alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-3570

_____________

Ivan M.C. Chen, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

School District of Kansas City, *

Missouri, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: April 16, 1997

Filed: July 21, 1997

_____________

Before LOKEN, MAGILL, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

After the Kansas City School District refused to renew his probationary contract

as a teacher at Van Horn High School, Ivan Chen commenced this multi-count action

claiming race and gender discrimination. The School District moved for summary

judgment, submitting evidence that after Chen had received persistently bad

performance evaluations, the School District accepted the evaluator’s recommendation

that his contract not be renewed. In response, Chen submitted an affidavit claiming that

his poor evaluations resulted from the female evaluator’s bias against males and Chen’s
The HONORABLE FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR., United States District Judge

1

for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-

foreign accent, and submitting a statistical analysis tending to show that this evaluator

consistently gave lower evaluations to male and foreign-born teachers.

The district court granted summary judgment for the School District dismissing 1

all of Chen’s claims. With regard to the Title VII claim, the court concluded that

Chen’s poor performance evaluations and failure to correct noted deficiencies were a

legitimate business reason for the decision not to renew his contract, and that Chen’s

circumstantial evidence is insufficient to create an inference of pretext for race or

gender discrimination. Chen appeals only the dismissal of his Title VII claim. After

thorough review of the record, we conclude that summary judgment was properly

granted dismissing this claim for the reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly,

we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Employment agreement for Patrick J. Clawson



  

					
	EXHIBIT 10.1	  	EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT	  	 

  
 This Amendment
(“Amendment”) dated December 4, 2003, is entered into by and between CyberGuard Corporation (“CyberGuard”) and Patrick J. Clawson, an employee of CyberGuard (“Employee”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the Employee and CyberGuard are parties to an Employment Agreement dated
January 18, 2001 (“Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Employee and
CyberGuard desire to amend the Agreement in connection with the Employee’s appointment to the Chief Executive Officer position. 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises contained herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, CyberGuard and the Employee agree to amend the
Agreement as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Effective as of January 3, 2004, Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to delete the title “President” and replace it with “Chief Executive Officer”.


  

	 	2.	Effective as of January 3, 2004, Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the Employee shall have responsibility for the day-to-day operations of CyberGuard,
subject to the authority and control of CyberGuard’s Board of Directors. 

  

	 	3.	Effective as of January 3, 2004, Section 4.a. of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide for base salary of $200,000 per year. 

  

	 	4.	Effective as of December 4, 2003, Section 7.b.ii. of the Agreement is hereby amended with respect to the Employee’s stock option agreement granted on December 4, 2003 to
purchase 100,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock at $8.33 per share and any stock option agreement granted to the Employee by CyberGuard after the date hereof (each, an “Option”; collectively, the “Options”), as
follows: 

  
 In the event that the Employee’s
employment is terminated by the Company without Cause or by the Employee with Good Reason, then (1) the Options shall become immediately exercisable upon such termination of employment, and (2) the Employee shall have the right to exercise all such
Options for the shorter of (a) two (2) years following his termination of employment or (b) with respect to each Option, the remainder of the period of exercisability under the terms of the appropriate Option agreement. 
  

	 	5.	Nothing herein shall limit or restrict CyberGuard’s rights to terminate the Employee’s employment in accordance with the Agreement. 

  

	 	6.	This Amendment shall supersede any provisions of the Agreement to the extent that this Amendment conflicts with, modifies, or amends any provision of the Agreement. In all other
respects the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Agreement as of the date above first written. 
  

									
	CYBERGUARD CORPORATION	 	 	 	EMPLOYEE
					
	 By:
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	David L. Manning, Audit Committee Chairman	 	 	 	 	 	Patrick J. Clawson
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of EarthBiofuels, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Darren Miles, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify that:

 

3.                                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

4.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| */s/*DARREN MILES       |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|                    |
| Darren Miles            |
| Chief Financial Officer |
|                    |
| May 22, 2006       |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
| 1.     | The Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2010 (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.                                                                                                 |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |   |

| By:    | /S/    | KEVIN KREISLERKEVIN KREISLERChief Executive Officer |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                |
| Date:  |   | May 21, 2010                                        |

| By:    | /S/    | EDWARD R. CARROLLEDWARD R. CARROLLChief Financial and Accounting Officer |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                     |
| Date:  |   | May 21, 2010                                                             |
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7429

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BILLY JOE SCOTT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III, District Judge. ( 5:11

- cr - 00128

- D

- 1 ; 5:16

- cv - 00598

- D )

Submitted : February 18, 2020 Decided: February 21, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS , and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Billy Joe Scott , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Billy Joe Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong

. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the d enial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 92012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Scott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
# C_2018460EN.01000601.xml

| 21.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 460/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 460/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8963 — Eurocar/Bonaldi)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 460/03)

On 1 August 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8963. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8963. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# C_2018384EN.01000901.xml

| 24.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/9

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9049 — E.ON/Clever/UFC Scandinavia JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 384/06)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | E.ON (Germany), |
| --- | --- |

—

E.ON (Germany),

| — | Clever A/S (‘Clever’, Denmark), controlled by SEAS-NVE. |
| --- | --- |

—

Clever A/S (‘Clever’, Denmark), controlled by SEAS-NVE.

E.ON and Clever acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation, joint control over a newly-created joint venture.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly-created company constituting a joint venture.

2.

| — | E.ON is an energy company with activities in 3 main business areas: (i) energy networks; (ii) renewable energies; and (iii) customer solutions, including electricity and gas retail supply, |
| --- | --- |

—

E.ON is an energy company with activities in 3 main business areas: (i) energy networks; (ii) renewable energies; and (iii) customer solutions, including electricity and gas retail supply,

| — | Clever is an electric mobility service provider, active in charging solutions to companies, public institutions and end customers, |
| --- | --- |

—

Clever is an electric mobility service provider, active in charging solutions to companies, public institutions and end customers,

| — | The JV will develop and operate ultra-fast charging (UFC) stations for electric vehicles in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. |
| --- | --- |

—

The JV will develop and operate ultra-fast charging (UFC) stations for electric vehicles in Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9049 — E.ON/Clever/UFC Scandinavia JV

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| --- |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JOHN ANTHONY VEGA,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 483 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
Eric Matthew FREIN, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 19-5998

Supreme Court of the United States.

Jan. 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36339-36340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12924]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel: NIAMS RE-
JOIN UCT2 Review Meeting.
    Date: July 12, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Kan Ma, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Arthritis, 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, NIH, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, 
Suite 814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-4838, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#462b272d74062b272f2a68282f2e68212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4d9d5df86f4d9d5ddd89adadddc9ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 36340]]


    Dated: June 10, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-12924 Filed 6-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1215 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to make technical corrections 

to the segment designations for the Chetco River, Oregon. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2013 

Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, and Ms. BONAMICI) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to make technical 

corrections to the segment designations for the Chetco 

River, Oregon. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chetco River Protec5 tion Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE WILD AND SCE7 NIC RIVERS ACT. 

8 Section 3(a)(69) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

9 (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(69)) is amended— 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1215 IH

1 (1) by inserting before ‘‘The 44.5-mile’’ the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(A) DESIGNATIONS.—’’; 

4 (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), 

5 and (C) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively; 

6 (3) in clause (i), as redesignated— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘25.5-mile’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘27.5-mile’’; and 

9 (B) by striking ‘‘Boulder Creek at the 

10 Kalmiopsis Wilderness boundary’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘Mislatnah Creek’’; 

12 (4) in clause (ii), as redesignated— 

13 (A) by striking ‘‘8’’ and inserting ‘‘7.5’’; 

14 (B) by striking ‘‘Boulder Creek’’ and in15 serting ‘‘Mislatnah Creek’’; and 

16 (C) by striking ‘‘Steel Bridge’’ and insert17 ing ‘‘Eagle Creek’’; 

18 (5) in clause (iii), as redesignated— 

19 (A) by striking ‘‘11’’ and inserting ‘‘9.5’’; 

20 and 

21 (B) by striking ‘‘Steel Bridge’’ and insert22 ing ‘‘Eagle Creek’’; and 

23 (6) by adding at the end the following: 

24 ‘‘(B) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid 

25 rights, the Federal land within the boundaries 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1215 IH

1 of the river segments designated by subpara2 graph (A), is withdrawn from all forms of— 

3 ‘‘(i) entry, appropriation, or disposal 

4 under the public land laws; 

5 ‘‘(ii) location, entry, and patent under 

6 the mining laws; and 

7 ‘‘(iii) disposition under all laws per8 taining to mineral and geothermal leasing 

9 or mineral materials.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Vincent PISCIOTTA, Petitioner v. D.J. HARMON, Warden.

No. 18-9453

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Jermaine D. HARRIS, Petitioner v. Stephen T. MOYER, Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, et al.

No. 19-6444

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Jermaine STEVENSON, Petitioner v. Jeffrey WOODS, Warden

No. 19-6122

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 85-6524.

#### Washington *v.*Angelone, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
William DAWSON, Petitioner v. Bryan K. WELLS

No. 19-6776

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Eric Alan SANDERS, Petitioner v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC

No. 19-5517

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
David ROTHENBERG, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5384

Supreme Court of the United States.

JANUARY 13, 2020

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