alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

Press Release                                                     Source: Dynegy
Barry Galt Elected to Dynegy Board of Directors

HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 16, 2002--The Board of Directors of Dynegy Inc.
(NYSE:DYN - News) today announced the election of former Seagull Energy Corp.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Barry J. Galt to the company's board of
directors.

According to Otis Winters, lead director and chairman of the Governance and
Nominating Committee, "Barry's proven leadership and experience in the energy
industry and his reputation for integrity further strengthens the board during
these challenging times in our business sector." Mr. Winters also noted that Mr.
Galt will be named to Dynegy's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee.

From 1983 to 1998, Mr. Galt was chairman and chief executive officer of Seagull
Energy (now Ocean Energy Inc.) and currently is a director of Ocean. Prior to
joining Seagull, he was president and chief operating officer of The Williams
Companies. A graduate of the University of Oklahoma Law School and the
University of Oklahoma with a degree in accounting, Mr. Galt also serves on the
boards of Friede Goldman Halter Inc., StanCorp Financial Group Inc. and Trinity
Industries Inc.

He replaces Michael Capellas, who recently resigned from the board following the
merger of Compaq and Hewlett-Packard. Mr. Capellas was elected to Dynegy's board
of directors in May 2001. In previous announcements, Dynegy has said it plans to
focus on its core energy businesses going forward.

Dynegy's board of directors now numbers 12, including two members representing
ChevronTexaco. ChevronTexaco will nominate a new director in the near future to
replace Glenn Tilton, who resigned as interim chairman of Dynegy on Sept. 2 to
become chairman, president and chief executive officer of UAL Corp.

Dynegy Inc. produces and delivers energy, including natural gas, power, natural
gas liquids and coal, through its owned and contractually controlled network of
physical assets. The company serves customers by aggregating production and
supply and delivering value-added solutions to meet their energy needs.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****    - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский 

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

        - Student Loans
        - Grants
        - Laws
        - Data

            - taxonomy view
            - Montana 

# Montana 

# Montana 

                      -  August 5, 2021  U.S. Department of Education Approves Montana’s Plan for Use of American Rescue Plan Funds to Support K-12 Schools and Students, Distributes Remaining $127 Million To State  
Today, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) announced the approval of Montana’s American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ARP ESSER) plan and distributed remaining ARP ESSER funds to them.
  **Tags:**MontanaAmerican Rescue PlanPress Releases

## How Do I Find...?

                      - Student loans, forgiveness
                      - Higher Education Rulemaking
                      - College accreditation
                      - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
                      - FERPA
                      - FAFSA
                      - 1098, tax forms
                      - More...

## Information About...

                      - Elevating Teaching
                      - Early Learning
                      - Engage Every Student
                      - Unlocking Career Success
                      - Cybersecurity

----

*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

          - Student Loans
          - Repaying Loans
          - Defaulted Loans
          - Loan Forgiveness
          - Loan Servicers
          - Grants & Programs
          - Apply for Pell Grants
          - Grants Forecast
          - Apply for a Grant

          - Laws & Guidance
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - Civil Rights
          - IDEA Website
          - Data & Research
          - Education Statistics
          - Postsecondary Education Data
          - ED Data Express
          - Nation's Report Card
          - What Works Clearinghouse
          - Open Data Platform
          - COVID Relief Data

          - About Us
          - Contact Us
          - ED Offices
          - Jobs
          - Press Releases
          - FAQs
          - Recursos en español
          - Budget, Performance
          - Privacy Program
          - Homeroom Blog

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information Quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
#### Al MCZEAL; Vien-Phuong Thi Ho, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GB INLAND PROPERTIES II, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-56750

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*918Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

A1 McZeal, Pro Se

Vien-Phuong Thi Ho, Pro Se

John E. Bouzane, Esquire, John E. Bouzane Law Office, San Bernardino, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

A1 McZeal and Vien-Phuong Thi Ho appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their motion for reconsideration of the district court’s dismissal of their action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with unlawful detainer proceedings in state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion for reconsideration because appellants failed to establish any basis for such relief. *See id.*at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion to strike defendants’ motions to dismiss because appellants failed to show how they were prejudiced by defendants’ technical non-compliance with the local rules. *See El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. Hashim,*316 F.3d 1032, 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by taking judicial notice of publicly recorded documents. *See*Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2); *United States v. Woods,*335 F.3d 993, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action without leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TERESA CORRAL-LERMA,

 Appellant, 

v.

BORDER DEMOLITION & 

ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., AS A 

CORPORATION, RAUL SOLIS, 

INDIVIDUALLY, AND BONNIE SOLIS, 

INDIVIDUALLY, 

 

 Appellees. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00194-CV

Appeal from the

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2009-2631)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal after abatement. 

Appellant represents to the Court the bankruptcy has been resolved. Therefore, on the Court’s own 

motion, the above-styled and numbered cause is hereby REINSTATED.

Further, the motion to dismiss the appeal will remain pending a response from the 

Appellees. The response is requested to be filed with this Court on or before November 15, 2021.

. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of November, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley JJ.
No. 11-9725.

#### Butler *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
# C_2021148EN.01002202.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/22

---

Action brought on 22 February 2021 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (WILD)

(Case T-116/21)

(2021/C 148/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Maternus GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Zoebisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark WILD — European Union trade mark No 9 515 248

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 in Case R 932/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and Article 59(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and Article 59(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### YUANJIE DU, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Sean MCCARTHY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-1660

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 1, 2018

Decided: February 9, 2018

Christopher Sean McCarthy, Appellant Pro Se. Yuanjie Du, Appellee Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Sean McCarthy appeals the magistrate judge’s orders * granting judgment to his former wife, Yuanjie Du, in her civil action in which she sought enforcement of a Form 1-864 Affidavit of Support. *See*8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(4)(C)(ii), 1183a(a)(l) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible' error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. *Yuanjie Du v. McCarthy,*No. 2:14-cv-00100-MJA (N.D.W. Va. May 9, 2017 & June 20, 2017). We deny Du’s motion to seal the record. *See*4th Cir. R. 25(c)(2). 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*

*

 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2012).
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 11--STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                      Three Months Ended                Nine Months Ended
                                          December 31,                    December 31,
                                     ----------------------         -----------------------
                                       1996          1995             1996           1995
                                     --------      --------         --------       --------
<S>                                 <C>          <C>              <C>            <C>
PRIMARY:
   Average shares outstanding         7,126,444    5,378,754       6,259,045       5,364,848
   Net effect of dilutive stock
     options and warrants--based
     on the treasury stock method
     using average market price         199,647      126,776         263,252         201,845
                                    -----------  -----------     -----------     -----------
TOTAL                                 7,326,091    5,505,530       6,522,297       5,566,693
                                    ===========  ===========     ===========     ===========

Net income                          $ 2,476,000  $   668,000     $ 3,816,000     $ 1,477,000
                                    ===========  ===========     ===========     ===========

Per share amount                    $       .34  $       .12     $       .58     $       .27
                                    ===========  ===========     ===========     ===========

FULLY DILUTED:
   Average shares outstanding         7,126,444    5,378,754       6,259,045       5,364,848
   Net effect of dilutive stock
     options and warrants--based
     on the treasury stock method
     using the higher of ending
     or average market price            199,647      252,314         263,252         238,052
                                    -----------  -----------     -----------     -----------
TOTAL                                 7,326,091    5,631,068       6,522,297       5,602,900
                                    ===========  ===========     ===========     ===========
Net income                          $ 2,476,000  $   668,000     $ 3,816,000     $ 1,477,000
                                    ===========  ===========     ===========     ===========
Per share amount                    $       .34  $       .12     $       .58     $       .26
                                    ===========  ===========     ===========     ===========
</TABLE>

The number of shares and per share amounts for the three and nine month periods
ended December 31, 1995 have been retroactively adjusted to reflect the
Company's 1 for 2 reverse stock split, effected March 21, 1996.
#### IN RE: S.J.M., a Minor

64 MDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/20/2017

24 OC 2016 (Tioga)

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>        BD
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000             APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                           7,845                   8,510
<RECEIVABLES>                                  480,966                 643,885
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                            3,964                   6,102
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                433                     369
<PP&E>                                           3,145                   3,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 509,142                 676,930
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,889                   2,889
<PAYABLES>                                     248,951                 341,079
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            172,161                 221,268
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                  73                     151
<LONG-TERM>                                      5,419                   5,419
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           151                     151
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,274                  30,775
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   509,142                 676,930
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                9,792                   5,435
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            20,826                  10,323
<COMMISSIONS>                                   23,787                  15,087
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                      797                     371
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,270                   5,499
<COMPENSATION>                                  17,068                   9,732
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,897                   7,985
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       8,897                   7,985
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,067                   4,555
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.35                    0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22                    0.15

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         812,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,053,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,263,000
<PP&E>                                         921,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,109,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,890,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,516,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (9,095,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,109,000
<SALES>                                      1,521,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,521,000
<CGS>                                          707,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  977,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             335,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (498,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (498,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (498,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 21, 2014

p0521

Order 

Clerk

May 21, 2014

147178

MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF 

CHIROPRACTORS a/k/a CHIROPRACTORS

ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN and NICHOLAS

S. GRIFFITHS, D.C.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 147178

COA: 304783

Ingham CC: 09-000140-CZ

BLUE CARE NETWORK OF MICHIGAN, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RANJEET SINGH, AKA Ranjit Singh,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-74274

Agency No. A200-943-592

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 26, 2016**

Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Ranjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 

decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 

 

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 29 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-74274

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, 

applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the 

REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we 

deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on Singh’s inconsistent testimony as to whether he recognized the 

individuals who attacked him in August 2010, and the circumstances under which 

he was found after that attack. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination 

was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”). Singh’s explanations 

for the inconsistencies do not compel the contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 

F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s 

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same 

testimony the agency found not credible, and Singh does not point to any evidence

that compels the finding it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned 

to India. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 10.24

 

FORFEITURE OF BONUS

 

This Forfeiture of Bonus (“Agreement”) is entered into between [Employee Name] (herein “Employee”) and Corium International, Inc. (the “Company”).

 

By signing below, Employee hereby waives the right to any bonus for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013.

 

Complete And Voluntary Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties on the subjects covered.  Employee expressly warrants that: s/he has read and fully understands this Agreement; s/he has consulted with his/her attorney prior to executing this Agreement; s/he is not executing this Agreement in reliance on any promises, representations or inducements other than those contained herein; and s/he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, free of any duress or coercion.

 

Effective Date. This Agreement will be effective on the date it is signed by Employee.

 

 

	
Dated:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
For   Corium International, Inc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Dated:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
[Employee   Name]