alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERALD MORGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ELAINE L. CHAO, Secretary, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-16160 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-04036-DLR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 9, 2019

Portland, Oregon

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Gerald Morgan appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment 

to his employer, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), on Morgan’s Title 

VII retaliation claim. Morgan also appeals from the district court’s Rule 12(b)(1) 

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of his Title VII claim for damages 

arising from an on-the-job car accident. As the parties are familiar with the facts, 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

JUL 16 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

we do not recount them here. We vacate and remand in part and affirm in part.

The district court erred in granting summary judgment based on Morgan’s 

failure to establish that the FAA’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for his job 

reassignment were pretextual. Morgan raised a genuine issue of fact as to pretext 

by declaring that his supervisor—while handing Morgan his reassignment 

papers—stated, “I don’t know why you have to file EEO, after a [sic] told you not 

to,” “I am very disappointed at you,” and “You are driving to Tucson every day 

now. I have to show that I did something!” Therefore, we vacate the district 

court’s order granting summary judgment and remand for the district court to 

decide in the first instance whether Morgan established a prima facie case of 

retaliation.

The district court properly concluded that the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for Morgan’s accident-related 

injuries. See 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s 

dismissal of Morgan’s Title VII claim seeking damages arising from his on-the-job 

car accident. 

VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.
# L_2015045EN.01002201.xml

| 19.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 45/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 45/22

---

Corrigendum to Decision No 1/2008 (2008/786/EC) of the EC-EFTA Joint Committee on Common Transit of 16 June 2008 amending the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 274 of 15 October 2008
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 274 of 15 October 2008

On page 24, Annex I, Article 113(4):

for:

‘4.   For the purposes of Article 4(2), the operator ...’

,

read:

‘4.   For the purposes of Article 8(2), the operator ...’

.

---
EXHIBIT 10.17  AMENDMENT TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT  ThisAMENDMENT TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this Agreement) by and between IA GLOBAL, INC.,a Delaware corporation (the Company), and Inter Asset Japan LBO No.1 Fund (Voluntary Partnership) (the Purchaser) is entered into as of January 26, 2010.  The Company and Purchaser are entering into this agreement to memorialize the amended terms and conditions upon which Purchaser commits to purchase and acquire shares of the Companys common stock, $0.01 par value per share (the Common Stock).  NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the Company and Purchaser hereby amend the August 17, 2009 Stock Purchase Agreement as follows:  I.          STOCK PURCHASE COMMITMENT; REPRESENTATIONS BY PURCHASER  1.1       Subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the Purchaser hereby agrees to purchase from the Company, and the Company agrees to sell, issue and deliver to the Purchaser, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances (except pursuant to applicable securities laws), the shares of Common Stock (the Shares) against payment of the Purchase Price in accordance with the following schedule:  (i)      5,000,000 Shares at a purchase price of US$.04 per share, or an aggregate price of US$200,000 on or before August 24, 2009.  (ii)     2,500,000 Shares at a purchase price of US$.04 per share, or an aggregate price of US$100,000 on or before September 4, 2009.  (iii)     1,250,000 Shares at a purchase price of US$.04 per share, or an aggregate price of US$50,000 on or before September 18, 2009.  (iv)    50,000,000 Shares at a purchase price of US$.04 per share, or an aggregate price of US$2,000,000 on or before December 31, 2009.  (v)     6,250,000 Shares at a purchase price of US$.04 per share, or an aggregate price of US$250,000 on or before February 15, 2010.  1.2        Purchaser has the option but not the obligation to purchase the following shares of Common Stock at a purchase price of US$.04 per share. Any shares of Common Stock purchased pursuant to the option set forth in this Section 1.2 shall also be referred to as Shares.  (i)     50,000,000 Shares at a purchase price of US$.04 per share, or an aggregate price of US$2,000,000 on or before March 31, 2010.  (ii)    50,000,000 Shares at a purchase price of US$.04 per share, or an aggregate price of US$2,000,000 on or before April 30, 2010, as long as $500,000 has been funded by February 28, 2010.  The Stock Purchase Agreement dated August 17, 2009 and this Amendment to Stock Purchase Agreement dated January 26, 2010 are the only agreements to between the Company and the Purchaser.  1   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year set forth below.

IA Global, Inc.____________________________________By: Mark ScottTitle: Chief Financial OfficerInter Asset Japan LBO No.1 Fund (Voluntary Partnership)____________________________________By: Hiroki   IsobeTitle:
2
EXHIBIT 32.2

                   Certification of Periodic Financial Report
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

For purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  the  undersigned,  Joe F.  Ogburn,  the chief
financial officer of RSI Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"),  hereby certifies that,
to his knowledge:

(i) the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the  Company for the quarter  ended
November 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: January 12, 2004


/s/ Joe F. Ogburn
-----------------------------------------------------
Joe F. Ogburn
Vice President, Treasurer, and Principal Financial Officer



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to RSI Holdings,  Inc. and will be retained by RSI  Holdings,  Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Jaime CARRASCO, et al., petitioners, v. Ernest Joseph ATENCIO, Surviving Father of Ernest Marty Atencio, et al.

No. 16-1441.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,026,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               45,177,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   429,000
<INVENTORY>                                 70,849,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           123,045,000
<PP&E>                                     148,722,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              79,437,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             421,790,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       68,897,000
<BONDS>                                    494,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (222,187,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               421,790,000
<SALES>                                    261,032,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           261,032,000
<CGS>                                      147,464,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              147,464,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,744,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                34,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          34,388,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             36,833,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,660,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         34,173,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                34,173,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Lester J. SMITH, petitioner, v. Cedric TAYLOR, Warden.

No. 16-8265.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 7, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00505-CR Norm an Ray Dr

iska , Appellant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DIS TRICT

NO. 46,674, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING Appe llantNorman R

ay Driska was p l ac ed

on de f er re d a dj udi ca

ti on com m un i ty su pe rvi si on aft er plead ing no co nt est t o ind ece ncy with a chi l d by contact. See Te x. P en. Co de Ann. § 21.11 ( West

Su pp. 200 2) . At a su bseq uent hear ing o n t he St at e’s mo t ion t o a djud icat e, app ellant adm itted four of the al

le ged v i ol ati on s of h i s s up er v i sor y con di ti on s. Th e c our

t ad j udge d h i m gui l ty an d i m pos ed a s en ten ce of twen ty yea rs ’ i m pri son men t. Appell ant’s co ur t - ap po int ed at t o r ne y filed a b r ief c o nc lud ing t ha t t he ap pe al is fri volous an d w i thou t meri t. The b ri ef mee ts th e re qui rem en ts of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967 ), by pre sent inga p rof es si ona l eval ua ti on o f t he r ec o r d d emo nst r at ing wh y t he r e a r e n o ar gu ab le grounds to be ad

va nc ed. See also Pens on v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (19 88) ; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 78) ; Curr ie v. State , 51 6 S . W. 2d 68 4 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1974 ); Jackson v. State , 485 S.W.2d

553 (Tex. Crim. App. 197 2); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim . App.2

1969). A copy of

counsel ’s b

rief was del iv ered t o a ppe llant, and a ppe llantwas advise d o f his right to exam in e the appel

la te recor d and to file

a pro se brie f. No pro se bri ef h as been fi le d. We have revi ewed the record and counsel ’s b rief and agree that the appeal

is fri volous and wit hou t merit . We find not hing in the re co rd t hat mightargu ably suppo rt the ap peal. Co unsel’s motion to withdraw i s granted.

The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________ Mack Ki dd, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, Patterson and Puryear Af fi rmed File d: March 28, 2001 Do No t Publis

h
Billy Frank LEE, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-5426.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Michael D. DARBY, petitioner, v. Theodore A. McKEE, et al.

No. 17-5368.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Henry J. DuLAURENCE, III, petitioner, v. Arthur G. TELEGEN, et al.

No. 17-7919.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Andrew R. SPENGLER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5570.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Dennis M. O'HARA, petitioner, v. COMPTROLLER OF MARYLAND, et al.

No. 17-238.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C_2010317EN.01004802.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Rossi Ferreras v Commission

(Case F-85/09) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Officials - 2001/2002 Appraisal - Career Development Report - Compliance with an annulling judgment - Effects of the withdrawal of an act - Establishment of the objectives)

2010/C 317/85

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Francisco Rossi Ferreras (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the applicant’s Career Development Report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses Mr Rossi Ferreras’s action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses Mr Rossi Ferreras’s action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Rossi Ferreras to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Rossi Ferreras to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19/12/2009, p. 45.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           580,134
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                         745
<MORTGAGE>                                       9,455
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    3,553
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 632,865
<CASH>                                           3,874
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              74,225
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          90,363<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,066,137
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                715,358
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 35,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,530
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,617
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,669<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,066,137
<PREMIUMS>                                       9,498
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             30,994
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               (209)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   7,280<F3>
<BENEFITS>                                      27,789<F4>
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      4,455
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            10,681
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,606
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,604
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,002
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,002
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .53<F5>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50<F5>
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
<FN>
<F1>Includes $29,764 of cost of policies purchased.
<F2>Includes retained earnings of $13,574 and other comprehensive income of
($11,905).
<F3>Includes policy charges of $5,176 and fees from separate accounts of $2,104.
<F4>Includes benefits and claims of $11,066 and interest credited on financial
products of $16,723.
<F5>EPS data does not include reductions for preferred stock dividends.
</FN>


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4224 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4224

                For the relief of Edith Espinal Moreno.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 30, 2019

 Mrs. Beatty introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                For the relief of Edith Espinal Moreno.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR EDITH ESPINAL MORENO.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Edith Espinal Moreno shall 
be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of 
status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Edith Espinal Moreno enters the 
United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 
she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 
shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Edith Espinal Moreno, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Edith Espinal 
Moreno shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
Juan Jose ZUNIGA-HERNANDEZ, petitioner, v. Rachel CHAPA, Warden.

No. 17-5664.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Sense Technologies
  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2003
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
  "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
  hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                       
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                     
|2. | The information contained in the Report
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: June 13, 2003 | /s/ James H. Cotter                       
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------
|                     |                                           
|                     | James H. Cotter                           
|                     | President and Principal Accounting Officer





---
Joel L. BELING, petitioner, v. ENNIS, INC.

No. 17-5665.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

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