alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50013 Summary Calendar

ROBERT L. COMEAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 455; UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC, RAY B. WOOSTER, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-94-CV-771

- - - - - - - - - - October 2, 1998 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert L. Comeaux appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his claims under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act and under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we AFFIRM, for essentially the reasons set forth by the district court. Comeaux v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No. 455 , No. SA-94-CA-0771 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 1997). AFFIRMED.
#### Robert Freer et al., Respondents, v Andrew Poncic et al., Appellants.

Casey, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered July 18, 1990 in Ulster County, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs commenced this action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel a determination of defendants’ claim that plaintiffs’ use of their property as a travel/camping trailer park violated a restriction placed upon the property by the parties’ common grantor, which required that the premises be used for residential purposes only. Defendants’ answer was originally rejected by plaintiffs for improper verification. Defendants moved for permission to serve an answer and plaintiffs cross-moved for a default judgment, or in the alternative, summary judgment. Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion, with leave to move again for summary judgment after completion of disclosure. After defendants served their answer pursuant to the court order and following the lapse of more than a year during which neither party sought disclosure, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. This time Supreme Court granted the motion and this appeal ensued.

Initially, we find no merit in defendants’ claim that the earlier denial of plaintiffs’ motion seeking summary judgment as alternative relief barred the second motion. Inasmuch as issue had not yet been joined, summary judgment was premature (CPLR 3212 [a]), and the earlier order expressly authorized plaintiffs to move again for summary judgment at a later date. Nor do we see any merit in defendants’ claim that the second order must be reversed because the matter was not referred to the same Supreme Court Justice who issued the first order. The record contains no reason for the assignment of plaintiffs’ subsequent motion to another Justice, but we see no prejudice to defendants.

Turning to the merits, the undisputed facts reveal that plaintiffs have continuously operated a travel/camping trailer park on the property since 1967. In 1970, a neighbor sought to enforce the restriction at issue and asked defendants’ predecessor in title to join in an action against plaintiffs. The predecessor declined to do so and the neighbor’s action was ultimately dismissed on the merits. Defendants have owned their property for some 15 years without taking any action to enforce the restriction, despite plaintiffs’ open and continuous use of the property as a travel/camping trailer park during that period. In these circumstances, a court should refuse to *960aid the party so belatedly seeking to assert his claimed rights *(see, Zaccaro v Congregation Tifereth Israel,*20 NY2d 77). Defendants’ lengthy delay in seeking to assert their claimed rights also raises the inference that the restriction is of no actual and substantial benefit to defendants *(see,*RPAPL 1951), and defendants have presented no proof in evidentiary form to the contrary. The order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.

Order affirmed, with costs. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.
H. R. 3724

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

An Act

To designate the United States courthouse located in Bridgeport, Connecticut, as

the ‘‘Brien McMahon Federal Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The United States courthouse located at 915 Lafayette Boulevard in Bridgeport, Connecticut, shall be known and designated

as the ‘‘Brien McMahon Federal Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the courthouse referred

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Brien

McMahon Federal Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### John R. McGovern et al., Appellants, v Town of Yorktown et al., Respondents.

Appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Miller, J.), entered October 13, 1989.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Miller at the Supreme Court. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 553 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for an exclusion 

for assistance provided to participants in certain veterinary student loan 

repayment or forgiveness programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2013 

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota (for himself, Mr. CRAPO, Ms. COLLINS, Mrs. 

GILLIBRAND, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. ISAKSON, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. MORAN, Mr. ROBERTS, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. 

TESTER, Mr. BENNET, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. RISCH) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for an exclusion for assistance provided to participants 

in certain veterinary student loan repayment or forgiveness programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterinary Medicine 

5 Loan Repayment Program Enhancement Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 553 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO PAR2 TICIPANTS IN CERTAIN VETERINARY STU3 DENT LOAN REPAYMENT OR FORGIVENESS 

4 PROGRAMS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (4) of section 108(f) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘such Act,’’, 

8 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert9 ing ‘‘, under section 1415A of the National Agricul10 tural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act 

11 of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3151a), or under any other State 

12 loan repayment or loan forgiveness program that is 

13 intended to provide for increased access to veteri14 nary services in such State.’’, and 

15 (3) by striking ‘‘STATE’’ in the heading and in16 serting ‘‘OTHER’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to amounts received by an indi19 vidual in taxable years beginning after December 31, 

20 2012. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ex10_2.htm



Exhibit 10.2







February 7, 2014

















Eric Anderson


3036 NE Ainsworth St.


Portland, OR  97211







Dear Eric;







This letter is being provided to you in recognition of your contributions to the company.  You’ve made a significant positive impact on the development of the company’s marketing team, its digital pivot capabilities and in driving significant improvements across marketing operations as well as other areas of customer acquisition. Your role is key to our organizational development and we are appreciative of your efforts.







Accordingly, you are receiving a promotion to the position of Senior Vice President, Marketing.  In this position, you will continue to be responsible for marketing, marketing operations and key customer acquisition functions such as admissions.  With this promotion and change in responsibility level, you will become the company’s Principal Operating Officer from a SEC reporting standpoint and your compensation may become publicly disclosed in our future proxy statements and potentially other filings as required by SEC regulations.







In this position, your new annual cash compensation package will be $315,000 (at target) including a base salary of $225,000 and incentive opportunity with an on-target payout of 40% of base salary.  You will also continue to be eligible for equity awards as provided by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.  The change in pay is effective as of Monday – February 10, 2014.







Your current Severance and Change in Control agreement has been modified by approval of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors to the level commensurate with a Senior Vice President role.  Please see the attached Change in Control & Severance Agreement for details.







Eric, we are very appreciative of the dedication that you have displayed towards the Company and look forward to your continued contributions in this role of expanded responsibility.  If you have any questions about this letter or the terms included within it, please feel free to discuss them with me directly or with Bryan Fix in HR.







Sincerely,











	AMBASSADORS GROUP, INC.
	 /s/ Anthony F. Dombrowik 	 
	Anthony F. Dombrowik Interim Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Financial Officer)
	 Date: February 7, 2014





 





 


Signature...


 




I accept the change of role to the position of SVP, Marketing for Ambassadors Group, Inc..  By signing this letter-agreement, I indicate that I’ve had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss the role with my manager 




	AMBASSADORS GROUP, INC.
	/s/ Eric Anderson	 
	
Eric Anderson


	Date: February 7, 2014
Exhibit 32

Certification of CEO and CFO 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
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TPG Specialty Lending, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Michael
Fishman, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John Viola, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
such officers knowledge:

(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/ Michael Fishman
|Name:               |  | Michael Fishman        
|Title:              |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:               |  | May 10, 2013           
|                   
|/s/ John E. Viola  
|Name:               |  | John E. Viola          
|Title:              |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:               |  | May 10, 2013           

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         $31,437                 $47,698
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,622                  10,853
<ALLOWANCES>                                       559                     419
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,821                  60,657
<PP&E>                                           3,751                   6,524
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,107                   3,105
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,352                  67,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,585                  13,785
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            12                      14
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,755                  53,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,352                  67,086
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,369                  82,389
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,586                  68,690
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (50)                    (46)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,933                  16,187
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,925                   6,351
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,008                   9,836
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,008                   9,836
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .51                     .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42                     .63


</TABLE>
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0716 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-011-AD

Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Model 407 and 427 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 582 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to detect any loose or misaligned parts in the 

hydraulic servo actuators that could lead to failure of the servo and subsequent loss of helicopter 

control.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $33,000

Labor per Helicopter

(0.5 x $85/work-hour for 

the inspection)

(2 x $85/work-hour for

the replacement)

$43

$170

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $43 for the inspection

$33,170 for the replacement

Total US Fleet Cost $25,026 for the inspection

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Matt Wilbanks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,517
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      8,847
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         93,311
<ALLOWANCE>                                        938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,478
<DEPOSITS>                                      86,679
<SHORT-TERM>                                       593
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,232
<LONG-TERM>                                     15,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,673
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 116,478
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,170
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  334
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   173
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,677
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,130
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,825
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,853
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      256
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,698
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,865
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,865
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,179
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.06
<LOANS-NON>                                         77
<LOANS-PAST>                                       245
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   869
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      194
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  938
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               938
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            916


</TABLE>
(April 22, 1991)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William King, Also Known as Reality, Appellant.

Motion for reargument denied. Decision dated Feburary 7, 1991 amended by deleting from the second sentence of the first full paragraph of page three of the decision the phrase: ", as found *1001by the court,”. Concur—Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur. *[See,*170 AD2d 710.]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6290

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRIAN MICHAEL HAPPEL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:95-cr-00013-1)

Submitted: May 16, 2019 Decided: May 21, 2019

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Michael Happel, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brian M. Happel appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to expunge 

his criminal record. The district court found no extreme or exceptional circumstances 

supporting expungement, pursuant to Allen v. Webster, 742 F.2d 153, 155 (4th Cir. 1984). 

See United States v. Happel, No. 2:95-cr-00013-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 11, 2019). We 

conclude, however, that federal ancillary jurisdiction does not extend to petitions for 

equitable expungement. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 

379-81 (1994); see also Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010) (recognizing 

that “[e]very federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its 

own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand this matter to the 

district court with instructions to dismiss Happel’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
1
2
3
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4016

To suspend temporarily the duty on octadecyl isocyanate.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 11, 1994

Mr. CRANE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on octadecyl isocyanate.

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

3 That subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar4 iff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.)

5 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the follow6 ing new subheading:

‘‘ 9902.29.89 Octadecyl

Isocyanate

(provided for

in subheading

2929.10.40) .... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/98 ’’.

7 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

9 (b), the amendment made by section 1 applies with respect
2

HR 4016 IH

1 to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for con2 sumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the

3 enactment of this Act.

4 (b) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—Notwithstanding

5 section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514)

6 or any other provision of law to the contrary, upon a re7 quest filed with the appropriate customs officer before the

8 90th day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any

9 entry or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption—

10 (1) which was made after December 31, 1992,

11 and before the 15th day after the date of the enact12 ment of this Act; and

13 (2) with respect to which there would have been

14 no duty if the amendment made by section 1 applied

15 to such entry or withdrawal;

16 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such amend17 ment applied to such entry or withdrawal.

Æ
#### In the Matter of Shirley R. Wilson, Petitioner, v New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment Center, Respondent.

Motion for poor person relief denied with leave to renew within 30 days upon submission of an affidavit setting forth amounts and sources of income and listing all property with its value *(see,*CPLR 1101 [a]). Present—Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Law-ton, JJ.
----

Re-notification of a previously notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3637 — Total/Sasol/JV)

(2005/C 50/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
#### In the Matter of Shana J. and Others, Children Alleged to be Neglected.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Erie County Family Court, Manz, J. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Manz, J.—Permanent Neglect.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.