alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. John PETRUS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-30145.

D.C. No. CR-01-00101-RSL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 19, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

John Petrus appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motion to reconsider the court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) motion for the return of property allegedly seized in connection with drug-related charges.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, *see United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc.,*982 F.2d 394, 397 (9th Cir.1992), we conclude that the district court did not err by denying reconsideration of Petrus’s Rule 41(e) motion on the grounds that he faded to present any new evidence that his property was in the possession of the federal government. *See United States v. Huffhines,*986 F.2d 306, 308 (9th Cir.1993) (recognizing that the district court does not have jurisdiction to order the United States government to return property independently seized and possessed by state law enforcement).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Although Petrus timely appealed the denial of his *motion to*reconsider, he did *not*timely appeal the underlying rule 41(e) motion. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. 4(b)(3); *United States v. Barragan-Mendoza,*174 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating that a timely motion for reconsideration of an order in a criminal case delays the running of the 10-day filing period). Accordingly, we only have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of Petrus's motion to reconsider.
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


     I,  Mitchell  Binder, Chief Financial Officer of Orbit International Corp.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as enacted by  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that:
(1)     the  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  for  the  quarterly period ended
September  30,  2007  (the  "Periodic  Report") which this statement accompanies
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and
(2)     information  contained  in  the  Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of operations of Orbit
International  Corp.
Dated: November 13, 2007
                                   /s/ Mitchell Binder
                                   -------------------
                                   Mitchell Binder
                                   Chief Financial Officer

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
required by Section 906, has been provided to Orbit International Corp. and will
be  retained  by  Orbit  International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-91368 of RTW, Inc. on form S-8/S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-91372 of
RTW, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-98966 of RTW, Inc. on Form
S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-28585 of RTW, Inc. on Form S-8 of our
report dated February 9, 2001 (March 28, 2001 as to Note 6), appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of RTW, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.




/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 31, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 657 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 657

 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
 construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 1995

 Mrs. Lincoln introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
 construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES.

    Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of the Federal 
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
upon the request of the licensee for FERC Project No. 4204, 4660, and 
4659 (and after reasonable notice), is authorized, in accordance with 
the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of such 
section 13 and the Commission's procedures under such section, to 
extend the time required for commencement of construction for the 
project for up to a maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This 
section shall take effect for the project upon the expiration of the 
extension (issued by the Commission under such section 13) of the 
period required for commencement of construction of such project.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

        In connection with the Annual Report on Form10-K/A of Webco Industries, Inc. (the "Company")for the year ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), I, F. William Weber, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, certify as of the date hereof, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, based on my knowledge:        1. The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and         2. The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.        This certification is deemed to accompany thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K/A, but is not deemed"filed" for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, or otherwise.

Date: October 28, 2004 

/s/ F. William Weber F. William Weber Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit
32.2








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 Quarterly Report of Omni Bio Pharmaceutical, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), I,
Robert C. Ogden, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that, to
the best of my knowledge:





(1)             The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




(2)             The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period
covered by this report.








Date:  July
      31, 2009
                /s/ Robert C. OgdenRobert
      C. OgdenChief
      Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50614 USDC No. SA-98-CV-20

ANDRÉ TIMON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ADAM RICO VELA; LUPE LOZANO, Warden; WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - - February 23, 1999 Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * IT IS ORDERED that Texas state prisoner (# 613824) André Timon’s application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) is DENIED and his appeal is DISMISSED, because he failed to file a notice of appeal from the district court’s final judgment filed April 3, 1998.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 658

To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1991 with respect to the application

of such Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 24, 1995

Mr. MCDERMOTT (for himself, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. MINETA, Mrs. MINK of

Hawaii, Ms. PELOSI, and Mr. MATSUI) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and, in addition, to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1991 with respect to

the application of such Act.

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 ‘‘Justice for Wards Cove

5 Workers Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

7 Section 402 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42

8 U.S.C. 1981 note) is amended—
2

•HR 658 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘(a) IN GEN2 ERAL.—’’; and

3 (2) by striking subsection (b).

4 SEC. 3. APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION.

5 (a) APPLICATION.—For purposes of determining the

6 application of the amendments made by the Civil Rights

7 Act of 1991, such amendments shall apply to a case that

8 was subject to section 402(b) of the Civil Rights Act of

9 1991 (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment

10 of this Act) in the same manner and to the same extent

11 as such amendments apply to any case brought under title

12 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et

13 seq.) that was not subject to section 402(b) of the Civil

14 Rights Act of 1991.

15 (b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be

16 construed to alter, or shall be considered to be evidence

17 of, congressional intent regarding the application of such

18 amendments to any case that was not subject to section

19 402(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TONY VILLAFRANCA AND

VILLAFRANCA, INC.,

Appellants,

v.

MITCHELL ANDREW GOIN,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00064

- CV

Appeal from the

345th District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC# D

- 1

- GN

- 14

- 005405 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellants’ motion to dismiss the appeal and

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order Appellants pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Befo re McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.iii.b
DESCRIPTION OF MOSAIC MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Pursuant to the Management Incentive Plan (“MIP”) of The Mosaic Company (the “Company”), key managers of the Company and its subsidiaries, including executive officers, are eligible for annual cash incentive compensation based upon the level of attainment of business performance goals that are pre-established by the Board of Directors of the Company, upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee. 
The incentive measures and their respective weightings for executive officers for 2019 are described below: 
		
	•
	ROIC, before specified items.  ROIC is based in part on consolidated operating earnings before specified items. This measure has a weighting of 30% for executive officers.


		
	•
	Free Cash Flow:  this measure is based on consolidated net cash provided by operating activities before specified items, and has a 20% weighting for executive officers.


		
	•
	Controllable Operating Costs:  this measure is based on controllable operating costs per tonne of products produced by the Company’s Phosphates, Potash and Brazil business segments. This measure has a 30% weighting for executive officers.


		
	•
	Safety & Sustainability:  the safety and sustainability measure is based on the effectiveness of the Company’s Environmental, Health and Safety management system for the Phosphates and Potash business units, and has a weighting of 10% for executive officers.


		
	•
	Premium Product Sales: this measure is based on metric tonnes of premium products for which the Company recognizes revenue, on a consolidated basis.  This measure has a weighting of 10% for executive officers.  




Threshold, target and maximum payout levels are set based upon the extent to which the specified performance goals are attained.
#### Michelle Peters, Appellant, v Citibank, N. A., Respondent.

[677 NYS2d 626]

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover dam*804ages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated May 19, 1997, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff alleged that she was constructively discharged from her employment as a result of the hostile work environment created by her supervisor in retaliation for her refusal to violate various Federal regulations.

The first cause of action sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress is governed by a one-year Statute of Limitations and was properly dismissed as time-barred (see, CPLR 215; *Hansen v Petrone,*124 AD2d 782).

The second cause of action was also properly dismissed since the plaintiff failed to allege that she was constructively discharged from her employment on the basis of any unlawful discriminatory practice pursuant to Executive Law § 296 (1) (a). To the extent the second cause of action was based on a claim for wrongful discharge, it was properly dismissed because New York does not recognize such a tort *(see, Matter of De Petris v Union Settlement Assn.,*86 NY2d 406, 410; *Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58*NY2d 293, 297). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ORANGE AND
ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC. QUATERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUATER ENDED JUNE
30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCES TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      939,528
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     10,476
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         170,569
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       146,901
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   1,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,268,586
<COMMON>                                        67,596
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      126,265
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            169,853
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 363,714
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           356,636
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 134,685
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       40
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                       43,223
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      1,561
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   176
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 368,551
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,268,586
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      304,630
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             9,615
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     260,821
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     270,436
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         34,194
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 605
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  34,799
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        15,919
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,880
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,399
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   17,481
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        26,178
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       11,961
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          42,072
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 2156** 

MICHAEL J. VAN , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING LP, a subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A. formerly known as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP; FANNIE MAE, FNMA; LAW OFFICES OF SHAPIRO & BURSON, LLP; PROFESSIONAL FORECLOSURE CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.; JOHN M. AHERN, Trustee; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN , OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFFS , Defendants

– Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News
. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 4:10

- cv - 00073

- RAJ

- TEM )

Submitted : January 10, 2011 Decided: January 27 , 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Michael J. Van, Appellant Pro Se. Jenelle Marie Dennis, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Bethesda, Maryland; Constantinos George Panagopoulos, Gary Clifford Tepper, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Peter Grasis, RATHBUN & GOLDBERG, PC, Fairfax,2 Virginia; Lawrence Steven Emmert, SYKES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEV Y, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Michael J. Van appeals the district court ’ s order granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and dismissing Van’s civil compl aint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible e rror. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Van v. BAC Home Loan Servicing LP , No. 4:10

- cv - 00073

- RAJ

- TEM (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 23, 2010 & entered Sept. 24, 2010). 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
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 737

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the treatment

of tenant-stockholders in cooperative housing corporations also shall apply

to stockholders of corporations that only own the land on which the

residences are located.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 30, 1995

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that the treatment of tenant-stockholders in cooperative

housing corporations also shall apply to stockholders of

corporations that only own the land on which the residences are located.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 737 IH

1 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF RULES APPLICABLE TO

2 TENANT-STOCKHOLDERS OF COOPERATIVE

3 HOUSING CORPORATIONS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 216 of

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding

6 at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

7 ‘‘(7) COOPERATIVE HOUSING CORPORATIONS

8 OWNING OR LEASING ONLY LAND.—

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘cooperative

10 housing corporation’ includes any corporation

11 which would be a cooperative housing corpora12 tion if ‘or situated on land owned or leased by

13 the corporation’ were inserted before the

14 comma at the end of paragraph (1)(B).

15 ‘‘(B) DETERMINATION OF WHETHER

16 STOCK IS FULLY PAID-UP.—In the case of a

17 corporation which would not be a cooperative

18 housing corporation but for subparagraph (A),

19 the determination under paragraph (2) of

20 whether the stock of any stockholder who owns

21 a house situated on land owned or leased by the

22 corporation is fully paid-up shall be based on

23 the portion of the value of the corporation’s eq24 uity in the land on which the houses are situ25 ated which is attributable to the land on which

26 such stockholder’s house is situated.
3

•HR 737 IH

1 ‘‘(C) TRAILER PARKS EXCLUDED.—This

2 paragraph shall not apply if any house situated

3 on land owned or leased by the corporation is

4 a mobile home.’’

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

6 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

7 December 31, 1987.

Æ
<PAGE>


                                 EXHIBIT 24.1


                              POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, that the undersigned, Mark W. Dowley,
constitutes and appoints Yehoram Uziel and Robert E. Kassel, or either of them,
his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB, Annual Report of Soligen
Technologies, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, for the fiscal year ended March 31,
1999, and any amendments or supplements thereto, and to file this Power of
Attorney and the Form 10-KSB, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Superintendent of the British Columbia Securities Commission, the American Stock
Exchange and the Vancouver Stock Exchange, granting unto each of said
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-fact and
agents, or his substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

             Dated this      22th       day of June 1999
                         --------------


Signature




/s/ Mark W. Dowley
---------------------------------------------
Mark W. Dowley, Director