alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of John P. Fisher, Respondent, v Betsey S. Fisher, Appellant.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Family Court of Delaware County (Estes, J.), entered April 27, 1989, which granted petitioner’s application to find respondent in civil contempt.

Petitioner sought a contempt order because respondent failed to deliver their child for visitation to the location specified in Family Court’s order. Respondent claims that she had not yet received the Family Court order in the mail. Family Court determined that respondent was aware of the terms of the order even if she had not yet received it and her failure to act in accordance with the order constituted civil contempt. Respondent was fined $100 plus $780 for petitioner’s counsel fees. Respondent appeals.

At oral argument, petitioner, appearing *pro se,*indicated that he was less concerned about the monetary award than about his ability to exercise his visitation rights and to see his child. Considering petitioner’s position and the apparent confusion over Family Court’s order, we are of the view that the monetary award for civil contempt and counsel fees should be *770reversed. This disposition should not be construed as condoning respondent’s failure to cooperate to ensure that petitioner’s visitation rights are satisfied. We emphasize that especially in light of the incident giving rise to this appeal, respondent should take extra care to see that petitioner’s visitation rights are not disturbed. We caution respondent that we are not so likely to be as lenient in the future.

Judgment reversed, on the facts, without costs, and petition dismissed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2233

AZEB GETAHUN,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A78-350-662)

Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 13, 2005

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elliott C. Lichtman, Joseph J. Kranyak, LICHTMAN TRISTER & ROSS,

P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,

Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden, Senior Litigation

Counsel, John E. Cunningham, III, Office of Immigration Litigation,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Azeb Getahun, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“Board”) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s order

denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. 

In her petition for review, Getahun challenges the

immigration judge’s determination that she failed to establish her

eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination

denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the

evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable

factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have

reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Getahun fails to

show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we

cannot grant the relief that she seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of

Getahun’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden

of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even

though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who

is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding

of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378

F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Getahun fails to show that

she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for

withholding of removal. 
- 3 -

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 16
Letter from Stark Tinter & Associates, LLC Item 304(a)



Stark Tinter & Associates, LLC
7535 East Hampden Ave. Suite 109
Denver, CO 80231

October 27, 2000

Securities & Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: MAS Acquisition XXV Corp.

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to the request of the above referenced Company, we affirm that:

         (1) We have read the  Company's  response to Item 4 of Form 8-K/A dated
August 25, 2000; and

         (2) We agree with the response.

Very Truly Yours,


Stark Tinter & Associates, LLC
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Brian BRUCE-BEY, Appellant.

No. WD 49930.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 26, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 30,1996.

Brian Bruce, Moberly, Pro Se.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Attorney General, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before ELLIS, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

*337ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian Brace-Bey appeals the judgment of conviction for burglary in the second degree. He challenges the sufficiency of the state’s evidence against him and the circuit court’s refusal to give him a new appointed counsel. He also claims that the circuit court erred in denying him a new trial because of newly-discovered evidence and in classifying him as a Class X offender. We find no merit to his claims. Discerning no jurisprudential value in publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order affirming the circuit court’s judgment. Rule 30.25(b).
EXHIBIT 32



<PAGE>



      In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Taohuayuan Culture Tourism
Co., Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Cai Danmei,
the Chief Executive and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of her knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                 NEW TAOHUAYUAN CULTURE TOURISM CO., LTD.



August 20, 2006                  /s/ Cai Danmei
                                 ----------------------------------------------
                                 Cai Danmei, Chief Executive and Principal
                                    Financial Officer
#### John Francis LUKE, Appellant, v. Kandie Lynn LUKE, Respondent.

No. WD 52529.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 24, 1996.

Kathy K. Sadoun, Kranitz & Kranitz, St. Joseph, for appellant.

Roger M. Prokes, Strong, Strong & Prokes, Maryville, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and LAURA DENVIR STITH and HOWARD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Mr. Luke appeals from the circuit court’s order denying his motion to cite Ms. Luke, his former wife, for contempt of court. Mr. Luke claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for contempt because Ms. Luke violated the provisions of the dissolution decree concerning the sale of the marital residence.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Directors' Annual Compensation



 Exhibit 10.5 

Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation 

Directors’ Annual Compensation 

As of March 31, 2010 
  

				
	  	  	Amount
	 Annual Retainer
	  		
		
	 Service as Director for the Company
	  	$	2,000
	 Service as Director for the Bank
	  	$	4,000
		
	 Additional Retainer
	  		
		
	 Additional Retainer for Chairman of the Board
	  	$	1,000
		
	 Additional Retainer for Vice Chairman of the Board
	  	$	500
		
	 Additional Retainer for Chair of Audit Committee
	  	$	1,500
		
	 Additional Retainer for Chair of Compensation Committee
	  	$	1,000
		
	 Meeting Fees (Non-Employee Directors)
	  		
		
	 Committee Meetings for the Company
	  	$	250 per meeting
	 Committee Meetings for the Bank
	  	$	250 per meeting
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 22-7142 September Term, 2023

 FILED ON: MAY 8, 2024

ANDRE FERGUSON,

APPELLANT

v.

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:20-cv-03395)

Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, HENDERSON and RAO, Circuit Judges.

J U D G M E N T

This case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District 

of Columbia and on the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. The panel has afforded the issues 

full consideration and determined they do not warrant a published opinion. See FED. R. APP. P. 36; 

D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). For the following reasons, it is

ORDERED that the district court’s grant of summary judgment be AFFIRMED, 

primarily for the reasons stated by the district court in its September 21, 2022, memorandum 

opinion in support thereof. 

Andre Ferguson, an employee of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 

(WMATA), brought discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment claims under Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e through 2000e-17. Ferguson failed to 

exhaust all of his retaliation claims as well as his discrimination claims other than those related to 

his 2019 non-promotion and WMATA’s 2019 issuance of a performance improvement plan. See

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 114–15 (2002); 

Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904, 907 (D.C. Cir. 1995). All of his Title VII claims require him 

to demonstrate that WMATA’s alleged adverse actions were taken “because of [his] race, color, 

religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Ferguson, however, failed to tie any 

of WMATA’s alleged adverse actions to his race. Accordingly, his exhausted discrimination 

claims and hostile work environment claim fail on the merits. We affirm the district court’s grant 
of summary judgment to WMATA and denial of Ferguson’s cross-motion for summary judgment. 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is 

directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely 

petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See FED. R. APP. P. 41(b); D.C. CIR. R. 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

 Michael C. McGrail

 Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT 21.1

RASER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AND

JURISDICTIONS OF INCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION



|                                          |  |  |  |  |  |                                           
|----------------------------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|SUBSIDIARY                                |  |  |  |  |  | JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION/ORGANIZATION
|Raser Technologies Operating Company, Inc |  |  |  |  |  | Utah                                      
|                                          |  |  | 
|RT Patent Company, Inc                    |  |  |  |  |  | Delaware                                  
|                                          |  |  | 
|Raser-Power Systems, LLC                  |  |  |  |  |  | Delaware
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION

No . 0 4- 09 -0 03 13 -C V Dr . M ic he l SHAPIRO and Callag han Square I nvestments, L td.

f/k/a Callag han Square I nvestments, I nc., Appellants/Cross-Appellee s

v. COX'S FIESTA SUPERM ARK ETS OF SAN ANTONIO, INC. , Ap pe lle e /Cr os s A pp e lla

nts

Fr om the County

Court at L aw No 7, B exar County , Texas Trial Court No. 323200 Honora ble H. Paul Canale s, J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: October 7, 2009 DI SMI SSED Th e pa rt ie s h a ve fi le d a

joint motio n, in a c c or da

nc e wi th T e xas R

ule of Ap pe lla te Procedur e 42.1(a )(2) , stating the y have resolved the dispute at i ssue and reque sting thi s court dismiss this appeal. The motion is g rante d and the a ppeal is her eby

dismiss ed. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)( 2). PER C URI AM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0573

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

GARY L. PETERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to 

produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, Court 

Reporter Cindy Prindiville is granted an extension of time to and 

including May 19, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve the 

transcripts requested on appeal.

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court 

and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 29 2022

03/29/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0573
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3626

_____________________________

EARL JAMES RAY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark Borello, Judge.

July 17, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

LEWIS, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Earl James Ray, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7841
GILBERT J. FENWICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEWALL B. SMITH, Warden; OFFICER MAWAMBA, CO II; OFFICER STEELE, CO II; OFFICER HARRIS, CO II; OFFICER WILSON, CO II; JOSEPH MITCHELL, CO III; KEVIN HERNANDEZ; JOHN DOES; REGINALD JOHNSON, Sergeant; MARGARET C. CHIPPENDALE, Hearing Officer; MARVIN REID, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-3158-AW) Submitted: March 19, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996 Before HALL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gilbert J. Fenwick, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Audrey J.S. Carrion, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Gilbert J. Fenwick appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appealis without merit. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Fenwick v. Smith , No. CA-94-3158-AW (D. Md. Nov. 2, 1995). We affirm on the district court's reasoningthe grant of summary judgment for Defendant Sewall B. Smith. However, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), we mo dify the districtcourt's order to a dismissal without prejudice of all other Defendants. 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 AS MODIFIED
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF STEC, INC.



|                               |  |               
|------------------------------ |  | --------------
|Name                           |  | Jurisdiction  
|S.T.I., LLC                    |  | California    
|STEC Technology SDN. BHD.      |  | Malaysia      
|SimpleTech Electronics UK Ltd. |  | United Kingdom
|SimpleTech Europe              |  | Scotland      
|SimpleTech Europe, BV          |  | Netherlands   
|SimpleTech Global Limited      |  | Cayman Islands
|SimpleTech Cayman Limited      |  | Cayman Islands
|SimpleTech Hong Kong Limited   |  | Hong Kong     
|Memtech SSD, Corporation       |  | California
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5593

Tianhai Electric North America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### Louis Coniglio et al., Appellants, v Old Brookville Associates et al., Respondents.

In an action for specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme *433Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated July 29, 1988, which dismissed their complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On April 28, 1986, the parties signed a written memorandum which essentially stated that when the defendants successfully acquired title to a certain large tract of land, the plaintiffs would have the option of purchasing two acres of that tract from them.

The plaintiffs further agreed to "provide [their] proportionate share of down payment and other purchase money funds required under the contract”. At trial it was established that the plaintiffs were to tender their purchase money for the two acres to the defendants at the time the defendants were to purchase the large tract of land. However, the parties had not mentioned when title to the two acres was to pass to the plaintiffs. After the April 28 agreement was executed, negotiations to enter into a more formal and detailed agreement broke down, and the plaintiffs refused to pay the purchase price unless the defendants were ready to tender a deed. However, the defendants would not offer a deed unless a subdivision plot was first approved.

Where there is an understanding that a formal contract is to follow a memorandum and essential terms have been omitted or left for future negotiations, the memorandum is insufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds *(see, Willmott v Giarraputo,*5 NY2d 250; *Jaffer v Miles,*134 AD2d 572; General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]). Furthermore, the circumstances leading up to the memorandum and the subsequent negotiations by the parties show that the parties had never agreed as to certain essential terms. For example, the memorandum failed to mention whether transfer of title to the two acres was to be conditioned upon subdivision approval.

Furthermore, we find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in the way it conducted the trial *(see, Feldsberg v Nitschke,*49 NY2d 636; *Radosh v Shipstad,*20 NY2d 504). Bracken, J. P., Fiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### Carl Gordon COBB, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent.

No. WD 47931.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 1, 1994.

James D. Walker, Walker & Williams, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and FENNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carl Gordon Cobb appeals an order affirming the revocation of his driver’s license for refusal to submit to chemical testing under § 577.041, RSMo Supp.1992 (effective 7-1-92, now repealed).

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to properly name the Director of Revenue as a party. *Webb v. Director of Revenue,*864 S.W.2d 20, 21 (Mo. App.1993).
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 29251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11449]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB085]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC's) 
Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel (NTAP) Working Group will hold a public 
meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Friday, June 18, 2021, from 1 p.m. 
to 3 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via webinar. Details on the 
proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials will 
be posted at the MAFMC's website: www.mafmc.org.
    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N 
State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; 
www.mafmc.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 
526-5255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is for the NTAP 
Working Group to discuss (1) objectives of the restrictor cable 
research, (2) scope and timing of the research, and (3) prepare 
documentation for reporting out to the full panel.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Kathy Collins at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office, 
(302) 526-5253, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

(Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)

    Dated: May 26, 2021.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-11449 Filed 5-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P