alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### The HONORABLE EDWARD L. FILIPPINE, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-3954

___________ Alonzo Bouie, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Trudy Huskamp Peterson, * Eastern District of Missouri. Archivist of the United States * of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 7, 1996 Filed: November 22, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Alonzo Bo uie, a black employee of the National Archives and Records Administration, filedthis employment discrimination action claiming that he was unlawfully denied two promotion opportunities. Following a bench trial, thedistrict court entered judgment in favor of defendant, and we 1 affirm.

We re view a district court's factual findings for clear error an d accept the court's ac count of the evidence if it is plausible in light of the enti re record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Herring-Marathon Maste r Partn ership B v. Boardwalk Fries , 979 F.2d 1326, 1329 (8th Cir. 1992)
. Where a case has been tried on the merits

### -2-

and the trier-of-fact has heard the evidence, we need not concern ourselve s withthe order of proof and presumptions; rather, we review here th e "`ul timate factual issue' of whether [defendant] discriminated agains t [Bouie] on the basis of his race[, his age, his sex, or reprisal]." See Tuttle v. Henry J. Kaiser Co. , 921 F.2d 183, 186 (8th Cir. 1990) (quoted citations omitted). The district court's determ ination that Bouie did not prove intentional dis crimination is a question of fact, subject to review for clear error. See Beith v. Nitrogen Prods., Inc. , 7 F.3d 701, 703 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).
We hold t hat the district court did not clearly err in finding that Bouie failed to prove intentional discrimination . The record supports the court's findings that the employees chosen for the respective promotions received better super visory appraisals than Bouie did; that the selecting of ficials believed Bouie's communication and supervisory skills wer e inf erior to those of the chosen employees; and that Bouie's documentar y evidence proved only that he was very good at th e technical aspects of his job, and did not negate defendant's assertions that Bouie lacked th e managerial skills deemed important for the promotions. We also conclude the dist rict court did not clearly err in finding Bouie did not make a pri ma facie showing of retaliation as to the second promotion decision
. Cf. Nel son v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc. , 75 F.3d 343, 346 (8th Cir.) ("mer e coincidence of timing" failed to establish submissible case of retaliation , where the re was no evidence that others who filed charges were fired o r that supervisors discussed filing with each other or with plaintiff), cert . denied , 65 U.S.L.W. 3239 (U.S. Oct. 7, 1996) (No. 95-1878).
We do not consider Bouie's remaining arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Dixon , 51 F.3d 1376, 1383 (8th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we affirm.

### -3- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5401 

To impose limitations on the immigration status and immigration benefits 

for Libyan and third country nationals acting on behalf of Libyan entities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 

Mr. GOWDY (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. CHAFFETZ, and Mr. 

FARENTHOLD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To impose limitations on the immigration status and immigration benefits for Libyan and third country nationals 

acting on behalf of Libyan entities. 

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 ‘‘Protecting the Home5 land Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIBYAN AND THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS ACTING 

7 ON BEHALF OF LIBYAN ENTITIES. 

8 (a) TERMINATION OF AND LIMITATION ON STA9 TUS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of the immiVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Sep 09, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5401.IH H5401

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5401 IH

1 gration laws (as such term is defined in section 101 of 

2 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)), 

3 the nonimmigrant status of any Libyan national, or of any 

4 other foreign national acting on behalf of a Libyan entity, 

5 who is engaging in aviation maintenance, flight operations, 

6 or nuclear-related studies or training is terminated. 

7 (b) LIMITATION ON BENEFITS.—Notwithstanding 

8 any other provision of the immigration laws (as such term 

9 is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nation10 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)), the following benefits will not 

11 be available to any Libyan national or any other foreign 

12 national acting on behalf of a Libyan entity where the pur13 pose is to engage in, or seek to obtain aviation mainte14 nance, flight operations or nuclear-related studies or train15 ing: 

16 (1) Application for school transfer. 

17 (2) Application for extension of stay. 

18 (3) Employment authorization or practical 

19 training. 

20 (4) Request for reinstatement of student status. 

21 (5) Application for change of nonimmigrant sta22 tus. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 62476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29693]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

[Ex Parte No. 388 (Sub-No. 35)]

Intrastate Rail Rate Authority--West Virginia

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.

ACTION: Notice of provisional recertification.

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

SUMMARY: The State of West Virginia has filed an application for 
recertification. The Commission, under State Intrastate Rail Rate 
Authority, 5 I.C.C.2d 680, 685 (1989) (Authority), provisionally 
recertifies the State of West Virginia to regulate intrastate rail 
rates, classifications, rules, and practices. After its review, the 
Commission will issue a recertification decision or take other 
appropriate action.

DATES: This provisional recertification was effective on the date the 
application for recertification was filed with the Commission. 
Authority at 685.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine Sehrt-Green, (202) 927-5269 or 
Beryl Gordon, (202) 927-5610. [TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 927-
5721.]

    Decided: November 28, 1995.

    By the Commission, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-29693 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          188309
<SECURITIES>                                   7034700
<RECEIVABLES>                                   384922
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                122352
<PP&E>                                        22486440
<DEPRECIATION>                               (5619806)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                24596917
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2035861
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    22561056
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  24596917
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                388961
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                496009
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (107048)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1:

                       Certification of Periodic Reports



                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Universal  Beverages  Holdings  Corporation's (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Jonathon  O. Moore,  Principal  Executive  Officer/Chairman  of the Board of the
Company and Chief Financial Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1).   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/  Jonathon Moore
Date: August 14, 2003                              ---------------------------
                                                   Jonathon Moore
                                                   President and Chairman
                                                   (Principal Executive Officer)

                                                   By /s/  Jonathon Moore
Date: August 14, 2003                              ---------------------------
                                                   Jonathon Moore
                                                   President and Chairman
                                                   (Principal Financial Officer)
---

CONSENT OF BRS ENGINEERING

The undersigned hereby consents to:

(i) the filing of the written disclosure (the Technical
Disclosure) regarding (a) the technical report entitled Sheep Mountain Uranium
Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, USA, Updated Preliminary Feasibility Study,
National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report dated April 13, 2012, and (b) the
technical report entitled Juniper Ridge Uranium Project, Carbon County,
Wyoming, USA dated January 27, 2014, contained in the Annual Information Form
for the period ended December 31, 2014 (the AIF) of Energy Fuels Inc. (the
Company) being filed as an exhibit to the Companys Form 40-F Annual Report
for the period ended December 31, 2014, and any amendments thereto (the 40-F),
being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the
SEC);

(ii) the incorporation by reference of such Technical
Disclosure in the 40-F and the AIF into the Companys Form S-8 Registration
Statement (File No. 333-194900), filed with the SEC, and any amendments thereto
(the S-8);

(iii) the incorporation by reference of such Technical
Disclosure in the AIF into the Companys Form F-10 Registration Statement (File
No. 333-194916), filed with the SEC, and any amendments thereto (the F-10);
and

(iv) the use of our name in the AIF, the F-10, the 40-F and the
S-8.

| | BRS
      ENGINEERING  /s/ Douglas Beahm
| | ----------------------------------------
| | Name: Douglas Beahm                     
| | Title:  President BRS Inc.              

Date: March 19, 2015

---
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

Robert A. Julian (SBN 884469)

Cecily A. Dumas (SBN 111449)

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

1160 Battery Street, Suite 100

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: 628.208.6434

Facsimile: 310.820.8859

Email: rjulian@bakerlaw.com

Email: cdumas@bakerlaw.com

Eric E. Sagerman (SBN 155496)

David J. Richardson (SBN 168592)

Lauren T. Attard (SBN 320898)

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509

Telephone: 310.820.8800

Facsimile: 310.820.8859

Email: esagerman@bakerlaw.com

Email: drichardson@bakerlaw.com

Email: lattard@bakerlaw.com

Counsel for Official Committee of Tort Claimants

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION

-andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Debtors

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

□ Affects PG& E Corporation

□ Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

■ Affects both Debtors

*All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM)

ORDER AUTHORIZING THE FILING 

OF REDACTED DRINKHALL 

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION OF THE OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS 

PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) AND 

501 AND FED. R. BANKR. P. 3003(c) 

FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER 

EXTENDING THE BAR DATE

Signed and Filed: October 23, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

October 24, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4455 Filed: 10/23/19 Entered: 10/24/19 08:05:31 Page 1 of

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

- 2 -

The Court, having considered the Motion of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants 

(the “TCC”) for for entry of an order authorizing the TCC to file a redacted Declaration of James 

Drinkhall in Support of the TCC’s motion to extend the bar date (the “Redaction Motion”), and 

after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Redaction Motion is granted.

2. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters arising from 

or related to the implementation, interpretation, or enforcement of this Order.

** END OF ORDER **

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4455 Filed: 10/23/19 Entered: 10/24/19 08:05:31 Page 2 of

2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5305 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5305

 To amend title 11 of the United States Code to treat Puerto Rico as a 
     State for purposes of chapter 9 of such title relating to the 
                 adjustment of debts of municipalities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2014

Mr. Pierluisi introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 11 of the United States Code to treat Puerto Rico as a 
     State for purposes of chapter 9 of such title relating to the 
                 adjustment of debts of municipalities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Puerto Rico Chapter 9 Uniformity Act 
of 2014''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

    Section 101(52) of title 11, United States Code, is amended to read 
as follows:
            ``(52) The term `State' includes Puerto Rico and, except 
        for the purpose of defining who may be a debtor under chapter 9 
        of this title, includes the District of Columbia.''.
                                 <all>
```
AMENDED AND RESTATED FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT     This AMENDED AND RESTATED FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT (the “**Agreement**”) is entered into as of this1st day of December 2009 to amend and restate the framework agreement dated as of August24, 2009 by and between LDK Solar Co., Ltd. (“**LDK Solar**”) and Best Solar Co., Ltd. (“**Best Solar**”).LDK Solar and Best Solar may be referred to herein individually as a “**Party**” and collectively asthe “**Parties**”).**BACKGROUND**     **WHEREAS**LDK Solar, a leading manufacturer of multicrystalline solar wafers and a waferprocessing service provider to monocrystalline and multicrystalline solar cell and modulemanufacturers, is a reporting issuer under the U.S. securities laws with its shares represented byAmerican depositary shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“**NYSE**”) and is majority-owned byLDK New Energy Holding Limited (“**LDKNE Holding**”);     **WHEREAS**Best Solar, a large manufacturer of solar modules and large provider of solar panelsolutions possessing the relevant product qualifications in several jurisdictions, is a privatecompany wholly owned by LDKNE Holding;     **WHEREAS**, the Parties wish to cooperate with each other and take advantage of their respectivecomplementary strengths in the different sectors of the photovoltaic industry in order to achieve amutually beneficial result under the current market conditions, without breaching the legal,fiduciary and other obligations of the Parties and their respective affiliates under the relevantlaws, including the U.S. securities laws and the NYSE rules, as a result of these related-partytransactions; and     **WHEREAS**, this Agreement is subject to the approvals of both Parties in accordance with theirrespective internal procedures.     NOW THEREFORE, in the spirit of mutual cooperation and fairness to the interests of bothParties, the Parties hereto agree as follows:**ARTICLE I**
#### STATE v. HILL ALLEN.

(Filed 11 October, 1944.)

Bastards § 2—

Willfulness is an essential element of the offense of failure to support an illegitimate child, G. S., 49-2, and a verdict — “guilty of failure to support and maintain his bastard child” — is insufficient to support a judgment.

Appeal by defendant from *Rousseau, J.,*at March Term, 1944, of WlLKES.

*531Criminal prosecution upon bill of indictment charging that defendant willfully failed, refused and neglected to support and maintain bis illegitimate child. G. S., 49-2.

Yerdict: Guilty of failure to support and maintain his bastard child.

Judgment: Pronounced.

To the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict and to order a new. trial, and to judgment pronounced, defendant excepts and appeals to the Supreme Court and assigns error.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Atiorneys-General Patton and Rhodes for the State.*

*J. Allie Hayes and Trivette & Holshouser for defendant.*

WiNbobne, J.

Willfulness is an essential element of the offense with which defendant is charged and for which he was tried in Superior Court. G., S., 49-2. *S. v. Moore,*220 N. C., 535, 17 S. E. (2d), 661; *S. v. Clarke,*220 N. C., 392, 17 S. E. (2d), 468; *S. v. Tyson,*208 N. C., 231, 180 S. E., 85, and other cases. This element is lacking in the verdict as returned. Hence, the verdict is insufficient to support a judgment. *S. v. Cannon,*218 N. C., 466, 11 S. E. (2d), 301; *S. v. Lassiter,*208 N. C., 251, 179 S. E., 891; *S. v. Barbee,*197 N. C., 248, 148 S. E., 249; *S. v. Parker,*152 N. C., 790, 67 S. E., 35.

If the verdict had been simply “Guilty” or “Guilty as charged,” it would have been sufficient. But as was said by *Stacy, C. J.,*speaking for the Court in the *Lassiter case, supra,*“When the jury undertakes to spell out its verdict without reference to the charge, as in the instant case, it is essential that the spelling be correct.”

There will be a

*Venire de novo.*
**Exhibit 32**

 

 

**Certification of CEO and CFO 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 HyperFeed Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Paul Pluschkell, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Randall J. Frapart, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

 

(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.

 

 

Date:  May 6, 2004

 

 
|                    | /s/ Paul Pluschkell                   |   |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Paul Pluschkell                       |
|                    | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |                                  |
| Date:  May 6, 2004 |                                  |
|                    |                                  |
|                    | /s/ Randall J. Frapart                |   |
|                    | Randall J. Frapart                    |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer               |

 

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by HyperFeed Technologies, Inc. for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to HyperFeed Technologies, Inc.and will be retained by HyperFeed Technologies, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----