alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 2214

MARION WILSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY; MICHAEL NESSELT; ANGELA WASHINGTON , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Gina Simms, Magistrate Judge. ( 8:18

- cv - 03707

- GLS )

Submitted : January 31, 2022 Decided: February 7, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Marion Wilson , Appellant Pro Se. Marc Pemble Hansen , Edward B. Lattner , John Paul Markovs , OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY , Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished o pinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 20-2214 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/07/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Marion Wilson appeals the magistrate judge’s order s granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Wilson’s civil action challenging the termination of his employment and denying Wilson’s Fed. R. Civ . P. 59(e) motion

. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge

. Wilson v. Montgomery Cnty

. , No. 8:18

- cv - 03707

- GLS (D. Md. Sept. 1 5 , 2020 & Nov. 10, 2020) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the m agistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). USCA4 Appeal: 20-2214 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/07/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Dorothy T. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-60436

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 7, 2003.

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Dorothy T. Johnson appeals, *pro se,*the affirmance of the Social Security Commissioner’s decision to terminate her disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income. The Commissioner determined that, post-surgery Johnson had undergone medical improvement. *See*42 U.S.C. § 423(f). Johnson contends this determination was not based upon substantial evidence. (Johnson also claims the Administrative Law Judge was not presented with a complete copy of her medical records. We decline to consider this claim because it is raised for the first time on appeal. *See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,*183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999), *cert. denied,*528 U.S. 1138, 120 S.Ct. 982, 145 L.Ed.2d 932 (2000).)

*345Our review of the Commissioner’s decision “is limited to determining whether that decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied”. *Ripley v. Chater,*67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir.1995). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” *Martinez v. Chater,*64 F.3d 172, 173 (5th Cir.1995) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Johnson’s contentions are unavailing. There was substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s medical improvement decision.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
| Name of Subsidiary                |   | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |
|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                              |   |                          |
| EDAP TMS France  S.A.S. |   | France                        |
| EDAP Technomed S.r.l.             |   | Italy                         |
| EDAP Technomed, Inc.              |   | United States                 |
| EDAP Technomed Co. Ltd.           |   | Japan                         |
| EDAP Technomed Sdn Bhd            |   | Malaysia                      |
| EDAP TMS GmbH                     |   | Germany                       |
|                              |   |                          |
|                              |   |                          |
Exhibit A 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-1 Filed 06/14/18 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-1 Filed 06/14/18 Page 2 of 2
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1119 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide taxpayer notification 

of suspected identity theft. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2009 

Mrs. LINCOLN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

taxpayer notification of suspected identity theft. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TAXPAYER NOTIFICATION OF SUSPECTED 

4 IDENTITY THEFT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 77 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 (relating to miscellaneous provisions) 

7 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 1119 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 7529. NOTIFICATION OF SUSPECTED IDENTITY 

2 THEFT. 

3 ‘‘If, in the course of an investigation under section 

4 7206 (relating to fraud and false statements) or 7207 (re5 lating to fraudulent returns, statements, or other docu6 ments), the Secretary determines that there was or may 

7 have been an unauthorized use of the identity of the tax8 payer or dependents, the Secretary shall— 

9 ‘‘(1) as soon as practicable and without jeop10 ardizing such investigation, notify the taxpayer of 

11 such determination, and 

12 ‘‘(2) if any person is criminally charged by in13 dictment or information under either of such sec14 tions, notify such taxpayer as soon as practicable of 

15 such charge.’’. 

16 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

17 for chapter 77 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

18 amended by adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 7529. Notification of suspected identity theft.’’. 

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall apply to determinations made after the 

21 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16246]



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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation, Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice that a meeting of 
the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation, authorized by 38 
U.S.C., Section 3121, will be held on July 9, 10, and 11, 1996, at the 
Embassy Suites Hotel, 2333 E. Thomas Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. The 
committee will meet from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on July 9 and 10, and from 
9 a.m. to 12 noon on July 11, 1996. The purpose of the meeting will be 
to review the administration of veterans' rehabilitation programs and 
to provide recommendations to the Secretary.
    On Tuesday, the Committee will discuss the re-design initiatives of 
VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling Program. On Wednesday and 
Thursday, the Committee will discuss the qualification standards for 
the new Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor position, the Independent 
Living Program, and new issues and projects for future consideration.
    The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity 
of the meeting room. Due to changes in the location of the meeting each 
day, it will be necessary for those wishing to attend to contact 
Theresa Boyd at 202-273-7412 prior to July 3, 1996.
    Interested persons may attend, appear before, or file statements 
with the Committee. Statements, if in written form, may be filed before 
or within 10 days after the meeting. Oral statements will be heard at 
3:30 p.m. on July 10, 1996.

    Dated: June 18, 1996.
    By Direction of the Secretary.
Heyward Bannister,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-16246 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 97-30785

Summary Calendar

___________________________

TONY B. ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

 

CHARLES CRENSHAW, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF

THE LAFAYETTE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, LAFAYETTE CITY POLICE

DEPARTMENT, AND CITY OF LAFAYETTE,

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(95-CV-1735)

 ___________________________________________________

April 1, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court granted summary judgment to the appellees

in this case, concluding that the summary judgment evidence

established that Appellant failed to file a timely charge of

discrimination with the EEOC.

The appellees submitted evidence that the EEOC had no record

that Alexander had filed a claim. This was sufficient to raise an

inference that the Appellant had not filed a timely charge of
 

2 The EEOC’s letter stated, “[t]he information you provided

is not sufficient for filing a charge of discrimination.

Additional information is needed before we can pursue this matter.”

2

discrimination with the EEOC. The only evidence the Appellant

submitted in response was a letter from the EEOC which stated that

the information Appellant had provided in a letter to the EEOC was

insufficient for purposes of filing a charge of discrimination.

The Appellant asserted that this EEOC letter established that he

had in fact filed a charge.

 Even if the EEOC response letter supported an inference that

the Appellant had filed a charge of discrimination, there is no

basis for a reasonable inference that such a charge was timely.

Coleman v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir.

1997) (holding that in review of a grant of summary judgment, all

reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the nonmovant).

Appellant’s deadline for filing a discrimination charge with

the EEOC was in August of 1995. The EEOC’s letter to Alexander was

dated Oct. 31, 1995.2 We agree with the district court that it is

unreasonable to assume that the EEOC waited three months to notify

the Appellant that his letter was insufficient. Moreover, the

inference that Appellant timely filed his charge of discrimination

is particularly unreasonable because it was within the Appellant’s

exclusive ability to establish the date of his alleged filing, and

he offered no affidavit or other proper summary judgment evidence

to establish this date.

We conclude that the district court correctly concluded that
3

the summary judgment evidence established that Appellant failed to

file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC. We therefore

affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.
firstamendnicorgasdirectcomp.htm


    Nicor Inc.

    Form 10-K

    Exhibit
10.57

     

    FIRST
AMENDMENT

    TO

    NORTHERN
ILLINOIS GAS COMPANY

    DIRECTORS’ DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLAN

    


    WHEREAS,
Northern Illinois Gas Company (the “Company”) previously established the
Northern Illinois Gas Company Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended
and restated effective as of January 1, 2008 (the “Plan”); and

    WHEREAS,
the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects effective as of
January 1, 2008.

    NOW
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

    


    I.  Section
2 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and the following new Section 2 is
substituted in lieu thereof:

    “SECTION
2.  Participation.  A
Director of the Company may elect to defer the payment or portion thereof owed
for the:

     

    (i)           
retainers; or

     

    (ii)           meeting
fees; or

     

    (iii)          any
combination of (i)-(ii) above.

     

    Such
election must be communicated to the Company in writing prior to December 31 of
the year prior to the term for which the Director may be
reelected.  For a Director first elected or appointed to the Board,
such election shall be communicated to the Company in writing within thirty (30)
days of the date the Director is first elected or appointed to the Board;
provided such deferment shall apply only to the compensation earned after such
written election is communicated to the Company.  Once made an
election shall continue in force with respect to succeeding terms of the
Director’s service unless the Director shall advise the Company in writing prior
to December 31 of the year prior to the year of reelection that he or she elects
to terminate or change the terms of such deferment effective with such
reelection.  In addition, such election shall specify the manner and
date on which the Director elects to receive payment of the deferred amount
under Subsection 3.1 below.  Directors who were Directors on


     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    January
1, 2008, shall file an election as to the time and form of payment of all their
deferrals, whether made prior to or after such date by December 31, 2008;
provided, no such election may accelerate payment of any deferrals into
2008.  Notwithstanding any deferral election in existence to the
contrary, no meeting fees paid after the Director’s Separation from Service
(whether or not earned prior to such Separation from Service) may be deferred
under this Plan.”

     

     

    
 


    
      
        2
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 23
Consent

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Northway Financial, Inc. of our report dated January 21, 2005, relating to
the consolidated statements of financial condition of Northway Financial, Inc.
and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity, comprehensive income and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2004.

                                         /S/ Shatswell, Macleod & Company, P.C.
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.

West Peabody, Massachusetts
March 29, 2005
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert RINGER, Appellant.

Nos. WD 45662, WD 47451.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 24, 1993.

Judith C. LaRose, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., F. Martin Dajani, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and BERREY and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals from his conviction of receiving stolen property. The direct appeal has been consolidated with his appeal *878from the denial of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 29.15(1).

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

The appeal from denial of post-conviction relief is dismissed, as defendant failed to raise any issues regarding that proceeding. *State v. Barnard,*820 S.W.2d 674, 677 (Mo.App.1991).
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 708 

Congratulating Nancy Goodman Brinker for receiving the Presidential Medal 

of Freedom. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2009 

Mr. SCHOCK (for himself and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating Nancy Goodman Brinker for receiving the 

Presidential Medal of Freedom. 

Whereas Ambassador Brinker is the founder of the Susan G. 

Komen Race for the Cure, the world’s leading breast cancer grass roots organization, and Ambassador Brinker established the organization in memory of her sister, who 

passed away from cancer in 1980; 

Whereas through innovative events like Race for the Cure, 

the organization has given and invested over $1.3 billion 

for research, health services and education services since 

its founding in 1982; 

Whereas the Race for Cure has developed a worldwide grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists 

who are working together to save lives, empower people, 


wwoods2 on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 708 IH 

ensure quality care for all and energize science to find 

cures; 

Whereas Ambassador Brinker has served as Chair of the 

President’s Cancer Panel (1990); 

Whereas Ambassador Brinker has served as United States 

Ambassador to Hungary (2001–2003); 

Whereas Ambassador Brinker has served as Chief of Protocol 

of the United States (2007–2009); 

Whereas, in May of this year, Ambassador Brinker was 

named the first-ever World Health Organization’s Goodwill Ambassador for Cancer Control; 

Whereas, on July 30, 2009, President Obama named Peoria 

native Ambassador Nancy Goodman Brinker as a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom; 

Whereas the Presidential Medal of Freedom is America’s 

highest civilian honor that is awarded to individuals who 

make an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world 

peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors; 

Whereas Ambassador Brinker’s public service has impacted 

millions of lives and her work, from promoting cancer research to promoting freedom around the world, and has 

been praised by members of both parties; and 

Whereas President Obama will present Illinois native Ambassador Nancy Goodman Brinker with the Presidential 

Medal of Freedom on Wednesday, August 12, 2009: 

Now, therefore, be it 


wwoods2 on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 708 IH 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 gratulates Nancy Goodman Brinker for receiving the Pres3 idential Medal of Freedom. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

                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 the Annual Report of Linkwell Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Xue Lian Bian, CEO and
President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to SS. 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; and

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


                                                     /s/ Xue Lian Bian
                                                     Xue Lian Bian, CEO and
                                                     President, Principal
                                                     executive officer and
                                                     principal financial and
                                                     accounting officer
April 2, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


<page>
EXHIBIT 31.1  I, Mislav Pavelic, in my capacity indicated below, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of Opencell Biomed, Inc. (the Registrant); 2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report; 4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusion 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 c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 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.  Date: October 20, 2008 /s/ Mislav Pavelic Mislav Pavelic, President (as Principal Executive Officer)