alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

219 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

MICHAEL W. DOBBINS

 CLERK 312-435-5670 

July 15, 2009

03cv5044 Howell v. Koenemann, et al Judge Pallmeyer 

The attached copy of the Notice of Appeal is being mailed to all parties pursuant to

F.R.A.P.3 (d). The record on this appeal is due on or before 08/04/2009.

Circuit Rule 10 provides that the entire record except for certain miscellaneous procedural

documents be forwarded to the Court of Appeals. If any of the automatically excluded items need

to be included in the record, counsel has until 07/28/2009 to inform the Clerk of the District Court;

specifying in writing which are so required and the date of their filing (i.e. Descriptive list).

Counsel must ensure that Trial Exhibits to be included in the record which are not listed on

the District Court docket and/or in the possession of the District Court Clerk are furnished to the

Clerk on or before 07/28/2009, together with a Exhibit List.

F.R.A.P. 10 (b) requires that within ten (10) days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal, the

appellant order a transcript of such parts of the proceedings not already on file which he/she deems

necessary for the record. Should appellant order less than the entire transcript, he/she is required

to file and serve on appellee a description of the parts he/she intends to order. Under such

circumstances, appellee has ten (10) days after service within which to order any additional parts

of the transcript. Counsel in criminal cases should also be familiar with Circuit Rule 11(a) and

11(b).

In the event it becomes necessary to supplement the record on appeal with documents

already on file with the Clerk, a court order will be required prior to any supplement being

transmitted.

Sincerely,

Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk

By: _____________________________

 E. Fletcher , Deputy Clerk

INCLUDED ITEMS: ALL BRIEFS, MEMORANDA.

ITEMS NOT INCLUDED: NOTICE OF FILING, NOTICE OF MOTION, SUBPOENAS, SUMMONS, BONDS,

STATUS HEARINGS, EXTENSIONS OF TIME, AFFIDAVITS, AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE, NOTICES OF

SETTING, DEPOSITION AND NOTICES, AND JURY LIST.

Case 1:03-cv-05044 Document 453 Filed 07/15/09 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollar
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998 
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1 
<CASH>                                             121,672 
<SECURITIES>                                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                        4,316 
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0 
<INVENTORY>                                        200,828 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   340,811 
<PP&E>                                              15,646 
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     521,415 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              691,201 
<BONDS>                                                  0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                            205 
<COMMON>                                             6,290 
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,394,904 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       521,415 
<SALES>                                            126,770 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   126,770 
<CGS>                                               89,770 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       89,770 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   572,047 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (535,047)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (535,047)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                      (535,047)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0 
                                               

</TABLE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Genetics Research: Columbia, MO
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Columbia, Missouri Plant Genetics Research People & Locations





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People

People and Locations at Columbia, Missouri   [Expand All] [Collapse All]
  (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### Terence Winters et al., Respondents, v Uniland Development Corporation et al., Defendants, and Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services, Inc., Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 843]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered October 12, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services, Inc. for summary judgment.

Now, upon the stipulation discontinuing action signed by the attorneys for the parties on March 27, 2012, and filed in the Erie County Clerk’s Office on March 28, 2012,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Fahey, Garni and Sconiers, JJ.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1175

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation

Area Citizen Advisory Commission for 10 additional years.

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

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE DELAWARE WATER

4 GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA CITIZEN

5 ADVISORY COMMISSION.

6 Section 5 of Public Law 101–573 (16 U.S.C. 460o

7 note) is amended by striking ‘‘10’’ and inserting ‘‘20’’.

Passed the Senate October 7 (legislative day, October 2), 1998.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1175

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National

10 additional years.Recreation Area Citizen Advisory Commission for
# C_2019399EN.01001401.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid — Spain) — José Manuel Ortiz Mesonero v UTE Luz Madrid Centro

(Joined Cases C-366/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2010/18/EU - Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave - National legislation making the granting of parental leave conditional on a reduction in working time, with a proportional reduction in pay - Shift work with variable hours - Request of the worker to perform his work at a fixed schedule to care for his minor children - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in employment and occupation - Indirect discrimination - Partial inadmissibility)

(2019/C 399/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant): José Manuel Ortiz Mesonero

Defendant: UTE Luz Madrid Centro

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a worker’s right, in order to take direct care of minors or dependent family members, to reduce his ordinary hours of work, with a proportional reduction in his salary, without being able, when his usual work system is in shifts with a variable schedule, to benefit from a fixed working schedule while maintaining his ordinary hours of work.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.08.2018.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7179
MICHAEL X. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. SMITH, Regional Director; G. BASS, Deputy Warden; M. PATTERSON, Lieutenant; S. BACON, Commanding Officer; A. RONEY, Commanding Officer, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-273-AM) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 11, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael X. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Smith , No. CA-95-273-AM (E.D. Va. July 19, 1995).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
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00624

- CR

Tracy Way ne Parker

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 297th District Court

o f Tarrant County (0566349A )

January 16, 2014

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### 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
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:184
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 2 of 20 PageID #:185
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 3 of 20 PageID #:186
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 4 of 20 PageID #:187
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 5 of 20 PageID #:188
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 6 of 20 PageID #:189
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 7 of 20 PageID #:190
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 8 of 20 PageID #:191
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 9 of 20 PageID #:192
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 10 of 20 PageID #:193
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 11 of 20 PageID #:194
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 12 of 20 PageID #:195
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 13 of 20 PageID #:196
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 14 of 20 PageID #:197
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 15 of 20 PageID #:198
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 16 of 20 PageID #:199
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 17 of 20 PageID #:200
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 18 of 20 PageID #:201
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 19 of 20 PageID #:202
Case: 1:02-cv-01823 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 20 of 20 PageID #:203
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT JON TERENCE CONRAD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. JAMES LEE FOSTER, Sheriff; MICHAEL COULTER, Chief Deputy Solicitor; BETTY STROM, Deputy Solicitor; No. 98-7412 DAVID E. RUSHTON, Director of Corrections; COUNTY OF NEWBERRY, SOUTH CAROLINA; JACKIE BOWERS, Clerk; GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, sued as unknown members of Governor's Office; SUZIE NICHOLS, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1619-4-06BE) Submitted: May 4, 1999 Decided: May 26, 1999 Before HAMILTON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Jon Terence Conrad, Appellant Pro Se. James Spencer Verner, III, Newberry, South Carolina, for Appellees.Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Jon Terence Conrad appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting in part and rejecting in part the magistrate judge's recommendation, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. We note that, in granting summary judgment for Defendants, thedistrict court relied in part on the defense of official immunity. Immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pled by a defendant or it is waived. See Gomez v. Toledo , 446 U.S. 635, 640-41 (1980). Because Defendants failed to assert an immunity defense the district court was precluded from applying it. Nevertheless, we conclude that summary judgment was appropriately granted in favor of Defendants. With respect to Defendant Summer, summary judgment was proper because Conrad's pleadings failed to establish a prima facie case of unconstitutional prison conditions. See Strickler v. Waters , 989 F.2d 1375, 1379 (4th Cir. 1993); Williams v. Griffin , 952 F.2d 820, 824(4th Cir. 1991). With respect to Defendants Strom and Nichols, summary judgment was proper because Conrad's claims of retaliation and conspiracy were so vague and conclusory as to be insufficient. See Adams v. Rice , 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir. 1994); Buschi v. Kirven , 775 F.2d 1240, 1248 (4th Cir. 1985).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
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1279/2006

of 25 August 2006         

fixing for the 2005/06 marketing year the specific agricultural conversion rate applicable to the minimum sugar beet prices and the production levy and additional levy in the sugar sector for the currencies of those Member States which have not adopted the single currency

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1713/93 of 30 June 1993 establishing special detailed rules for applying the agricultural conversion rate in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The specific agricultural conversion rate to be used for the conversion of the minimum sugar beet prices as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, and of the production levy and, where appropriate, the additional levy referred to in Articles 15 and 16 respectively of that Regulation, into each of the national currencies of the Member States which have not adopted the single currency shall be fixed, for the 2005/06 marketing year, as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 July 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 August 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 159, 1.7.1993, p. 94. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1509/2001 (OJ L 200, 25.7.2001, p. 19).

(3)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation repealed by Regulation (EC) No 318/2006.

(4)OJ L 349, 24.12.1998, p. 1.

----

ANNEX

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Northwest Pipe Company (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian W. Dunham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|                                                     
|/s/    BRIAN W. DUNHAM                               
|Brian W. Dunham President and Chief Executive Officer

March 30, 2007
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The
following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the foregoing Report on Form 10-K/A pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.

The
undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
Section 78) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broadway Financial
Corporation as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013.

Date: July 8, 2014

By:

/s/ Wayne-Kent A. Bradshaw Wayne-Kent A. Bradshaw
Chief Executive Officer
Broadway Financial Corporation


---
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1202

AN ACT

Providing relief for Sergio Lozano, Fauricio Lozano, and

Ana Lozano.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for pur5 poses of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

6 1101 et seq.), Sergio Lozano, Fauricio Lozano, and Ana

7 Lozano, shall be held and considered to have been lawfully

8 admitted to the United States for permanent residence as

9 of the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment

10 of the required visa fees.

Passed the Senate October 15 (legislative day, October 2), 1998.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1202

AN ACT

Providing relief for Sergio Lozano, Fauricio

Lozano, and Ana Lozano.