alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### L. Jay CONKLIN v. RCA CORPORATION.

Civ. A. No. 76-951.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 2, 1977.

Martin Fruitman, Lancaster, Pa., for plaintiff.

*343John H. Leddy, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

TROUTMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff brings this action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621*et seq.*He originally charged that he was wrongfully discharged from employment on August 13, 1971, and that defendant wrongfully refused to rehire him on April 27, 1973. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss both actions on the ground that plaintiff was barred by statutory time limits in the giving of sixty days’ notice to the Secretary of Labor, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 626(d), and on the ground that the actions were barred by the statute of limitations, 29 U.S.C. §§ 626(e) and 255. In *L. Jay Conklin v. RCA Corporation New Holland Avenue, Lancaster, Penn.,*C.A. No. 76-951 (E.D.Pa.1976), this Court granted the motion as to the discharge of August 13, 1971, but denied it as to the April 27, 1973 failure to rehire. We held that there was an uncertainty as to whether plaintiff gave oral notice of his intent to sue to Clifford Ellis, Compliance Officer for the Department of Labor, on January 14, 1974, which was within three hundred days of April 27, 1973.

Defendant now moves for summary judgment as to the alleged failure to rehire. They offer the affidavit of Clifford Ellis and contend that it shows that there was no notice supplied by plaintiff during his meeting with Ellis. The affidavit does indicate that there was no record of any mention by plaintiff of an intent to sue. *Affidavit of Clifford Ellis,*p. 4, lines 21-24. Furthermore, Ellis testified that if oral notice had been given, it would have been duly noted. *Id.*at p. 20, lines 3-8.

Plaintiff does not rebut this evidence with affidavits or other matter as required by F.R.C.P. 56(e). Instead, he contends that the Department of Labor was irresponsible in not asking plaintiff if he intended to sue. We hold that the Department is not required to so act. We note that Area Director David Feinberg did contact plaintiff and advise him that merely supplying information of alleged wrongful action is not sufficient notice of intent to sue. This letter was dated January 17, 1974, which was within the period of time in which plaintiff had to act. The clear language of the statute is that plaintiff has three hundred days from the date of the alleged unlawful act to give sixty days’ notice of intent to sue. Plaintiff has failed to so act and is now barred.

Given the evidence set forth in the Ellis affidavit and the absence of any conflicting evidence offered by plaintiff, we find no issue of material fact. Earlier, we denied defendant’s motion to dismiss as to the alleged failure to rehire, until a more complete factual picture could be developed. That picture is now complete. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.
Steven Michael CAPSHAW, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6206.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
#### Edward Lee THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-16330.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 14, 2010.

Edward Lee Thomas, Avenal, CA, pro se.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Lee Thomas, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his leg and hip pain. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. *677§ 1915A, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Thomas did not allege facts showing that defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. *See Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). On the contrary, Thomas’s allegations that certain doctors declined to order x-rays or MRIs, other doctors treated him -with only Motrin, and a nurse practitioner concluded that Thomas did not present a medical emergency, indicates at most negligence. *See id.*(“Mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Thomas’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny Thomas’s motion for appointment of counsel. *See Terrell v. Brewer,*935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Federal Register: May 22, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 28370]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22my98-67]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 15, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-13871 Filed 5-20-98; 12:53 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Community Financial Corporation (the "Company") that the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period endedDecember 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

| Dated: February 12, 2007 | /s/ P. Douglas RichardP. Douglas RichardPresident and Chief Executive Officer     |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |                                                                                   |
|                          |                                                                                   |
|                          |                                                                                   |
|                          |                                                                                   |
| Dated: February 12, 2007 | /s/ R. Jerry GilesR. Jerry GilesSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                          |                                                                                   |
|                          |                                                                                   |
Moscow Exchange FBOT Form [Supplement S-1]

APPENDIX 5
[Commitment #1 of the Chairman of the NCC Executive Board]

Please find attached:

M an undertaking by the Chairman of the Executive Board (or functional equivalent{s]) of the
NCC to notify Commission staff promptly if any of the representations made in connection
with this supplement cease to be true or correct, or become incomplete or misleading.


Moscow Exchange FBOT Form [Supplement S-1]
APPENDIX 5
[Commitment #1 of the Chairman of the NCC Executive Board]

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,

Secretary of the Commission
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick,

We hereby confirm that, at the moment of the Supplement S-1 to FBOT Application filing, all data
contained in the documents and applications is complete and true. We undertake to notify CFTC
staff promptly if any of the representations made in connection with or related to the FBOT
application for registration cease to be true or correct, or become incomplete or misleading.

Best regards,

Ahi

Alexey Khavin, Chairman of the Executive Board
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MARK J. GAMBER 

DOCKET NUMBER: 196 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 196 

(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: 

Mark J. Gamber 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that on five days during the period April 6 through May 

25, 1971, Mark J. Gamber exceeded the speculative trading limits on soybean 

futures contracts established by the Commodity Exchange Commission. It further 

charges that in connection with his trading on three of such days, he attempted 

to conceal the excess contracts by falsifying his reports and records. 

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 will be held before a referee in Chicago, 

Illinois at a date and time to be specified at a later date. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
'lliniteo ~hdes Qlourt of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

September 7, 2007 

Before 

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge 

Hon. WILLL<\M J. BAUER, Circuit Judge 

Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge 

No. 07-3057 

LAKE SHORE ASSET l\IL<\NAGEMENT LIMITED, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, 

Respondent. 

No. 07-3070 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

LAKE SHORE ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Petition for Review of an 

Order of the Commodity 

Futures Trading 

Com mission. 

No. CRAl\ 07-02 

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

No. 07 C 3598 

Blanche M. Manning, 

Judge. 
Nos. 07-3057 and 07-3070 Page 2 

Order 

The applications for stays of the CFTC's order, and of the district court's 

injunction, pending review in this court, are denied. 

In reaching this decision we assume that the district judge will be receptive 

to applications filed by any of Lake Shore Asset Management's customers who want 

their funds released so that they can be invested elsewhere while the litigation 

continues.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D23-1192

 LT Case Nos. 22-058CF 

 23-029-FO

_____________________________ 

KIMBERLY MCCAFFREYNOEL, 

Appellant, 

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN

AND FAMILIES, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

Administrative Appeal from the Department of Children and 

Families. 

Kimberly McCaffrey-Noel, Deland, pro se. 

Jennifer L. Ware, Assistant General Counsel, of Department 

of Children and Families, for Appellee. 

August 15, 2023 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. See § 435.07(4)(c)1.p., Fla. Stat. (2022). 

EDWARDS, C.J., LAMBERT, AND PRATT, JJ., CONCUR. 
2 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________
Eric L. NATHAN, petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY.

No. 16-5902.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
Victor OGUNNIYI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6197.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.16


 


ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT


 


THIS ASSIGNMENT AND
ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (“Assignment and Assumption Agreement”) is effective December 18, 2015 (the “Effective
Date”), by and between Fortress Biotech, Inc. (“Fortress”), a Delaware corporation, and Checkpoint
Therapeutics, Inc. (“Checkpoint”), a Delaware corporation.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, Fortress
and Cephalon, Inc. (“Cephalon”) are parties to that certain License Agreement, dated December 18, 2015 (the
“License Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant
to Section 11.2 of the License Agreement, Fortress may assign the License Agreement to an Affiliate (as defined in the License
Agreement) of Fortress without Cephalon’s prior written consent;


 


WHEREAS, Checkpoint
is an Affiliate of Fortress; and


 


WHEREAS; Fortress
wishes to assign the License Agreement to Checkpoint and, in connection therewith, Checkpoint has agreed to accept such assignment
and assume the obligations thereunder.


 


AGREEMENTS


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed that:


 


1.          Assignment.
Fortress hereby sells, assigns, conveys, transfers and delivers to Checkpoint all of Fortress’ right, title, and interest
in and to the License Agreement.


 


2.          Assumption.
Checkpoint hereby accepts the foregoing assignment, and in connection therewith, Checkpoint hereby agrees to assume all of Fortress’
obligations under the License Agreement, whether arising before, at or after the Effective Date.


 


3.          Effective
Time. The effective time of this Assignment and Assumption Agreement is 11:59pm EST on the date hereof.


 


4.          Counterparts;
Electronic Delivery. This Assignment and Assumption Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts with the same
effect as if each of the parties hereto had signed the same document. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute
one Assignment and Assumption Agreement. This Assignment and Assumption Agreement, to the extent signed and delivered by means
of facsimile machine or via e-mail, shall be treated in all manner and respects as an original agreement or instrument and shall
be considered to have the same binding legal effect as if it were the original signed version thereof delivered in person.


 




     


     


    

  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties have executed this Assignment and Assumption Agreement as of the date first above written.


 


	FORTRESS BIOTECH, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Lindsay Rosenwald	 
	 	 	 
	Name:	Lindsay Rosenwald	 
	 	 	 
	Title:	CEO	 
	 	 	 
	CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ James Oliviero	 
	 	 	 
	Name:	James Oliviero	 
	 	 	 
	Title:	President & CEO
Brett W. DUMSTREY, petitioner, v. WISCONSIN.

No. 15-1289.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied.
Mark C. SAWYER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5844.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1550 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1550

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 22, 2010.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes, with the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order except those 
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the 
Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment 
shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Marie Therese ASSA'AD-FALTAS, petitioner, v. Tandy CARTER, et al.

No. 16-329.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United State Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Carlos L. HERNANDEZ-VEGA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6082.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.
 Date: May 9, 2007/s/ FRANK J. BILBAN

Frank J. BilbanVice President  Finance, Chief Financial
Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
 25
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

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 theQuarterly Report of Cost-U-Less, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended September 25, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Martin P. Moore,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 

Date: November 8, 2005

 

 

|   |   | /s/   Martin P. Moore   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Martin P. Moore         |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1538 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1538

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 27, 2010.
Whereas, on July 11, 2010, terrorists allegedly associated with the Somalia-
        based al Shabaab terrorist organization carried out multiple suicide 
        attacks against civilian targets in the city of Kampala, Uganda;
Whereas Nate ``Oteka'' Henn, a United States citizen and committed volunteer of 
        Invisible Children Inc., a nonprofit organization based in San Diego, 
        California, and at least 70 other civilians were killed in the attack;
Whereas al Shabaab was designated as a foreign terrorist organization under 
        section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and as a specially 
        designated global terrorist under section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 
        on February 26, 2008;
Whereas the attacks for which al Shabaab has claimed responsibility, were 
        allegedly in retaliation for the presence of Ugandan peacekeeping forces 
        contributing to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM);
Whereas Uganda currently has 3,400 peacekeeping troops deployed to Somalia in 
        support of AMISOM and reportedly has committed to deploying an 
        additional 2,000 troops; and
Whereas it is in the interest of the United States and the international 
        community to support efforts in Somalia to achieve lasting peace, 
        democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights, and to eradicate 
        extremism and terrorism from Somalia and the region: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) strongly condemns the terrorist attacks in Kampala, Uganda, on 
        July 11, 2010;
            (2) encourages the Administration to help Ugandan and Somali 
        authorities bring those responsible for these attacks to justice;
            (3) expresses its condolences to the families of Nate ``Oteka'' Henn 
        and all the victims of these attacks;
            (4) strongly condemns al Shabaab's destabilizing role in Somalia and 
        the region;
            (5) recognizes the contributions of Uganda's peacekeeping efforts in 
        Somalia; and
            (6) calls on the Administration to work with the international 
        community to address the security threat emanating from Somalia.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION * IN THE

OF MARYLAND * COURT OF APPEALS

* OF MARYLAND

Petitioner *

* Misc. Docket AG 

v. * No. 29

*

EPHRAIM CHUKWUEMEKA UGWUONYE * September Term, 2019 

*

Respondent *

 

ORDER

UPON CONSIDERATION of a certified copy of the Order of the District of 

Columbia Court of Appeals dated May 2, 2019, wherein the Respondent, Ephraim 

Chukwuemeka Ugwuonye, was disbarred from the practice of law for violating the District 

of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, it is this 27th day of September, 2019, 

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the Respondent, Ephraim 

Chukwuemeka Ugwuonye, be, and hereby is, temporarily suspended from the practice of 

law in the State of Maryland, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-737(d), pending further order 

of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Ephraim 

Chukwuemeka Ugwuonye from the register of attorneys in this Court and certify that fact 

to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks of all 

judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-736(d). 

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera

Chief Judge