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

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCT 22, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-10505

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-21406-CV-FAM

EUGENE CAVICCHI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus

SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(October 22, 2008)

Before TJOFLAT and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and THRASH, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM:

 Honorable Thomas W. Thrash, United States District Judge for the Northern District of *

Georgia, sitting by designation.
Eugene Cavicchi appeals from the district court’s order entering summary

judgment against him and in favor of his former employer, the Department of

Homeland Security, previously known as the United States Customs Service, in

the lawsuit he filed against it. 

In the lawsuit Cavicchi put forward a number of claims, all but one of which

the district court adequately dealt with in its summary judgment order. The lone

exception is the retaliation claim. Although the court’s order correctly cites

Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S. Ct.

2405 (2006), as the source of the standard for determining whether a given action

is an adverse employment action, there are places in the order where the court

actually refers to the pre-Burlington Northern standard—whether there had been

an “ultimate employment decision.” The correct standard is whether the

employer’s actions “would have been materially adverse to a reasonable

employee.” Id. at 57, 126 S.Ct. at 2409. 

The district court’s misstatement of the standard in some places in its order

does not hinder our review because we review de novo a district court’s

application of law to fact. Having reviewed the judgment that way, we reach the

same conclusion that the district court did: the Department of Homeland Security

was entitled to summary judgment on Cavicchi’s retaliation claim. All of the

2
actions about which Cavicchi complains either would not have been materially

adverse to a reasonable employee, or they were not shown to have been caused by

any protected conduct, or both. 

We affirm the grant of summary judgment on the other claims for the

reasons set out in the district court’s order. 

Cavicchi also contends that the district court abused its discretion in a

number of procedural rulings it made, but we are not convinced that it did so. 

AFFIRMED. 

3
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19286]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 05-18695) published on page 
55131 of the issue for Tuesday, September 20, 2005.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland heading, the entry 
below for PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 
has been withdrawn.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Cindy West, Manager) 1455 
East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
    1. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania; to acquire HW Holdings, Richmond, Virginia, and thereby 
indirectly acquire Harris Williams & Co., and Harris Williams Advisors, 
Inc., and engage in broker dealer activities and advising clients on 
merger and acquisition matters, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(6)(iii) 
and (b)(7)(i) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 22, 
2005.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05-19286 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Exhibit 10.16

                               WILLIAM F. MARLIEB

                              Retirement Agreement

1.    Effective April 4, 1997, Bill Marlieb will retire from General Media. He
      will have completed 25 years of service with the company - 15 years as a
      direct employee and 10 years in agency consultant positions.

2.    In recognition of his service with General Media, Bill will receive
      retirement payments totaling $207,000 per year, for two years (52 payroll
      periods). These payments will be made on a bi-weekly payroll basis in the
      amount of $7,961.54 each, effective April 7, 1997 to continue through
      March 26, 1999.

3.    During the period April 7, 1997 through March 26, 1999, Bill and his wife
      Ina will continue to be covered by General Media under the company's basic
      group medical and dental insurance plans, as well as the Executive Medical
      and Life Insurance ($400,000) plans.

4.    In the event that Bill Marlieb expires prior to the end of his two year
      retirement payments (March 26, 1999), the balance due will continue to be
      paid to Bill's wife, Ina F. Marlieb.

5.    In addition to receiving retirement payments, Bill will serve as a
      Marketing Consultant to General Media for a period of not less than five
      continuous years, beginning April 7, 1997.


/s/ Eugene Boffa, Jr.
----------------------------------------
Eugene Boffa, Jr.
President & Chief Operating Officer.
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pehong Chen, the Chief
        Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer of BroadVision, Inc.
        (the
        "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
  1.
        The
        Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006,
        and
        to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Annual Report"),
        fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 
 2.
        The
        information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hands hereto as of the 26thday of March, 2007.
  /s/  Pehong
                ChenPehong
                  Chen
                Chief
                  Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial
                  Officer
 
  
 This
        certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed
        filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
        by
        reference into any filing of BroadVision, Inc. under the Securities Act of
        1933,
        as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made
        before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
        incorporation language contained in such filing.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4177 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Medicare beneficiaries 

participating in a Medicare Advantage MSA to contribute their own 

money to their MSA. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2014 

Mr. PAULSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Medicare beneficiaries participating in a Medicare Advantage 

MSA to contribute their own money to their MSA. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES PARTICIPATING IN 

4 MEDICARE ADVANTAGE MSA MAY CON5 TRIBUTE THEIR OWN MONEY TO THEIR MSA. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 138 of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

8 paragraph (2) and by redesignating paragraphs (3) and 

9 (4) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4177 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
State of North Carolina v. Michael John Cerasi

No. COA 16-45

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

AFFIRMED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4134 

To repeal the reduced annual cost-of-living adjustment of the retired pay 

of retired members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62 imposed 

by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2014 

Mr. NUGENT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on the 

Budget and Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined 

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the reduced annual cost-of-living adjustment of 

the retired pay of retired members of the Armed Forces 

under the age of 62 imposed by the Bipartisan Budget 

Act of 2013. 

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 ‘‘America First Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4134 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REDUCED ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING AD2 JUSTMENT OF THE RETIRED PAY OF RE3 TIRED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 

4 UNDER THE AGE OF 62. 

5 (a) REPEAL.—Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget 

6 Act of 2013 (Public Law 113–67), section 10001 of the 

7 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public 

8 Law 113–76), and sections 1 and 2 of Public Law 113– 

9 82 are repealed. 

10 (b) OFFSETTING REDUCTION IN FOREIGN AID.—To 

11 offset the costs to be incurred by the amendments made 

12 by subsection (a), the amounts otherwise authorized to be 

13 appropriated for foreign aid (including non-military and 

14 military assistance) for each of fiscal years 2015 through 

15 2024 shall be reduced by $600,000,000. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NO. 07-01-0116-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	MARCH 21, 2002

	______________________________

	JIMMIE P. SETTLER, ET AL., APPELLANT

	V.

	LUBBOCK CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 72ND DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 90-728-964; HONORABLE CECIL G. PURYEAR, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	Appellant Jimmie P. Settler, et al., proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment that Lubbock Central Appraisal District recover delinquent taxes.  Both the clerk’s record and reporter’s record have been filed.  By letter dated November 15, 2001, this Court notified Settler that the brief was past due and that failure to reasonably explain the reasons therefor could result in dismissal.  On November 27, 2001, appellant’s brief was received.  However, it did not comply with the requirement of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  This prompted the Court to return the brief unfiled and direct Settler to file a brief in compliance with the rules within 25 days of November 30, 2001.  Settler did not respond and the brief remains outstanding.

	Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b) and (c).

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice

Do not publish.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: In re The Dallas Group of America, Inc. and Action Personnel, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-14-00230-CV

Trial court case number: PR0073327-A

Trial court: Probate Court of Galveston County

On March 18, 2014, relators, The Dallas Group of America, Inc. and Action Personnel, 

Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a related emergency motion requesting that we 

stay proceedings in the above-referenced trial court case pending our determination of their 

petition. On March 19, 2014, we issued an order staying all proceedings in the above-referenced 

underlying case until the petition for writ of mandamus is finally decided or the Court otherwise 

orders the stay lifted.

On March 20, 2014, real parties in interest Fredreka Denise Hayes, as Next Friend of 

K.D.S., a minor; Brittney Harmanson, as Next Friend of A.S., a minor; the Estate of Virgel 

James Stoker; Virgel Smith; and Janice Stoker filed a Motion to Reconsider Order Staying All 

Proceedings in the Underlying Case. That motion is DENIED, pending accelerated 

consideration of the proceeding and oral argument scheduled for April 15.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Jane Bland

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Brown

Date: March 27, 2014
<PAGE>   1
                         TELEBANC FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Years Ended December 31,
                                               March 31,           ------------------------
                                                1998            1997                      1996             1995
                                               --------         ----                      ----             ----
                  BASIC
                  -----
<S>                                            <C>           <C>                      <C>             <C>
Net income for basic earnings per common
  share                                            274       $    3,671               $     2,552     $      2,720

Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding during the year                    2,234            2,191                     2,050            2,050

Basic earnings per common share                   0.12       $     1.68               $      1.24             1.32

                  DILUTED
                  -------

Net income for diluted earnings per share           274       $    4,217               $     2,552     $      2,720

Weighted average number of shares used in
   calculating diluted earnings per share         2,878            3,706                     2,203            2,052
Diluted earnings per common  share                 0.10       $     1.15               $      1.16             1.32
</TABLE>
State of North Carolina v. Jeffery Fennell

No. COA16-441

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

NO ERROR.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 27, 2009

d0518 

# Order

May 27, 2009

137948

MICHAEL T. DOE and PATSY R. DOE, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 137948 COA: 278763 Washtenaw CC: 02-000141-NH JOHN HENKE, M.D. and ANN ARBOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY, Defendants-Appellants,

and

TRINITY HEALTH, d/b/a ST. JOSEPH MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM, d/b/a ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 18, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
In the Matter of C.B., C.B.

No. COA16-93.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 1

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-316-CR

BRYANT TRACEY WALKER APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 396 DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TH

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT 1

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” The motion

complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received

this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.; Tex. R. App.

P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 23, 2008
Filed 4/25/18



## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR ALVARADO , ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant , ) ) S 232607

v. ) ) Ct.App. 4 /2 E061645 DART CONTAINER CORPORATION ) OF CALIFORNIA , ) Riverside County ) Super. Ct. No. RIC1211707 Defendant and Respondent

. )

________________________________ ____ )

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
THE COURT: The opinion in this matter filed on March 5, 2018 , and appearing in the California Official Reports at 4 Cal.5th 542 , is modified as follows: 1. On page 551 of the published opinion, a footnote is inserted at the end of the sentence that reads: “ Plaintiff’s formula turns out to be marginally more favorable to employees; the key distinction between the two formulas is whether
the bonus is allocated to all hours worked, or only to the nonovertime hou rs worked. ” The new footnote, which is numbered as footnote 2 , reads:

“ Defendant’s formula and plaintiff’s formula have one thing in common: both use
the pay period as the basis for calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay. In other words, neither party suggests that regular rate of pay should be calculated on

a workweek basis, which might result in an employee having two or more regular2

rates of pay in a single pay period. This opinion follows the lead of the parties in using the pay period as th e basis for calculating regular rate of pay, but we did not grant review to decide whether, under California law, regular rate of pay is properly calculated on a pay

- period basis or a workweek basis, and nothing in this opinion should be interpreted as dec iding that question. ” 2. On page s 551, 553, 555, 561, 564

– 565, 567, 570, and 572 of the published opinion, current footnote s 2 through 12 are renumbered as footnote s 3 through 13

. This modification does not affect the judgment. The request for clarificati on and/or modification of the opinion, filed by amicus curiae California Employment Law Council on March 22, 2018 , is denied.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Patrick Vogt, certify that:

|  
|--
|1.
|  
|2.
|  
|3.
|  
|4.

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
  the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
  regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
  procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal that has materially affected, or is
  reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

|  
|--
|5.

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
  ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

|                      |  |     |  |                                                                 
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 17, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ PATRICKVOGTPatrick VogtPresident and Chief Executive Officer



---
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I,Michael V. Mecca, as President and Chief Executive Officer of BH/RE, L.L.C.(the “Company”), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

(A)  the accompanying Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(B)  the information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

Dated: August14, 2007
|        | /S/ Michael V. Mecca                                                 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael V. Mecca                                                     |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal  Executive Officer) |

 

----
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-351-CV

HUBERT JONES, III APPELLANT

V.

DON D. OTIS APPELLEE

----------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF DENTON COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT 1

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

On September 3, 2008, September 15, 2008, and September 26, 2008,

we notified appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c),

that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). Appellant has not paid the $175 filing fee. See Tex.

R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).
2... See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Aug. 28, 2007)

(listing fees in courts of appeals).

2

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2007,

2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED: October 16, 2008
Emily Virginia Blount WHITLEY, BY AND THROUGH her duly appointed Attorney-in-Fact, John Marvin WHITLEY, recorded in Book 2745, Page 603 Nash County Registry, Plaintiff v. Milton J. WHITLEY and Margaret W. Corinth, Defendants

No. COA16-1234

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 1, 2017

AFFIRMED.