alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Kerry WHITE v. Jacobi OWENS

2170046

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 23, 2018

Dismissed.
AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE

L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

(Restated January 1, 2000)

WHEREAS, L-3 Communications Corporation (L-3) maintains the L-3 Communications Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the SERP);

WHEREAS, under the terms of the SERP, benefits will be paid in the same form as the benefit payments under the Qualified Plans;

WHEREAS, L-3 desires to amend the SERP to provide benefits will be paid as a lump sum if the present value of the SERP benefit is not greater than $5,000 notwithstanding that payments under the Qualified Plan will be paid in a form other than a lump sum;

NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is amended, effective January 1, 2003, as follows:

1.
        Section 3.3 is deleted and replaced with the following:


Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.4, any Supplemental Pension Benefit to which a Participant is entitled under this SERP shall be paid in the same form and at the same time, using the same actuarial assumptions, as the Pension Benefit that is paid to the Participant (or his or her Spouse or Beneficiary) under the terms of the Pension Plan. Notwithstanding the above, if the present value of the Participants Supplemental Pension Benefit, using the Pension Plan actuarial assumptions for determining non-lump sum distributions, is $5,000 or less, such Supplemental Pension Benefit shall be paid to the Participant in a lump sum as soon as administratively practicable following the Participants termination of employment.



12/23/03
        
        /s/ Kenneth W. ManneDate
        
        Kenneth W. ManneVice President-Human Resources






---
Case 3:05-cv-00762-M Document 37 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 11 PageID 472
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00762-M Document 37 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 11 PageID 473
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00762-M Document 37 Filed 08/22/06 Page 3 of 11 PageID 474
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00762-M Document 37 Filed 08/22/06 Page 4 of 11 PageID 475
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00762-M Document 37 Filed 08/22/06 Page 5 of 11 PageID 476
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00762-M Document 37 Filed 08/22/06 Page 6 of 11 PageID 477
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00762-M Document 37 Filed 08/22/06 Page 7 of 11 PageID 478
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00762-M Document 37 Filed 08/22/06 Page 8 of 11 PageID 479
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00762-M Document 37 Filed 08/22/06 Page 9 of 11 PageID 480
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00762-M Document 37 Filed 08/22/06 Page 10 of 11 PageID 481
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00762-M Document 37 Filed 08/22/06 Page 11 of 11 PageID 482
Exhibit 32.2

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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Language Line, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter
ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Matthew T. Gibbs II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(iii) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|----- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(iv) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Language Line, Inc.
|---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 3, 2006



| |  |                                      |  | 
| |  | ------------------------------------ |  | 
| |  | /s/ Matthew T. Gibbs II              |  | 
| |  | Matthew T. Gibbs II                  |  | 
| |  | Chief Financial Officer and Director |  | 
| |  | (Principal Financial Officer)        |  | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as part of this Report.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ NEW IMAGE GLOBAL, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2019

- 2444

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:15

- cv

- 00175

- JAR, Senior Judge Jane A. Restani.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________

E LON A BRAM P OLLACK , Stein Shostak Shostak Pollack & O'Hara, Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by K AYLA R EGINA O WENS

.

H ARDEEP K AUR J OSAN , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of J ustice, New York, NY, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by B RIAN M. B OYNTON , P ATRICIA M. M C C ARTHY , J USTIN R EINHART M ILLER ; Y ELENA S LEPAK , Office of the Assistant Case: 19-2444 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2022Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, United States Customs and Border Protection, New York, NY.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK , R EYNA , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 6, 2022 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 19-2444 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2022
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

WASH SOLUTIONS, L.L.C. §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

VS. § NO. 3-06-CV-0437-BD 

§

AUTO SPA OF OKLAHOMA, §

L.L.C. §

§

Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Defendant Auto Spa of Oklahoma, L.L.C. has filed a motion to transfer this civil action to

the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a). Although defendant argues that transfer is warranted because 13 potential witnesses live

in or around Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, defendant has provided no information about the substance

of their expected testimony. See Levy v. City of Rio Grande City, No. 3-04-CV-0381-B, 2004 WL

2847273 at *3 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2004) (Kaplan, J.) (citing cases) (party seeking transfer due to

location of witnesses, documents, and sources of proof "must specifically identify key witnesses and

outline the substance of their testimony"). Nor is there any evidence that the witnesses are either

unwilling or unable to travel to the Northern District of Texas for trial. Even if the witnesses cannot

attend the trial in person, defendant may present their testimony by way of deposition. Id.; see also

Pennsylvania Machine Works, Inc. v. North Coast Remanufacturing Corp., Civ. A. No. 04-1731,

2004 WL 2600117 at *6 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2004) (inconvenience to witnesses did not require

transfer where movant failed to explain why it could not effectively present testimony by videotaped

deposition); Tuff Torq Corp. v. Hydro-Gear Ltd. Partnership, 882 F.Supp. 359, 363 (D. Del. 1994)

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00437-BD Document 16 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 68
1

 The court recognizes that plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition to the motion. However, as the party

seeking a change of venue, defendant bears the ultimate burden of proving that the balance of convenience and justice

weighs heavily in favor of transfer. See Von Graffenreid v. Craig, 246 F.Supp.2d 553, 562 (N.D. Tex. 2003) (citing

cases).

(noting that the convenience of parties and witnesses is a "somewhat antiquated" factor in light of

technological alternatives available to litigants). 

Other than reciting the relevant private and public interest factors that inform the court's

decision on a motion to transfer venue, defendant offers no argument, much less evidence, to warrant

transferring this case to the Western District of Oklahoma. For these reasons, defendant's motion

is denied.1

SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 16, 2006.

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00437-BD Document 16 Filed 05/16/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 69
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ORDER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND 

JEANNIE GONZALES, an individual,

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF 

AMERICA HOLDINGS, a Delaware 

Corporation; and DOES 1–50, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 4:16-cv-07346-HSG

[Assigned to the Hon. Judge Haywood S. 

Gilliam] 

ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION AND 

REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

PRE-TRIAL DOCUMENTS AND NOTICE 

OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT AND 

TO MODIFY THE PRE-TRIAL 

CONFERENCE DATE 

 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Docum

“Joint

docum

1, 201

at 3:00

IT IS 

Dated

Having co

ments and N

t Stipulation”

The Joint S

ments and no

18. The pre0 p.m. 

SO ORDER

d: May 29, 2

 

 

nsidered the

Notice of Con

”), and good

Stipulation i

otice of cond

-trial confere

RED.

2018 

e Joint Stipul

nditional Set

d cause appe

is GRANTED

ditional settle

ence date is c

ORDE

lation and R

ttlement and

aring, the Co

D. The dead

ement is con

continued by

ER

Request to Ex

d to Modify t

ourt rules as

dline for the

ntinued by on

y one week f

 _

 

 

xtend Time t

the Pre-Trial

s follows: 

e Parties to fi

ne week from

from May 29

__________

 Honorable 

 United Stat

to File Pre-T

l Conference

ile their prem May 25, 2

9, 2018 to Ju

___________

Haywood S

tes District J

Trial 

e Date (the 

-trial 

2018 to June

une 5, 2018 

__________

. Gilliam, Jr

Judge 

_

.
E. P., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0152

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Dennis G. Dracup, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A of Language Line Holdings, Inc.;



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 report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) All significant 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: March 17, 2005



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Dennis G. Dracup                
|    |  | Dennis G. Dracup                    
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director



26
Juan L. JENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1843

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 7, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 3, 2019

Juan L. Jenkins, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

In 2007, Juan Jenkins pleaded no contest to aggravated battery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the court sentenced Jenkins to two concurrent probation terms. After Jenkins violated probation, the court sentenced him to two consecutive fifteen-year prison terms-a total of thirty years. This court affirmed that sentence without a written opinion. *See* *Jenkins v. State* , 995 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (table).

Jenkins then filed a rule 3.800(a) motion, contending his sentence was illegal. The trial court denied the motion, and Jenkins now appeals. Jenkins first argues that his thirty-year sentence violates his original plea agreement. But "when a defendant pleads guilty pursuant to a plea bargain and the court places him on probation, if he violates his probation the court can sentence him to a term in excess of the provisions of the original bargain." *State v. Segarra* , 388 So.2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 1980). Jenkins also argues that because his probationary terms were concurrent, his sentences after he violated probation must likewise be concurrent. We reject this argument as well. "The fact that the original terms of probation were ordered to run concurrently does not mandate that the sentences imposed after violation of probation also run concurrently." *Troncoso v. State* , 825 So.2d 494, 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) ; *accord* *Ellis v. State* , 406 So.2d 76, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Finally, we reject Jenkins's argument that his consecutive sentences violate double jeopardy. *See* § 921.16, Fla. Stat. (2005) ; *State v. Cantrell* , 417 So.2d 260, 260 (Fla. 1982).

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Winsor, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Steven C. WHITE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Grady C. JUDD, Sheriff of Polk County, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1009

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PRIDE, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pride, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Schumacher,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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 the
Company.



/s/ Michael Schumacher
----------------------------------------------
Michael Schumacher
President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer,
 Chief Financial Officer and Director
March 15, 2007
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1925

LOLITA M. MATAMMU , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CONTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, a/k/a Fairfax County Health Department , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Rossie David Alston, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 01468

- RDA

- WEF )

Submitted : January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Lolita M. Matammu, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Pace Baucom, Assistant County Attorney, Jamie Marie Greenzweig, FAIRFAX COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, F airfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1925 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Lolita M. Matammu appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in Matammu’s employment discrimination suit

. On appeal, we
confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Matammu ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition,
she has forfeited appellate review of the court’s or der. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”) . Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1925 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Carlos REED, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-841

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Elizabeth MARSH, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Minnie Ford and Minnie Ford, Appellants, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., Appellee.

No. 4D17-1751

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 5, 2018]

John S. Mills and Courtney Brewer of The Mills Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellants.

Jeffrey A. Cohen and Benjamine Reid of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

May, J.

The plaintiff appeals a final judgment in her favor in tobacco litigation. She argues the trial court erred in reducing her compensatory damages award based on a finding of comparative negligence. The defendant admits that a compensatory damage award is no longer subject to a comparative negligence reduction when the jury finds for the plaintiff on intentional tort claims. But, the defendant cross appeals and argues the reduction was still proper because the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict on the intentional tort claims. We agree with the plaintiff and reverse and remand the case to the trial court on the direct appeal.

The defendant also argues that the strict liability and negligence claims are preempted by federal law, and the application of the *Engle*1 findings constitutes a due process violation. We find no merit in these issues and affirm.

When the trial court entered the final judgment, the issue of comparative fault was governed by our decision in *R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Schoeff* , 178 So.3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Florida reversed our decision and announced that "when a jury finds for an *Engle* progeny plaintiff on intentional tort claims, the plaintiff's award may not be reduced by comparative fault." *Schoeff v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,*232 So.3d 294, 305 (Fla. 2017).

Here, the jury found for the plaintiff on her fraudulent concealment and conspiracy claims, intentional tort claims. Under the supreme court's *Schoeff* decision, the plaintiff's compensatory damage award is not subject to a reduction for comparative negligence. *Id.* We therefore reverse and remand the case to the trial court for reinstatement of the jury's verdict. We find no merit in the issues raised in the defendant's cross appeal and affirm.

*Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the jury's verdict.*

Forst, J., and Hilal, Jennifer, Associate Judge, concur.

1

*Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.* , 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006).
Case 3:05-cv-00574-B Document 40 Filed 05/01/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 203
Jarvis Jamar MACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2180

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 18, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 57 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 57

Redesignating the Robert E. Lee Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery 
           as the ``Arlington House National Historic Site''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 18, 2022

  Mr. Kaine introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Redesignating the Robert E. Lee Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery 
           as the ``Arlington House National Historic Site''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That--
            (1) the site administered by the National Park Service and 
        dedicated as a memorial to Robert E. Lee pursuant to the joint 
        resolution of June 29, 1955 (Public Law 84-107; 69 Stat. 190), 
        as amended by the joint resolution of June 30, 1972 (Public Law 
        92-333; 86 Stat. 401), shall after the date of the enactment of 
        this joint resolution be redesignated and known as the 
        ``Arlington House National Historic Site'';
            (2) any reference in any law, regulation, map, document, 
        paper, or other record of the United States to the site 
        referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered to be a 
        reference to the Arlington House National Historic Site; and
            (3) the joint resolution of June 29, 1955 (Public Law 84-
        107; 69 Stat. 190), and the joint resolution of June 30, 1972 
        (Public Law 92-333; 86 Stat. 401), are repealed.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 22, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 7720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01596]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

Federal Register CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  Publishing in the 
Federal Register of January 21, 2025.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:  Thursday, January 
23, 2025, at 2 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING:  The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
January 23, 2025, at 2 p.m., has been changed to Thursday, January 23, 
2025, at 1 p.m.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information; please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: January 17, 2025.
Stephanie J. Fouse,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-01596 Filed 1-17-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```