alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 3 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
KAYLENE MITCHELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. SHEILA E. WIDNALL, Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Air Force,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-6150 (D.C. No. CIV-95-402-A) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, ANDERSON, and BRISCOE, Circuit Jud ges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff appeals the district court’s grant of sum mary judgment on her claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1 964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-16. In the course of her employment with the United States Air Force as a mechanic, plaintiff filed several administrative complaints a lleging discriminatory treatment. In this action, she does not complain of discrimination, but of retaliation for her numerous administrative complaints. We review summary judgment orders de novo and applythe same standard as did the district court. See Thomas v. Wichita Coca-Cola Bottling Co. , 968 F.2d 1022, 1024 (10th Cir. 1992). Summary judgmentis appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving pa rty is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See id. “We view the evidence and draw any inferences in a light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgme nt, but that party must identify sufficient evidence which would require su bmission of the case to a jury.” Id. With regard to administrative complaint 92-067, the district court found that plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case of reprisal because the conduct identified by plaintiff fell short of creating a ho stile work environment and was, therefore, not actionable. See Purrington v. University of Utah , 996 F.2d 1025, 1033 (10th Cir. 1993) (holding that prima facie cas e of retaliation requires proof of protected activity, adverse action by employer, and causal relationship between-3-

protected activity and adverse employment action). In a separate order, the district court found failure to establish a prima f acie case on administrative complaint 93-289. It found that plaintiff’s 1993 p erformance appraisal was not a negative evaluation and, therefore, did not constit ute adverse employer action. After review of the record, we affirm the district court’s thorough orders of August 21, 1995, and February 28, 1996, for substantially the same reasons as set forth therein. The judgment of the United States D istrict Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge
#### STATE ON THE RELATION OF ALEXANDER LITTLE vs. WILLIAM POWELL & AL.

The power given to the County Court to appoint a constable, in case of a vacancy, is a *special*power, and cannot be exercised without the presence of *seven*justices; otherwise both the appointment and the bond given under it are void.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Richmond county, at the Spring Term, 1842, his Honor Judge Nash presiding. This was an action against the defendants on a paper writing, purporting to be given by one Sedbury and the defendants as his sureties, on a bond upon his appointment as constable, and dated the 16th of January, 1838. The signing and sealing of the instrument were proved, and *276that it was regularly filed by the Clerk of the County Court of Richmond, among the constables’ bonds in his office, Further, to prove the delivery of the paper writing and its acceptance by1 the court, the records of the County Court of Richmond of the January Term, 1838, were produced, where the following entry appears: “ On motion, Shadrach H. Sedbury was appointed constable, gave bond with William Powell, John Morrison and Stephen Terry securities.” This entry was made on Wednesday, the 17th of January, 1838, when the court was held by three magistrates only. It was admitted that the said Sedbury was not elected, either by the people or by the County Court, but was appointed as above stated. It was objected by the defendant’s counsel that the paper writing declared on was void, because Sedbury was not elected either by the people or by the County Court of Richmond, seven magistrates being on the bench. — but that he was appointed by a court consisting of but three magistrates — and that a court so constituted, was not the legally constituted agent of the State to receive the said paper writing as a bond, The court being of this opinion, the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit, and appealed.

*Winston*for the plaintiff.

*Badger*and *Strange*for the defendants.

Gaston, J.

The County Court derives *all*its power of appointing constables and taking bonds from them from the Statute, to which we have referred in the opinion delivered in the case brought on the relation *of McRae’s Administrators*against *Wall*and *Garrott,*(supra p. 267.) It is ordered to supply a vacancy, when no election has been made by the people, “ seven justices being present.” From this order flows its authority, which is *necessarily special.*It is given to the court, seven justices *being*present, but not otherwise. The appointment, therefore, in this case, was wholly without authority, and, for the reasons given in the case already referred to, the instrument given as an official bond was altogether inoperative, because not accepted by an authorized agent of the State.

Per Curiam, Judgment affirmed.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 29, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 771 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-466, K2025-463.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27929 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### H. T. JEFFREES and another v. S. T. GREEN and wife.

*Married Women*— Deed *of Trust.*

Where a married woman purchased certain real estate taking title to herself, and borrowed money with which to pay the purchase money, and to defray necessary family expenses and for carrying on her farming operations on other lands, and to secure the sum borrowed executed with her husband a deed of trust on certain land of her separate estate ; *It was held,*that such deed of trust was valid.

*(Purvis*v. *Carstaphan,*73 N. C. 575; *Pippen*v. *Wesson,*74 N. C. 437; *Atkinson*v. *Richardson,*Ib. 455, cited, distinguished and approved.)

Controversy submitted without action under C. C. P., § 315, at Spring Term, 1878, of Warren Superior Court, before *Seymour, J.*

The facts appear in the opinion. His Honor held that the deed of trust was valid, and the defendants appealed.

*Messrs. Merrimon, Fuller f Ashe,*for plaintiffs.

No counsel in this Court for defendants.

Fairoloth, J.

The case is; this: The feme defendant purchased a house and lot and took title to herself, and borrowed money with which to pay the purchase price, and to defray necessary family expenses, and for “ carrying on her farming operations upon her several tracts of land,” and she and her husband conveyed, by deed and privy *331examination duly tak.en, one of her several tracts of land in trust to secure the. payment of said borrqwed money. Is the land thus: conveyed ImbleJor the debt ?

"We can' scarcely see any room for argumentation except ©n the theory that a feme covert can not sell or charge her separate estate for her own benefit, or the improvement of her own. property. This, would go much beyond the purpose of the liberal legislation of the State in favor of married women, and would be highly judicial to their material, interests.

The cases to which we were *referred*—Purvis v. *Carstaphan,*73 N. C., 575; *Pippen*v. *Wesson,*74 N. C., *437;*and *Atkinson*v. Richardson, Ib. 455—were contracts for the benefit of the husband, or her estate was not charged. In the latter case there was. n.o express charge on the land, and it was sought to be charged by implication, but this was not allowed. It was there said that “ a married woman may purchase property for ready money, but not on credit ; and she may contract debts for the benefit of separate property which she, already owns, as for building a house on the premises,^ &c.

Let it be certified that there is no error, and let the sale proceed according to the agreement of the parties.

No error. Affirmed.
#### Rathenberger, Respondent, vs. Jacob, Appellant.

*March 7*

April *3, 1918.*

*Appeal: Affirmance lry equally divided court: Master and servant: Breach of duty: Forfeiture of compensation.*

A decision of the circuit court to the effect that a salesman whose employer’s contract of agency with an automobile company was to expire at an early date did not, by soliciting for himself the appointment to such agency after that date, so breach his contract with his employer as to forfeit the amount due to him thereunder, is affirmed, this court being equally divided on the question.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Marathón county: A. H. Reid, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Plaintiff was a salesman in tbe employ of defendant, wbo bad a contract with the Ford Motor Company for an agency in this state. Defendant’s contract expired August 1, 1915. During June and July of that year and while still in defendant’s employ as such salesman the plaintiff and a third person circulated and obtained signatures to a petition recommending plaintiff and such other person to the Ford Motor Company for appointment to the agency then held by the defendant for the new term commencing at the expiration of defendant’s then existing contract.

The efforts of plaintiff were unsuccessful in that regard and defendant obtained a renewal on his contract. Defendant did not know of such efforts by the plaintiff until after August 1st, and then refused to- pay a balance claimed by plaintiff under the contract between them on the ground that there had been a breach of duty By plaintiff towards the defendant in so soliciting such new contract for himself while in defendant’s employ.

The action was tried without a jury, and the court found that plaintiff’s efforts to secure the agency did not constitute a breach of his contract with defendant and did not work a *274forfeiture of tbe amount claimed by him, and granted bim judgment for tbe amount claimed. From tbis judgment defendant appealed.

For tbe appellant there was a brief by *Kreutzer,, Bird, Okoneslci & Buchner*of Wausau, and oral argument by *O. B. Bird.*

For tbe respondent tbe cause was submitted on tbe brief of *B. A. Morse*of Autigo.

Eschweileb, J.

Justice Rosenberry did not participate in tbis case. Tbe Chief Justice and Justices Vinje and OwEN are of tbe opinion that tbe judgment should be reversed; Justices SiebeoKeb, Kerwin, and tbe writer that it should be affirmed. It follows under tbe rule that tbe judgment of tbe lower court must be affirmed. *Estate of Carter, ante,*p. 89, 166 N. W. 657,

*By the Court.*— The judgment of tbe circuit court is affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 93403-93405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27642]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more 
applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and 
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions 
with them.

DATES: This action was issued on November 19, 2024. See SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section for relevant dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Associate Director for Global 
Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; or Assistant Director for Sanctions 
Compliance, tel.: 202-622-2490; or https://ofac.treasury.gov/contact-ofac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov.

Notice of OFAC Action

    On November 19, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed 
below.

Individuals

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[[Page 93404]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO24.000

[[Page 93405]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO24.001

Lisa M. Palluconi,
Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
[FR Doc. 2024-27642 Filed 11-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 94772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28013]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 29, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 22, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 792 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-497, K2025-495.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-28013 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
EXHIBIT  99.1

                         JOSHUA TREE CONSTRUCTION, 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Joshua Tree
Construction, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending
December 31, 2001, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Hoyng, the President, Chief Executive
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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



                                               /S/ DANIEL HOYNG
                                               ----------------
                                               Daniel Hoyng,
                                               CEO, Secretary and Principal
                                               Accounting Officer
December 26, 2002




<PAGE>
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-1520 

PORTFOLIO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Appellant, 

v. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Appellee, 

 and 

CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., 

 Intervenor, 

 and 

INTELLX, INC. and MEDTECH PRODUCTS, LTD., 

 Intervenors. 

Richard P. Beem, Beem Patent Law Firm, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for appellant. 

With him on the brief was John R. Linzer. Of counsel on the brief were Paul J. Kozacky

and Jerome R. Weitzel, Kozacky & Weitzel, of Chicago, Illinois. 

Mark B. Rees, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States International 

Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were 

James M. Lyons, General Counsel, and Andrea C. Casson, Assistant General Counsel for 

Litigation. 

James H. Shalek, Proskauer Rose LLP, of New York, New York, argued for 

intervenors Church & Dwight Co., Inc. With him on the brief were Alan Federbush and 

Baldassare Vinti. Of counsel on the brief were Steven P. Hollman, Lewis E. Leibowitz, 

Susan M. Cook, and Rebecca C. Mandel, Hogan & Hartson, LLP, of Washington, DC. 

David Lieberworth, Garvey Schubert Barer, of Seattle, Washington, for intervenors 

Intellix, Inc., and Medtech Products, Ltd. With him on the brief was Lizabeth Levinson, of 

Washington, DC. 

Appealed from: United States International Trade Commission 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-1520 

PORTFOLIO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

 Appellant, 

v. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

 Appellee, 

and 

CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., 

 Intervenor, 

and 

INTELLX, INC. and MEDTECH PRODUCTS, LTD., 

 Intervenors. 

Judgment 

ON APPEAL from the United States International Trade Commission 

 

in CASE NO(S). 337-TA-546

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (SCHALL, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and 

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge) 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATED _June 10, 2008 /s/ Jan Horbaly______________ 

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of PhytoMedical Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on the Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Greg Wujek, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(i)

the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)

The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                   |  |                                 |  |                                                 
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | PHYTOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
|                   |  |                                 |  |                                                 
|Date: May 11, 2006 |  | By:                             |  | /s/ Greg Wujek                                  
|                   |  |                                 |  | Greg Wujek
President and Chief Executive Officer



This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 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 Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Dayron L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 542]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), entered October 8, 1993, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated July 12, 1993, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and granted him a conditional discharge. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order dated July 12, 1993.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant’s contentions that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he knew that he did not have the consent of the owner of the subject vehicle and to specifically identify the vehicle are unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Rodriguez,*200 AD2d 775; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the appellant’s identity as a perpetrator of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the fact-finding order was not against the weight of the evidence. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.