alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 1 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 2 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 3 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 4 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 5 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 6 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 7 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 8 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 9 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 10 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 11 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 12 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 13 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 14 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 15 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 16 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 17 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 18 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 19 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-00495   Document 81    Filed 08/21/03   Page 20 of 20
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     InfoGROUP, INC. (the “Company”) and Bill L. Fairfield, having entered into an Employment
Agreement dated as of December 23, 2008 (the “Agreement”), hereby amend the Agreement (the
“Amendment”), effective as of December 24, 2009, as follows:



     1. To the extent any provision of the Amendment is contrary to any provision of the Agreement,
the terms of this Amendment will govern the relationship between the parties.



     2. The Company, having given Bill L. Fairfield notice pursuant to the Agreement that the
Agreement would not be renewed, now desires that the “Term” be extended.



     3. Section 1 of the Agreement is amended with regard to the term of the Agreement to read as
follows:




“TERM”. The term of the Agreement is extended for a period of 90 days commencing as
of December 24, 2009 unless sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions of
Section 4 or Section 5 of the Agreement. If either the Company or Executive does
not wish to renew this Agreement when it expires at the term of the initial or any
renewal term hereof as hereinafter provided, or if either the Company or Executive
wishes to renew this Agreement on different terms than those contained herein, it or
he shall give written notice in accordance with Section 10.4 of the Agreement of
such intent to the other party at least 15 days prior to the expiration date. In
the absence of such notice, this Agreement shall be renewed on the same terms and
conditions herein for successive renewal terms of 90 days following the expiration
date of the initial term and each renewal term. The parties expressly agree that
designation of a term and renewal provisions in this Agreement do not in any way
limit the right of the parties to terminate the Agreement at any time as hereinafter
provided. Reference herein to the term of the Agreement shall refer both to the
initial term and, any successive term, as the context requires.”



     4. To the extent not expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in effect pursuant
to its terms.



1









 





     5. This Amendment and the Agreement constitute the full and entire understanding and agreement
between the parties with regard to the subjects hereof and thereof. This Amendment may be amended
at any time only by mutual written agreement of the parties.



     6. This Amendment may be executed in counter-parts, all of which together shall constitute one
instrument, and each of which may be executed by less than all of the parties to this Amendment.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment on the respective dates set
forth below:



	 	 	 	 	 
	

Bill L. Fairfield

 	 	 
	/s/ Bill L. Fairfield     	 	Date: December 29, 2009 
	 
	

infoGroup, Inc.

 	 	 
	/s/ Roger Siboni                      	 	Date: December 29, 2009 
	Name:  	Roger Siboni 	 	 
	Title:  	Chairman of the Board 	 	 
	 



468971





2
EXHIBIT 32.2





Certification of Principal Financial Officer





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Metalline Mining Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





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





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





Dated: September 13, 2010
By
/s/ Robert J. DeversRobert J. Devers, Chief Financial Officer
#### SWEET, Appellant, v. SWEET, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

September 25, 1907.)

Action by D. Bradley Sweet against Fannie O. Sweet, individually, etc.

PER CURIAM.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant shall within 15 days from the date of service of a copy of this order, together with notice of entry thereof, file and serve the printed papers on appeal, as provided by rule 41, and pay to the respondent’s attorney $10 costs of this motion, in which event said motion is denied.
Case: 1:02-cv-00514 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/02 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-00514 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/02 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-00514 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/02 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-00514 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/02 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-00514 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/02 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-00514 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/02 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
Case: 1:02-cv-00514 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/02 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16069]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Amended Notice of 
Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Advisory General Medical Sciences Council, September 09, 2021, 09:00 
a.m. to September 09, 2021, 04:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 
Natcher Building, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which 
was published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2021, FR Doc 2021-
13377, 86 FR 33322.
    This notice is being amended to change the meeting location from 
National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 6707 Democracy 
Boulevard, Bethesda, MD, 20892 to National Institutes of Health, 
Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 to a virtual 
meeting. The url link to this meeting is: https://www.nigms.nih.gov/about-nigms/what-we-do/advisory-council. Any member of the public may 
submit written comments no later than 15 days after the meeting. The 
meeting is partially Closed to the public.

    Dated: July 23, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-16069 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 11.1

              Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings
                     TB Wood's Corporation and Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
December 28, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(in thousands except per share amounts)                                 2001               2000               1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                      <C>                <C>                <C>
Net income                                                               $2,906             $6,145             $5,367
Basic:
   Net income per common share                                            $0.55              $1.12              $0.91
   Weighted average shares of common stock and equivalents
   outstanding                                                            5,332              5,468              5,896
Diluted:
   Net income per common share                                            $0.54              $1.12              $0.91
   Weighted average shares of common stock
   and equivalents outstanding                                            5,355              5,473              5,910
</TABLE>
---

EXHIBIT 13.01

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Ronald W. Thiessen, Chief Executive Officer of Northern
Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (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, to the best of my knowledge:

|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2015(the Annual Report) fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                

By:
    /s/
      R. ThiessenName:
    Ronald W. ThiessenTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer


|Date: | May 2, 2016
|----- | -----------

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
#### Jerome MYERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gregory KNOWLIN, Warden of Turbeville Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-6635.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 29, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 11, 2011.

Jerome Myers, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Myers seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Myers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                          EXHIBIT 12


                                                             MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II
                                                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING II, L.P.
                                                               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                                                   COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                                                                    (dollars in thousands)


                                             FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                   MARCH 31, 2000                           MARCH 26, 1999
                                          ----------------------------------       ----------------------------------
                                           MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH         MERRILL LYNCH      MERRILL LYNCH
                                            PREFERRED         PREFERRED             PREFERRED          PREFERRED
                                          CAPITAL TRUST II   FUNDING II, L.P.      CAPITAL TRUST II   FUNDING II, L.P.
                                          ----------------  ----------------       ----------------  ----------------
<S>                                        <C>                <C>                   <C>                <C>
Earnings                                    $  6,186           $  7,252              $  6,186           $  7,254
                                            ========           ========              ========           ========



Fixed charges                               $      -           $      -              $      -           $      -

Preferred securities distribution
  requirements                                 6,000              6,186                 6,000              6,186
                                            --------           --------              --------           --------

Total combined fixed charges and
  preferred securities distributions        $  6,000           $  6,186              $  6,000           $  6,186
                                            ========           ========              ========           ========

Ratio of earnings to combined
  fixed charges and preferred
  securities distributions                      1.03               1.17                  1.03               1.17




</TABLE>
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D2 3

- 702 Lower Tribunal No. 202 0 CA

- 00 1644

- 0000

- 00

_____________________________ N ICHOLAS B ERGER , Appellant ,
v. R ITCHIE B ROS

. A UCTIONEERS ( A MERICA ) , I NC

. and M AURICIO C ABADA , Appellee s
.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County

.

Dana Y. Moore , Judge. February 13 , 2024
PER CURIAM

. AFFIRMED

. NA RDELLA , WOZNIAK and WHITE , JJ., c oncur.
James G. Bishop and David G. Henry , of Morgan & Morgan , Lakeland , for Appellant.
Matthew B. Bernstein , of Vernis & Bowling of Central Florida, P.A. , De L and , for Appellee , Mauricio Cabada

. No Appearance for Appellee, Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (America), Inc.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
# C_2019139EN.01006401.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/64

---

Action brought on 3 February 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council

(Case T-61/19)

(2019/C 139/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Drex Technologies (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

| — | In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicant;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.

The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they in fringe the applicant’s right to property and its right to respect for its reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to its reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which it is entitled to compensation.

The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.

---
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ VONDELISE JONES,
Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent

______________________

2023

- 1703

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. CH

- 0831

- 20

- 0072

- I

- 1

.

______________________
O R D E R

The petitioner having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted b y the rules, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in Case: 23-1703 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 03/22/2024J ONES V

. MSPB 2

accordance with the rules.

FOR THE COURT

March 22, 2024 Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 22, 2024 Case: 23-1703 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 03/22/2024
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 5/29/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

GORDON E. JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

)

and )

)

VERNA K. JOHNSON, IVAN J. NEWMAN, )

BARBARA NEWMAN, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) No. 95-4031

) (D.C. No. 94-NC-101-G)

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ) (D. Utah)

SECURITIES DEALERS, INC., )

)

Defendant-Appellee, )

)

and )

)

KENNETH THOMAS ADAMS, FIRST )

EQUITIES CORP., REO CUTLER, )

)

Defendants. )

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
2

 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiffs filed this action to compel arbitration, naming The National Association

of Securities Dealers (NASD) and other defendants. The district court dismissed the

complaint, citing both the lack of a federal question and that the amount in controversy

did not meet the $50,000 jurisdictional minimum contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1332 to

support jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship. The only issue on appeal is

whether the district court correctly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record and are satisfied that the district court

accurately summarized the facts and correctly applied the law. Plaintiffs initiated

arbitration proceedings in November 1987, alleging defendants sold them unsuitable

securities in May 1981. The NASD dismissed because the arbitration was filed more than

six years after the securities purchases. Thereafter, plaintiffs twice unsuccessfully

resorted to Utah state courts. The instant action was filed under the Federal Arbitration

Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 through 14 (FAA), to compel the NASD to arbitrate plaintiffs’
3

complaints against the other named defendants. However, the FAA does not create a

federal cause of action. It provides a vehicle for enforcing a written arbitration agreement

when an independent federal cause of action exists. Moses H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury

Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25 n.32 (1983). Likewise, plaintiffs’ claims fall below

the required amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.

We therefore AFFIRM. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition is denied as

moot. For the reason that we find this a frivolous appeal pursuant to defendant NASD’s

request under 28 U.S.C. § 1912, we award it double costs but no other damages. In

limiting this award we considered the fact plaintiff is a pro se litigant; if he had counsel

who would represent him in pursuing such an appeal the sanctions would be greater.

Entered for the Court

James K. Logan

Circuit Judge