alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-6454.

#### Ben Alan Snipes, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 1048, 131 S. Ct. 606,

178 L. Ed. 2d 441,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8868.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
No. 10-5002.

#### Anthony Foster, aka Daymion Johnson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1065, 131 S. Ct. 639,

178 L. Ed. 2d 484,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9431.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

*485Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 1.
# San Joaquin’s Fritangela selected as Employee of the Quarter

/ Published Feb. 18, 2016
SAN JOAQUIN, California, 
Dustin Fritangela, distribution process worker leader atDefense Logistics Agency Distribution San Joaquin, Calif., has been honored asEmployee of the Quarter for first quarter, fiscal year 2016. 

Fritangela works in the distribution center’s StockPositioning Branch, where he is a valued employee with a vast knowledge of theentire distribution center and epitomizes the idea of being a team player, sayshis supervisor Matt Messick. 

While working with the Disposal Release Order program, he hadconcerns about sending shipping and storage containers that might be reusableto disposal and took the initiative to research how to best utilize thesecontainers.After contacting hiscolleague at Naval Supply Systems Command for direction as to what thedistribution center should be doing with the containers, it was revealed thatthe U.S. Navy was in desperate need for containers and that they had a Long-LifeReusable Container program in place.

After learning of the Navy’s container program, he contactedthe customer to obtain their shipping information and compiled a truckload ofcontainers valued at nearly $30,000. Since shipping the first load, Fritangelahas volunteered to spearhead the program for San Joaquin to continue thesavings to the taxpayer and support the distribution center’s customers.

“Mr. Fritangela’s can-do attitude and work ethic perfectlyalign with DLA’s mission, vision and values. He provides responsive support tothe mission, while assisting the department staff and can be counted on to givehis best. He is not only a dedicated government employee, but also a woundedwarrior,” said Messick.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD J. SAGER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-36084

D.C. No. 4:12-cv-00102-RKS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Keith Strong, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 4, 2015** 

Portland, Oregon

Before: KOZINSKI, FISHER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Edward Sager appeals the judgment of the district court affirming the

decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) denying his application for social

security disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we

FILED

NOV 06 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review de novo, see Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2010), and we

affirm.

1. The ALJ did not improperly reject the opinions of Sager’s treating

physicians. Dr. Peterson’s conclusory opinion that Sager was unable to work was

not a “medical opinion” but rather a question reserved to the ALJ. See 29 C.F.R.

§ 404.1527(d), (d)(1). The ALJ was not required to discuss every medical finding

in the records of Dr. Peterson and Dr. Kelly. See Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart,

341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003). Nor was the ALJ required to credit Sager’s

subjective complaints merely because they were recorded in his physicians’

records. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.

2004).

2. The ALJ offered specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting

Sager’s testimony about the severity of his symptoms. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue,

504 F.3d 1028, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2007). Sager failed to comply with treatment

recommendations to quit smoking, take prescribed medications, have epidural

injections, consistently perform a home exercise program and consider spinal cord

stimulation treatment. This noncompliance undermines his claims of debilitating

pain. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008); Burch v.

Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005). The ALJ also found the medical

2
evidence did not substantiate Sager’s subjective allegations of disabling

limitations. This too was a proper reason to discount Sager’s testimony. See

Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“While subjective pain

testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by

objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in

determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”).

3. The ALJ did not pose an incomplete hypothetical to the vocational

expert. The hypothetical properly included only those limitations that the ALJ

found were supported by substantial evidence. See Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin.,

466 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

3
No. 10-6698.

#### Warren Vincent Lee, Petitioner v. Shane Wyatt, et al.

562 U.S. 1070, 131 S. Ct. 659,

178 L. Ed. 2d 493,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9293.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 697.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002.

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Educational Development Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the period ending February 28, 2010, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  | May 28,  2010 |   | By     | /s/  Randall W. White                         |
|--------|--------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   |               |   |   | Randall  W. White                             |
|   |               |   |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer        |
|   |               |   |   |                                          |
| Date:  | May 28,  2010 |   | By     | /s/  Marilyn Pinney                           |
|   |               |   |   | Marilyn  Pinney                               |
|   |               |   |   | Controller  and Corporate Secretary           |
|   |               |   |   | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
No. 09-987.

#### Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, Petitioner v. Kathleen M. Winn, et al.

562 U.S. 1090, 131 S. Ct. 812,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9490.

178 L. Ed. 2d 529,

December 6, 2010.

Motion of petitioner Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization for leave to file a supplemental brief after argument granted.
EXHIBIT 10.12

                    ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Addendum (the  "Addendum") is made effective as of the 15th day of
December,  1999 and is intended  to amend a certain  Employment  Agreement  (the
"Agreement")  by and between Erie Indemnity  Company and John J.  Brinling,  Jr.
effective as of December 16, 1997.

         WHEREAS,  the Company has determined that it is in the best interest of
the Company  and its  Shareholders  to secure the  continued  employment  of the
Executive in accordance with the terms of the Agreement; and

         WHEREAS,  the Board of Directors of the Company at its meeting of March
9,  1999  agreed  to extend  the term of the  Agreement  for a period of one (1)
additional  year which  extended the term of the Agreement to expire on December
15, 2000 instead of December 15, 1999; and

         WHEREAS,  the Board of  Directors  of the  Company  at its  meeting  of
December  14, 1999 has again  agreed to extend the term of the  Agreement  for a
period of one (1) additional year as contained herein; and

         WHEREAS, the Executive is agreeable to the extension of the Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree
         as follows:

         1. Paragraph 1 of the Agreement with respect  to  the  Term is hereby
amended by extending the Term to expire on December 15, 2001.

         2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force
and effect.

ATTEST:                                              ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY


/s/ Mark T. Torok                         By: /s/ F. William Hirt
    Mark T. Torok                                 F. William Hirt
     Assistant Secretary                           Chairman of the Board


WITNESS:

/s/ Sheila M. Hirsch                           /s/ John J. Brinling
    Sheila M. Hirsch                               John J. Brinling, Jr.
     Executive Secretary                           5691 Culpepper Drive
                                                   Erie, PA   16506






                                       64
No. 10-7229.

#### Rolando Roel-Villagomez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1076, 131 S. Ct. 679,

178 L. Ed. 2d 504,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9140.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 369.
# C_2013325EN.01003202.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/32

---

Appeal brought on 17 July 2013 by FK  (*1)against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 FK  (*1)v Commission

(Case T-373/13 P)

(2013/C 325/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: FK  (*1)(represented by: S. Orlandi, D. Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 FK (*1)
  v European Commission |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 FK (*1)
  v European Commission

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on single plea in law, alleging error of law, as the CST held that annulment of the decision to limit the extension period of the appellant’s contract as a member of temporary staff would place him retroactively under the system of contracts of indefinite duration. The appellant argues that that is not the case and submits that the CST infringed his right to an effective judicial remedy in finding that he could not apply for partial annulment of the decision to limit the extension period of his contract, namely that part of the decision limiting the duration of the extension in time.

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

---
No. 10-6990.

#### Jose Enrique Resendiz, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 1072, 131 S. Ct. 668,

178 L. Ed. 2d 498,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9203.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, denied.
# C_2013344EN.01005802.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/58

---

Action brought on 30 August 2013 — You-View.tv/OHMI — YouView TV (YouView+)

(Case T-480/13)

2013/C 344/107

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: You-View.tv (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: S. Criel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: YouView TV Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2013 given in Case R 2112/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2013 given in Case R 2112/2012-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘YouView+’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 10 286 061

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark in red and white containing verbal elements ‘You View You-View.tv’ for services in Classes 35, 38 and 41 — Benelux trade mark No 838 408

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE BANC CORPORATION FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          32,757
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,672
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,457
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     71,658
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,585
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,550
<LOANS>                                        595,159
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 775,405
<DEPOSITS>                                     631,889
<SHORT-TERM>                                     9,853
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,982
<LONG-TERM>                                     57,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 775,405
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 34,663
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,115
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   568
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                39,346
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              16,978
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,617
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           20,729
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,987
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  65
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 20,324
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,903
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,903
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,146
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.87
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,494
<LOANS-PAST>                                       795
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,466
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,774
<RECOVERIES>                                       767
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,036
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,036
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
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




In
connection with the Annual Report of Escalade, Incorporated (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 26, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert J. Keller,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(1) 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/
      Robert J. KellerRobert
      J. KellerChief
      Executive OfficerFebruary 22, 2011
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
                
                Defense Logistics Agency
                        The Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency
                    DLA
            Search
                        Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                            Search
                    Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                        Search
    Home

    What DLA Offers
    
        Excess Property Disposal

    Document Services

    Products

    Services

    Programs

    Working With DLA
    
        Applications

    Small Business

    Federal and International Cataloging

    Defense Data Standards

    Events

    Procurement Policies

    Government Programs

    Forms

    Organizations
    
        DLA Headquarters

    DLA Aviation

    DLA Disposition Services

    DLA Distribution

    DLA Energy

    DLA Land and Maritime

    DLA Troop Support

    DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM

    DLA Europe & Africa

    DLA Indo-Pacific

    Customer Support
    
        Self Help Tools

    How to Order

    Find Your Order

    Customer Facing Offices

    Training

    Brochures

    Warfighter Support

    Customer Service Management

    Careers

    About DLA
    
        Contact Us

    Locations

    Leaders

    News

    History

    Media Gallery

    DLA Campaigns  Home
  Land and Maritime
  About
  DLA Land and Maritime Image Galleries
 DLA Land and Maritime images
 Supply Chain Alliance and Exhibition
 DLA Land and Maritime News
 Hall of Fame Ceremonies
 DSCC Activities
 DLA Land and Maritime Hall of Fame ceremonies
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (7.19 MB)
 
 DSCC DLA Land and Maritime Product Test Lab visits L&M news L&M
 Photo Gallery
 2024 DLA Supply Chain Alliance Conference and Exhibition Image Gallery
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (7.19 MB)
 
 DSCC DLA Land and Maritime Product Test Lab visits L&M news L&M
 Photo Gallery
 DLA Land and Maritime news
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (7.19 MB)
 
 DSCC DLA Land and Maritime Product Test Lab visits L&M news L&M
 Photo Gallery
 DSCC activities
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (7.19 MB)
 
 DSCC DLA Land and Maritime Product Test Lab visits L&M news L&M
 Photo Gallery
 Contact UsSite IndexStrategic PlanDLA IG HotlineFOIANo FEAR ActWhistleblower ProtectionDLA CareersImagesWebmasterEEOSection 508Public AffairsSAPRExternal Links DisclaimerDOD Information Quality GuidelinesPrivacy/SecurityUSA.govDOD Web PolicyDOD Open GovernmentPlain Language
                    Stay Connected
            
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
No. 10-5802 (R46-007).

#### Dustin Dalone Markel, aka Neil Douglas Jones, Petitioner v. United States.

December 16, 2010.

The petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the above-entitled case was dismissed today pursuant to this Court’s Rule 46.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

The undersignedChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officerof NIC Inc. (the “Company) each hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)   theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)   theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 7, 2007
| /s/ Jeffery S. Fraser     |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Jeffery S. Fraser         |
| Chairman of the Board and |
| Chief Executive Officer   |
|                      |
| /s/ Eric J. Bur           |   |
| Eric J. Bur               |
| Chief Financial Officer   |
|                           |        |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

This certification “accompanies”the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities andExchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filingof the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of theForm 10-Q, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in suchfiling).

1

----