alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA et al., Appellants in No. 71-1974. Appeal of LOCAL NO. 1248, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, in No. 71-1975.

Nos. 71-1974, 71-1975.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued Oct. 17, 1972.

Decided Nov. 6, 1972.

Melvin P. Stein, Lloyd F. Engle, Jr., Kuhn, Engle & Blair, Pittsburgh, Pa., and Lewis D. Sargentich, Joseph A. Ya-blonski, Washington Research Project, Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Leonard L. Scheinholtz, Nicholas Un-kovic, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

Before GIBBONS, JAMES ROSEN, Circuit Judges and LAYTON, District Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This appeal followed the granting of a preliminary injunction by the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Appellee, United States Steel Corporation, had brought an action in that court under section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185, claiming that a strike by miners at its Maple Creek Mine in Washington County, Pennsylvania over an alleged failure of a shift foreman to show the proper concern for mine safety violated the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1968.

In Gateway Coal Company v. UMW, 466 F.2d 1157 (3d Cir. 1972), this court held that the same agreement did not bar miners from striking over safety disputes. The entire thrust of that decision was that it is the miners themselves who should make the determination as to what constitutes a safety hazard. In making that determination in the instant case, the miners reached a conclusion which the district court could not say was unjustified. Therefore, the result in the present case is controlled by the decision in Gateway Coal Company v. UMW, *supra.*Consequently, the order of the district court granting a preliminary injunction will be reversed and the case remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of this court in Gateway Coal Company v. UMW, *supra.*

*730LAYTON, District Judge.

I concur because I feel bound by the majority opinion in the *Gateway Coal Company*case filed July 18, 1972. Otherwise, I would dissent for the reasons, among others, advanced by Judge Rosenn in his dissenting opinion in that case.
#### Lauren P. Hilliard, appellant, *vs.*Almond Walker, appellee.

*•Appeal from Cook County Court of Common Pleas.*

Joint in'lcbteilness cannot be sot off against a separate demand; only suck demands can be set off as are mutual between the parties to the suit.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, wherein Almond Walker, the appellee, was plaintiff, and a judgment rendered for $ 1,814. 80, Spring, Judge, presiding. Before the trial, the defendant below, and appellant in this Court, moved for a continuance of the cause, upon his affidavit, setting forth thatE. E. Griggs and two others were important witnesses for his defence, and that they were absent, &c., and that he expected to prove by them the collection by said Almond Walker and one Charles Yfalker, who were copartners, of several sums of money, on his account, which were used and appropriated by said firm of C. & A. Walker, two-thirds of which money collected belonged to the defendant be*645low. This application for a continuance was refused. This is the principal error assigned hy the appellant.

B. S. Morris, for appellant.

Arnold & Lay and Larned *&*Bentley, for appellee.

Opinion by Treat, O. J.:

The application for a continuance was properly denied. The facts sought to be proved by the absent witnesses would not have benefited the defendant. The evidence would only have showed that the firm of C. & A. Walker, of which firm the plaintiff was a member, was indebted to the defendant. That joint indebtedness could not be set off against a separate demand due to one of the partners. Demands cannot be set off, unless they are mutual, and between the parties to the action. Burgwin vs. Babcock, *ante,*28.

The record fails to show that the defendant excepted to the giving of the instructions complained of. No question, therefore, arises as to their correctness.

The motion for a new trial was properly refused. The finding of the jury was clearly authorized by the evidence. The plaintiff read in evidence two promissory notes, the principal and interest of which, at the time of the trial, amounted to about $2,283. There was a credit on one of the notes of $101 95 j and the defendant proved that the plaintiff had assumed the payment to him of $ 270 or $ 300, for goods furnished to a third person. The verdict was for $ 1,814 80.

The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.

*Judgment*affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Brooks Fiber Properties, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-03309 and 333-03311) of Brooks Fiber Properties, Inc. of our
report dated February 12, 1997, except for Note 14, which is as of February 25,
1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Brooks Fiber Properties,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1996 and the related schedule, which report appears in the 1996 annual report on
Form 10-K of Brooks Fiber Properties, Inc.

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
February 12, 1997, except for Note 14,
   which is as of February 25, 1997
174 La. 269

#### SUMLIN et ux. v. GALLMAN.

No. 31542.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 29, 1932.

George Wesley Smith, of Rayville, and Stirling Parkerson, of New Orleans, for plaintiffs in error.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for defendant in error.

O’NEILL, C. J.

This is one of the cases referred to in the opinion handed down today in Pipes v. Gallman (No. 31539) 140 So. 40, the issues being the same as in Pipes v. Gallman (No. 31540) 140 So. 43, and Byrd v. Gallman (No. 31541), 140 So. 44.

The amount of the judgment of the district court appears to be correct and is not especially contested. The young lady for whose injuries the court allowed $1,000 damages was badly bruised about the face and head, suffered the loss of a front tooth, and sustained a severe nervous shock.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is annulled, and the judgment rendered by the district court is reinstated and affirmed, at the cost of the defendant.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

444 444 444 444 444 NO. 03-05-00748- CV
444 444 444 444 444 In t he Int e r e stof J . A. S.

444444444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444444444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 44 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, 335TH JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. 12, 847, HONO RABLE REVA TOWSLEE CORBETT, J UDGE PRESIDING
444444444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444444444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 44 M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N David Willi am Socha, the fathe r of J .A.S., broug ht this appea l from a suit to modify the par ent-c hild relationship. He has nowfiled an unoppose d motion to dismiss , stating that he no longe r desire s to pursue this appea l. Acc ording ly , we gr ant t he mot ion to dismiss this appea l. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) .

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pemberton Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: Apr il 21, 2006
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Eric Alfonso Serrano, * From the Criminal District Court No.1

 of Tarrant County,

 Trial Court No. 1277220D.

Vs. No. 11-13-00051-CR * March 12, 2015

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHRISTOPHER CHEETAM, 

Plaintiff,

Civil No.09-11987

Hon. John Feikens 

v.

ROOTER 1 INSURANCE CO.,

Defendant. 

________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,

filed on 6/15/2009, and the objections filed by Plaintiff on 6/16/2009;

IT IS ORDERED that the Report is ADOPTED and entered as the findings and

conclusions of this court. 

s/John Feikens 

John Feikens

United States District Judge

Dated: June 30, 2009

2:09-cv-11987-DPH-MKM Doc # 8 Filed 06/30/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 29
2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

June 30, 2009.

s/Carol Cohron 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-11987-DPH-MKM Doc # 8 Filed 06/30/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 30
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OMAR ANTONIO FUNES, AKA Omar

Hernandez Escalera,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-72477

Agency No. A094-449-640

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 22, 2015** 

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Omar Antonio Funes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JUL 07 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). 

We deny the petition for review.

Funes does not contend that he suffered past persecution, but claims a fear of

future persecution and torture.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Funes did not

establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. See

Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of persecution

was “too speculative”).

Because Funes failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, his

claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453

F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Funes failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at

the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to El

Salvador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 13-72477
#### RADER v. UNITED STATES.

No. 6481.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

March 9, 1938.

Frederic M. P. Pearse, of Newark, N. J., for appellant.

John J. Quinn, U. S. Atty., of Red Bank, N. J.

Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge.

DICKINSON, District Judge.

This is a still case. There is no controversy over the commission of the offense. The question is the guilty participation of the appellant. The indictment charged the usual phases of the offense. There are four counts. The third count was quashed on motion of defendant. A motion to quash the second count was denied. There were a number of defendants. A severance was allowed, and the case went to trial against Edward Rader alone. At the close of the case the court denied the motion of the defendant for a directed verdict. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on counts 1, 2, and 4, and the defendant was sentenced. The main ground of the appeal is the assignment that the evidence was insufficient to connect the defendant with the illicit still which had been set up. There was evidence that the defendant had hired a man who worked at the still and evidence that he had negotiated the lease of the premises. It is true that this latter testimony was contradicted by the defendant and his witnesses. As, however, the trial judge truly commented, in denying defendants a motion for a directed verdict, the evidence and testimony were for the jury.

The assignments of error are all overruled, and the judgment and sentence af firmed.
S HERRY R ADACK C HIEF J USTICE T ERRY J ENNINGS E VELYN K EYES L AURA C ARTER H IGLEY J ANE B LAND M ICHAEL M ASSENGALE H ARVEY B ROWN R EBECA H UDDLE R USSELL L LOYD J USTICES 

# Court of Appeals

First District of Texas 301 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77002-2066 C HRISTOPHER A. P RINE C LERK OF THE C OURT J ANET W ILLIAMS C HIEF S TAFF A TTORNEY P HONE : 713-274-2700 F AX : 713-755-8131 www.txcourts.gov/1stcoa.aspx



## September 28, 2015 Chance Decker Gray Reed & McGraw 1300 Post Oak Blvd Ste 2000 Houston, TX 77056-8000 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Jonathan Michael Hyman Gray Reed & McGraw 1300 Post Oak Blvd Ste 2000 Houston, TX 77056-8000 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 01-15-00821-CV Trial Court Case Number: 2013-41124 Style: Choice! Power, L.P. v. Michael Feeley

As of the date of this NOTICE , appellant(s) has not paid the required $205 filing fee to prosecute this appeal. See T EX


## . R. A PP


## . P. 5 (requiring payment of fees at time of filing, unless excused); see also T EX


## . G OV 

## ’ T 

## C ODE 

## A NN 

## . § 51.207 (Vernon Supp. 2011), § 51.941(a) (Vernon 2005), § 101.041 (Vernon Supp. 2011) (listing fees in court of appeals); 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 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in T EX


## . R. A PP


## . P. app. A § B(1) (listing fees in court of appeals). This is NOTICE to the appellant that this appeal is subject to dismissal, if the filing fee has not been paid within 20 days of this NOTICE. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule); 42.3 (allowing involuntary dismissal).Sincerely, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court ACCEPTED 01-15-00821-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/30/2015 11:19:33 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
#### MOJONNIER et al. v. OPPENHEIMER et al.

No. 15064.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 5, 1935.

Adam H. Harper, of New Orleans, for plaintiffs.

Hugh M. Wilkinson, of New Orleans, for defendants.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff and appellant has applied for a writ of certiorari to be directed to the civil district court for the parish of Orleans for the purpose of supplementing the transcript by the addition of a certain written statement signed by William Kron and the report of the United States Weather Bureau showing the general weather conditions on December 21, 1932, and also for the purpose of having the judgment appealed from signed by the judge before whom the case was tried and the jury verdict was rendered.

Since it appears from this application of appellant for a writ of certiorari that this appeal was prosecuted from an unsigned judgment, the appeal must be dismissed and the matter remanded for the purpose of having the judgment signed. Such documents as properly constitute a part of the record may, at the same time, be included in the transcript. The appeal was premature; the judgment not having been signed. The court must, of its own motion, order its dismissal. Bird v. Bird, 23 La. Ann. 262; National Surety Co. v. Crescent City Mfg. Co., 12 Orleans App. 255; Louisiana State Board of Dentistry v. Oflerty, 2 La. App. 180; Adler & Co. v. Moses, 5 La. App. 601; Hanchey v. St L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 135 La. 352, 65 So. 487.

It is therefore ordered that the appeal herein be dismissed and this cause remanded to the civil district court for the parish of Orleans for further proceedings according to law and not inconsistent with this opinion.

Appeal dismissed; case remanded.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.g



MASCO CORPORATION 
COMPENSATION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS




Our non-employee directors receive an annual retainer of $270,000, of which $130,000 is paid in cash and the remainder is paid in the form of equity granted under our Non-Employee Directors Equity Program. 


The Company pays additional retainers of $200,000 to the Chair of the Board, $22,000 to the Chair of the Audit Committee, and $20,000 to the Chair of the Organization and Compensation Committee. The additional retainer for the Chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee is $15,000; however, this retainer is not presently paid so long as our current Chair of the Board continues to serve in both capacities. No meeting attendance fees are paid, with the exception that the Board may in its discretion approve the payment of meeting fees to directors in the following circumstances: (i) if a director is serving on three or more standing committees, he or she may receive meeting fees for attendance at meetings held by one of the three committees on which the director serves; and (ii) if a director is serving as a member of a special committee constituted by the Board, he or she may receive meeting fees for attendance at meetings held by such special committee.


Non-employee directors are eligible to participate in the Company’s matching gifts program until December 31 of the year in which their service as a director ends. Under this program, the Company will match up to $5,000 of a director’s contributions to eligible 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations each year. Directors are also eligible to participate in the Company’s employee purchase program, which enables them to obtain rebates on the Company’s products that they purchase for their personal use. Each of these programs is available to all of our employees. In addition, if space is available, a director’s spouse is permitted to accompany a director who travels on Company aircraft to attend Board or committee meetings.






226754.4
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-63,617] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 30, 2008, in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Comprehensive Logistics, Inc., including leased workers of Source Providers, Inc. employed on-site at the Ford Motor Company, Louisville Assembly Plant, Vehicle Operations Division, Louisville, Kentucky. 

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification, (TA-W-62,214 as amended) which expires on November 8, 2009. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of July 2008. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-18585 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
** **

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)**

**OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

** **

I, Don R. Kania, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the annual report of FEI Company on Form 10-Kfor the annual period ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such annual report on Form 10-Kfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of FEI Company.

 
| By:                                   | /s/ DON R. KANIA |   |
|---------------------------------------|------------------|--------|
| Don R. Kania                          |             |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |             |

 

February 29, 2008

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sloud, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gene Sokolov, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.





|Date:  May 1, 2009 |  | By   /s/ Gene Sokolov                                                     
|------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  |                                                                           
|                   |  | Gene Sokolov                                                              
|                   |  | Chairman, President Chief Executive Officer 
(Principle Executive Officer)