP Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 134/06

On 26 April 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6483. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6483. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Thomas C. Renick, Plaintiff, *v.*American Export Lines, Inc., Defendant.

Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan,

March 31, 1953.

*447
      *Herman E. Cooper*for plaintiff.

*Haight, Deming, Gardner, Poor S Havens*for defendant.

Bogota, J.

In this action the plaintiff seeks maintenance for a seaman who was employed aboard defendant’s vessel and admittedly was injured in the service of this vessel while said vessel was in a drydock.

It is conceded by the plaintiff that he had not signed shipping articles. The defendant contends that failure to sign articles deprives plaintiff of his rights to maintenance and cure by virtue of the fact that he is not a “ seaman ”.

Section 713 of title 46 of the United States Code defines a seaman to be “ every person (apprentices excepted) who shall be employed or engaged to serve in any capacity on board the same shall be deemed and taken to be a “ ‘ seaman ’ ”.

The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of “ *The Falco*” (20 F. 2d, 362-363), per Judge Learned Hand, in holding an injured person to be a seaman at the time of his injury, even though he had not as yet signed the articles, said *“*That he was a member of the crew seems to us proved. He calls himself a seaman, and indeed, since he was *‘*employed or engaged to serve ’ in some *‘*capacity on board ship,’ our statutes make him such. R. S. § 4612 (Comp. St. § 8392); Pac. Mail S. S. Co. v. Schmidt, 214 F. 513 (C. C. A. 9). The ship was in commission, and he was an A.B. working as such. The fact that he had not signed the articles, which are in any case necessary only when she is on a voyage, R. S. § 4511 (Comp. St. § 8300), might affect the duration of his service and his right to throw up his job, but did not qualify its incidents, or define its character, while he remained at work, Jansen v. The Theodor Heinrich, Fed. Cas. No. 7215; Clark v. Montezuma Transp. Co., 217 App. Div. 172, 216 N. Y. S. 295. A ship may have a crew in port, and he had engaged to serve her in strictly maritime duties, as much while at her berth as after she broke ground, when he expected still to be in her service.”

The character and incidents of plaintiff’s job in the instant case were such as to compel plaintiff’s classification as a seaman, inasmuch as he had already completed a voyage and remained in the same capacity aboard the vessel at the defendant’s request. Therefore, let judgment enter for plaintiff in the sum of $300.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-1142

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Charles W. Poor Thunder, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 7, 2000 Filed: June 9, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Charles W. Poor Thunder, who originally pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (1994), appeals the 48-month prison sentence he received upon revocation of his supervised release, arguing that imposition of this sentence was plain error. Thegovernment concurs, and advises that Poor Thunder’s original offense of conviction--carrying a maximum prison term of 40 years, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (Supp. IV 1998)-- constituted a Class B felony, see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(2) (1994). We agree with the parties that this case should be remanded for resentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (1994) (authorizing up to three years imprisonment upon revocation of supervised-2-

release if offense that resulted in term of supervised release was class B felony); cf. UnitedStates v. Guzman-Bruno , 27 F.3d 420, 423 (9th Cir.) (vacating sentence as plain error, and remanding to district court for limited purpose of setting term of supervised release within statutorily-permitted range), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 975 (1994). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Document

Exhibit 10.8

AMENDMENT THREE
TO
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL 401(k) PLAN
WHEREAS, The Coca-Cola Company sponsors The Coca-Cola Company Supplemental 401(k) Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2012 and as further amended (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, The Coca-Cola Company Benefits Committee (the “Committee”) may amend the Plan at any time; and
WHEREAS, the Committee wishes to amend the Plan to reflect the addition of a new participating subsidiary.
NOW, THEREFORE, Appendix A of the Plan is amended, effective August 15, 2022, by adding an entity at the end thereof to read as follows: 


			
	“Red Tree Beverages, LLC”




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Committee has caused this Amendment Three to be signed by its duly authorized member as of this 9th day of August 2022.


									
			THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
BENEFITS COMMITTEE

			By:     /s/ Silvina Kippke_________
      Silvina Kippke
#### Robert BURNS, Appellant, v. Dean RICCARDI, Appellee.

No. 77-363.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 4, 1978.

Burns & Arnovitz and Jerold H. Reichler, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Abbott, Frumkes & Alhadeff, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant, co-defendant and third party plaintiff below, appeals from an “order on defendant’s motion to consolidate.” Said order denied appellant’s motion to consolidate a third party claim previously severed by the trial judge.

*1335Pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.270(a) and (b), the consolidation and severance of third party claims are within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge. *Brody Construction, Inc. v. Fabri-Buiit Structures, Inc.,*322 So .2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); *Compañía Dominicana de Aviación v. Knapp,*251 So.2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).

After carefully reviewing the record and briefs, it is our opinion that appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of the trial judge’s discretion. Accordingly, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Mark W. SCHWIEFERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-83.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, James R. Riedman, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc.; 

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 makethe 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 flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, 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 thisreport 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 theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof 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 reportingwhich 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. 

Dated: April 5, 2007 

A signed original of this Certification has been provided to Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and will be retained by Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
No. 11504.

#### Brown *v.*Gantz.

Decided January 25, 1910.

Error to Circuit Court of Miami county.

*Messrs. .Kerr & Kerr,*for plaintiff in error.-

*Mr. L. O. Flarbaugh*and *Mr. T. B. Kyle,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, C. J., Crew, Spear, Davis, Shaucic and Price, JJ., concur.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB10-CR.138 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
(301) 763-3691
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 2010 2010 Census: Maine Approaches Its 2000 Mail Participation Rate Census Director says: “Fill Out Your Form and Mail it Back Today!” As of Friday, April 16, Maine is just one percentage point away from matching the mail participation rate it achieved in the 2000 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau announced today.  New rates released today show that 64 percent of Maine residents have mailed back their forms so far, compared with 65 percent in 2000. The nation as a whole — at 69 percent — is still three percentage points away from matching the mail response rate achieved in 2000 (72 percent). A number of counties and cities across the country have already matched or exceeded their Census 2000 rates (see: http://2010.census.gov/news/xls/match_surpassed_4-16.xls [Excel] for the full list). “If you mail back your 2010 Census today you can ensure that your household is counted,” U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said. Households that normally pick up their mail from a post office box are already slated for in-person follow-up from census workers. The rates for all states, counties, places, towns and townships are updated each afternoon through April 23 at 4:00 p.m. on the Take 10 Challenge Map (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/take10map/). A final rate will be announced May 3. ABOUT THE 2010 CENSUS The 2010 Census is a count of everyone living in the United States and is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Census data are used to apportion congressional seats to states, to distribute more than $400 billion in federal funds to tribal, state and local governments each year and to make decisions about what community services to provide. The 2010 Census form is one of the shortest in U.S. history, consisting of 10 questions, taking about 10 minutes to complete. Strict confidentiality laws protect the respondents and the information they provide.
 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office/troubleshoot/excel/get-latest-excel-viewer
 CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
# C_2012069EN.01000101.xml

| 7.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6480 — PetroFina/Fina Antwerp Olefins)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 69/01

On 24 February 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6480. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6480. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleases

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

## Fertility

The Newsroom site has been redesigned and relocated.  This is the archive area.

For the most current releases please visit the redesigned newsroom at:https://www.census.gov/newsroom.html

For previous press releases please contact the Public Information Office at 301-763-3030.

### 2011

                          - November 10:   Half of First-Time Mothers Receive Paid Leave, Census Bureau Reports
                          - May  9:   Census Bureau Reports “Delayer Boom” as More Educated Women Have Children Later

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**BAGELL, JOSEPHS, LEVINE & COMPANY, L.L.C.**

Certified Public Accountants

 

High Ridge Commons

Suites 400-403

200 Haddonfield Berlin Road

Gibbsboro, New Jersey 08026

(856) 346-2828  Fax (856) 346-2882

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

We consent to the use in this 10-KSB of our report dated September 30, 2005, relating to the financial statements of Conolog Corporation ;and to the reference to our Firm under the caption “Experts” in the Prospectus.

 

/s/  Bagell, Josephs, Levine & Company, LLC

Bagell, Josephs, Levine & Company, LLC

 

Gibbsboro, New Jersey

October 26, 2005

 

 

 

----
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Donald A. McGRATH, Appellee.

No. 74-383.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 17, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.