alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: J. H. KENT, THE KENT CO., AND EDWARD C. EPPERSON 

DOCKET NUMBER: 137 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT -- CEA DOCKET NO. 137 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

J. H. Kent, 

The Kent Co., and 

Edward C. Epperson 

(Greenville, Mississippi) 

The complaint charges that the respondents, acting pursuant to an agreement 

or understanding, exceeded the limits on speculative positions in wheat futures 

during the period from December 20, 1965, through February 28, 1966, and in 

soybean futures positions during the period from January 11 through February 28, 

1966. The complaint also charges that on January 11, 1966, the respondents 

exceeded the speculative transaction limit in soybean futures. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, June 14, 1966, in Greenville, Mississippi. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
#### Lance McDERMOTT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Patrick R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General United States Postal Service; et al.,* Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-35531.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.**

Filed Jan. 10, 2012.

Lance McDermott, Seattle, WA, pro se. Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Kristin Ber-ger Johnson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Patrick R. Donahoe is substituted for his predecessor, John Potter, as Postmaster General, under Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Lance McDermott appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his *687action alleging that his employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VH”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and the Whis-tleblower Protection Act (“WPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish,*382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly determined that McDermott’s Title VII and ADEA claims were time-barred because McDer-mott did not file this action within 90 days of receiving the right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). *See*42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(f)(l); 29 U.S.C. § 626(e); *O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc.,*466 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (Title VII and ADEA claims were untimely because complaint was filed more than 90 days after EEOC’s issuance of right-to-sue letter, even though earlier dismissed complaint was timely). The district court properly declined to apply equitable tolling because McDermott failed to establish grounds warranting such relief. *See Nelmida v. Shelly Eurocars, Inc.,*112 F.3d 380, 384 (9th Cir.1997) (“Equitable tolling is ... to be applied only sparingly, and courts have been generally unforgiving ... when a late filing is due to claimant’s failure to exercise due diligence in preserving his legal rightsf.]” (alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed McDermott’s claims under the WPA because it does not apply to the United States Postal Service (“USPS”). *See*5 U.S.C. §§ 104(1), 105, 2105(e), 2302(a)(2)(C) (USPS excluded from WPA’s definition of “agency,” and USPS employees generally excluded from definition of “employee”); *see also*39 U.S.C. § 201 (establishing USPS as an independent establishment of the executive branch of the United States Government); *Booker v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,*982 F.2d 517, 519 (Fed.Cir.1992) (WPA does not apply to USPS).

McDermott’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15073]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials


Notice of Availability of Report

    Under section 13 of Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee 
Act) notice is hereby given that the Report of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials for 
Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 has been issued. The Report summarizes 
activities and recommendations of the Committee on matters relative to 
programs, policies and goals of the National Cemetery Administration. 
It is available for public inspection at two locations:

Mr. Edward J. Malone, Jr., Federal Advisory Committee Desk, Library of 
Congress, Anglo-American Acquisition Division, Government Documents 
Section, Room LM-B42, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 
20540-4172
      and
Department of Veterans Affairs, National Cemetery Administration, Suite 
400, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420

    Dated: June 4, 2001.
    By Direction of the Secretary.
Ventris C. Gibson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-15073 Filed 6-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
#### Frances Trinidad, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

[873 NYS2d 488]

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered December 26, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, plaintiff consistently testified that his foot got stuck in a crack in the stairs.

Due to the poor quality of the photographs it submitted, defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the crack in the stairs was so trivial as to be nonactionable *(see Trincere v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976 [1997]; *Figueroa v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co.,*247 AD2d 210 [1998]; *see also Revis v City of New York,*18 AD3d 290 [2005]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
SUPPLEMENT TO THE FIDELITY MAGELLAN(registered trademark) FUND MAY 22,
1997 PROSPECTUS
Effective the close of business on September 30, 1997, the fund's
shares will no longer be available to new accounts. Shareholders of
the fund on that date    may continue to purchase shares in accounts
existing on that date. Investors who did not own shares of the fund on
September 30, 1997, generally will not be allowed to purchase shares
of the fund except that new accounts may be established by
participants in most group employer retirement plans (and their
successor plans) in which the fund had been established as an
investment option by that date. These restrictions generally will
apply to investments made directly with Fidelity and investments made
through intermediaries. Investors may be required to demonstrate
eligibility to purchase shares of the fund before an investme    nt is
accepted.
*Certiorari Denied.*

*(See also No. 437, Misc., supra.)*

No. 561.

#### Broadhurst *v.*Oregon.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

*W. H. Langroise*for petitioner.

Certiorari denied.
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 China Quest Acquisition Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the "Report'),
I, Chin Yung Kong, Chief Executive Officer and Principal 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, as amended; and





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





October
7, 2008





/s/ Chin Yung KongName:
      Chin Yung KongTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial
  Officer
<PAGE>


                 DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE BONUS PLAN


BEI Medical System Company, Inc. has a Management Incentive Bonus Plan under
which members of its management are eligible to receive cash bonuses at the end
of each fiscal year. The award is based on the achievement of specific operating
result goals established at the beginning of such fiscal year in conjunction
with the Company's Compensation Committee determination of management's
compensation. The individual operating result goals are determined by the
Company's senior management in consultation with the Board of Directors. A
specific cash bonus paid pursuant to the Management Incentive Bonus Plan may
range from 5% to 50% of the base salary of an individual member of the Company's
management.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: RALPH W. MOORE 

DOCKET NUMBER: 47 

DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 1950 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STAY ORDER 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re Ralph W. Moore, Respondent 

CEA Docket No. 47 

Stay Order 

On November 27, 1950, the respondent in this proceeding filed an appeal in 

the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the 

decision and order entered on November 15, 1950, suspending the respondent's 

trading privileges for 90 days commencing January 1, 1951. In view of the 

filing of the appeal, the order of November 15, 1950, is stayed pending the 

outcome of the appeal. 

A copy hereof shall be served upon the parties and the contract markets by 

registered mail or in person. 

Done at Washington, D. C., this 28 day of November 1950. 

/s/ Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2 
Page 3
Exhibit










Exhibit 10.1


                                                                                    
    
March 14, 2016
Super Micro Computer, Inc. 980 Rock Avenue
San Jose, California 95131 
Attention: Legal Department


           Re:  Extension of Maturity  Date Ladies and Gentlemen:


Reference is made to that certain Loan Agreement dated as of June 17, 2010 (as amended, restated, extended, supplemented or otherwise modified in writing from time to time, the "Loan Agreement"), between Bank of America, N.A. ("Bank") and Super Micro Computer, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Borrower"). Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the ascribed meanings as set forth in the Loan Agreement.


Currently the maturity date of the credit accommodations provided by Bank to Borrower pursuant to the Loan Agreement as set forth in the first sentence of Section 1.2 of the Loan Agreement is March 15, 2016 (“Maturity Date”). Borrower has requested that the Maturity Date be extended and Bank has agreed to extend the Maturity Date to April 30, 2016.


Notwithstanding the terms and conditions set forth in the Loan Agreement, Borrower and Bank hereby agree that the date "March 15, 2016" in the first sentence of Section 1.2 of the Loan Agreement is changed to "April 30, 2016".


The extension and agreements set forth herein shall be limited precisely as written and shall not be deemed to be an extension or an agreement to any other act by Borrower which is prohibited by the Loan Agreement.  Except as specifically provided above, the extension and agreements set forth herein shall not constitute a waiver or modification of any of the terms of the Loan Agreement.


Regards,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
By:           /S/ Thomas R. Sullivan
Name:      Thomas R. Sullivan     
Title:        Senior Vice President  

















Acknowledged and agreed to 
this 15 day of March, 2016:


SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC.,
a Delaware corporation
By:           /S/ Howard Hideshima
Name:      Howard Hideshima     
Title:        CFO
Exhibit 10.16



                                November 2, 2005

VIA  E-MAIL  AND  FACSIMILE

Mr.  Gerald  W.  Green
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX
Phone:        XXX-XXX-XXXX
Fax:          XXX-XXX-XXXX

     RE:     AMENDMENT  TO  PURCHASE  AND  SALE  AGREEMENT

Dear  Mr.  Green:

     Your  signature on the line designated below will signify your agreement to
the  herein  described amendments to the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Mr.
Gerald  W.  Green  and New Century Energy Corp. ("NCEY") dated November 1, 2005.
If  these  amendments  reflect  your  agreement  with NCEY then sign on the line
provided  and return a copy of this letter with your original signature to me at
the  address  on  the  letterhead.

     The  Purchase  and  Sale  Agreement  is  amended  as  follows:

1.   The  Closing  Date  is  January  3,  2006.

2.   The  Effective  Date  of  the  conveyance  shall  remain  October  1, 2005.
     However,  the  net  revenue  for the month of October, 2005, shall be split
     equally between Seller and Buyer.

3.   Buyer  will  wire  Seller  a  deposit  in the amount of 10% of the purchase
     price,  $189,000.00,  on  November  2,  2005.  This  deposit  shall only be
     refundable  to  Buyer in the event that Seller does not have clear title to
     his  interest  at  time of closing. The state of title shall be verified by
     Buyer  by  reviewing  the  real  property records of McMullen County, Texas
     prior to the Closing Date.

4.   Buyer  will  be  responsible  for  all  AFE charges for the new proposed LH
     #9  well  that  will  spud in the next 30 days. Any charges for the #9 well
     paid  in  advance by Seller prior to October 1, 2005, will be reimbursed to
     Seller  by Buyer as part of closing. Buyer will also be responsible for all
     AFE  charges from the date of this Letter Agreement for the workover of the
     #4  well.  Any  charges  paid by Seller from this date forward will also be
     reimbursed to Seller by Buyer as part of closing.

<PAGE>

5.   Any  unused  credits  on  Seller's  LOE  statement  as  of October 1, 2005,
     with  U.S.  Enercorp,  Ltd.  for  drilling the #11 and Fee #1 wells will be
     refunded to Seller by Buyer at closing.

     Do  not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or comments regarding
these  matters.  Otherwise,  I  thank  you  in  advance  for  your  cooperation.

                                   Very  truly  yours,

                                   /s/  J.  Kevin  Raley

                                   J.  Kevin  Raley

Amendment  to  Purchase  and  Sale  Agreement  Agreed  to  and  Accepted:


/s/  Gerald  W.  Green                              /s/  Edward  R.  DeStefano
----------------------                              --------------------------
Gerald  W.  Green                                   Edward  R.  DeStefano
                                                    President  &  CEO
                                                    New  Century  Energy  Corp.

cc:  Mr.  Lee  Vendig
     The  Law  Office  of  Lee  D.  Vendig
     5949  Sherry  Lane,  Suite  1700
     Dallas,  Texas  75225
Via  E-mail  and  Facsimile

<PAGE>
Executive Order 13216

# Amendment to Executive Order 13125, Increasing Participation of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Federal Programs

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and in order to change the title of Executive Order 13125 of June 7, 1999, and to extend by 2 years the President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders that was created by Executive Order 13125, it is hereby ordered as follows:

**Section 1.**                     The title of Executive Order 13125 is deleted and the following title is inserted in lieu thereof: “Increasing Opportunity and Improving Quality of Life of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.”                

**Sec. 2.**                     Section 9 of Executive Order 13125 is amended by deleting “2 years after the date of this Executive order unless the Commission is renewed by the President prior to the end of that 2-year period” and inserting in lieu thereof “on June 7, 2003, unless renewed by the President prior to that date.”                

[FR Doc. 01-14862

Billing code 3195-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition for year ended on September
30, 1998 (Audited) and the Consolidated Statement of Income for the twelve
months ended September 30, 1998 (Audited) and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such finanical statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,147
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  367,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               372,415
<PP&E>                                          96,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,868
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,982,592
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,815
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       190,035
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,723,742
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,982,592
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,063,715
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,573,853
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,637,568)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,637,568)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,637,568)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM S3
INCORPORATED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 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-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          24,288
<SECURITIES>                                   516,752
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,536
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,318
<INVENTORY>                                    138,396
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               779,959
<PP&E>                                         106,209
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,433
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,440,394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          270,507
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       592,207
<OTHER-SE>                                     355,817
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,440,394
<SALES>                                        297,539
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               297,539
<CGS>                                          279,132
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  279,132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               120,664
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,978
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                799,236
<INCOME-TAX>                                   336,871
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            462,365
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   455,984
<EPS-BASIC>                                          5
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        5


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Javier Enrique Garcia Rossell ACOSTA, also known as Javier Garcia Rossell, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20116

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Javier Enrique Garcia Rossell Acosta (Acosta) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Acosta has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.