alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Reginald U. FULLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Twanda STALEY; Department of Social Services; Forsyth Child Support Enforcement; Forsyth County District Court Division, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7716

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Reginald U. Fullard, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reginald U. Fullard appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Fullard v. Staley,*No. 1:15-cv-00016-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C. Nov. 29, 2016). We deny Fullard’s motion for a transcript at government expense and 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 10.4

Dear Tom Brunner                                                     18 May 2001

I am pleased  to confirm  our offer for you,  to join our  organization  as Vice
President of Opthalmic Business Unit. Quality council. In this capacity you will
report directly to Lou Scafuri,  Chief Operating  Officer.  The compensation and
employee benefits program for this position are outlined as follows:

Base Salary

You will receive a base salary of 13,348 per month ($ 160,180 annualized).

Management Bonus Program

As a member of the Executive  Staff you will be eligible to  participate  in the
Company Bonus Plan at a 50% base  participation  rate. The Plan is  specifically
designed to reward  participants  based upon the  attainment  of  Corporate  and
personal performance. The bonuses are paid quarterly.

Stock Option Plan

We will  recommend to the Board of Directors  that you be considered for a stock
option grant of 60,000 shares of Esc Medical  Systems stock,  at a price as will
be at the date of  closing.  The  options  will vest over a  three-year  period,
20,000, 20,000 and 20,000 respectively.

Benefits and Vacation:

These will be similar to Employee's current benefits package.

Term and Termination:

Employment  term  shall  be up to  one  year  but  not  less  than  six  months.
Termination,  either by  Employee  or Company , shall  require  30 days  written
notice.

Confidentiality, assignment of IP, non-compete, non-solicitation:

Agreement will include  continuation of employee's  present CMG obligations with
the exception  that  non-compete  will only apply to products  which new company
currently manufactures or is currently in active Research and Development.

Tom, we look forward to working together.  To indicate acceptance of this offer,
please sign and return one copy of this letter to me.

Sincerely,

/s/Yossi Gal
-----------------------------
Yossi Gal
Vice President of Human Resources

/s/Tom Brunner
-----------------------------
Tom Brunner                                          Date:


                                       32
EXHIBIT 10.2


                                                                  Chronimed Inc.

Memo                                              CONFIDENTIAL

To:         PERRY ANDERSON                       FOR RECIPIENT ONLY

From:       MAURY TAYLOR

CC:

Date:       MAY 17, 1999

Re:         RETENTION INCENTIVE

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


AS YOU KNOW, THE COMPANY HAS ANNOUNCED THAT IT HAS ENGAGED A FINANCIAL SERVICES
FIRM TO SEEK STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES TO TAKE THE BUSINESS FORWARD AND GROW THE
COMPANY MOST EFFECTIVELY. THE END PRODUCT OF THIS MAY INCLUDE A TRANSACTION
WHICH RESULTS IN A MERGER, ACQUISITION OR SALE OF ALL OR PART OF THE COMPANY. IF
SUCH A TRANSACTION IS TO BE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED, THE COMPANY BELIEVES IT IS
NECESSARY TO RETAIN CERTAIN KEY PERSONNEL DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN NOW AND THE
CLOSING OF SUCH A TRANSACTION. YOU HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN A KEY
EMPLOYEE RETENTION ARRANGEMENT, IF YOU SO AGREE. THE REST OF THIS MEMO EXPLAINS
THIS INCENTIVE PLAN, AND ITS CONDITIONS.
TO QUALIFY FOR THE INCENTIVE, YOU MUST REMAIN EMPLOYED UNTIL THE EARLIER OF A
TRANSACTION CLOSING OR DECEMBER 31,1999. HOWEVER, IF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS
ACCEPTED A LETTER OF INTENT BY DECEMBER 31, 1999, BUT A TRANSACTION HAS NOT YET
CLOSED, THE COMPANY MAY EXTEND THE DATE YOU MUST REMAIN EMPLOYED TO THE EARLIER
OF THE ACTUAL DATE OF CLOSING OR MARCH 31, 2000. PAYMENT OF THE INCENTIVE WILL
BE 30 DAYS FOLLOWING DATE OF VESTING (THE DATE YOU ARE FULLY QUALIFIED AND
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE INCENTIVE). YOU AGREE THAT IF YOU INITIATE A TERMINATION
OF EMPLOYMENT PRIOR TO BEING FULLY VESTED IN THIS INCENTIVE PLAN, OR IF YOU ARE
TERMINATED BY THE COMPANY FOR CAUSE, YOU WILL FORFEIT ALL RIGHTS TO THE
INCENTIVE.
THE INCENTIVE IS IN THE FORM OF A ONE TIME CASH BONUS, BEFORE TAXES AND
DEDUCTIONS OF: $30,000.00 (THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS)

<PAGE>


YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A SPECIAL ONE TIME BONUS ARRANGEMENT. BY AGREEING TO
ACCEPT THIS INCENTIVE ARRANGEMENT, YOU AGREE THAT YOU WILL KEEP THE EXISTENCE
AND THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT CONFIDENTIAL, AND YOU WILL NOT SHARE IT WITH ANY
OTHER PERSON EXCEPT YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND/OR FINANCIAL ADVISOR. THOSE
INDIVIDUALS ALSO MUST KEEP THIS CONFIDENTIAL. BREACH OF THIS CONFIDENTIALITY
PROVISION WILL RESULT IN FORFEITURE OF INCENTIVE. THIS CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
WILL REMAIN INTACT AS LONG AS YOU REMAIN EMPLOYED WITH CHRONIMED.
YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THIS IS SOLELY AN INCENTIVE AGREEMENT. IT
DOES NOT CHANGE THE STATUS OF ANY OTHER ASPECTS OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
WITH CHRONIMED, AND IS NOT AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.
PLEASE SIGN THIS MEMO AS AN INDICATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND
KEEP A COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS.
I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THIS INCENTIVE PLAN. I AGREE TO ACCEPT
ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS.


/S/ PERRY L. ANDERSON                 /S/ SHAWN FEATHERSTON VP HUMAN RESOURCES
---------------------                 ---------------------
SIGNATURE OF EMPLOYEE                 COMPANY - NAME/TITLE
---------------------                 --------------------


5/25/99
--------------------
DATE
----
Edward JOHNSON v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-01802-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: May 7, 2018 Closed: June 7, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Eric Ramirez and LA Public Insurance Adjusters, Inc. v. Dick Law 

Firm, PLLC and Eric Dick

Appellate case number: 01-21-00392-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-30183

Trial court: 113th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: January 17, 2023

Party filing motion: Appellees

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing filed by appellees, Dick Law Firm PLLC and 

Eric Dick, is denied.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Julie Countiss_______

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy.

Date: ___February 7, 2023___________________
#### Eugene Peter SCHULER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, VDOC, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7762

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2017

Decided: May 11, 2017

Eugene Peter Schuler, Appellant Pro Se.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Peter Schuler seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his'28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C; § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Schuler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, *187we grant Schuler leave to file an amended informal brief, deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Mauricio VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41085 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jorge Mauricio Vasquez, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Mauricio Vasquez has *248moved 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). Vasquez has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Vasquez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.1 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 *248published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4,

1

. The district court did not err by declining to apply a sentencing guidelines range provided by a guidelines amendment that would go into effect more than three months after Vasquez’s sentencing. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A) (requiring district courts to consider, except in remanded cases, the sentencing range provided by the guidelines "in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced”); *see also United States*v. *Caro-Alarcon,*420 Fed.Appx. 397, 397-98 (5th Cir. 2011).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6295 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the 50 percent 

limitation on the deduction for meal expenses does not apply to meals 

provided on certain fishing boats or at certain fish processing facilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 8, 2023 

Ms. DELBENE (for herself, Mr. NEWHOUSE, Mrs. PELTOLA, Mr. KILMER, Mr. 

LARSEN of Washington, Ms. STRICKLAND, and Ms. PEREZ) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 

Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

that the 50 percent limitation on the deduction for meal 

expenses does not apply to meals provided on certain 

fishing boats or at certain fish processing facilities. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Remote Seafood Em5 ployee Meals Tax Parity Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6295 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEALS PROVIDED ON CERTAIN FISHING BOATS 

2 AND AT CERTAIN FISH PROCESSING FACILI3 TIES NOT SUBJECT TO 50 PERCENT LIMITA4 TION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 274(n)(2)(C) of the Inter6 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ 

7 at the end of clause (iv) and by adding at the end the 

8 following new clause: 

9 ‘‘(v) provided— 

10 ‘‘(I) on a fishing vessel, fish proc11 essing vessel, or fish tender vessel (as 

12 such terms are defined in section 

13 2101 of title 46, United States Code), 

14 or 

15 ‘‘(II) at a fish processing facility 

16 which is located in the United States 

17 north of 50 degrees north latitude and 

18 which is not located in a metropolitan 

19 statistical area (within the meaning of 

20 section 143(k)(2)(B)), or’’. 

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

22 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

23 December 31, 2019. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Curtis Renee JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DYE, Registered Nurse; L. Mills, Licensed Vocational Nurse, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16849

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

Curtis Renee Jackson, Pro Se

Vickie P. Whitney, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Curtis Renee Jackson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jackson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately *259indifferent to Jackson’s urinary tract infection. *See id.*at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
SERVED: JANUARY 15, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

DESHAUN L. BLACKETT 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. F AA-2013-0850 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013CE090030) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Deshaun L. Blackett, Respondent 

10671 Hamilton Plaza 

Apt. 402 

Oma.I,.a, NE 68114-2078 

TEL: (NONE PROVIDED) 

FAX: (NONE PROVIDED) I 

ONE COPY 

Mark G. Camacho, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Counsel, Central Region, ACE-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust Street, DOT Building, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

TEL: 816-329-3765 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. F AA-2013-0850 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. R. Gordon Whitman, Appellant, against Joseph E. Wilson, as Warden of Great Meadow Prison, Respondent.

Decided April 7, 1943.

On March 5, 1942, the Court of Appeals denied an application by relator for leave to appeal from such order of affirmance (287 N. Y. 856).

On April 7, 1943, the Court of Appeals, upon its own motion, entered an order in part as follows: “ it appearing * * * that the case is one where appellant is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus under section 1231 of the Civil Practice Act; and that an appeal from the order entered upon the decision of the Appellate Division taken by the appellant as of right must be dismissed; * * * Ordered, that said appeal be and the same hereby is dismissed.”
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*DUANE FOSTER

*Pamela S. Nagy,*special assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

*Margaret Gaffney Radionovas,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided September 18, 1997

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 45 Conn. App. 369 (AC 15530), is denied.
#### Maria Licidia GUEVARA-SORTO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73373

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER *2,*2017

Karina Janine Ordonez, Esquire, Karina Ordonez Law Office PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.

Tracey McDonald, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*423MEMORANDUM **

Maria Licidia Guevara-Sorto, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cerezo v. Mukasey, 5*12 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

Guevara-Sorto was threatened and extorted by gang members in El Salvador, and fears future extortion or harm if returned. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Guevara-Sorto failed to establish she has been or will be targeted on account of a particular social group. *See Reyes v. Lynch,*842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.’”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); *see also Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Guevara-Sorto’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Guevara-Sor-to’s CAT claim because she failed to establish it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by the government of El Salvador, or with its consent or acquiescence. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**I, Phillip J. Smith, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 9, 2006     /s/ Phillip J. Smith   Phillip J. Smith  Executive Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer)