alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Catherine KIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COACH, INC., a foreign profit corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15409

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*482Submitted June 14, 2017 * Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed June 16, 2017

Charles Harry Brower, Esquire, Attorney, Charles H. Brower, AAL, ALC, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Kelly LaPorte, Esquire, Attorney, Amanda Marie Jones, Attorney, Cades Schutte LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: FISHER, PAEZ and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Catherine Kim appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of Coach, Inc. on her claim of retaliation under Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The district court properly assumed subject matter jurisdiction over Kim’s retaliation claim. Even assuming the charge Kim filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was untimely, the untimeliness of an EEOC charge is a non-jurisdictional defect. *See Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,*455 U.S. 385, 393, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982); *Wrighten v. Metro. Hosps., Inc.,*726 F.2d 1346, 1351 n.3 (9th Cir. 1984).

2. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Kim’s retaliation claim. Kim alleged Coach reduced her work hours between April and September 2013 in retaliation for her having filed a lawsuit in February 2013. As the district court pointed out, however, Coach did not learn of the lawsuit until late May 2013. The lawsuit, then, could not have caused the reduction in hours. Kim therefore failed to make out a prima face case of retaliation. *See Ray v. Henderson,*217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 2000) (“To make out a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee must show that (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) his employer subjected him to an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse action.”).

3.Kim argues Coach reduced her work hours between August 2012 and October 2012 in retaliation for her having filed an EEOC charge in August 2012. Kim, however, failed to present this argument to the district court. The argument is therefore waived, *see Bolker v. Comm’r,*760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985), and we decline to reach the issue. Even if we were to reach the issue, Kim has presented no evidence to suggest any reduction in work hours occurred during the period in question.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Albert F Coyle, Appellant.

Submitted April 12, 1943;

decided April 22, 1943.

Motion for reargument denied. (See 289 N. Y. 709.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>  
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS AT AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE
30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          31,265
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,109
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,314
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,246
<PP&E>                                          84,086
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,001
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 194,183
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,028
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,153
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   194,183
<SALES>                                        215,024
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               215,024
<CGS>                                          182,192
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  182,192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   594
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,204
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,446
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,185
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,261
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,261
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.46
        

</TABLE>
p.1 

OAR Box 1190 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

64) II-B-2 

Docket Number: 

A-90-28 

Printed 5/5/2008 9:13:51 AM Sheet 64 of 106 
P.2 

Facsimile Cover Sheet 

AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE 

MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 

7430 Second Avenue 

Suite 300 

Detroit, MI 48202 

Telephone: (313)872-4311 

Facsimile: (313)872-5400 

ASSOCIATION OF 

INTERNATIONAL 

AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS 

100119th Street, North 

Suite 1200 

Rosslyn, VA 22209 

Telephone: (703) 525-7788 

Facsimile: (703)525-8817 

From G .A. Esper and G J. Dana Date September 27,1995 

(313)871-2305/(703)525-7788 

(313) 872-5400/(703) 525-8817 (Return FacsimUe Number) 

TO Company 

Lee Cook/David Dickinson U.S. BPA 

Message 

Total # Pages 

Including Coyer: 1 

FAX Number/Speed Dial 

(202) 233-9596 

The American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) and the Association of 

International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM) hereby notify the U.S. Envifonmental 

ftataGfep Agency of our intent to present oral testimony at the hearing to consider a waiter ^pest \: 

for ©Slibmia &W I requirements, scheduled for October 17,1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 4106$, August 

11,199$). 

ii*vr • ."" "iu i 

1995 m 

_J orrr 

\ I 

a I
Christopher AGUERO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1156

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 30, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed because of the appellant's failure to satisfy this court's March 26, 2018 fee order.

SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial information extracted from SEC
     Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
     statements as of and for the six months ended June 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000883946
<NAME>                        TREEV INC
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,092
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,103)
<INVENTORY>                                        691
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,495
<PP&E>                                           7,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (5,504)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,320
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,231
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,631
<SALES>                                         13,288
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,288
<CGS>                                            7,447
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,553
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  62
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,774)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,774)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,774)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.24)



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray HILDERBRAND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-60683 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 24, 2017

Gregory Layne Kennedy, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael L. Scott, Esq., Thomas Creagher Turner, Jr., Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ray Hilderbrand challenges a condition of supervised release imposed upon the revocation of his prior term of supervised release which followed his conviction for knowingly receiving child pornography. According to Hilderbrand, the condition, which prohibits him from “congregat[ing] at places frequented by minors,” is unconstitutionally vague and broader than reasonably necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because Hilderbrand made- no objection to the condition at sentencing, we review only for plain error, giving “considerable deference to the judgment of the district court.” *United States v. Ellis,*720 F.3d 220, 227-28 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (quoting *United States v. Wilcox,*631 F.3d 740, 751 (5th Cir. 2011)).

As to his challenge that the condition is overbroad, “it is well established that associational conditions do not extend to casual or chance meetings.” *United States v. Paul,*274 F.3d 155, 166 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting *United States v. Loy,*237 F.3d 251, 269 (3d Cir. 2001)). This court’s construction of such associational limitations thus belies Hilderbrand’s assertion.

Similarly, the common sense application of the constitutional requirement of fair notice means that district court was not required “to describe every possible permutation, or to spell out every last, self-evident detail.” *Id.*at 167 (quoting *United*
      *362
      *States v. Gallo,*20 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir. 1994)). As in *Paul,*there exists “sufficient common understanding” of the sorts of locations considered to be “frequented by minors” to meet “the constitutional requirement of reasonable certainty.” *Id.*The nature of Hilderbrand’s offense of possession of child pornography and his revocation offense of having contact with and enticing a minor both indicate that the restriction on his congregating in locations frequented by minors was reasonably necessary to protect the public from further crimes. *See*18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2), 3583(d)(2); *Paul,*274 F.3d at 167. The district court did not clearly or obviously err in imposing the condition. *See Ellis,*720 F.3d at 228.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001004990
<NAME> NCS Healthcare, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          49,012
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,056
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,485
<INVENTORY>                                     29,496
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               182,930
<PP&E>                                          52,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,653
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 431,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,053
<BONDS>                                        112,227
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           192
<OTHER-SE>                                     272,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   431,668
<SALES>                                        218,219
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               218,219
<CGS>                                          162,954
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  162,954
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,006
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,428
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,774
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,654
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,654
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6506 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6506

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the 
     Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating 
 Washington's Trail--1753 as a national historic trail, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 29, 2023

 Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, 
    Mr. Reschenthaler, Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania, Mr. Mooney, and Mr. 
   Deluzio) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the 
     Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating 
 Washington's Trail--1753 as a national historic trail, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Washington's Trail--1753 National 
Historic Trail Feasibility Study Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. WASHINGTON'S TRAIL--1753 NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL FEASIBILITY 
              STUDY.

    Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(50) Washington's trail--1753.--Washington's 
        TrailWashington's Trail--1753 National Historic Trail 
        Feasibility Study Act of 20231753, extending approximately 500 
        miles from Williamsburg, Virginia, to Fort LeBoeuf (now 
        Waterford), Pennsylvania, following the route taken by George 
        Washington and his party on his diplomatic mission to the 
        French on behalf of Virginia Governor Robert Dinwiddie from 
        October 31, 1753, to January 16, 1754, just prior to the start 
        of the French and Indian War (1754-1763).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Richard Koester, Respondent, *v.*T. C. E. Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Submitted January 5, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*559
      *James J. McLoughlin, Robert F. White and Thomas F. Harrigan*for appellant.

*Benjamin H. Siff*and *Charles Rosenberg*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lawrence WOODS, also known as Dion Starr, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50406 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 24, 2017

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

Christopher Michael McCaffrey, Law Offices of Christopher McCaffrey, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Lawrence Woods pleaded guilty of receipt of child pornography (Count 8SS) and possession of child pornography (Count 9SS), and he was sentenced within the guidelines range to a 240-month term of imprisonment for Count 8SS and to a consecutive 120-month term of imprisonment for Count 9SS. He was ordered to serve concurrent 10-year periods of supervised release.

Woods contends that the district court failed to give adequate consideration to the fact that he suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) related to his military service in Iraq. Although he concedes that this condition “never received therapy or proper diagnosis,” Woods asserts that the district court erred in failing to address expressly “the apparent PTSD in the context of’ U.S.S.G. § 5H1.3, p.s.

The district court adopted the probation officer’s finding that there was “no indication [Woods] is currently suffering from any mental or emotional problems,” and Woods has faded to show that the information in the presentence report was unreliable. *See United States v. Trujillo,*502 F.3d 353, 357 (5th Cir. 2007). The record does not reflect that Woods suffered from a mental or emotional condition that was present to an unusual degree or that distinguishes this case from the typical case covered by the Guidelines. *See*§ 5H1.3, p.s.

*371Although Woods complains that the district court did not consider his personal characteristics, criminal history, military service, and employment record, those factors were discussed in the presentence report, and Woods has not shown that the district court’s sentence did not account for them. *See United States v. Cooks,*589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Woods has not rebutted the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. *See id.*

The court imposed a special condition of supervised release limiting Woods’s access to the internet. Woods argues that this condition is overbroad and will limit his employment opportunities. Our review of this contention is for plain error. *See United States v. Ellis,*720 F.3d 220, 224-25 (5th Cir. 2013). This court has routinely upheld such restrictions in child pornography cases. *Id.*at 225; *see also*U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(7)(B). He has shown no error, plain or otherwise. The judgment is

AFFIRMED.

*

**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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Curtis J. Parker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.


Date: January 6, 2003                         By: /s/ Curtis J. Parker
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Curtis J. Parker
                                              Executive Vice President and
                                              Chief Financial Officer
1 

### Hunt, Jeff

From: Stanfill, Michael G (Env D ept) [Michael.Stanfill@bnsf.com] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 2:24 PM To: sclo461@ECY.WA.gov Cc: Seep, David C Subject: Request for 2008 State of Washington Data Attachments: 2008CountyReport.doc; 2008 State of Washington CountyReport.pdf

Sara Clouse

Attached is the emissions data by county for the year 2008 as per your request. I am not able to furnish it to you in a spreadsheet but have attached a copy in word for your use.

Please feel free to call me to discuss further.

Michael Stanfill Director Environmental Engineering and Program Development BNSF Railway Company 920 SE Quincy Topeka, KS 66612-1116

785-435-2225 785-435-2202 Fax
Exhibit 10.46 FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED DIRECTORS STOCK PLAN
OF
CHROMCRAFT REVINGTON, INC. WHEREAS, Chromcraft Revington, Inc. (the Company) maintains the Amended and Restated Directors Stock Plan of
Chromcraft Revington, Inc., effective as of December 1, 2005 (the Plan); and WHEREAS, the Company has determined that the Plan should be amended, effective as of January 1, 2010, to provide
that directors who are reelected to the Board of Directors of the Company will receive an award of restricted common
stock with a fair market value of $14,000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority contained in Section 8.1 of the Plan, the Company has reserved the right to
amend the Plan; NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the power to amend the Plan reserved to the Company under Section 8.1, the Plan is
hereby amended, effective as of January 1, 2010, by replacing Section 7.1 in its entirety with the following, and the
Company may restate the Plan such that the Plan shall contain in a single document all of the provisions of the Plan,
as amended pursuant to this First Amendment: Section 7.1.Award of Restricted Stock.Subject to Section 3.2, each
individual who is appointed or elected to serve as a Director for the first time will receive an
Award of Three Thousand (3,000) Shares of Restricted Stock and, thereafter for each year during the
term of the Plan, each Director will receive an Award of Shares of Restricted Stock on the day
immediately following his or her re-election with a Fair Market Value of $14,000. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly
authorized officers as of this 31st day of March, 2010, but effective as of January 1, 2010. CHROMCRAFT REVINGTON, INC. By: /s/ Ronald H. Butler
Ronald H. Butler
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer ATTEST: By: /s/ Myron D. Hamas
Myron D. Hamas
Vice President-Finance