alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60031

Summary Calendar

JACQUELYN JOHNSON,

Plaintiff−Appellant,

versus

HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INCORPORATED,

Defendant−Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

No. 1:16-CV-304

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jacquelyn Johnson sued her employer, Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated

(“HII”), under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging primarily that she had 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 25, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60031 Document: 00514849962 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2019
No. 18-60031

2

been disciplined and harassed because of her race (black) and her sex and that 

those actions resulted from a complaint she had made about not receiving a 

bonus. Johnson further contended that she had been transferred as punishment for a complaint regarding safety suggestions. She also averred that male 

employees were allowed to become instructors in the training school without 

having the welding experience she had been told she must have to be an 

instructor.

After discovery, HII moved for summary judgment on the ground that

the Title VII claims were time-barred and that the evidence did not support 

Johnson’s claims under Title VII or § 1981. Johnson conceded that the 

Title VII claims were time-barred and that she was pursuing only her § 1981 

theories.

In a careful Memorandum Opinion and Order entered December 12, 

2017, the district court agreed that the Title VII claims were tardy. On Johnson’s assertion that she should not have been denied leaderman pay, the court 

observed that Johnson had proffered no evidence that she was treated less 

favorably than those outside her protected class. The court also noted that the 

denial was because of inability or failure to perform and that there was no 

evidence of pretext. Regarding retaliation, the court stated that the evidence 

showed no causal connection between any protected activity and the alleged 

adverse action of transferring Johnson from the training center.

Johnson appeals pro se. There is no error. The summary judgment, dismissing all claims, is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons convincingly 

explained by the district court. HII moves for reconsideration of the Clerk’s 

order granting Johnson’s motion to supplement the record. The motion for 

reconsideration is GRANTED. On reconsideration, the motion to supplement 

is DENIED.

 Case: 18-60031 Document: 00514849962 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2019
Exhibit 32.2

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS, INC.

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 of AirTran Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Stanley J. Gadek, Senior Vice President, Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, 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, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|              |  |     |  |                                    
|------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------
|March 9, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Stanley J. Gadek               
|              |  |     |  | Stanley J. Gadek                   
|              |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Finance, and
|              |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
# C_2007010EN.01000301.xml

| 16.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4413 — Apollo Group/GE Advanced Materials)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 10/05)

On 30 November 2006, 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32006M4413. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4413. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

(amounts in thousands except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                  Year Ended December 31,
                                                                                   1996            1995
                                                                                  ------          ------
<S>                                                                              <C>             <C>
  Primary Earnings Per Share:
  Income Applicable to Common Stock                                               $8,420          $9,074

Shares:
  Weighted average shares outstanding                                              6,596           6,583
  Dilutive effect of stock options computed by use of treasury stock method           12              47
                                                                                  ------          ------
                                                                                                 
  Average common and common equivalent shares outstanding                          6,608           6,630
                                                                                  ------          ------
  Earnings Per Share                                                              $ 1.27(a)       $ 1.37(a)
                                                                                  ======          ======
</TABLE>


(a)   This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item 601
      (b)(11) although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of APB
      Opinion No. 15 because it results in dilution of less than 3%

      1994 data is not presented above as there were no shares issued prior to
      October 1995.

      There is no difference between Primary Earnings Per Share and Fully
      Diluted Earnings Per Share.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anibal Guzman, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered November 9, 1988, convicting defendant after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to concurrent indeterminate terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

On February 22, 1988, the defendant was observed exchanging glassine envelopes for money prior to selling an undercover officer two glassines of heroin in exchange for pre-re*366corded money. At trial, evidence of the uncharged crimes, as well as of the glassine envelopes of heroin and money in the defendant’s possession, was accepted as probative of the defendant’s intent to sell. The Court gave limiting instructions to the jury as to use of the uncharged crime testimony. Defendant, on appeal, claims the acceptance of the uncharged crime testimony was sufficiently prejudicial so as to reach the level of reversible error. We do not agree.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence of uncharged crimes, as the evidence tended to establish a necessary element of the crime charged, *i.e.,*the intent to sell with respect to the possession charge, the defendant having placed his intent specifically in issue. *(People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233; *People v Diaz,*170 AD2d 395.) Prejudice was avoided by the jury instructions. *(People v Marin,*157 AD2d 521, *lv denied*75 NY2d 968.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 7, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131903 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. JODY MAY and DON EDDY, Stephen J. Markman, Co-Conservators of JOSHUA EDDY, Justices a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 131903 COA: 266417 Oakland CC: 2003-049855-NF TITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 26, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should no w be reviewed by this Court.

p0131 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 7, 2007

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
LSP-WHITEWATER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<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>                                           1,699
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,381
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,598
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,846
<PP&E>                                           8,769
<DEPRECIATION>                                     953
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 298,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,811
<BONDS>                                        175,762
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   298,740
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,733
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,170
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,170
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,170
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of approval of Saybolt LP, as a commercial gauger.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, Saybolt LP, 190 James Drive East, Suite 110, St. Rose, LA 70087, has been approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                    

*http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​*

# DATES:

The approval of Saybolt LP, as commercial gauger became effective on August 18, 2011. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2014.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Mocella, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

Dated: February 22, 2012.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. 2012-5115 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

No. 1D19-0351 

_____________________________ 

NORMAN D. REYNOLDS, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County. 

Andrew J. Decker, III, Judge. 

March 18, 2019 

PER CURIAM. 

Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this case is 

hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 

9.110(b); Peltz v. District Court of Appeal, Third Dist., 605 So. 2d 

865, 866 (Fla. 1992). 

WETHERELL, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________ 

Norman D. Reynolds, pro se, Appellant. 

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination

Facility Holcim (US) Inc. – Catskill Plant

Location Catskill, NY Greene County

Permit ID 4-1926-00021 Source Category Portland Cement Plant

I. Introduction

The above referenced facility contains at least one emission source that falls under the requirements of the federal Best Available Retr ofit Technology (BART) rule under 40 CFR Part 51 and Appendix Y, and the New York State BA RT regulation as codified under 6 NYCRR Part 249. These requirements affect an emission s ource which fulfills the following criteria:

1. Falls within one of 26 sp ecific source categories,
2. Was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962 and was in existence on August 7, 1977, or
underwent reconstruction between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and
3. Has a potential to emit (collectively, with ot her emission sources at the facility which fulfill items 1 and 2) of 250 tons per year or more of any visibility-impairing pollutant.

Emission sources that are deemed eligible by the above criteria may be exempted by the BART analysis through severa l means, as follows:

1. A permit condition may be accepted which restrict s the eligible source’s potential to emit to less than 250 tons per year for each vi sibility-impairing pollutant, as per Part 249.1(c)(1).
2. A permit condition may be accepted that requires the source to permanently shut down the unit by January 1, 2014, as per Part 249.1(c)(2).
3. The facility may show through modeling or other means acceptable to the Department that it does not or will not emit any combina tion of visibility-impairing pollutants that results in a visibility impairment equal to or greater than 0.1 deciviews in any federal Class I area, as per Part 249.1(c)(3).

II. Proposed BART Compliance Method

Holcim (US) Inc. submitted a BART analysis for their Catskill Plant, dated September 2010. The plant’s kiln had been identified as a BART -eligible unit, and this analysis presented the
technical and economic considerations of NO
x , SO 2 , and PM 10 controls.

The Catskill Plant had been “mothballed” si nce October 2010, and Holcim had planned on retaining the plant’s permits in case it wished to resume operations in the future. Recently, however, Holcim made the decision to permanen tly close the plant, a nd surrender the plant’s permits. Holcim is also currently beginning the demolition of the plant.

12 III. BART Determination

The Department finds that the closure of the Catskill Plant meets the requirements of Part 249.1(c)(2). On February 8, 2012, Holcim sent a letter to the Department’s Michael Higgins (Division of Environmental Perm its) announcing, per Part 621.11(d)(1 ), that it was relinquishing its Title V and State Facility Air Permits. The fa cility’s permits were expired by the Department, effective February 12, 2012.

Since the Department cannot include the shut down provision in a permit condition (since the permit is being relinquished), this proof of perman ent closure letter is being submitted to EPA as proof of shutdown and as a revision to the Ne w York Regional Haze State Implementation Plan.
Exhibit 23.1








Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No. 333-109878) on Form S-8 of PSB Holdings, Inc. of our report dated March 4, 2011, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of PSB Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the three years in the period ended December 31, 2010, which appears in the December 31, 2010, Annual Report on Form 10-K of PSB Holdings, Inc.








Wipfli LLP





WIPFLI LLP





Wausau, Wisconsin


March 15, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1929 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1929

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
 Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

Ms. Landrieu (for herself and Ms. Snowe) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
 Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAMS 
              UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 
              INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958.

    (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act to extend 
temporarily certain authorities of the Small Business Administration'', 
approved October 10, 2006 (Public Law 109-316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most 
recently amended by section 1 of Public Law 111-66, is amended by 
striking ``October 31, 2009'' each place it appears and inserting 
``April 30, 2010''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on October 30, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1960 

To suspend temporarily the duty on propylene glycol alginates. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

Ms. COLLINS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on propylene glycol 

alginates. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROPYLENE GLYCOL ALGINATES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Propylene glycol alginates 

(CAS No. 9005–37–2) (provided for in subheading 

3913.10.00) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1960 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2023

- 126 4

_____________________________ S HERMAN L EE H UGHLEY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. John F. Simon
, Jr., Judge

. April 30, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , N ORDBY , and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell Dixon
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.2 Ashley Moody
, Attorn ey General, Tallahassee, for Appellee

.