alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citabl e as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

04-3055 WILFREDO TORRES, Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROECTION BOARD, Respondent.

__________________________ DECIDED: November 18, 2004

__________________________

Before GAJARSA, Circuit Judge , PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge and LINN, Circuit Judge

. PER CURIAM. This is an unusual circumstance where Mr. Torres had two separate and distinct cases pending before the Merit S ystem Protection Board (“Board”). He believed he was appealing one case, Torres v. Dep’t of Treasury , AT-0752-03-0155-I-1 (MSPB Initial Decision Jan. 23, 2003), and in actuality, he appealed the other, Torres v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , AT-0845-02-0431-I-1 (MSPB Sept. 22, 2003). Mr. Torres appears to believe that he is appealing the case relating to his involuntary retirement and constructive removal claim against the Department ofTreasury. The case was dismi ssed for lack of jurisdiction. Torres , AT-0752-03-0155-I-1, slip op. at 1. However, he appealed the Board’s dismissal for untimeliness of his appeal for denial of a pens ion overpayment waiver against the Office of Personnel Management. Torres , AT-0845-02-0431-I-1. Mr. Torres, therefore, appealed the wrong case. The respondent noted that Mr. Torres did not acknowledge the timeliness issue in his arguments, but did not advise this Court of Mr. Torres’s failure to appeal the appropriate case. In spite of the erroneous filing by Mr. Torres, we have reviewed the appealed matter relating to the Board’s dismissal fo r untimeliness relative to the pension overpayment. Because Mr. Torres has failed to demonstrate that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discret ion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law; obtained without procedur es required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or unsupported by subs tantial evidence, this Court affirms the Board’s decision.

04-3055 2
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                      PROJECT SOFTWARE & DEVELOPMENT, INC.

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         JURISDICTION OF 
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                        INCORPORATION           OWNERSHIP
------------------                       ---------------          ---------
<S>                                       <C>                        <C>

PSDI International Software, Inc.         Delaware                   (1)
PSDI Security Corporation                 Massachusetts              (1)
PSDI International Holdings, Inc.         Delaware                   (2)
PSDI Export, Inc.                         Barbados                   (2)
PSDI (UK) Limited                         United Kingdom             (2)
PSDI Canada Limited                       Canada                     (2)
PSDI France S.A.R.L                       France                     (2)
PSDI Australia Pty. Limited               Australia                  (2)
PSDI Deutschland, GmbH                    Germany                    (2)
PSDI Europe Ltd.                          United Kingdom             (2)
PSDI Espana S.A.                          Spain                      (2)
PSDI Benelux NV                           Netherlands                (2)
PSDI Norden AB                            Sweden                     (2)
PSDI Japan K.K.                           Japan                      (2)
PSDI (Thailand) Limited                   Thailand                   (2)
PSDI India Private Limited                India                      (2)
PSDI Brasil Ltda.                         Brazil                     (3)
PSDI Hong Kong Limited                    Hong Kong                  (2)
Maintenet Corporation                     Ohio                       (1)
Maintenet Corp.                           Canada                     (4)
PSDI Mexico S.A. de C.V.                  Mexico                     (3)
The A.R.M. Group                          Canada                     (4)
Maintenance Automation Corporation        Florida                    (1)
</TABLE>


(1)   All of the outstanding capital stock is owned by Project Software &
Development, Inc.

(2)   All of the outstanding capital stock (other than certain qualifying shares
required in the jurisdiction of organization and representing from 0% to 2% of
the outstanding capital stock), is owned by PSDI International Software, Inc.




<PAGE>   2

(3)   4,950 shares are owned by PSDI International Software, Inc. and 50 shares
are owned by PSDI International Holdings, Inc.

(4)   All outstanding capital is owned by PSDI Canada Limited.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ALMA YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Secretary Dan Glickman, Defendant-Appellee, and No. 98-1802 JOHN DUNMORE, Deputy Director of Division Director Economic Research Service, USDA; SARA MAZIE, Associate Division Director, U.S. Department of Agriculture; RICHARD LONG, Deputy Director to the Associate Director, Economic Research Service, USDA, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-96-2818-PJM) Submitted: March 23, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Christina Northern, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Tarra DeShields, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Alma Young appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in thisemployment discrimination action. She alleged that the USDA discriminated against her on the basis of her race in failing to promoteher and in failing to provide sufficient training to qualify her for promotion. She claims a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,as amended. In addition, Young alleges First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Beard Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Thompson Plastics, Inc. , 152 F.3d 313, 315 (4th Cir. 1998). Summary judgment is appropriate where the evidence establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). We conclude that the district court correctly found no issues of material fact precluding entry of summary judgment for USDA. Young did not establish a prima facie case supporting her Title VII claim, either by direct proof or inference. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
2v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 (1973). We perceive no merit in her First and Fourteenth Amendment allegations. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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. AFFIRMED 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1550

In Re: MITCHELL SMITH, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:07-cv-02276-AW) 

Submitted: September 30, 2008 Decided: October 10, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Mitchell Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Mitchell Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on 

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). He seeks an 

order from this court directing the district court to act. Our 

review of the district court’s docket sheet reveals that the 

district court denied and dismissed the § 2241 petition. 

Accordingly, because the district court recently has decided 

Smith’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 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. 

PETITION DENIED
----

----

|   | (1) | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q 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 result of operations of the      registrant. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      Munjit Johal        |   |   |   |   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Munjit      Johal            |   |   |   |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |
| Makeup.com      Limited      |   |   |   |   |
EXHIBIT 10.24

                                 AMENDMENT TO
                 BPC HOLDING CORPORATION AMENDED AND RESTATED
                  2002 STOCK OPTION PLAN DATED MARCH 3, 2004

      The undersigned, Jeffrey D. Thompson, Assistant Secretary of BPC Holding
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that he
is the duly appointed Assistant Secretary of the Company and does further
certify on behalf of the Company in such capacity that the following Amendment
to BPC Holding Corporation Amended and Restated 2002 Stock Option Plan dated
March 3, 2004 ("Amendment") was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the
Company by written consent of the Board of Directors in lieu of a meeting dated
December 16, 2004, and by the stockholders of the Company by Written Consent of
Majority Shareholders in Lieu of a Meeting dated December 16, 2004:

      WHEREAS, by written consent in lieu of a meeting dated December 16, 2004,
the Board of Directors of the Company voted to increase the number of Shares
subject to Fixed Price Options authorized under the BPC Holding Corporation
2002 Stock Option Plan, as amended (the "Plan"); and

      WHEREAS, a majority of the stockholders of the Company approved such
amendments by Written Consent of Majority Shareholders in Lieu of a Meeting of
Stockholders dated December 16, 2004.

      NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

      1.    All terms used herein that are defined in the Plan and not
otherwise defined or amended herein are used herein as defined in the Plan.


      2.    The first sentence of Section 4.1 is hereby amended by deleting
such sentence in its entirety and replacing such sentence with the following:

            "Subject to Section 10 of the Plan, the maximum number of Shares
            that may be made the subject of Fixed Price Options granted under
            the Plan is 307,545."


      3.    It is hereby acknowledged and confirmed that the Plan is, and shall
continue to be, in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed
in all respects except that on and after the date of this Amendment all
references in any related document to the Plan, "thereto", "thereof",
"thereunder" or words of like import referring to the Plan shall mean the Plan
as amended from time to time, including this Amendment.


                                           /s/ Jeffrey D. Thompson
                                           ---------------------------
                                           Assistant Secretary
                                           BPC Holding Corporation



M:\Legal\Board Activity\Action by Written Consent\Consent Stock Option Plan
Amendment.12-16-05.GS.doc
----

----

| 1. | The      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company at the end of the period covered by the Quarterly      Report. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:      August 14, 2008 |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|                       | By:    | /s/ Vladimir      Fedyunin                              |
|                       |   | Vladimir      Fedyunin                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|                       |   | Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer                                                                                                                                                          |

----
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

September 26, 2008

Mr. Thomas G. Kemmy

Law Offices of Thomas G. Kemmy

322 West Woodlawn

San Antonio, TX 78212

Ms. Nissa M. Dunn

Law Offices of Nissa Dunn, P.C.

600 Navarro Street, Suite 500

San Antonio, TX 78205

RE:Case Number:  07-0221

Court of Appeals Number:  04-04-00931-CV

Trial Court Number:  2002-CI-00178

Style:JOHN A. ADAMS AND JANE A. ADAMS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF A.A., A MINOR

v.

YMCA OF SAN ANTONIO, D/B/A YMCA OF SAN ANTONIO AND HILL COUNTRY

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0221Page 1**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,677
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     24,986
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,453
<PP&E>                                          10,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,115)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,581
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,551
<OTHER-SE>                                         897
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,384
<SALES>                                         54,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,979
<CGS>                                           33,783
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   311
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,649)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,698
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .71
        

</TABLE>
Tully v. City of Wilmington

348A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 19, 2017

Ms. Katie Weaver Hartzog, Ms. Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch, Raleigh, Attorneys at Law, For City of Wilmington.

Mr. S. Luke Largess, Charlotte, Cheyenne Chambers, Attorneys at Law, For Tully, Kevin J.

Mr. J. Michael McGuinness, Elizabethtown, Ms. Megan Ashley Milliken, Attorneys at Law, For Southern States Police Benevolent Association, et al.

Mr. M. Travis Payne, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, For Professional Fire Fighters and Paramedics of North Carolina.

Mr. Michael C. Byrne, Attorney at Law, For North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police.

Mr. Robert M. Elliot, Winston-Salem, Mr. Reynolds Michael Elliot, Attorneys at Law, For N.C. Advocates for Justice.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of January 2017 by North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of January 2017."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
James K. Sanderford v. Duplin Land Development, Inc.

No. 303P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Mr. Bill Faison, Attorney at Law, Durham, Mr. George L. Fletcher, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Mr. Aaron Daniel Lindquist, Attorney at Law, For Duplin Land Development, Inc.

Mr. G. Grady Richardson, Jr., Attorney at Law, Wilmington, For Sanderford, James K.

***ORDER***

Ervin, J.

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 17th of August 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Steven Purcell, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of Alternative Resources Corporation;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



|Date: January 28, 2004 |  | /s/STEVEN PURCELLSteven Purcell Chief Financial
Officer
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
No. 03-391

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2004 MT 235

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRYAN JAMES REDLICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District,

In and for the County of Beaverhead, Cause No. DC 2002-2905,

The Honorable Loren Tucker, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Wendy Holton, Attorney at Law, Helena, Montana

For Respondent:

Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jim Wheelis,

Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

W. G. Gilbert, III, City Attorney, Dillon, Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: December 11, 2003

Decided: August 31, 2004 

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk
2

Justice Jim Regnier delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Bryan James Redlich (Redlich) appeals from an order of the Fifth Judicial District

Court, Beaverhead County, entered on March 28, 2003, denying his motion to suppress

evidence obtained after a warrantless search of a home he occupied as a party guest. We

affirm.

¶2 The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying Redlich’s motion

to suppress. 

BACKGROUND, STANDARD OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSION

¶3 Redlich’s appeal stems from the same facts as State v. Smith, 2004 MT 234, 322

Mont. 466, ___ P.3d ___. We need not recite the facts and standard of review here; instead

we refer the reader to our opinion in Smith. The only relevant difference is that upon

entering the apartment, the officers found Redlich in a bedroom rather than in the bathroom,

where they found Smith. Redlich was charged with Unlawful Transactions with Children

and Underage Possession of Alcohol. Like Smith, Redlich filed a motion to suppress

evidence obtained during the warrantless search of the apartment. Redlich appeals the denial

of said motion.

¶4 Based on the same rationale as we set forth in ¶¶ 8-11 of Smith, we affirm the District

Court. The District Court did not err by denying Redlich’s motion to suppress. Redlich did

not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from the police in the common areas of the

apartment, and thus did not having standing to challenge the search.

¶5 Affirmed.
3

/S/ JIM REGNIER

We Concur:

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER

/S/ JOHN WARNER

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ JIM RICE
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.32

                     AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
                  1994 STOCK OPTION AND RESTRICTED STOCK PLAN

     The definition of "Disinterested Director" set forth in Section 2 of the
Amended and Restated 1994 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan of Jayhawk
Acceptance Corporation, as previously amended, is hereby amended to read in its
entirety as follows:

     "Disinterested Director shall mean a member of the Board of Directors who
      ----------------------
     is a 'Non-Employee Director' within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 under the
     Exchange Act."

DATED:  November 6, 1997

                              /s/ Gregory Earls
                         -----------------------------------------------------
                         Gregory Earls, Chairman of the Compensation Committee
                         of Jayhawk Acceptance Corporation