alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Juan Alberto Umanzor ORELLANA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1007

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: July 14, 2017

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Manuel A. Palau, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding . precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Juan Alberto Umanzor Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Orellana’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and ,that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, *see INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *In re Orellana*(B.I.A. Dec. 6, 2016).' 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (IN THOUSANDS,
EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          17,982
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,719
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (294)
<INVENTORY>                                         16
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,814
<PP&E>                                           3,386
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,074)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,603
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,311
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,400
<SALES>                                          8,002
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,002
<CGS>                                            9,004
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,004
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,891
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,129
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (33,405)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (33,405)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (33,405)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.63)


</TABLE>
Ex_106



		

			EXHIBIT 10.6

		





		
			AMENDMENT SIX
TO THE
SAVINGS EQUALIZATION PLAN OF NEWMONT 

		

		
			WHEREAS, the Savings Equalization Plan of Newmont (the “Plan”) was restated by Newmont USA Limited (the “Plan Sponsor”) effective December 31, 2008; and
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Plan Sponsor wishes to amend the Plan effective January 1, 2018 to provide that the Board of Directors may designate entities as participating employers in the Plan without requiring their consent; and
		

		
			WHEREAS, Section 9.02 of the Plan authorizes the Plan Sponsor to amend the Plan from time to time.
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective January 1, 2018 as follows:
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			Article I, the definition of “Company,” is restated as follows:




		
			“Company” means Newmont USA Limited, a Delaware corporation, and any parent, subsidiary, affiliated company or division of the Company or other legal entity related to the Company which is designated as a participating employer under the Plan by the Board of Directors or its delegate.
		

			
	
			
				 2.
			The Administration Committee or its delegate is hereby authorized to take all action necessary to implement this amendment.




		
			The foregoing was adopted this 26th day of September, 2018.
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						NEWMONT USA LIMITED

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						By 

					
					
						/s/ Stephen P. Gottesfeld

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Name 

					
					
						Stephen P. Gottesfeld

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Title 

					
					
						Vice President

				



		
			 
		


		 


		

			Savings Equalization Plan of Newmont

		


		

			Amendment Six Effective January 1, 2018

		


		

			Page 1 of 1
*Pursuant to 5th Ci r. R. 47.5, the Court has determ ined 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 January 4, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20147 Summary Calendar
DEBRA VILLAREAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION. Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-04-2481) Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff Debra Villareal, a Hispanic woman, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment on her Title VII claims in favor of her employer, Duke Energy Corporation (“Defendant”). Villareal alleges the Defendant violated Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, by discriminating against her on the basis of
sex and national origin. Villareal claims that she was forced to resign after the Defendant found that she violated its Code of Business Ethics by failing to report a co-worker’s misconduct to a2

supervisor. Villareal denies that her actions violated Defendant’s Code of Business Ethics, and claims that she was forced to resign while two white employees who engaged in similar conduct were not disciplined. The district court concluded that Villareal failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on disparate discipline because (1) she could not show that the white employees
were treatedmore favorablyunder “nearlyidentical circumstances,” see Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d 1086, 1090 (5th Cir. 1995), and (2) she failed to show that she did not violate the Code of Business Ethics. The district court also found that, even if Villareal had establishedaprima facie case of discrimination, she failed to rebut Defendant’s legitimate non-discriminatory reason for forcing her resignation. After careful review of the briefs and the record, we agree with the district court that Villareal has failed to present evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case under Title VII, or raise a genuine issue that she was forced to resign for a
reason other than her violation of Defendant’s Code of Business Ethics. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.47


                  Description of Shareholder Value Added Plan


            In 1996, the Company adopted a Shareholder Value Added Plan that
entitles participants to receive cash bonuses based on an annual aggregate award
plus any deferred award balance from the award bank. Contributions to the annual
aggregate award and the award bank are based on a fixed percentage of the
Shareholder Value Added ("SVA") plus a fixed percentage of the annual change in
SVA. SVA is defined as the amount that Net Operating Profit After Taxes exceeds
a capital charge, which is calculated as Capital Employed multiplied by the
associated Cost of Capital. Each participant's share is based on a specified
percentage of their salary in relation to the other participants.
Kaitlynn MUNCIL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3732

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 10, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed because of the appellant's failure to satisfy this court's September 20, 2017 fee order.

VILLANTI, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSE ARANDA

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 1276

[ August 16, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2013CF004688

.

Jose Aranda, Arcadia, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR

, C IKLIN and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION



The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:



|(1) | The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 9, 2005



/s/ Fred B. ParksFred B. ParksChairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Todd E. PaulsonTodd E. PaulsonVice President and Chief Financial Officer
Department of Pesticide Regulation 

Mary-Ann Warmerdam 

Director M E M O R A N D U M Arnold Schwarzenegger 

Governor 

1001 I Street • P.O. Box 4015 • Sacramento, California 95812-4015 • www.cdpr.ca.gov

A Department of the California Environmental Protection Agency 

 Printed on recycled paper, 100% post-consumer--processed chlorine-free. 

TO: James Goldstene 

Executive Officer 

 Air Resources Board 

 1001 I Street 

 Sacramento, California 95814 

 MaryLou Verder-Carlos 

FROM: Christopher W. Reardon for

 Chief Deputy Director 

 916-445-4000 

DATE: October 5, 2009 

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE PESTICIDE ELEMENT OF THE OZONE STATE 

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

On April 17, 2009, the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) adopted amendments to the 

pesticide element of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. This amendment replaces the 

pesticide SIP commitment included in the 2007 State Strategy that was adopted by the Air 

Resources Board in September 2007. 

The amendment and documents required under Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations 

section 51.102 are enclosed. At your convenience, please submit these documents to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for inclusion into California’s SIP for ozone 

for the San Joaquin Valley (SJV). 

For your convenience, this package includes hard copies and electronic copies on CD-ROM of 

the following documents for submittal to U.S. EPA: 

Enclosure 1: DPR Director’s Decision to Adopt and the Proposed SIP Commitment for the 

SJV. 

Enclosure 2: Staff Report on the DPR’s Proposed SIP Commitment for SJV. 

Enclosure 3: Copies of newspaper advertisements in the area affected (SJV) showing that the 

public was given more than 30-day notice of each hearing. 

Enclosure 4: A copy of the e-mail notice sent to interested parties and a listing of the interested 

parties, including U.S. EPA Region 9 staff and the impacted air pollution control 

district (SJV). 

Enclosure 5: A copy of the final statement of reasons for the development of amendments to 

Title 3, California Code of Regulations section 6452.2 which includes responses to 

comments on the development of the SIP amendment. 
James Goldstene 

October 5, 2009 

Page 2 

Enclosure 6: A copy of the November 5, 2008 memorandum from Rosemary Neal to 

Randy Segawa describing the methodology used to estimate pesticide volatile 

organic compound emissions. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Mr. Randy Segawa, of my staff, at 

916-324-4137. Many thanks for your assistance and support. 

cc: Mary-Ann Warmerdam, DPR Director (w/o Enclosures) 

Randy Segawa, DPR Environmental Program Manager (w/o Enclosures)
Exhibit 32

                    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 Michelex Corporation (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Annual Report"), we, Ginette Gramuglia, President and Thomas Gramuglia,
Treasurer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


Date: 4/14/04                             /s/ Ginette Gramuglia
     --------                            ----------------------
                                         Ginette Gramuglia
                                         President

Date: 4/14/04                             /s/ Thomas Gramuglia
     --------                            ---------------------
                                         Thomas Gramuglia
                                         Treasurer
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                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 on Form 10-K of PAREXEL International
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Josef H. von Rickenbach, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations
            of the Company.

Dated: September 10, 2004                         /s/ Josef H. von Rickenbach
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                  Josef H. von Rickenbach
                                                  Chairman of the Board and
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to PAREXEL International Corporation and will be retained by PAREXEL
International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# Euroopa Liidu C 182A/14.

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 182A |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 57. köide14. juuni 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 182A

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

57. köide14. juuni 2014

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Teated |
| | HALDUSMENETLUSED |
| | Euroopa personalivaliku amet (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 182A/01 | Tühistamisteade | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

V   Teated

HALDUSMENETLUSED

Euroopa personalivaliku amet (EPSO)

2014/C 182A/01

Tühistamisteade

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 182A/02 | Ülevaade ELT C-seeria A-osas avaldatud konkursiteadetest | 2 |

2014/C 182A/02

Ülevaade ELT C-seeria A-osas avaldatud konkursiteadetest

2

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

V Teated

HALDUSMENETLUSED

Euroopa personalivaliku amet (EPSO)

| 14.6.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CA 182/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CA 182/1

---

TÜHISTAMISTEADE

2014/C 182 A/01

Tühistatakse järgmised avalikud konkursid:

| — | EPSO/AST/127/13 – kreeka keele (EL) korrektorid (AST 3)

  ja |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/127/13 – kreeka keele (EL) korrektorid (AST 3)

ja

| — | EPSO/AST/128/13 – portugali keele (PT) korrektorid (AST 3), |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/128/13 – portugali keele (PT) korrektorid (AST 3),

mille kohta avaldati konkursiteade Euroopa Liidu Teatajas
   (1).

---

(1)  ELT C 131 A, 8.5.2013, lk 1.

---

14.6.2014

| 14.6.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CA 182/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CA 182/2

---

ÜLEVAADE ELT C-SEERIA A-OSAS AVALDATUD KONKURSITEADETEST

2014/C 182 A/02

Allpool on esitatud loetelu käesoleva aasta C-seeria A-osas avaldatust.

Kui ei ole märgitud teisiti, on ELTd trükitud kõigis keeltes.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          23,377
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,802
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (86)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,007
<PP&E>                                           2,605
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,588)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,276
<BONDS>                                            201
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            69
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,986
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,699
<SALES>                                          6,184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,184
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,386
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,364)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,364)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,364)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.38)
        

</TABLE>
Nosbens CHERY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3302

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 12, 2018

Eric Reichenberger of Reichenberger Law, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Taylor, Damoorgian and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Junior JOSEPH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-511

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 25, 2018

Junior Joseph, pro se, Milton.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

It appears from the record that a question was raised regarding Petitioner's competency to proceed to trial. Although the record indicates that the trial court appointed experts to evaluate Petitioner and held a competency hearing, it did not enter an order adjudicating Petitioner competent. On the face of the record, appellate counsel was ineffective for not addressing this issue in Petitioner's direct appeal. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remand this cause to *417the trial court to attempt to make a retroactive competency determination, if possible, or, failing which, to grant Petitioner a new trial once he is competent to proceed. *See**Camacho v. State* , 225 So.3d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

We deny the petition as to all other grounds.

PETITION GRANTED and CASE REMANDED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.