alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 2034

FERNANDO LIGHTFOOT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS; DAVID HUDSON, Principal of RPS’s Linwood Holton Elementary School; DANA T. BEDDEN, Superintendent

- RPS , Defendants

- Appellees , and KIMBERLY GRAY, RPS Board Member 2nd District; KRISTEN LARSON, RPS Board Member 4th District; DONALD COLEMAN, RSP Board Member 7th District; JEFFREY BOURNE, RPS Board Member 3rd District; DERIK JONES, RP S Board Member 8th District; GLEN STURTEVANT, RPS Board Member 1st District; ANTHONY LEONARD, Executive Director of Elementary Schools, RPS,
Defendants.

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

. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:16

- cv
- 00910

- REP )

Submitted : April 18, 2018 Decided: July 5, 2018

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 JeRoyd W. Greene, III, ROBINSON AND GREENE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jeremy D. Capps, Melissa Y. York, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, P.C., Glen Allen, Virginia; Christopher S. Dadak, GUYNN & WADDELL, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublishe d opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Fernando Lightfoot appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’
motions to dismiss his sexual harassment and retaliation claims, brought pur s uant to Title VII of the Civil Right s Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e

- 17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2017) , and his due process and state law tortious interference with employment

contract claims

. We have reviewed the record and have considered the parties ’ arguments and discern no revers ible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Lightfoot v. Richmond Pub. Sch. , No. 3:16

- cv
- 00910

- REP (E.D.
Va. Aug. 11, 2017). 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
#### Florence H. CHANCE and Provident Trust Company of Philadelphia, Executors of the Estate of Thomas M. Chance, Deceased, and Marcus A. Walker, Maude Staples and Scranton Lackawanna Trust Company, Executors of the Estate of Harry O. Staples, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEHIGH NAVIGATION COAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 6969.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Dec. 8, 1939.

Paul & Paul, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Merrell E. Clark, of New York City, Hugh M. Morris, of Wilmington, Del., Henry N. Paul, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., and William J. Barnes, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Howson & Howson, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Charles H. Howson, Dexter N. Shaw, Samuel D. Matlack, and Wm. J. Turner, all of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before BIGGS, MARIS, and BIDDLE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The decree of the district court is affirmed upon the opinion of Judge Kirkpatrick, 25 F.Supp. 532.
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

June 29, 2018 
 Michael J. Bibak 

687 Christians Drive 
 Harrisburg, PA 17112 

Re: Notice of Non-Renewal of Executive Employment Agreement 

Dear Michael: 
 This letter serves as Written Notice of the
Corporation’s and Bank’s intention not to extend the term of your Executive Employment Agreement with the Bank and the Corporation, dated August 18, 2017, pursuant to Section 1.3(b) of that Agreement. Consequently, the Executive
Employment Agreement will expire effective September 30, 2019. 
 We also remind you that you are a party to restrictive covenants regarding
non-competition, non-solicitation, confidentiality and non-disclosure as set forth in Section 3 of your Executive Employment Agreement, and hat your obligations under those restrictive covenants survive
the expiration of the term of the Executive Employment Agreement. 
 Sincerely, 
  

	
	 /s/ Kirk D. Fox

	 Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.34



CARROLS HOLDINGS CORPORATION



EXTENSION OF STOCK OPTION AWARDS



THIS EXTENSION, dated as of March 1, 2002, is made by and between Carrols Holdings Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (hereinafter called the Company), and Paul Flanders, an employee of Carrols Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Optionee). All capitalized terms herein shall have such meanings as are ascribed to them in
the Plan (as defined below) and in this agreement (the Agreement).



|1. |  | Optionee has previously been granted nonqualifed stock options (the Options) to purchase shares of common stock, $.01 par value per share, of Carrols
Holdings Corporation, under the Carrols Holdings Corporation 1996 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended from time to time (the Plan), and the nonqualified stock option agreement(s) related thereto (the Award Agreements).
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to extend the expiration dates of
the options, beyond the dates set forth in the Award Agreements.
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. |  | The expiration date for the Options is extended to February 29, 2012.
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. |  | All other terms and conditions applicable to the Options as set forth in the Plan and the Award Agreements remain unmodified.
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  |  | CARROLS HOLDINGS CORPORATION
| |  |  |  | ----------------------------
|
| |  |  |  |                             
| |  |  |  |                             
| |  |  |  |                             



Accepted and Agreed to

this 1stday of March, 2002



/S/    PAUL FLANDERS

---

Paul Flanders
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,131,091
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,026,847
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  8,781,641
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,835,799
<PP&E>                                      10,258,069
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,325,474
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,295,884
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,816
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,917,464
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,325,474
<SALES>                                     38,497,695
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,497,695
<CGS>                                       29,974,770
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               36,453,586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             960,340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,177,261
<INCOME-TAX>                                   413,040
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            764,221
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   764,221
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 98 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 98

   To amend title 11 of the United States Code to dispense with the 
  requirement of providing assurance of payment for utility services 
                      under certain circumstances.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2015

Mr. Conyers (for himself, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. 
   Lofgren, and Ms. Norton) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 11 of the United States Code to dispense with the 
  requirement of providing assurance of payment for utility services 
                      under certain circumstances.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preventing Termination of Utility 
Services in Bankruptcy Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

    Section 366 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section in a case 
in which the debtor is an individual, if the debtor pays in the 20-day 
period beginning on the date of the order for relief debts owed to a 
utility for service provided during such period and thereafter pays 
when due debts owed to such utility for service provided during the 
pendency of the case, then the debtor may not be required to furnish 
assurance of payment.''.
                                 <all>
```
# Mexico-US cooperation Duncan Wood ITAM & Mexico Institute WWICS http://www.issuu.com/ecspwwc/docs/usmexico_cooperation_in_renewable_energies

# Wind
• Oaxaca • Baja Cal. • Tamaulipas • Private supply • Export Solar

• High insolation • High cost • Lack of government support • Long term export potential Biofuels

• Ethanol • Jatropha • Biodiesel • Methane capture • NADBank

##  

# MREP of the 1990s and 2000s  

# Geothermal cooperation  

# Oaxaca wind projects  

# La Rumorosa wind development for export  

# NADBank projects**Economic benefits**

• Direct creation of temporary and permanent jobs • Indirect creation of temporary and permanent jobs – services sectors . • Local and state government energy savings through self-supply projects– benefits passed on to tax payer • Electricity subsidies for local inhabitants . • Electricity supply to off grid communities • Infrastructure investment (roads, water, etc) **Knowledge spillover and**  **development of human**  **capital** • Knowledge and information networks that permeate through multiple social spheres • Specialization in institutes of higher education. • Creation of research and training centers. • Increased interaction between government, business and civil society. **Social participation**

• Communication between government, business and local populations . • Make sure local community becomes stakeholder • Acceptance of projects as driver of local development • Lessons from Oaxaca

## 6 jobs per MW of turbine production 100-450

jobs/ yr/ TWh installed For every job created in

manufacturing installation and operation of wind energy, at least one more created in research, financing, consulting services . The importance of clusters Texas example: 10,000 jobs from windBaja

California • Geothermal • Wind • Solar • Biogas Sonora

• Solar • Biogas Chihuahua

• Wind (W. Chihuahua) • Solar • Biogas Coahuila

• Biogas Nuevo Leon

• Biogas – 45% of public lighting in Monterrey Tamaulipas

• Wind • Biogas

# WIND SOLAR

La Rumorosa – potential of between 1.8GW (US DOE/NREL) -2.4 GW (RETI). 6 kWh/day/m2• Public lighting in Mexicali (80%) • Reduced tax bill • 50% subsidy on electricity bill • Human capital spillover 

# La Rumorosa 1

• Wind for export – to California (RPS) • $500/month for ranchers 

# Future development:

• Financing • Subsidies • Infrastructure • Regulation • Social dimensions – how to ensure private sector fair play? 

# Obstacles:

# Mexico’s Northeast 

# Tamaulipas:
• Wind energy potential • No outlet to U.S. • Private sector demand • Need for state government support
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40959

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GENARO BARRENO-CUJUY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CR-156-1

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Genaro BarrenoCujuy has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Barreno-Cujuy has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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

April 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40959 Document: 00513473084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2016
No. 15-40959

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-40959 Document: 00513473084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2016
EXHIBIT 32.a



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 Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund III L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., 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, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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 Partnership.



|Date:             |  |                            
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------
|November 17, 2008 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  | John P. Manning            
|                  |  | Principal Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### HERRING, LTD., a Utah Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CANYON-LINCOLN MERCURY, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and R. W. Safford, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 13974.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 31, 1976.

Carl J. Nemelka, of Nemelka & Coles-sides, Salt Lake City; for plaintiff and appellant.

Randon W. Wilson, Edward J. Mc-Donough, and R. Jeffrey Taylor, of Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents.

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a judgment in favor of Canyon, lessor and defendant, in a damage suit brought by Herring, Lessee, for failure of the lessor to comply with the terms of a lease having to do with a used car lot facility. Affirmed with costs to Canyon.

The gravamen of this case is property primarily to be employed in selling used cars. The lessee wanted to sublet a garage area for a body repair and paint shop. He was not allowed to rent the area unless substantial repairs were made to satisfy the city fire ordinances. Herring thereupon demanded that Canyon make the repairs. The latter refused, and Herring returned the keys and left, to file this damage suit based on alleged breach of contract, assigning impossibility as a reason therefor, and citing *Sine v.*Rudy1 as authority.

The main purpose of the lease being to sell used cars, and not to operate a body repair and paint shop, the *Sine*case is not *626dispositive or pertinent, nor are the well known Coronation cases familiar to students and practitioners.

ELLETT, CROCKETT, TUCKETT and MAUGHAN, TL, concur.

1

. 27 Utah 2d 67, 493 P.2d 299 (1972).
##### 



Exhibit
13.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the annual report on Form 20-F of KHD Humboldt Wedag International Ltd. for the year ended
December 31, 2007 (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 KHD Humboldt Wedag International Ltd.
 Dated: March 31, 2008/s/ Alan HartsliefAlan HartsliefChief Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal Financial Officer)
#### State v. Koli

25877

12/30/2004

Reversed
Exhibit 99.2
 
 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 Quarterly Report of AFG Investment Trust C (the Trust), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Trusts Managing Trustee, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
 (1)  the Report of the Trust filed today 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 Trust.
 
 /s/ Richard K Brock
 Richard K Brock
 Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of AFG ASIT Corp.,
 the Managing Trustee of the Trust
 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 May 12, 2003
September 21, 2004

23787

#### Hutchinson v. State; Does v. Nakano

Affirmed
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**


CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











CONSENT
      OF
      INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
      have
      issued our reports dated February 17, 2006, accompanying the consolidated
      financial statements and schedule and management’s assessment of the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the
      Annual Report of Chattem, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30,
      2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in
      the
      Registration Statements of Chattem, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-69397,
      effective December 22, 1998), Form S-4 (No. 333-113808, effective March 22,
      2004) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-125149, effective May 23, 2005, File No.
      33-35386, effective June 13, 1990, File No. 33-78524, effective May 4, 1994,
      File No. 33-78522, effective May 4, 1994, File No. 333-104888 effective May
      1,
      2003, File No. 333-39558, effective June 19, 2000, File No. 333-79809, effective
      June 2, 1999, File No. 55640, effective December 10, 1992, and File No.
      333-61267, effective August 12, 1998).




/s/
      GRANT
      THORNTON LLP




Charlotte,
      North Carolina





February
      17, 2006
Order entered November 21, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00844-CR

No. 05-22-00850-CR

No. 05-22-00851-CR

No. 05-22-00877-CR

ENRIQUE GERARDO ESQUIVEL-MESEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 199-83448-2021,

199-83449-2021, 199-83450-2021 & 199-83451-2021

ORDER

Before the Court is the November 17, 2022 second request of court reporter 

Robyn M. Rodriguez for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We 

GRANT the request and ORDER the reporter’s record filed by December 19, 

2022.
–2–

We caution Ms. Rodriguez that further requests to extend the time to file the 

reporter’s record will be disfavored.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply605Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Pat Riedmatter  (not verified)PermalinkMarch 3, 2023 - 10:33amThanks for that beautiful capital tour of America the Beautiful. I am most grateful for you ,Brad Wenstup, for being our rep. God has blessed us and America with you.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
# Nevada_county_differentials_202