alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.2


 


Summary of Oral Agreement for Payment of Services


between Cephalon, Inc.


and


its Board of Directors


dated May 18, 2005


 


The Stock Option and
Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors reviews annually
the cash compensation paid to members of the Board.  During such review, the Committee compares the
cash compensation to that paid by other companies within its peer group, as
determined by a third party consultant.  Prior
to May 2005, non-employee members of Cephalon’s Board of Directors
received an annual retainer of $30,000 and a $3,000 fee for each Board meeting
attended.  Additionally, on an annual
basis, the members of each of the Board’s committees received a $10,000
retainer for each committee membership, while the chair of each committee
received a $12,000 retainer.  During its
most recent compensation review in May 2005, the Committee recommended a $20,000
annual cash retainer for the Board’s Presiding Director.  In addition, Board members will now receive a $2,000 fee
for each meeting of the Board they participate in by telephone.  Prior to this change, fees were paid only for
meetings attended by a director in person.  The annual base cash retainer for all Board
members remains at $30,000, and in-person per meeting fees remain $3,000.  The Board of Directors will continue to be
reimbursed for expenses incurred to attend board meetings.  All directors will continue to receive
options to purchase 15,000 shares of common stock upon their initial election
to the Board and 10,000 more upon their annual re-elections.  The initial stock option grant vests over a
four-year period.  Since the annual amount
is viewed as compensation, it is 100% vested when awarded.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES BRYANT PHIFER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SACRAMENTO CITY AND COUNTY

HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY and ANNE MOORE, Executive

Director,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-17222

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00747-LKKDAD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

James Bryant Phifer appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his action alleging that defendants discriminated against him on the

FILED

MAR 04 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-17222

basis of his race and disability by denying his reasonable accommodation request

to transfer to another housing unit, and changing his enrollment date on the waiting

list for a Housing Choice Voucher program. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Gamble

v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300, 304 (9th Cir. 1997), and for an abuse of

discretion the denial of leave to amend, Chodos v. West Publishing Co., 292 F.3d

992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Phifer’s

discrimination claims because he failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as

to whether defendants denied his transfer request because of his race or disability,

failed to accommodate his disability, or changed his Housing Choice Voucher

program enrollment date. See Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041,

1045 (9th Cir. 1999) (Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act);

Gamble, 104 F.3d at 306-07 (Fair Housing Act); Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health Sys.

Corp., 29 F.3d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir. 1994) (Title VI), overruled on other grounds

by Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 241 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2001) (en

banc).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Phifer’s motion to

amend his complaint after the scheduling order deadline because Phifer failed to
3 09-17222

show “good cause.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09

(9th Cir. 1992) (Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard applies when a plaintiff seeks

to amend a complaint after the scheduling order deadline, and the primary

consideration in the good cause determination is the “diligence of the party seeking

the amendment”).

Phifer’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not consider Phifer’s contentions raised for the first time on appeal. 

See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146

(9th Cir. 2008).

We deny Phifer’s motion to strike and request for judicial notice. We grant

defendants’ request for judicial notice.

AFFIRMED.
i ' I • 

SERVED: March 24, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

IXL PREMIUM LUBRICANTS, INC. 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-0634 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORDER REASSIGNING PROCEEDING 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin has transferred to the Food and Drug 

Administration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge Goodwin to 

Administrative Law Judge Douglas M. Rawald. Any dates set for hearing or prehearing 

conference are suspended until further notice. All other orders remain in full force and effect 

absent further order. 

SO ORDERED. 

Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative La 

Attachment-Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

ONE COPY 

Jordan Olsen, Head of Operations 

IXL Premium Lubricants, Inc., Respondent 

2719 North 1600 West 

Pleasant View, UT 84404 

TEL: 801-732-8885 

Glenn H. Brown, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division- Western Team 

222 W. i 11 Avenue, Box 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5271 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. F AA-2015-0634 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
EXHIBIT 32.2




        Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Thai One On,
Inc. (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Au E-Mun, Chief
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of Registrant,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

   (1)  the quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.


Date:  May 13, 2005          /s/ Au E-Mun
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer of
                              Thai One On, Inc., Registrant
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Elora CLAVO.

No. 87-KK-1478.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 24, 1987.

In re Clavo, Elora; applying for writ of certiorari and supervisory writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “I”, No. 318-957; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. KW-7941.

Granted. Rulings of the lower courts are reversed. Defendant is entitled to a pre-trial ruling on constitutionality and admissibility of the prior convictions for purposes of the present case.

LEMMON, J., dissents from the order.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2342 

To suspend temporarily the duty on glyoxylic acid. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on glyoxylic acid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GLYOXYLIC ACID. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.04.91 Glyoxylic acid (CAS No. 

298–12–4) (provided for in 

subheading 2918.30.90) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2342 IS

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 139 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 139

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Resolution:
            (1) Event.--The term ``event'' means the dedication of the 
        National Japanese-American Memorial to Patriotism .
            (2) Sponsor.--The term ``sponsor'' means the National 
        Japanese-American Memorial Foundation.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF EVENT TO CELEBRATE THE DEDICATION OF THE 
              NATIONAL JAPANESE-AMERICAN MEMORIAL.

    The National Japanese-American Memorial Foundation may sponsor the 
dedication of the National Japanese-American Memorial to Patriotism on 
the Capitol grounds on November 9, 2000, or on such other date as the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and 
Administration of the Senate may jointly designate.

SEC. 3. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--The event shall be open to the public, free of 
admission charge, and arranged so as not to interfere with the needs of 
Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol and the Capitol Police Board.
    (b) Expenses and Liabilities.--The sponsor shall assume full 
responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all 
activities associated with the event.

SEC. 4. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

    (a) Structures and Equipment.--
            (1) In general.--Subject to the approval of the Architect 
        of the Capitol, beginning on November 8, 2000, the sponsor may 
        erect or place and keep on the Capitol grounds, until not later 
        than 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 11, 2000, such stage, 
        sound amplification devices, and other related structures and 
        equipment as are required for the event.
    (b) Additional Arrangements.--The Architect of the Capitol and the 
Capitol Police Board may make any such additional arrangements as are 
appropriate to carry out the event.

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act of July 31, 1946 (40 
U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), concerning sales, advertisements, displays, 
and solicitations on the Capitol grounds, as well as other restrictions 
applicable to the Capitol grounds, with respect to the event.

            Passed the Senate September 28 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 139

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the dedication of the 
               Japanese-American Memorial to Patriotism.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      I, Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, President and
Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the "Registrant"),
certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly
report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 of the Registrant (the
"Report"):

          (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
    Registrant.

                                      By:      /s/ Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D.


                                               Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D.
                                         CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRESIDENT AND
                                               Co-Chairman of the Board of
                                                      DIRECTORS OF
                                                    METAMORPHIX, INC.

Date:  October 3, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6700]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>13029 and <greek-i>13030]


Kentucky Disaster Number KY-00044

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------A
CTION:

     Amendment 3.
SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4057-DR), dated 
03/06/2012.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight-line Winds, and 
Flooding.
    Incident Period: 02/29/2012 through 03/03/2012.
    Effective Date: 03/13/2012.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/07/2012.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/06/2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, dated 03/06/2012 is 
hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by 
the disaster:

Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Grayson, 
Larue, Ohio, Russell, Trimble.

Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Kentucky: Adair, Breckinridge, Butler, Casey, Clinton, Cumberland, 
Daviess, Edmonson, Green, Hancock, Hardin, Hart, Marion, Mclean, 
Muhlenberg, Nelson, Oldham, Taylor, Wayne.
    Indiana: Clark.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Lisa Lopez-Suarez,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-6700 Filed 3-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Pearl Glassberg, Plaintiff, *v.*New York City Transit Authority, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

October 23, 1958.

*Benjamin Spector*for plaintiff.

*Daniel T. Scannell*for defendant.

James S. Brown, J.

Plaintiff moves in this negligence action for an order directing defendant to furnish a copy of its physician’s report and findings of a physical examination made of plaintiff on June 24, 1958.

The papers show that the physical examination was orally consented to, obviating the necessity of a court order, that otherwise would be required under section 306 of the Civil Practice Act. It is evident that counsel up to this point were co-operative, resulting in a minimum of paper work for themselves and the court. However, plaintiff’s request for a copy of the examination was refused.

Defendant opposes the application, contending that the General Municipal Law, as amended, is inapplicable as to it, and that it was not the intent of the Legislature to include defendant Transit Authority under section 50-h, which provides for a uniform procedure for claims against municipalities. *457Such opposition is untenable. Defendant being a legislative creation is subject to the provisions of the Civil Practice Act which should be liberally construed (Civ. Prac. Act, art. I, § 2), so as to realize the full force and effect of its purpose to simplify the practice and expedite justice *(Continental Ins. Co.*v. *Equitable Trust Co.,*137 Misc. 28, affd. 229 App. Div. 657).

The courts daily express the view that greater amity and co-operation between counsel would redound greatly to the enhancement of our time-honored profession and prove of immeasurable aid to the Justices presiding. In an analogous application, where the defendant claimed that as a result of the plaintiff’s attorneys not requiring them to bring on a formal motion for a physical examination, plaintiff lost the right he otherwise would have had, to obtain a copy of the physician’s report, the court held that such a position did not appeal to it, and in its discretion granted the motion, stating “ plaintiff should not be penalized for lightening the motion calendar of the Court by expeditiously granting the examination that could have been obtained by motion.” *(Martin*v. *La Fonte,*53 N. Y. S. 2d, 415, 416.)

The courts in this department sanction the requirement that a copy of the examining physician’s report (following an “ ordered ” physical) be sent to the attorney for plaintiff *(Tutone*v. *New York Cons. R. R. Co.,*189 App. Div. 954; *Goldenberg*v. *Zirinsky,*114 App. Div. 827, cited with approval in *Del Ra*v. *Vaughan,*2 A D 2d 156). The general trend of the practice in personal injury cases is to attempt to narrow down the areas of medical dispute, and the aim is, ultimately, with the assistance of the medical profession, to eliminate most of the controversy on the medical side of personal injury cases *(Del Ra*case, *supra).*

Motion granted. Settle order on notice.
#### R.E. ODOM, et al. v. POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH.

No. 87-CC-2678.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Odom, R.E.; Gray, J.G., Estate of; Odom, B.M., Estate of; Palvest Inc.; Lyons, Theo A., Succ. of; Benckenstein, C. Ellis; Exploration Co. of La. Inc.; Bel Estate; Benckenstein Estate; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court, Div. “B” No. 87-5282; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW87-1238.

Denied.

WATSON, J., would grant, being of the opinion that the action of the police jury causing serious injury to plaintiffs is surely subject to judicial examination and possible reversal if found arbitrary and capricious.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 1626

BOR

- TYNG SHEEN; FANG LUN TSAO; FUNG I. YUAN; TZU

- KUAN LIN; CHEN

- YU WEI; WEN

- WANG YANG , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

- Appellee

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Richard E. Myers, II , Chief District Judge. ( 5:20

- cv - 00225

- M )

Submitted : January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022

Before WILKINSON , DIAZ , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Bor

- Tyng Sheen; Fang Lun Tsao; Fung I. Yuan; Tzu

- Kuan Lin; Chen

- Yu Wei; Wen

- Wang Yang, Appellants Pro Se. Asia Jamar Prince, OFFIC E OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1626 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Bor

- Tyng Sheen , Fang Lun Tsao , Fung I. Yuan , Tzu

- Kuan Lin , Chen

- Yu Wei , and Wen

- Wang Yang (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s order dismissing their c ivil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error . Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the d istrict court. Sheen v. United States , No. 5:20

- cv - 00225

- M (E.D.N.C. Apr. 15, 2021) . 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. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-1626 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 42

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a commemorative postage stamp

should be issued by the United States Postal Service honoring the members of the Armed Forces who have been awarded the Purple Heart.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 24, 1999

Mr. ROBB submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Commmittee on Governmental Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a commemorative

postage stamp should be issued by the United States

Postal Service honoring the members of the Armed

Forces who have been awarded the Purple Heart.

Whereas the Order of the Purple Heart for Military Merit,

commonly known as the Purple Heart, is the oldest military decoration in the world in present use;

Whereas the Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the

President of the United States to members of the Armed

Forces who are wounded in conflict with an enemy force

or while held by an enemy force as a prisoner of war, and

posthumously to the next of kin of members of the

Armed Forces who are killed in conflict with an enemy
2

•SCON 42 IS

force or who die of a wound received in conflict with an

enemy force;

Whereas the Purple Heart was established on August 7,

1782, during the Revolutionary War, when General

George Washington issued an order establishing the Honorary Badge of Distinction, otherwise known as the

Badge of Military Merit or the Decoration of the Purple

Heart;

Whereas the award of the Purple Heart ceased with the end

of the War of the Revolution, but was revived out of respect for the memory and military achievements of

George Washington in 1932, the year marking the 200th

anniversary of his birth; and

Whereas 1999 is the year marking the 200th anniversary of

the death of George Washington: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) a commemorative postage stamp should be

4 issued by the United States Postal Service honoring

5 the members of the Armed Forces who have been

6 awarded the Purple Heart; and

7 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee

8 should recommend to the Postmaster General that

9 such a stamp be issued in 1999, the year marking

10 the 200th anniversary of the death of George Wash11 ington.

Æ
#### Donovan Patrick ALLEN v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 87-C-1080.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Allen, Donovan Patrick; applying for writ of certiorari; the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-6324; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “D”, No. 85-7251.

Prior report: La.App., 504 So.2d 637.

Denied.