alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LORENZO W. COATS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 97-1534

DANIEL P. KIEHART; MICHAEL P.

SHEETZ; DUKE UNIVERSITY,

INCORPORATED; ROBERT WINFREE,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-94-292, CA-94-293, CA-94-294, CA-94-295)

Submitted: May 28, 1998

Decided: July 31, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Lorenzo W. Coats, Appellant Pro Se. John Morgan Simpson, Joseph

Walker, FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo W. Coats appeals the district court's order denying his

motion to vacate an arbitration award, granting Defendant's motion

to confirm arbitration, and dismissing with prejudice his employment

discrimination claims. We affirm the order of the district court.

First, we find that Coats' unsupported allegations that Duke University's arbitration policy discriminates against blacks are insufficient to merit relief. See Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35 (4th Cir.

1990). Further, to the extent that Coats avers that statutory claims are

not arbitrable, he is mistaken. See Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass

Container, Inc., 78 F.3d 875, 885-86 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 65

U.S.L.W. 3351 (U.S. Nov. 12, 1996) (No. 96-337). Next, we find

unavailing Coats' claim that he was not an employee of Duke University and therefore was not subject to arbitration. The record reveals

that Coats admitted to being employed by Duke and receiving

employee benefits from Duke. Moreover, because Coats voluntarily

availed himself of the arbitration procedure, he cannot now claim that

there was no arbitration agreement. See Orion Pictures Corp. v. Writers Guild of Am., W., Inc., 946 F.2d 722, 725-26 (9th Cir. 1991).

Finally, to the extent that Coats claims he was coerced into arbitrating

his claims because he did not know that by registering for employee

benefits he agreed to arbitration, his claim is without merit. See

Stedor Enters., Ltd. v. Armtex, Inc., 947 F.2d 727, 733 (4th Cir.

1991); see also Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20,

33 (1991).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
Exhibit 10(a)

THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY
EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 5

The
Newhall Land and Farming Company Employee Savings Plan (the "Plan"), as restated in its entirety effective January 1, 1989, and subsequently amended, is further amended
effective as of the dates set forth below, as follows:







1

---











2

---









3

---











4

---







IN WITNESS WHEREOF,Newhall Management Corporation, managing general partner of Newhall Management Limited Partnership, managing general
partner of The Newhall Land and Farming Company (a California Limited Partnership) has caused this Amendment No. 5 to be executed on behalf of such partnership by its duly authorized officer as
of this 15th day of February, 2002.

| |  | THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY
(A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP)
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |                                                                        
| |  | By:                                                                    
| |  |                                                                        
| |  | By:                                                                    
| |  |                                                                        
| |  |                                                                        
| |  | By:                                                                    
| |  | Title:                                                                 

5

---
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

MANSFIELD HELIFLIGHT, INC. 

v. 

CITY OF BURLINGTON, 

VERMONT 

Complainant, 

Resnondent. 

FAA Docket No.16-14-06 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Eriforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to December 11, 2015. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August____,S_, 2015, I caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the foregoing document 

addressed to: 

FOR RESPONDENT 

Pablo 0. Nuesch 

Anjali G. Patel 

Spiegel and McDiarmid, LLP 

1875 Eye Street, N.W. 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20006 

FOR COMPLAINANT 

Benjamin H. Klein 

The Klein Law Firm, LLC 

61 Broadway, Suite 2125 

New York, NY 10006 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-600 

FAA Airport Compliance and Field Operations, AC0-1 00 

Aline Torgerson 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEBRUARY 20, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-10022

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-10035-CR-KMM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADRIAN GRANADO-MENA,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(February 20, 2009)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and

COHILL,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

____________________

*Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of

Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the

judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. Appellant’s primary argument

on appeal is his challenge to the Guideline section 2L1.1(b)(7)(D) enhancement on

account of the death of one person who was still in the water and was run over

either by appellant’s boat or by the boat of the Cuban border patrol. Appellant

does not challenge his enhancement under §2L1.1(b)(6). That section provides for

an enhancement if the offense involved intentionally or recklessly creating a

substantial risk of death or bodily injury to another person. The challenged

enhancement – §2L1.1(b)(7)(D) – applies: “If any person died.” 

In this case, appellant’s smuggling operation involved anchoring his go-fast

boat offshore of Cuba, requiring the aliens to be smuggled to swim to the boat. 

Nine aliens had already arrived at appellant’s boat when the Cuban Border Patrol

appeared and attempted to stop the operation. A number of aliens had not yet

reached appellant’s boat, and were still in the water. When appellant’s boat left

abruptly, and the Cuban Border Patrol took chase, one of the persons still in the

water was killed. 

We readily conclude that the person who was killed died as a result of the

substantial risk of death which was created intentionally or recklessly by

appellant’s smuggling operation. Appellant conceded that he intentionally or

2
recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury (2L1.1(b)(6));

on these facts, we conclude that there was sufficient causal nexus between the risk

and the death to find that the death resulted from that risk and for the district court

to find the enhancement under 2L1.1(b)(7)(D) applicable. 

1

Appellant’s challenge to the reasonableness of the sentence is wholly

without merit and rejected without need for further discussion. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Having decided that there is sufficient causal relationship to dispose of this case,

1

we need not, and do not, inquire more precisely about the required causal relationship. 

3
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 6, 2023

No. 04-22-00790-CR

Aaron V. WELGARZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CR-7939

Honorable Jennifer Pena, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief is hereby

GRANTED. The Appellant’s Brief is due April 10, 2023. Further requests for extension of time 

will be disfavored.

It is so ORDERED on February 6, 2023.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT

FILE COPY
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1147

TERRI BAKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GREYHOUND BUS LINE; RAY ROBINSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA02-3239-JFM)

Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terri Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Karla Grossenbacher, Emily R.

Friedman, SEYFARTH SHAW, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Terri Baker appeals the district court’s order denying her

suit alleging discrimination based on race and disability. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Baker v.

Greyhound Bus Line, No. CA-02-3239-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 14, 2003). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Jeremy L. STRONG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3440

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Document

Exhibit 10.6 




The 2022 bonus plan for our executive officers determines bonuses by the extent to which three financial performance goals and various business performance objectives are met.
Threshold, target and maximum performance achievement levels have been established for each financial performance goal and each financial performance goal is assigned a percentage weight. A percentage for each financial performance goal is calculated based on the company’s achievement against the goal. That percentage is multiplied by the weight for that goal. The individual financial performance goals, as generally described, and their weightings are: ROE (calculated as adjusted net operating income, divided by beginning shareholders’ equity excluding Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), as adjusted) (45%); new insurance written (15%), except that new insurance written during any month is included only to the extent such volume is projected to generate, as of such month in which it is written, a lifetime return, including the effects of quota share reinsurance, that exceeds a hurdle rate; and insurance in force, as adjusted (15%).


Performance against the business objectives is assigned a percentage in the aggregate, which is multiplied by 25%. The subjects addressed by the business performance objectives are: transforming our business to sustain our success; certain ESG considerations; and ensuring we have the appropriate amount and form of capital to support our strategies and meet the needs of our stakeholders.


The resulting percentages for achievement against the financial performance goals and the business objectives are added.  The resulting pay-out, if any, can range from threshold, which is 50% of target, to maximum, which is 200% of target.  The Committee has discretion to decrease by as much as 10 percentage points or increase by as much as 10 percentage points the resulting percentage (the “Bonus Pool Percentage”), but the Bonus Pool Percentage will not exceed maximum.
Benigno BORGES, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-221

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: July

30, 2015 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket I d: OAR

– 2013
- 0602 FROM: EPA Region 1 SUBJECT: July

16, 2015 Presentation to New Hampshire Environmental Business Council including Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** On July 16, 2015, Regional Administrator Curt Spalding presented on EPA priorities to the New Hampshire Environmental Business Council. The presentation included the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. **ATTENDEES** Curt Spalding, EPA App roximately

25 people attended this conference. Attendance was not taken by EPA Slides attached.
Fabio Nicholas NUGENT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-471

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 21

MARQUEE HOLDINGS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES (AND JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION)

MARQUEE HOLDINGS INC. (Delaware)

AMC
ENTERTAINMENT INC. (Delaware)



50%
(unconsolidated) Hoyts General Cinema South America, Inc. (Cayman Islands)

GCC/Hoyts
Brazil Holdings, Inc. (Cayman Islands)

General
Cinemas do Brazil Empreendimentos, Ltda. (Brazil)

BOCA
Holdings, Inc. (Cayman Islands)

Hoyts
General Cinema de Argentina S.A. (Argentina)

Hoyts
Cinemas (Chile) Holdings Limited (Cayman Islands)

94%
Hoyts Cinemas Chile, S.A. (Chile)

50%
GCC/Hoyts Uruguay, Inc. (Cayman Islands)

Telnir
S.A. (Uruguay)

---
Rashad A. FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1738

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Dr. Thomas E. Sawyer, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Brazil Gold Corp.





2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 quarterly report;





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





4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:





a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;





b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within ninety (90) days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and





c)
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):





a)
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and





6. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date: October 18,  2010








By:           /s/ Dr Thomas E Sawyer





Thomas E. Sawyer , President, Chief Executive Officer and principal executive officer
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-17-00487- CV

In re Jessica Edwards F . R. and J. R., App ellants

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F H AY S CO UNTY, 274 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 13- 2094 , H ONO RAB LE WI LLIAM R. H ENRY, JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R T O S H O W C A U S E
P ER CURIAM

This is a contempt proce eding ancillar y to the appea l of F. R. and J.R. The subject of this proce edingis J essica E dwar ds, appellants’ attorney
.

Appellants filed their notice of appea l on J uly 17, 2017, and their brief was orig inally due on August 17, 2017. On August 17, 2017, we g rante d appellants’ first motion for extension of time and order ed counsel to file appellants’ brief no later than August 29, 2017. To date, appellants’ brief ha s not been filed.

There fore , it is here by order ed that J essica Edwar ds shall appea r in person befor e this Court on Wednesday , September 27, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., in the Third Court of Appea ls c ourtroom, located on the first floor of the Price Da niel, Sr. Building , 209 West 14th Street, i n Austin, TravisCounty , Texas, to show cause why she should not be held in contempt and have sanctions imposed

for her failure to obey our August 17, 2017 order
. This order to show cause will be withdrawn and Edwar ds will be relieve d of her obligation to appea r befor e this Court as order ed above if the Clerk of this Court rece ives appe llants’ brief on or befor e September

25, 2017. I t is ordere d on September 15, 2017.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Field, a nd Bour land

2
f10k2011ex10i_chinaginseng.htm


Exhibit 10.1







Labor Contract







This labor contract is based on the People’s Republic China’s labor law and labor contract law and other related laws and regulations.







Employer: China Ginseng Holdings Inc







Employer’s address: 1208A Jiyu Bldg. 1420 Jie Fang Da Road, Changchun City, Jilin, China







Legal Representative: Liu Chang Zhen







Employee: Ren, Ying







Gender: Female







Employee’s ID Number: 22010219606042225







Employee’s address:  Zhizhong Road, Nanguan District, Changchun City, Jilin, China







I. Contract Period & Probation Period







Both parties agree to choose (1)   for the employment terms:








	  	
1.

	
Fixed contract period: From Jan 1, 2011 to Jan 1, 2014


	 	 	 
	 	2.	No fixed contract period:  From___________________
	 	 	 
	 	3.	By Project : From _______________to completion










II Job Description & Job Location







Chief Financial Officer







III Working Hours & Time Off







Both parties agree to choose (1) for working hours


 




	 	1.	
Standard full time


	 	 	 
	 	2.	Non Standard hours
	 	 	 





	 	3.	
Combined hours







 


IV Remuneration







By consensus, both parties confirm the probation wage is $438.11  a month, after probation is $438.11 a month.  Payment should be in monetary form and full payment of the monthly wages shall be delivered by the last day of the month. Employer shall not unjustifiably deduct or delay in paying the wages. The monthly wage shall not less than the minimum wage implemented by the city.







V Social Insurance and Labor benefits







In accordance with central government, state, provincial and municipal policies and regulations







VI Labor conditions and labor protection against occupational hazards







In accordance with central government, state and provincial requirements relating to the implementation of occupational safety and health







VII Termination & Renew of the Labor Contract


 




  





  











  






 


Both parties observe the central government, state and provincial regulations regarding the termination of the labor contract.  Unless the violation is expressly stipulated by state, either party in violation of the contract will be subject to the payment of appropriate compensation for breach of contract.







This contract is effective from the date signed by both parties.







Employer: China Ginseng Holdings, Inc








	
Legal Representative: Liu Chang Zhen

	
Date:  Jan 1, 2011


	  	  
	
Employee: Ren Ying

	
Date:  Jan 1, 2011












Governing Authority: Changchun City Employment Service (with seal)


Jan 4, 2011
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2517 

To suspend temporarily the duty on tertiobutyl catechol flakes and tertiobutyl 

catechol with 85% water or methanol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Ms. LANDRIEU introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on tertiobutyl catechol 

flakes and tertiobutyl catechol with 85% water or methanol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TERTIOBUTYL CATECHOL FLAKES AND 

4 TERTIOBUTYL CATECHOL WITH 85% WATER 

5 OR METHANOL. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2517 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Tertiobutyl catechol flakes 

or tertiobutyl catechol with 

85% water or methanol 

(CAS No. 98–29–3) (provided for in subheading 

2907.29.90) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Order entered October 7, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00566-CV

SUSAN ELIZABETH WRIGHT, Appellant

V.

JAMES TURNER WRIGHT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-24919

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s October 5, 2020 motion for an extension of 

time to file her brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion. We ORDER the 

brief tendered to this Court by appellant on October 5, 2020 filed as of the date of 

this order.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE