alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bobby Clifton SETZER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7035

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Bobby Clifton Setzer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,' III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Clifton Setzer, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012), The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Setzer that failure to file timely bbjections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Setzer has waived appellate review by failing to file objections. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *828this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Alcoa Inc. - Warrick Operations

Potline TF Emissions

March 1 - August 31, 2013

Potline 2

Month Roof Monitor Primary Control Device Total

lbs./ton lbs./ton* lbs./ton

March 0.845 0.0506 0.8956

April 0.919 0.0509 0.9699

May 0.821 0.0497 0.8707

June 1.158 0.05 1.208

July 1.285 0.0508 1.336

August 1.011 0.0509 1.0619

_________

* Emissions based on the 10/17/12 annual tests, wherein 

0.3432 lb./hr. of TF was measured.

Potline 3

Month Roof Monitor Primary Control Device Total

lbs./ton lbs./ton lbs./ton

March 1.265 0.489* 1.754

April 1.43 0.321** 1.751

May 1.367 0.322** 1.689

June 1.463 0.322** 1.785

July 1.356 0.321** 1.677

August 1.475 0.325** 1.8

_________

* Emissions based on the 4/19/12 annual tests, wherein 

6.61 lbs./hr. of TF was measured.

** Emissions based on the 4/17/13 annual tests, wherein 

4.382 lbs./hr. of TF was measured.

Potline 4

Month Roof Monitor Primary Control Device Total

lbs./ton lbs./ton lbs./ton

March 1.189 0.489* 1.678
April 1.015 0.321** 1.336

May 0.891 0.322** 1.213

June 1.348 0.323** 1.671

July 1.172 0.321** 1.493

August 1.316 0.325** 1.641

_________

* Emissions based on the 4/19/12 annual tests, wherein 

6.61 lbs./hr. of TF was measured.

** Emissions based on the 4/17/13 annual tests, wherein 

4.382 lbs./hr. of TF was measured.

Potline 5

Month Roof Monitor Primary Control Device Total

lbs./ton lbs./ton* lbs./ton

March 1.296 0.026 1.322

April 1.053 0.0257 1.0787

May 1.592 0.0256 1.6176

June 1.859 0.0258 1.8848

July 1.604 0.0256 1.6296

August 1.549 0.0254 1.5744

_________

* Emissions based on the 10/15/12 annual tests, wherein 

0.176 lb./hr. of TF was measured.

Potline 6

Month Roof Monitor Primary Control Device Total

lbs./ton lbs./ton* lbs./ton

March 1.64 0.0248 1.6648

April 1.543 0.0245 1.5675

May 1.575 0.0247 1.5997

June 1.712 0.0247 1.7367

July 1.459 0.0243 1.4833

August 1.33 0.0245 1.3545

_________
* Emissions based on the 10/16/12 annual tests, wherein 

0.1684 lb./hr. of TF was measured.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Stacy Wayne MYERS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11267 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

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

Stacy Wayne Myers, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Stacy Wayne Myers 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). Myers 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 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.

*

 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.
Handy D. WALKER, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1285

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Daniel Tibbitt of the Law Office of Daniel J. Tibbitt, Miami, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Osterhaus, Winokur, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Andre Denard CHRISTOPHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3426

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Brittany N. O'Neil, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit














EXHIBIT 10(f)


AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 


This AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) by and between The Sherwin-Williams Company, an Ohio corporation (the “Company”), and Aaron M. Erter (the “Executive”), is dated as of February 13, 2019 and amends the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement by and between the Company and Executive, dated August 1, 2017 (the “Employment Agreement”).


Pursuant to Section 12 of the Employment Agreement, the Company and the Executive agree to amend the Employment Agreement to reflect a change to the Executive’s position with the Company, as follows:


Effective March 1, 2019, the first sentence of Section 3 of the Employment Agreement is amended to replace “President of Sherwin-Williams’ Consumer Brands Group” with “President of Sherwin-Williams’ Performance Coatings Group.”


The Company and the Executive further agree that all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement not inconsistent with the terms of this Amendment are incorporated herein by reference and made part of this Amendment as if fully set forth herein.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.


                         
AARON M. ERTER




/s/ Aaron M. Erter                
                        




THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY


/s/ Thomas P. Gilligan                
Thomas P. Gilligan     
Senior Vice President - Human Resources
REVIEW REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Catalina Marketing Corporation (a Delaware corporation) and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1999, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income
for the three-month and nine-month periods ended December 31, 1999 and 1998, and
the condensed consolidated statements of cash flow for the nine-month periods
ended December 31, 1999 and 1998. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Catalina Marketing Corporation and
subsidiaries as of March 31, 1999, and the related consolidated statements of
income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not
presented herein), and, in our report dated April 29, 1999, we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those financial statements. In our opinion, the
information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet
as of March 31, 1999, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to
the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


                                       /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
                                       ----------------------------



Tampa, Florida,
     January 11, 2000
Presidential Documents

7677 

Federal Register 

Vol. 87, No. 27 

Wednesday, February 9, 2022 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of February 7, 2022 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the 

Situation in and in Relation to Burma 

On February 10, 2021, by Executive Order 14014, I declared a national 

emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 

(50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat 

to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted 

by the situation in and in relation to Burma. 

The situation in and in relation to Burma, and in particular the February 

1, 2021 coup, in which the military overthrew the democratically elected 

civilian government of Burma and unjustly arrested and detained government 

leaders, politicians, human rights defenders, journalists, and religious leaders, 

thereby rejecting the will of the people of Burma as expressed in elections 

held in November 2020 and undermining the country’s democratic transition 

and rule of law, continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat 

to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this 

reason, the national emergency declared on February 10, 2021, must continue 

in effect beyond February 10, 2022. Therefore, in accordance with section 

202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) I am continuing 

for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14014 with 

respect to the situation in and in relation to Burma. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

February 7, 2022. [FR Doc. 2022–02934 

Filed 2–8–22; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3395–F2–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_PREZDOC3BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew John EVANS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-15667 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/30/2016

Peter J. Sholl, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Tampa, FL, Bonnie Ames Glober, Jacksonville, FL, U.S. Attorney’s Office, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John E. Fernandez, appointed counsel for Andrew Evans in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of Evans’s appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Evans’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
William G. TILME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2575

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EUGENIO COLON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-35875

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05640-JLR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 15, 2015

Seattle, Washington

Before: KOZINSKI, W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Eugenio Colon appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the

administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of his application for disability insurance

benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social

Security Act. We affirm. 

FILED

NOV 13 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 *This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1. The ALJ provided “specific, clear and convincing reasons” supported by

substantial evidence for concluding Colon was not credible. See Molina v. Astrue,

674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). The ALJ gave seven independent rationales

for her finding, all but one of which are valid. The six valid rationales constituted

specific, clear and convincing reasons to discount Colon’s credibility. See

Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008). 

2. The ALJ did not improperly reject the opinions of five examining sources

and one non-examining source. The ALJ provided “specific and legitimate reasons

that are supported by substantial evidence in the record” for discounting the

contradicted medical opinions of each examining source. See Lester v. Chater, 81

F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996). The opinion of the non-examining source was

ambiguous, and the ALJ properly resolved the ambiguity by citing “such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”

See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Magallanes v.

Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989)). The ALJ also considered Colon’s

GAF scores and, consistent with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) and SSR

06-03p, discounted them because they provided little information on occupational

functioning. 

2
3. The ALJ did not err by failing to consider in her residual functional

capacity assessment medical evidence she determined to be noncredible because

she “was not required to incorporate evidence from . . . opinions . . . which were

permissibly discounted.” Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190,

1197 (9th Cir. 2004). 

AFFIRMED.

3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alfredo Roque, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 880]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Stackhouse, J.), rendered March 8, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, *317were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Defendant’s acquittal of other charges does not warrant a different conclusion *(see People v Rayam,*94 NY2d 557 [2000]). The credible evidence established the required element of unlawful intent.

The record does not establish that defendant’s sentence was based on any improper criteria and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Williams and Friedman, JJ.
MT TRANSISTION LP f/k/a Memorial Hospital of Tampa, LP d/b/a Memorial Hospital of Tampa; IASIS Healthcare Corporation; IASIS Healthcare, LLC. Petitioners, v. Deborah Kerr TAGLIARINI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Peter Alex Tagliarini, Deceased, a/k/a Peter A. Tagliarini, Deceased; Henry J. Weiss, M.D.; South Tampa Medical Group, P.A. ; and Gustavo Serrano, M.D., Respondents.

Case No. 2D17-3551

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.21



FIFTH AMENDMENT 
TO THE 
SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY CASH BALANCE 
EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN  
(Amended and Restated on January 25, 2012, Effective as of January 1, 2012)
WHEREAS, San Jose Water Company (the “Company”) maintains the San Jose Water Company Cash Balance Executive Supplement Retirement Plan (the “Cash Balance SERP”);
WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Cash Balance SERP to grant the Executive Compensation Committee of the SJW Group Board of Directors the discretion to make adjustments to the Cash Balance SERP’s Compensation Contribution rate with respect to any current or new Cash Balance SERP participant; 
WHEREAS, Section 8.01 of the Cash Balance SERP permits the Board of Directors to amend the Cash Balance SERP;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Cash Balance SERP is hereby amended as follows effective October 24, 2018:
		
	1.
	Section 3.2(a) is amended by adding the following sentence at the end thereof:


Notwithstanding the preceding, the Committee may, in its sole discretion, designate a different formula (as to Years of Credited Service and/or Percent of Compensation) for any Participant, provided no such action shall reduce any Accrued Benefit as of the date of such action.
2.    Except as expressly modified by this Fifth Amendment, all the terms and provisions of the Cash Balance SERP shall continue to remain in full force and effect.  
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed on this 24th day of October, 2018.
SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY


By:  /s/ Eric W. Thornburg 
Eric W. Thornburg,  
Chief Executive Officer and 
Chairman of the Board of Directors
#### Dr. Kevin W. CHURCH, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roger KENNEDY, Captain; Cathy Aldridge, LPN/RN; Karen Sample, Sergeant, Inmate Accounts Clerk and Accounts Receivable, Defendants-Appellees, and Eastern Shore Regional Jail, Owner/Operator; Eastern Shore Regional Jail Board of Directors, Governing Board; Virginia Beach Sheriff's Office, Owner/Operators, Defendants.

No. 16-6767

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Kevin W. Church, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

*811Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin W. Church, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Church v. Kennedy, No. 1:15-cv-00653-LMB-JFA, 2016 WL 3002406 (E.D. Va. May 20, 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.22
SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM 
The board of directors (the “Board”) of Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) has approved the following director compensation program. Under this director compensation program, the Company will pay its non-employee directors retainers in cash. Each non-employee director will receive a cash retainer for service on the Board and for service on each committee of which the director is a member. The chairmen of the Board and of each committee will receive higher retainers for such service. These fees are payable quarterly in arrears. The fees paid to non-employee directors for service on the Board and for service on each committee of the Board of which the director is a member are as follows: 
 
	
							
	 
	Member
Annual
Fee
	 
	Chairman
Annual
Fee
	 

	Board of Directors
	40,000
	

	  
	70,000
	

	  

	Audit Committee
	7,500
	

	  
	15,000
	

	  

	Compensation Committee
	6,250
	

	  
	12,250
	

	  

	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	4,000
	

	  
	8,000
	

	  




    
Beginning with the term commenced after January 1, 2018, non-employee directors were given the option to receive all or a portion of their cash retainer for their services in the form of a stock option award. The number of options received is calculated using the fair market value of a share of our common stock on the date of grant. Each of these options vest in equal quarterly installments over a one-year period measured from the date of grant, or, if earlier, vesting in full on the date of the Company's annual meeting of stockholders held in the year following the grant date, subject to the director’s continued service as a director.
The Company will also reimburse its non-employee directors for reasonable travel and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and committee meetings. 
In addition, under the Company’s director compensation program, each non-employee director elected to the Board after the closing of the Company’s initial public offering will receive an option to purchase 25,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. Each of these options will vest in equal quarterly installments over a three-year period measured from the date of grant, subject to the director’s continued service as a director, and will become exercisable in full upon a change in control of the Company. Further, on the date of the first Board meeting held after each annual meeting of stockholders, each non-employee director that has served on the Board for at least six months will receive an option to purchase 10,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. Each of these options will vest in equal quarterly installments over a one-year period measured from the date of grant, subject to the director’s continued service as a director, and will become exercisable in full upon a change in control of the Company. The exercise price of these options will equal the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant.
STATE of Louisiana v. Sherrod BRUMFIELD

NO. 2016-KP-2116

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 2018

Not considered. See La.S.Ct. Rule IX, § 6.