alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HANES CARIBE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLOBAL MANUFACTURERS AND CONTRACTORS, S.A., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-1722

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: May 10, 2017

Decided: June 5, 2017

ARGUED: Adam Howard Chames, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, Winston-Salem, North- Carolina, for Appellant. Donald B. Kaufman, MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jason M. Wenker, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Thurston H. Webb, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant. Christopher A. Page, YOUNG MOORE AND HENDERSON, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Hanes Caribe, Inc. appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered in *125the Middle District of North Carolina in favor of defendant Global Manufacturers and Contractors, S.A. (“GMC”). The district court, by Memorandum Opinion and Order of June 1, 2016, ruled that it lacked personal jurisdiction over GMC, denied several related motions, and rejected the effort of Hanes Caribe to litigate its dispute with GMC in the federal court in North Carolina. *See Hanes Caribe, Inc. v. Global Mfrs. & Contractors, S.A.,*No. 1:15-cv-972, at 27-36, 2016 WL 3093927 (M.D.N.C. June 7, 2016) (the “Opinion”) (explaining after thorough analysis the lack of federal jurisdiction in dispute involving GMC, a Haitian manufacturer of T-shirts (on the one hand), and Hanes Caribe, a foreign subsidiary of North Carolina-based Hanesbrands (on the other hand)).

We have carefully assessed the contentions of the parties, as explained in their well-crafted briefs and at oral argument. We have also reviewed and evaluated the record on appeal and the various factual and legal authorities relied upon and argued by the parties. Pursuant thereto, we are satisfied that the jurisdictional ruling made by the district court is the proper one.* We are therefore content to affirm the judgment on the basis of the court’s well-reasoned Opinion.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 Hanes Caribe, in pursuing its jurisdictional contention, primarily relies on our decision in *Universal Leather, LLC v. Koro AR, S.A.,*773 F.3d 553 (4th Cir. 2014). This litigation, however, is readily distinguishable from *Universal Leather,*in that GMC did not purposefully avail itself of the laws of North Carolina. As the district court recognized, the finding of personal jurisdiction in *Universal Leather*was significantly impacted by the fact that the defendant had initiated contact with the forum state and repeatedly reached into the forum state to transact business during in-person visits. In this case, on the other hand, there was no solicitation of business by GMC in North Carolina. GMC simply performed a service contract and made T-shirts that were delivered to Hanes Caribe in Haiti. On this record, as the district court correctly recognized, GMC did not take advantage of the laws or economic benefits of North Carolina.
#### Gladys Rodriguez et al., Appellants, v New York Methodist Hospital et al., Defendants, and Brooklyn Ob/Gyn Assoc., PC., et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 735]

*527In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.), dated November 18, 2002, as denied their motion to vacate an order of the same court dated July 11, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendants Brooklyn Ob/ Gyn Assoc., PC., Herbert M. Lieber, and Jose R Quinones, pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them upon their default in opposing the motion, and to restore the motion to the calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The respondents moved pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with court-ordered discovery. The Supreme Court granted the motion upon the plaintiffs’ default in opposing it.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default in opposing the motion. Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to offer any excuse for their repeated failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s discovery order and the respondents’ discovery demands. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion since the plaintiffs failed to adequately explain their pattern of willful default and neglect *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Clarke v United Parcel Serv.,*300 AD2d 614, 615 [2002]; *Wynne v Wagner,*262 AD2d 556 [1999]; *Roussodimou v Zafiriadis,*238 AD2d 568, 569 [1997]; *Gannon v Johnson Scale Co.,*189 AD2d 1052 [1993]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Before the United States Department of Transport~~on,y '! ~ /:•. 50 

Washington, DC 

May 15, 2012 

Essential Air Service at 

HURON, SOUTH DAKOTA Docket OST -2000-7138 

under 49 U.S. C. 41731 et.seq. 

This document contains Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd.'s response to Order Requesting 

Proposals 2012-4-27. 

Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. is pleased to submit this proposal to provide essential 

air transportation to Huron, South Dakota. 

Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. has more than 25 years of history of providing reliable Essential Air 

Service. This proposed service is being offered with local service marketed and priced utilizing 

the Great Lakes (ZK) Reservations system which includes customer ticket purchasing 

capability on both Great Lakes web site and on all major Web Booking Engines (Orbitz, 

Travelocity, Expedia, etc.) 

Great Lakes will be utilizing interline e-ticketing and baggage agreements with American 

Airlines, Delta Airlines, Frontier Airlines, United Airlines and U.S. Airways. All of which will offer 

passengers maxium access to the domestic and international air transportation system at the 

Minneapolis hub. 

All proposals contemplate the use of 19 seat Beechcraft 1900D airliner equipment. 

Questions and comments may be referred to: 

Michael 0. Matthews 

Chief Financial Officer 

Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 

1 022 Airport Parkway 

Cheyenne, WY 82001 

(307) 432-7000 
Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 

Annual Compensation Requirements for Essential Air Service at 

Huron, South Dakota to Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) 

Two Round Trips - 81900 

(at 98 percent completion) 

Departures: 

Block Hours: 

Revenue Passenger Miles: 

Available Seat Miles: 

Operating Revenues: 

Passenger: 6,000 psgrs at $102.17 $613,020 

Other: (at 0.62% of passenger revenue) $3,801 

Total Operating Revenues: 

Operating Expenses: 

Direct: Aircraft and Hull Insurance 

Fuel and Oil 

Flying Operations 

Maintenance 

$182,855 

$862,754 

$266,563 

$385,110 

Total Direct Expenses: 

Total Indirect Expenses: 

Total Operating Expenses: 

Operating Loss 

Profit Element (5.0% of Total Operating Expenses) 

Annual Compensation Requirement: 

Representative Schedule 

*** [HON] Huron, South Dakota *** 

-------------------- D E P A R T U R E S --------------------

FL T TO OPT ARR EQP 

7171 MSP 7:00 8:10 BE1 

7316 MSP 13:06 14:16 BE1 

-------------------- A R R I V A L S --------------------

FL T FROM OPT ARR EQP 

7321 MSP 11:55 13:14 BE1 

7268 MSP 19:55 21:14 BE1 

No Upline Scheduling Restrictions 

FREQ 

12345 

1234567 

FREQ 

123456 

123457 

1,227 

1,522 

1,494,000 

5,804,937 

$616,821 

$1,697,283 

$727,641 

$2,424,924 

($1.808, 103) 

$121,246 

$1,929,349
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Reg. Nos. 333-81709, 333-95355, 333-38434, 333-47454,
333-57876) and Form S-3 (Reg. Nos. 333-41540, 333-48360, 333-54512) of Digital
Island, Inc. of our report dated November 10, 2000 relating to the consolidated
financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K/A. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated November 10, 2000 relating to the
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



San Francisco, California
April 9, 2001
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation (the “Company”)for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Matthew D. Peiffer, Chief Financial Officer,Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Date: May 13, 2005 | /s/ Matthew D. Peiffer                             |   |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|               | Matthew D. Peiffer                                 |
|               | Chief Financial  Officer, Secretary and  Treasurer |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Andres MENDOZA-LAZALDE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51109

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/22/2016

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Andres Mendoza-Lazalde, Pro Se.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andres Mendoza-Lazalde, federal prisoner # 59855-380, was sentenced to 46 *869months of imprisonment for smuggling goods and facilitating the smuggling of goods from the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554. He has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel and leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

The district court entered the judgment of conviction on April 4, 2016. Mendoza-Lazalde filed a pro se notice of appeal at the earliest on August 80, 2016, well beyond the time for appealing and for extending the appeal period. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), (b)(4). The appeal, which was filed far outside the time limit, is frivolous. *See United States v. Leijano-Cruz,*473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006). Consequently, Mendoza-Lazalde’s appeal is DISMISSED, *see*5th Cir. R. 42.2, and his motion for the appointment of counsel and leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. determined that this opinion should not be R. 47.5.4. published and is not precedent except under
P. 1


# OAR Box 

# 1865 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



## Document

Number: 

# 142 ) VI-B- 7 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/20083:22:20PM

Sheet 142 of 198P. 2



## ^xtG Y ARI

D EftMROIXIMENlA L AlMAIY8I8 > 

## EXfC . 1B5 5 NORT H POR T MYE RDRIV E ARLINGTON

, VIRGINI A 2220 9 703/528-190 0 

# A-83-2 7 VI-B- 7


# —%V

December 30 , 198 8

Mr . A l wan

e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y Researc hTriangl e Park , N

C Dear 

## Al : Pursuant to ou

r phon e conversatio

nyesterda

y wit hFred , Joh

nHolme s drafte

d th e attache

d discussion . i 

### ; Regards ,



# WfckJ
. 6.W^ W Michae l 0 . Lerner President 

## MOL/ki *

i 

### Attachmen t

MANAGEMENT / ECONOMIC S /

ENGINE ERIN OP. 3

EEA 12/29/8 8

QUESTION, : Vil l 0.3 % sulfu r residua l fue l oi l fo r a Hawaiia nboile r market : requir e th e use o f a heate d barge ?
Whethe r o r no t 0.3 % fue l oi l need s heatin g depend s o nth e wa y i nwhic hth e 0.3 % specificatio ni s achieved . Severa l option s exist ;

! (1 ) Straigh t ru nvacuu m resi d fro

m certai nIndonesia ncrude s ar e below J0.3 % S . The y

ar e waxy

an d woul d requir e heating . (Thi s appear s t o b e wha t HEC O ha s i nmind. ) 

### (2 )

(3 )
(4 ) Vacuu

m resi d fro

m Alaska nan d Californla ncrude s (@1. 5 C o 2.0 % S ) coul d jb e cracke d an d hydrotreate d t o produc e a fue l oi l belo w 0.3 % whic h require s n o heating . i[Resid coul d b e hydrotreate d wit hminima l crackin g t o produc e a low sulfu r produc t whic hstil l woul d nee d t o be heated . i ;0n e coul d "top " (remove ligh t components ) fro m a lo w sulfu r crud e suc h |tha t th e remainin g mixtur e o f ga s oi l an d residua l oi l di d no t requir e heating . (5 ) barge heatin g coul d als o b e avoide d fo r an y o f thes e approache s i f the produc t were produce d an d heate d a t the loca l refiner y an d barge d ho t fo r a shor t distance . Fo r example , fue l oi l use d t o fue l vessel s i n i ith e Sa nFrancisc o Ba y are a i s heate d befor e the barg e i s loade d an d th e oi l i s transferre d t o the vesse l befor e i t cools . O nth e othe r hand , i residua l oi l barge s movin g u p an d dow nthe Wes t Coas t al l have stea m boiler s and us e stea m coil s t o maintai ntemperatur e o f the fue l oi l i n transit .P. 4

* ,'



### W e kno w

o f n o Coas t Guar dregulatio nwhic hpreclude s barg e oi l heatin g pe r se , bu t it!ma y

b e tha t certai nexistin g barge s ar e no t adequatel y equippe dfo r heating . Lastl y i w e fin di t curiou s tha t HEC O claim s tha t the y now us e 2.0 % S "resid " whic hrequire s n o heating . An y tru e vacuu

m residua l fue l oi l require s heating . W e suspec t on e o f tw o thing s i s occurring . Eithe r the 2.0% S oi l i s bein g loade dont o th e barg e ho t andi s transporte da ver y shor t distanc e (fro m Oah u t o th e ou t islands ) o r the independen t refiner y o nOah ui s simpl y "topping " crud e oi l (Alaska nperhaps ) leavin g enoug hga s oi l i ni t t o mak e it s pou r poin t andviscosit y lo w enoug ht o avoi dheating .
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Kevin WALLACE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11323 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

James Kevin Wallace, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent James Kevin Wallace has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Wallace has filed a response. Although Wallace remains subject to a term of supervised release, he has completed the term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Wallace’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 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 in part as frivolous, *see*5th Cir. R. 42.2, and in part as moot, *see United States v. Heredia-Holguin,*823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

*

 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.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03009]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 

February 16, 2022, 10:00 a.m.-10:30 a.m. ET.
February 17, 2022, 12:30 p.m.-2.30 p.m. ET.

PLACE: Via tele-conference.

STATUS: Meeting of the IAF Board of Directors, closed to the public as 
provided for by 22 CFR 1004.4(b)

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
[ssquf] Executive Session

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Aswathi Zachariah, General 
Counsel, (202) 683-7118.
    For Dial-in Information Contact: Denetra McPherson, Paralegal, 
(202) 688-3054.
    The Inter-American Foundation is holding this meeting under the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b).

Aswathi Zachariah,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022-03009 Filed 2-8-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7025-01-P
Exhibit



        
        



Ex 10-27-2


TEGNA INC.
2015 CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN
(As Amended Through May 30, 2017)


Amendment No. 1


TEGNA Inc. hereby amends the TEGNA Inc. 2015 Change in Control Severance Plan, as amended through May 30, 2017 (the “Plan”), effective as of the date of this amendment, as follows:


1.The end of Section 7(b)(ii) is amended by replacing the apostrophe with a period and adding the following to the end of such provision: 
In the event the Participant has not been employed for the full three fiscal years immediately prior to the fiscal year in which the Change in Control occurs or the fiscal year in which the Participant’s Date of Termination occurs (as the case may be), the Participant’s average annual bonus shall be calculated based on the average of the annual bonuses earned for the fiscal years immediately prior to the fiscal year in which the Change in Control occurs or the fiscal year in which the Participant’s Date of Termination occurs (as the case may be) during which the Participant was employed.  If the Participant was employed for just a portion of a fiscal year and consequently did not receive an annual bonus for the fiscal year, that fiscal year shall be ignored for purposes of the bonus calculation.  If the Participant was employed for just a portion of a fiscal year and received a prorated annual bonus for the fiscal year, that fiscal year shall not be ignored but the prorated annual bonus shall be adjusted to reflect a full year’s bonus; 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, TEGNA Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of December 7, 2018.


                        
	
			
	 
	 
	TEGNA Inc.

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ Akin S. Harrison

	 
	Name:
	Akin S. Harrison

	 
	Title:
	Senior Vice President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick COLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10230

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

Adam McMeen Flake, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno,. Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Amy B. Cleary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wendi L. Overmyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public *548Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Roderick Cole appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cole contends that the district court procedurally erred by imposing an above-Guidelines sentence based on his need for rehabilitation, and by failing to consider and address his mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Hammons,*558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), and conclude that there is none. The record belies Cole’s contention that the district court imposed the sentence in order to promote his rehabilitation. *See Tapia v. United States,*564 U.S. 319, 334, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011) (“A court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison[.]”). Furthermore, the record reflects that the district court considered Cole’s arguments and adequately explained the sentence. *See Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 357-58, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Cole also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court allegedly gave excessive weight to his criminal history and the “leniency” of his prior state court sentences. The district court did not abuse its discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. *See Gall, 552*U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; *United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez,*587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**STATEMENT      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|         |                                                                                                                                            |                            |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|    |                                                                                                                                       |                       |
|         | By:                                                                                                                                   | /s/ Seth              Grae |
|         | Name:                Seth GraeTitle:                President, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal                Executive Officer) |

|         |                                                                                                                                   |                                 |
|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|    |                                                                                                                              |                            |
|         | By:                                                                                                                          | /s/ James                Guerra |
|         | Name:                    James GuerraTitle:                    Chief Financial Officer(Principal                    Financial Officer) |