alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 00-3694/01-2379

___________

Clarice P. Seko, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Boeing/McDonnell Douglas, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: July 6, 2001

 Filed: July 16, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Clarice Seko appeals the District Court’s1 adverse

grant of summary judgment in her employment discrimination action, and its denial of

her motion to stay the award of costs to appellee pending the outcome of this appeal.

As relevant to this appeal, Seko alleged that the Boeing Company, formerly McDonnell

Douglas Corporation, recalled her in October 1997 during a layoff and then unlawfully

placed her on medical leave. She claimed that Boeing’s action violated the Americans
-2-

with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII, because Boeing ignored her requests for

reasonable job accommodations and retaliated against her for filing previous lawsuits.

Having conducted a de novo review, see Lloyd v. Hardin County, Iowa, 207 F.3d 1080,

1084 (8th Cir. 2000), we affirm.

We agree with the District Court that Seko failed to present a prima facie case

under the ADA. See Hennenfent v. Mid Dakota Clinic P.C., 164 F.3d 419, 421-22 (8th

Cir. 1998) (stating that one element of prima facie ADA case is that employee is

qualified to perform essential job functions with or without reasonable

accommodation). Further, assuming, as did the District Court, that she established a

causal connection between the decision to place her on medical leave and her prior

lawsuits, she failed to present evidence showing that Boeing’s proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for placing her on such leave—her inability to return to a job

requiring the use of power tools, given her medical condition—was pretextual. See

Scroggins v. Univ. of Minn., 221 F.3d 1042, 1045 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that even

if employee established prima facie case of retaliation, he produced no evidence

challenging employer’s reason for firing him). 

We decline to address the new arguments Seko raises on appeal, see Von

Kerssenbrock-Praschma v. Saunders, 121 F.3d 373, 378 (8th Cir. 1997), and we find

no abuse of discretion in the Court’s denial of her motion to compel. See In re Mo.

Dep’t of Natural Res., 105 F.3d 434, 435-36 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review).

Based on our disposition of Seko’s challenge of the adverse grant of summary

judgment, the issue as to the propriety of the Court’s denial of her motion to stay is

moot. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### NICHOLAS v. LORD et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by George S. Nicholas against Franklin B. Lord and others.

No •opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's Awards and Facilities Committee hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

# TIME AND DATE: 

Monday, July 19, 2021, from 12:00-1:00 p.m. EDT.

# PLACE: 

This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National Science Foundation.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

The agenda of the teleconference is Committee Chair's Opening Remarks; discussion of context of the Arecibo Observatory clean-up costs award; and Committee Chair's Closing Remarks. 

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

                         Point of contact for this meeting is: Michelle McCrackin,                         *mmccrack@nsf.gov,*                         (703) 292-7000. Meeting information and updates may be found at the National Science Board website                         *www.nsf.gov/​nsb.*

Chris Blair,

Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.

[FR Doc. 2021-15085 Filed 7-12-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### Hartford Federal Savings and Loan Association *v.*Stanley V. Tucker et al.

*Stanley V. Tucker,*pro se, in support of the petitions.

Decided November 29, 1989

The defendant Stanley V. Tucker’s petitions for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 20 Conn. App. 804, are denied.
#### In the Matter of John Shields, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

[944 NYS2d 709] —

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

During a comedic performance that was part of a prison talent show, petitioner used vulgar and profane language and made comments that were disrespectful to staff. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with harassment, interfering with an employee and a creating a disturbance. Petitioner was found guilty of the charges at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing. On administrative appeal, the charge of interfering with an employee was dismissed, but the remainder of the determination was upheld with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Telford v Fischer,*67 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2009]; *Matter of Dixon v Brown,*62 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 704 [2009]). Petitioner’s challenge to the misbehavior report as well as his other contentions have not been preserved for our review.

Mercure, J.P, Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
# C_2019295EN.01001201.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/12

---

Action brought on 12 July 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-537/19)

(2019/C 295/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek, M. Noll-Ehlers and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, in so far as Stadt Wien-Wiener Wohnen directly awarded the contract of 25 February 2012 in respect of the office building on Guglstrasse 2-4 in Vienna without any competitive tendering procedure and corresponding contract notice, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 28 and 35(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, in so far as Stadt Wien-Wiener Wohnen directly awarded the contract of 25 February 2012 in respect of the office building on Guglstrasse 2-4 in Vienna without any competitive tendering procedure and corresponding contract notice, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 28 and 35(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC; (1)

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission claims that in 2012 the City of Vienna, as a public contracting authority, concluded with a private contractor a long-term lease in respect of an office building before it was constructed. The City of Vienna thereby exercised decisive influence over the planning of the works which far exceeds the usual requirements of a lessee in relation to newly constructed premises.

That lease constitutes a public works contract, as is clear from the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice on the leasing of unfinished building projects by contracting authorities. Since there was no competitive tendering procedure, the award infringes Articles 2, 28 and 35(2) of Directive 2004/18. That infringement persists so long as the lease, which cannot properly be terminated before 2040, continues to exist.

---

(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

---
exv10w5









EXHIBIT 10.5




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

OF

EPCO UNIT L.P.




Dated as of December 2, 2009




     This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Agreement of Limited Partnership dated
as of November 13, 2008 (as subsequently amended, the “Partnership Agreement”) of EPCO Unit
L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”), is made and entered into
effective as of December 2, 2009, pursuant to the terms of the Partnership Agreement and in
accordance with Section 12.05 thereof.



     Section 1. AMENDMENTS.



     (a) Section 11.01. Paragraph (b) of Section 11.01 of the Partnership Agreement is
hereby amended and restated to read as follows:






          (b) unless otherwise agreed to by the General Partner, the Class A Limited Partner and
a Required Interest, the date that falls on the second trading day immediately following
the first date as of which the distributions with respect to all outstanding EPD Units held
by the Partnership relating to the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015 have been paid in
full by EPD;



     Section 2. RATIFICATION OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT. Except as expressly modified and amended
herein, all of the terms and conditions of the Partnership Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.



     Section 3. GOVERNING LAW. THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, EXCLUDING ANY CONFLICTS-OF-LAW RULE OR PRINCIPLE THAT MIGHT
REFER THE GOVERNANCE OR CONTRUCTION OF THIS AGREEMENT TO THE LAWS OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION.



(Signature Page Follows)





 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date first set
forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	GENERAL PARTNER:	 	EPCO, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ W. Randall Fowler
 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	W. Randall Fowler	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	CLASS A LIMITED PARTNER:	 	DFI DELAWARE HOLDINGS, L.P.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	DFI Delaware General, LLC,	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	its general partner	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Darryl E. Smith	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Darryl E. Smith	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Manager	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	CLASS B LIMITED PARTNERS:	 	Representing a majority of Class B Limited
Partners of the Partnership, pursuant to Powers
of Attorney executed in favor of, and granted
and delivered to the General Partner	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	EPCO, INC.	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	(As attorney-in-fact for the Class B Limited	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Partners pursuant to powers of attorney)	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ W. Randall Fowler
 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	W. Randall Fowler	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	President and Chief Executive	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Officer	 	 






First Amendment to Agreement of Limited Partnership of EPCO Unit L.P.
# C_2019238EN.01000801.xml

| 15.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 April 2019 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-283/19)

(2019/C 238/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EUflight.de GmbH

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

By decision of the President of the Court of Justice of 23 May 2019 the case was removed from the Court’s register.

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 855 

To make available such funds as may be necessary to ensure that members 

of the Armed Forces, including reserve components thereof, continue 

to receive pay and allowances for active service performed when a funding 

gap caused by the failure to enact interim or full-year appropriations 

for the Armed Forces occurs, which results in the furlough of nonemergency personnel and the curtailment of Government activities and 

services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mrs. HUTCHISON, and Mr. CASEY) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To make available such funds as may be necessary to ensure 

that members of the Armed Forces, including reserve 

components thereof, continue to receive pay and allowances for active service performed when a funding gap 

caused by the failure to enact interim or full-year appropriations for the Armed Forces occurs, which results 

in the furlough of non-emergency personnel and the curtailment of Government activities and services. 

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

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 855 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pay Our Troops Act’’. 

3 SEC. 2. EMERGENCY FUNDING FOR PAY AND ALLOWANCES 

4 FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DUR5 ING FUNDING GAP IMPACTING THE DEPART6 MENT OF DEFENSE OR DEPARTMENT OF 

7 HOMELAND SECURITY. 

8 (a) FUNDS FOR MILITARY PAY AND ALLOWANCES.— 

9 During a funding gap impacting the Armed Forces, the 

10 Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the Sec11 retary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Secu12 rity in the case of the Coast Guard), out of any amounts 

13 in the general fund of the Treasury not otherwise appro14 priated, such amounts as the Secretary of Defense (and 

15 the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the 

16 Coast Guard) determines to be necessary to continue to 

17 provide pay and allowances (without interruption) to mem18 bers of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and 

19 Coast Guard, including reserve components thereof, who 

20 perform active service during the funding gap. 

21 (b) FUNDING GAP DEFINED.—In this section, the 

22 term ‘‘funding gap’’ means any period of time after the 

23 beginning of a fiscal year for which interim or full-year 

24 appropriations for the personnel accounts of the Armed 

25 Forces for that fiscal year have not been enacted. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2020036EN.01001601.xml

| 3.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/16

---

Appeal brought on 30 September 2019 by Guy Steifer against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-331/17, Steifer v EESC

(Case C-727/19 P)

(2020/C 36/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Guy Steifer (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee

By order of 12 December 2019, the Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00049-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.J., A CHILD §

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 158th District 

Court

of Denton County (20-5129-158)

May 19, 2022

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ROSE HILLS COMPANY AND
SUBSIDIARIES, FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,135
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,168
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        946
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,083
<PP&E>                                          64,320
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 317,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,904
<BONDS>                                         80,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     129,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   317,557
<SALES>                                         42,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,248
<CGS>                                            6,644
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,328
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,022
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,453
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,569
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Howard Root, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |                                                  |  |                   |  | 
| | ------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------- |  | 
| |                                                  |  | /s/   Howard Root | 
| |                                                 
| | Howard RootChief Executive OfficerApril 22, 2005 | 

---
Unassociated Document


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10.52

     

    REVOLVING
CREDIT AGREEMENT

     

    
      
        	
                Revolving

              	
                San
      Diego, California

              	
                October
      29, 2009

              


      

    

     

    For value
received, receipt of which is acknowledged, DotVN, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
(“Maker”) promises to pay to Hue Tran Johnson, San Diego, California, (“Payee”),
or order, at such place as Payee may designate, the cumulative sum advanced
under this revolving credit agreement net of any repayments, plus interest at
the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, on or before January 29, 2010 (the “Due
Date”).

     

    If action
be instituted on this note, Maker promises to pay such sum as the Court may fix
as attorneys fees.

     

    This note
will inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Maker and
Payee.

     

    IN
WITNESS THERETO, Maker has affixed its signature by a duly authorized officer
under the seal of this corporation.

     

    
      	 
      	
              DOT
      VN, INC.

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                 /s/

            	
              Thomas Johnson

            
	 
      	
              By:

            	
              Thomas
      Johnson

            
	 
      	
              Its:

            	
              CEO

            


    

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                	
                        Date

                      	 	
                        Location

                      	 	
                        Funds (USD) Advanced

                      	 
	 
      	 	 
      	 	 	 
	
                        29
      October 2009

                      	 	
                        San
      Diego, CA, USA

                      	 	$	10,000	 
	 
      	 	 
      	 	 	 	 
	 
      	 	 
      	 	 	 	 


              

            

          

        

      

    

    


    REVOLVING
CREDIT AGREEMENT
#### REINAUER REALTY CORP., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. JAMES V. NUCERA *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

See same case below: 59 *N. J. Super.*189.

*Messrs.*Morrison, *Lloyd & Griggs*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Frank A. Piscatella*and *Mr. Fred G. Stickle, III,*for the respondents.

April 8, 1960.

Denied.