alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* The HONORABLE DANIEL M. FRIEDMAN, United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

1 The HONORABLE PAUL A. MAGNUSON, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 96-1193

___________ Bernice L. Dalbec, *
* Plaintiff-Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Electronic Data Systems Corp., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant-Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 18, 1996 Filed: December 27, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, FRIEDMAN, * and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In May 1993, Electronic Data Systems Corporation terminated Bernice L. Dalbec as EDS's computer Operations Supervisor at its Plymouth, Minnesota, site. Dalbec commenced this action in state court alleging gender and age discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 363.01 et seq. , and EDS removed the action to federal court. Following extensive discovery, the district court 1granted summary judgment in favor of EDS, and Dalbec appeals.-2- The district court found undisputed evidence that Dalbec was terminated as part of a bona fide corporate-wide reduction in force, even though hers was the only position eliminated at the Plymouth site. Applying the Minnesota Supreme Court's standards for reduction-in-force cases, see Dietrich v. Canadian Pac. Ltd. , 536 N.W.2d 319, 324-25 (Minn. 1995), the court concluded that Dalbec has not made the "additional showing" required to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination in such cases, and alternatively that Dalbec has failed to present evidence which, if believed, would establish that EDS's profferred nondiscriminatory reason for termination -- that it selected Dalbec for inclusion in the reduction in force because of her on-going job performance problems -- was a pretext for gender or age discrimination.

On appeal, Dalbec argues that the district court improperly granted summary judgment by ignoring Dalbec's evidence of pretext, particularly her favorable performance reviews and other evidence she was qualified for the position; by improperly crediting evidence of her performance problems and insubordination that was not part of her personnel file; and by concluding that the reduction in force was bona fide despite evidence that, at least as applied to Dalbec, it was pretextual. After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs on appeal, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of EDS for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough Memorandum and Order dated December 15, 1995. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

EDS's motions to strike portions of the joint appendix and Dalbec's reply brief are denied.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit
      31.1**




**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer**


**Pursuant
      to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**


**and
      Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-46427**





I,
      John
      Sifonis, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Trulite, Inc.;





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of
      a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
      made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
      not
      misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial
      information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
      respects the consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash
      flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
      report;





4.
      I
      have:





a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
      during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
      and





b)
      evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
      by this report based on such evaluation;





c)
      disclosed in this report any change in registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting the occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
      quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
      and





5.
      I have
      disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
      reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
      board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a)
      all
      deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
      control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
      the 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
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting.





Date:
                June 7, 2006
            /s/
                John SifonisJohn
                Sifonis
              Principal
                Executive Officer
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Randy Schmutz, Appellant

No. 06

- 12

- 00059

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 76th District Court of Titus County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.
CR14,334 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We further order that the appellant, Randy Schmutz, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MARCH 22, 2013

BY ORDER O F THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                     
|----------------------------------------------
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Chris Bunka, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Lexaria Corp. for the
      year ended October 31, 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Lexaria Corp.                                                                

Dated: January 31, 2012

| | Chris Bunka                                  
| | -----------------------------------------------
| | Chris Bunka                                    
| | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
| | (Principal Executive Officer)                  
| | Lexaria Corp.                                  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lexaria Corp.
and will be retained by Lexaria Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
"Bellinger, David. C" <David.Bellinger@childrens. harvard.edu> 02/13/2008 03:23 PM To Jee-Young Kim/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA cc Subject RE: Request for additional information on Bellinger and Needleman

(2003)

Dear Young, The mean blood lead level at age 24 months, among children whose blood lead level between birth and 2 years never went above 10 was 1.34, expressed on the natural log scale (SD 0.63). The range was 0 - 2.24. Exponentiating that gives about 3.8 micrograms/dL (range 1 - 9.3). Best Wishes , David

************************************************ David C. Bellinger, Ph.D., M.Sc. Professor of Neurology Harvard Medical School Professor in the Department of Environmental Health Harvard School of Public Health (617) 355 - 6565 (617) 730 - 0618 (fax) (617) 355 - 7243, #2188 (page)

----- Original Message ----- From: Kim.Jee - Young@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Kim.Jee - Young@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wed 2/13/2008 3:02 PM To: Bellinger, David. C Subject: Request for additional information on Bellinger and Needleman (2003) Dear Dr. Bellinger, Thank you for following - up with Dr. Tellez - Rojo on our request for additional information on her Mexico City cohort. At this time, we would also like to request some additional data from your reanalyses(Bellinger and Nee dleman, 2003) of the Boston cohort data. Would you

please provide us with the mean (SD) blood lead concentrations for the children in the subset <10 ug/dL? As you are aware, the Pb NAAQS review is on a very tight court - ordered deadline. We would greatly appreciate your prompt response. Many thanks, Young Jee Young Kim, Sc.D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Assessment Telephone: 919 - 541 - 4157 E -mail: kim.jee - young@epa.gov
288P16

#### The Town of Beech Mountain v. John Milligan and wife, Sharon Milligan

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-1267)

Denied
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 20673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11117]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Notice of Availability of Draft NUREG-1628 ``Staff Responses to 
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Decommissioning of Nuclear Power 
Reactors''

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing the 
availability of NUREG-1628, ``Staff Responses to Frequently Asked 
Question Concerning Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors,'' a 
draft report for comment dated April 1998.
    This document, through a question-and-answer format, provides 
information to the public on decommissioning. The questions were taken 
from a variety of sources over the past several years, including 
written inquiries and questions asked at public meetings and during 
informal discussions with the NRC staff. The document was prepared in 
response to (1) the increase in the number of power reactors beginning 
the decommissioning process, (2) recent changes in the decommissioning 
regulations, and (3) a perceived lack of information available to 
members of the public on decommissioning. This document is being issued 
for public comment. As a result of comments received from the members 
of the public, the final document may be modified.
    The report contains information on the following topics as they 
relate to decommissioning: definition of decommissioning, 
decommissioning alternatives, decommissioning experience in the U.S. 
regulation of decommissioning, low-level waste storage and disposal of 
wastes associated with facility storage and decommissioning, high-level 
waste storage and disposal, license termination, hazards associated 
with decommissioning, financing, and public involvement during the 
decommissioning process.
    Draft NUREG-1628 is available for inspection and copying for a fee 
at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW, (Lower Level), 
Washington, D.C. A free single copy of the draft NUREG-1628 may be 
requested by writing to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Reproduction, and Distribution and Inventory Services Section, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001 or by faxing a request to 301-415-2289. For 
further information contact, John L. Minns, Division of Reactor Program 
Management. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-
3166.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of April 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Seymour H. Weiss,
Director, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate, 
Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-11117 Filed 4-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Stephen Dowd, is the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of CMS Bancorp, Inc. (the Company).

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify that:



| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this
statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                        |  |  |  |                                                               
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: December 23, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen E. Dowd                                           
|                        |  |  |  | Stephen Dowd Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(a)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Global Traffic Network, Inc. for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Global Traffic Network, Inc.
 Dated: March 27, 2009
    By:
    /s/ William L. Yde IIIWilliam L. Yde III, Chief Executive Officerand President (Principal Executive Officer)Dated: March 27, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Scott E. CodyScott E. Cody, Chief Financial Officerand Chief Operating Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
086P17

#### State v. Tara May Frazier

State’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA16-449)

Denied
Asia Entertainment & Resources Ltd.
	 	Unit 605, 6/F., East Town Building,
	 	16 Fenwick Street, Wanchai, Hong Kong
	 	香港灣仔分域街16 號東城大廈6樓605室
	 	Tel: 電話: (852) 3580 0190
	 	Fax 傳真: (852) 2110 9420


 


Date: February 16, 2012


 


To: Mr. Leong Siak Hung


 


Salary Increase for the Company’s
Executive Officers


 


Pursuant to the recommendation/approval
of the Compensation Committee dated January 18, 2012 and the subsequent endorsement/approval of the full Board of Directors of
the Company, I am pleased to advise that your monthly salary is increased to HK$170,000 which takes retrospective effect from January
2012 onwards; while all other terms and conditions of the last Employment Agreement entered into between the Company and you remain
unchanged.


 


Yours truly,


 


/s/ Lam Man Pou, Chairman


 


	 	Acknowledged and agreed by
	 	 
	 	/s/ Leong Siak Hung, CEO
	 	 
	 	Dated: February 16, 2012
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHU MEI HU,

Petitioner,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
, Respondent. No. 15

- 70411

Agency No. A089

- 984

- 152

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 30 , 2021 * *

Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Shu Mei Hu, a native and citizen of China
, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing h er appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying h er application for asylum
, withholding of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAY 5 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

removal
, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. 1

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We rev iew 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). We deny the petition for review.

1. T o overturn an adverse credibility determination, we must conclude

that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion

. Lianhua Jiang v. Holder , 754
F.3d 733, 739 (9th Cir. 2014). The agency was not required to credit Hu’s
explanation s for the inconsistencies in her testimony or her ina bility to provide

evidence corroborating her claim that she was forced to undergo an abortion

. See

Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he record does not
compel the finding that the IJ’s un w illingness to believe this explanation .

. . was
erroneous.”) ; Shrestha
, 590 F.3d at 1047

– 48 (“[W]e reverse an agency’s

determination concerning the availability of corroborative evidence only if a

reasonable trier of fact would be compelled to conclude that such corroborating
evidence is unavailable.”)

.
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Hu failed

to establish persecution on account of her religion

. See Gu v. Gonzales , 454 F.3d

1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding t hat a brief detention
, an interrogation, and

1 Hu does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT protection.3

a beating that did not require medical treatment did not compel the conclusion that

the petitioner had suffered past persecution or had a well

- founded fear of future

persecution )

. Thus, Hu’s asylum and withhold ing of removal claims fail.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
No. 12-6520.

#### Fouche *v.*Guttierrez, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### PUEBLO OF ACOMA etc. v. Arthur BIBO etc.

No. 3537.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

June 9, 1950.

A. Devitt Vanech, Assistant Attorney General, and John F. Cotter, Fred W. Smith and Roger P. Marquis, Attorneys, department of Justice, all of Washington, D‘ C'> and Everett M- Grantham, United States Attorney, and Maurice Sanchez, Assistant United States Attorney, Albu-Querque, N. M., for appellant,

Seth & Montgomery, Santa Fe, N. M., for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of District Court vacated and Cattse remanded MaT 9> 19jd, direc^ons dismiss the cause of action, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties.
EXHIBIT 15.2

May 7, 2009

Mercury General Corporation

Los
Angeles, California



|Re: | Registration Statement Nos. 333-62228, 333-01583 and 333-125460
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------

With
respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated May 7, 2009 related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a report
prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California
#### Bonnie Nicole GAULT, Appellant, v. Tyrone Francis BOYCE, Jr., Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2401

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Michelle Pincket, Judge.

Affirmed.
152PA16

#### Catawba County, by and through its Child Support Agency, *ex rel.*Shawna Rackley v. Jason Loggins

Pit’s Motion to Allow Amicus Curiae to Participate in Oral Argument

Allowed 03/09/2017
----

----

----

----

| BorrowingBase      Utilization Percentage | EurodollarLoans | ABRLoans |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------|
| > 90%                                  | 3.25%           | 2.25%    |
| > 75% and < 90%                | 3.00%           | 2.00%    |
| > 50% and < 75%                | 2.75%           | 1.75%    |
| <      50%                             | 2.50%           | 1.50%    |

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|   | U.S.      BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as aLender |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|

|   | Title:  Senior      Vice President |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|

----

----