alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 the Quarterly Report of Communications & Power Industries
Holding Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 4,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Joel Littman, 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:

         (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/ Joel Littman

Joel Littman
Chief Financial Officer
May 9, 2003
#### CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. ABBOTT.

(Decided May 30, 1912.

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Sharpe.

Romaine Boyd, for appellant. F. E. Blackburn, for appellee.

Sayre, J.

— Reversed and remanded on the authority (of *City of Birmingham v. Wills,*178 Ala. 198; 59 South. 173; *City of Birmingham v. Abernathy,*178 Ala. 221; 59 South. 180.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

TIMOTHY LEE WINTON,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-00465-KI

JUDGMENT

Nancy J. Meserow

Law Office of Nancy J. Meserow

7540 SW 51st Ave.

Portland, OR 92219

Attorney for Plaintiff

Billy J. Williams

Acting United States Attorney

District of Oregon

Page 1 - JUDGMENT

Case 3:15-cv-00465-KI Document 18 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 2
Janice E. Hebert

Assistant United States Attorney

1000 SW Third Ave., Ste. 600

Portland, OR 97204-2902

Erin F. Highland

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

Social Security Administration

701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 2900 M/S 221A

Seattle, WA 98104-7075

Attorneys for Defendant

KING, Judge:

The decision of the Commissioner is reversed. This action is remanded to the

Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 1st day of February, 2016. 

 /s/ Garr M. King 

Garr M. King

United States District Judge

Page 2 - JUDGMENT

Case 3:15-cv-00465-KI Document 18 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 2
DEFS.’ NOTICE OF SUPP. AUTHORITY 1

JEAN E. WILLIAMS

Acting Assistant Attorney General

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar No. 4103131)

FRANK J. SINGER (CA Bar No. 227459)

Trial Attorneys

United States Department of Justice

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Natural Resources Section

150 M Street NE

Washington, DC 20002

Telephone: (202) 305-0445

Facsimile: (202) 305-0506

sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 

SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Defendants hereby provide notice of supplemental authority of a new opinion in 

California, et al. v. Texas, et al., Nos. 19-840 and 19-1019, issued by the United States Supreme 

Court on June 17, 2021. In that opinion, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Declaratory 

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, “alone does not provide a court with jurisdiction,” or “‘permit 

litigants to . . . obtain constitutional rulings in advance of necessity.’” Slip. Op. at 8 (quoting 

Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 506 (1961)). “Instead, just like suits for every other type of 

remedy, declaratory-judgment actions must satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy 

requirement.” Id. A copy of the slip opinion is attached. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 500 Filed 06/24/21 Page 1 of 2
DEFS.’ NOTICE OF SUPP. AUTHORITY 2

Dated: June 24, 2021 JEAN E. WILLIAMS

Acting Assistant Attorney General

United States Department of Justice

/s/ Sean C. Duffy

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar No. 4103131)

FRANK J. SINGER (CA Bar No. 227459)

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Natural Resources Section

150 M Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002

Tel: (202) 305-0445 

Fax: (202) 305-0506

E-mail: sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 500 Filed 06/24/21 Page 2 of 2
2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-26-2002

Hughes v. MCI Worldcom Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 01-1918

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Hughes v. MCI Worldcom Inc" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 212.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/212
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ___________ 

 No. 01-1918 

 ___________ 

 BARBARA HUGHES, 

 

 Appellant 

 v. 

 MCI/WORLDCOM, INC. 

 

 ___________ 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the District of New Jersey 

 District Court Judge: The Honorable Alfred M. Wolin 

 (Action No. 99-cv-04585) 

 ___________ 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) 

 March 1, 2002 

 Before: ROTH, FUENTES, and KATZ, Circuit Judges 

 (Opinion Filed: March 26, 2002) 

 ________________________ 

 OPINION OF THE COURT 

 ________________________ FUENTES, Circuit Judge: 

 Appellant Barbara Hughes ("Hughes") appeals the District Court’s grant of 

summary judgment to her employer, Appellee MCI WorldCom ("WorldCom"), on 

Hughes’s disparate treatment and equal pay claims. Hughes, an African-American woman 

who is more than forty years old, alleged that her June 1999 demotion at WorldCom was 

motivated by discriminatory animus and that she was being paid less than certain white 

male WorldCom employees who held the same position that she did. 

 This case was properly removed to federal court, and we have jurisdiction over the 

instant appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. The applicable standard of review is plenary. 

See, e.g., Ersek v. Township of Springfield, 102 F.3d 79, 83 (3d Cir. 1996). 

 Upon reviewing the evidence adduced, the District Court determined that there 

was no triable issue of fact in dispute as to whether WorldCom’s proffered rationales for 

Hughes’s demotion and alleged comparatively lower pay were pretextual. It further 

determined that Hughes’s claim of discrimination based upon national origin should be 

dismissed, as it was not pursued in the course of arguing the motion. 

 After a careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments, we find no basis 

for disturbing the District Court’s well-reasoned findings. We will therefore AFFIRM the 

judgment for substantially the same reasons set forth in the District Court’s opinion. 

 

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT: 
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion. 

 /s/ Julio M. Fuentes 

 Circuit Judg
# L_2009026EN.01000301.xml

| 30.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 26/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/3

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 18 December 2008

on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

(2009/80/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),

Having regard to the Commission proposal,

Whereas:

| (1) | The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the Fund) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the Fund) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.

| (2) | The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

| (4) | Cyprus has submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by drought, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Cyprus has submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by drought,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 7 605 445 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Strasbourg, 18 December 2008.

For the European Parliament

The President

H.-G. PÖTTERING

For the Council

The President

E. WOERTH

---

(1)  
  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

2

---
Exhibit








Justin Palfreyman
Vice President, Strategy & Business Development












May 15, 2020                    BY EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT COURIER 


	
		
	Mr. John Rigas
SENSA Holdings LLC
667 Madison Avenue #5
New York, NY 10065
	Mr. Jack Bellinger
General Counsel
SENSA Holdings LLC
10000 Memorial Drive, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77024

	Mr. John Thrash
SENSA Holdings LLC
667 Madison Avenue #5
New York NY 10065
	 






Gentlemen:
 
To follow up on our previous conversations regarding extending the deadline after which either NW Natural Gas Storage, LLC (Seller) or SENSA Holdings LLC (Buyer) can terminate the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Seller and Buyer, dated as of June 20, 2018, as amended (Purchase Agreement), we are submitting this letter to you and requesting that you acknowledge your agreement with the matters set forth herein by signing it in the space provided below.  Please note that all capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Purchase Agreement.
Pursuant to Section 11.4 of the Purchase Agreement, Seller and Buyer agree that Section 8.1(b)(i) of the Purchase Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
“(i) automatically until June 26, 2020 if the CPUC has not issued the CPUC Order as of the close of business on the first anniversary of the date of this Agreement and/or.”
Seller and the Company may:
(a)    make any capital expenditure or commitment to make a capital expenditure in accordance with planned 2020 capital expenditures as set forth in the 2020 capital expenditures budget attached hereto, and


(b)    in the ordinary course of business, consistent with past practice and the terms of the Purchase Agreement (as amended by this letter), enter into or amend any storage Contract, including without limitation any Firm Storage Contract, Interruptible Contract or Park and Loan Contract, but only if such Contract, as entered into or amended, expires on or before March 31, 2021.  


This paragraph constitutes the prior written approval of Buyer to the matters set forth in clauses (a) and (b) in accordance with Section 6.1 of the Purchase Agreement.











All references in the Purchase Agreement to “Agreement,” “herein,” “hereof,” or terms of like import referring to the Purchase Agreement or any portion thereof are hereby amended to refer to the Purchase Agreement as amended by this letter.  Except as and to the extent expressly modified as set forth in this letter, the Purchase Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in all respects.  Each of the provisions in Article XI of the Purchase Agreement is hereby incorporated by reference herein, mutatis mutandis.
We look forward to working together to complete the transaction as soon as possible.
Regards,


/s/ Justin Palfreyman


Justin Palfreyman
Vice President, Strategy & Business Development
NW Natural Gas Storage, LLC


***


Buyer acknowledges and agrees to the matters set forth in this letter as of the date first set forth above.
SENSA Holdings LLC




By   /s/ John F. Thrash___________
John F. Thrash, Director




By  /s/ John Rigas_______________
John Rigas, Director
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40922

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

EMILY McGARRY ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 776

Filed: December 6, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz , District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed

.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Erik R. Lehtinen, Chief, Appellate Unit, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General ; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Emily McGarry was convicted of possession of methamphetamine , Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(c)(1) . The district court or iginally sentenced McGarry to a unified term of seven years
with three years determinate, to run concurrently with a sentence in an unrelated case, and

retained jurisdi ction . At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction program, the district court
relinquished jurisdiction but reduced McGarry’s sentence to five years with two years
determinate. McGarry filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence. The
district court granted the motion, further reducing McGarry’s sentence to three years with one
year determinate. McGarry appeals the district court’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction.2 The decision as to whether to place a defendant on probation o r, instead, to relinquish
jurisdiction is committed to the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Lee , 117 Idaho 203,

205

- 06, 786 P.2d 594, 596

- 97 (Ct. App. 1990). It follows that a decision to relinquish
jurisdiction will not be disturbed on appea l except for an abuse of discretion. State v. Chapman

, 120 Idaho 466, 472, 816 P.2d 1023, 1029 (Ct. App. 1991). Idaho Code § 19

- 2521 sets out the
criteria a court must consider when deciding whether to grant probation or impose imprisonment.

A decision to deny probation will not be held to represent an abuse of discretion if the decision is

consistent with the Section 19

- 2521 standards. State v. Merwin , 131 Idaho 642, 962 P.2d 1026
(1998). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information
before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. Therefore, we hold that the district

court did not abuse its discretion.
The order relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

John Tyler Runnels, * From the 32nd District Court

 of Fisher County

Trial Court No. 3508.

Vs. No. 11-17-00037-CR * February 21, 2019

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1356

PATRICIA UCHEOMA EGEKWU, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-2050

PATRICIA UCHEOMA EGEKWU, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: May 19, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.Petitions denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICES OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Daniel Glenn Lonergan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2PER CURIAM: Patricia Ucheoma Egekwu, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for relief from removal, and denying her motion to reopen and reconsider. Egekwu first challenges the determination that she failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Egekwu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, she cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v.

INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). We likewise uphold the finding below that Egekwu failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Nigeria. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). Though Egekwu also challenges the denial of cancellation of removal, we do not have jurisdiction to review the finding below that Egekwu failed to demonstrate

34 exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative in order to demonstrate eligibility for that relief.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2006); Jean v. Gonzales , 435 F.3d 475, 481-82 (4th Cir. 2006); see also Obioha v. Gonzales , 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision to deny Egekwu’s motion to reopen and reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2009). Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petitions for review. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carol Ann LEE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-4511.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 31, 2007.

Decided: June 4, 2007.

John P. Pierce, The Pierce Law Group LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carol Ann Lee pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and was sentenced to the mandatory minimum term of five years imprisonment. Under the terms of her plea agreement, Lee waived the right to appeal “whatever sentence is imposed,” and specifically waived the “right to appeal from any sentence within or below the advisory guidelines range resulting from an adjusted base offense level of 25....” At sentencing, the district court determined that Lee’s adjusted offense level was twenty-five and departed downward to criminal history category I, which yielded an advisory guideline range of 57-71 months. Our review of the record discloses that Lee was advised about the waiver at the guilty plea hearing, and that the appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary. *See United States v. Brown,*232 F.3d 399, 402 (4th Cir.2000).

We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the *262facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

****

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS REQUIRED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of TB Wood’s Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 26, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge. 

|   |   | (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 position and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |                                                                                                                                                |
|   |   |   |                                                                                                                                                |

| October 31, 2003 | */s/ Michael L. Hurt*  | President (Principal Executive Officer)                 |
|------------------|------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |                        |                                                    |
|                  | Michael L. Hurt        |                                                    |
|             |                   |                                                    |
|             |                   |                                                    |
| October 31, 2003 | */s/Joseph C. Horvath* | Vice President Finance (Principal    Financial Officer) |
|                  |                        |                                                    |
|                  | Joseph C. Horvath      |                                                    |
|                  |                   |                                                    |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, 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.

18

----