alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1595 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1595

                     To protect innocent children.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2001

Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
  the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Armed Services, 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 protect innocent children.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Innocent Child Protection Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF INNOCENT CHILDREN.

    It shall be unlawful for any authority, military or civil, of the 
United States, a State, or any district, possession, commonwealth or 
other territory under the authority of the United States to carry out a 
sentence of death on a woman while she carries a child in utero. In 
this section, the term ``child in utero'' means a member of the species 
homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
                                 <all>
```
* District Judge of the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

* Pursua nt to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not prec edent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20958

ROOSEVELT COLLINS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC., ET AL,

Defendants,

SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC., doing business as

Delaware Holding Smith International, Inc.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-1515)

October 29, 1999

Before JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and PRADO *

, District Judge.

PER CURIAM: *

The court has carefully considered this appeal in light

of the briefs, oral arguments of counsel, and pertinent portions of

the record. We find no error in any of the trial court rulings

appealed by Smith.2 In particular, the court did not err in finding that

Collins had filed his application for long-term disability benefits

in a timely manner, particularly in light of the “rea sonably

possible” language of the plan. Additionally, the district court

carefully reviewed the evidence concerning Smith’s claim-handlers’

understanding of when Mr. Collins could have filed his claim, as

well as Mr. Glass’s behavior, and had ample evidence to justify a

finding that Mr. Colli ns filed his application as soon as

reasonably possible.

Nor did the court abu se its discretion in holding that

the pre-trial order precluded Smith from arguing that Collins was

not a participant or beneficiary under the Plan. District courts

are encouraged to construe their pre-trial orders without fear of

reversal, and appellate courts are hesitant to interfere with the

trial court’s discretion in this area. S ee Flannery v. Carroll

,

676 F.2d 126, 129 (5th Cir. 1982). The district court reached its

decision after it had considered the need to avoid undue surprise

and to sharpen the trial cont roversy, and this Court is not in a

position to disturb the trial court’s choice.

As for whether the case should be remanded to the plan

administrator, we carefully considered the arguments pertaining to

both Schadler v. Anthem Life Ins. Co.

, 147 F.3d 3 88 (5th Cir.

1998), and V ega v. Nat’l Life Ins. Servs., Inc.

, 1999 WL 6803 1 9

(5th Cir. 1999), and being mindful of the specific situation in

this case, we fin d that the trial court was correct in not

remanding the case to the plan administrator. Smith did not3

seasonably raise its Vega arguments; rather, it attempted to try

the coverage issue at trial. In addition, Smith had sufficient

opportunity in which to examine the application administratively

--

sixteen months, in fact. Therefore, this Court declines to remand

the case to the plan administrator for further consideration of the

merits of the application.

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

 

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, ) 

INTERNATIONAL, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Docket No. C-05-18-M 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS CORP., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

 ORDER

 Upon the application of the parties, the joint motion to dismiss the remaining 

claims in this matter is granted. In accordance with the terms agreed upon by the parties, 

Pan Am shall issue payments to Mark Steele and Dexter Franklin, as follows: 

 Mark Steele Dexter Franklin

August 15, 2005 $29,127.25 $16,675.56 

September 15, 2005 $29,127.25 $16,675.56 

October 15, 2005 $29,127.25 $16,675.56 

November 15, 2005 $29,127.25 $16,675.56 

December 15, 2005 $29,127.25 $16,675.56 

January 15, 2006 $29,127.25 $16,675.56 

 

This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement reached by the 

parties, if necessary. 

Case 1:05-cv-00018-SM Document 17 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The parties shall notify the Court upon the completion of the payments set forth 

above. 

This 25th day of July, 2005. 

 

Case 1:05-cv-00018-SM Document 17 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marine Polymer

Technologies, Inc.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-100-JD

HemCon, Inc.

O R D E R

The parties jointly move for a briefing schedule and for

clarification of the procedural order issued on July 26, 2007. 

In that order, the parties were directed to file briefs on claim

construction and to file motions for summary judgment, if

appropriate, after claim construction issues were resolved. 

Marine Polymer interprets the order to limit the subject of the

summary judgment motions to the issue of infringement, while

HemCon interprets the order to allow motions on all issues that

would be dispositive of the infringement claim.

The court acknowledges that the July 26 order is open to

both meanings. The motions for summary judgment that were

pending prior to claim construction were not limited to the issue

of infringement, and the court did not intend to limit the scope

of the motions that will be filed under the July 26 order. 

Therefore, the motions for summary judgment may address any

claim, defense, or counterclaim that is pending in this case.

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 80 Filed 08/06/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the parties’ joint motion for a

briefing schedule and for clarification (document no. 79) is

granted. The parties’ motions for summary judgment may address

any claim, defense, or counterclaim that is pending in this case. 

The motions shall be filed on or before September 5, 2008. 

Responses to the motions shall be filed on or before October 6,

2008. Replies to responses shall be filed on or before October

27, 2008. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

August 6, 2008

cc: Julie M. Baher, Esquire

Daniel R. Johnson, Esquire

Joseph A. Kromholz, Esquire

Richard B. McNamara, Esquire

Lynda Q. Nguyen, Esquire

Brian M. Poissant, Esquire

Daniel D. Ryan, Esquire

Ognian V. Shentov, Esquire

Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire

Daniel E. Will, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 80 Filed 08/06/08 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1108 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1108

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that remarriage of 
  the surviving spouse of a veteran after age 55 shall not result in 
         termination of dependency and indemnity compensation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2001

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that remarriage of 
  the surviving spouse of a veteran after age 55 shall not result in 
         termination of dependency and indemnity compensation.

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

SECTION 1. RETENTION OF DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION FOR 
              SURVIVING SPOUSES REMARRYING AFTER AGE 55.

    (a) Exception to Termination of Benefits Upon Remarriage.--Section 
103(d) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
the following new paragraph:
    ``(6) The remarriage after age 55 of the surviving spouse of a 
veteran shall not bar payment of benefits under section 1311 of this 
title.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (4) of such section is amended 
by striking ``this subsection'' and inserting ``paragraph (2) or (3)''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. 06-cr-208- 02-JD

Omar Hervis

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

72) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: November 9, 2007

cc: Gary J. Hill, Esq.

Kenneth P. Glidden, Esq.

 Terry L. Ollila, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00208-JD Document 76 Filed 11/09/07 Page 1 of 1
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 20
- 00072
- CV

A. R., Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 353RD DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 18
- 003020 , THE HONORABLE LORA J. LIVI NGSTON, JUDGE PRESID ING
O R D E R
PER CURIAM The reporter’s record in this appeal was originally due to be filed on February 7,
2020

. To date, the reporter’s record has not been filed. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure prohibit this Court fro m granting extensions of over 10 days for the filing of reporters’ records in accelerated appeals, including those from suits f or termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). Further, any extensions of time granted for the filing of the r eporters’ records may not exceed 30 days cumulatively. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(2). Accordingly, LaSonya Thomas is hereby ordered to file the reporter’s record in this case on or before February 20, 2020 . If the record is not filed by that date, Thom as may be required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of
court. It is ord ered on February 11, 2020

.
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 164

To amend the Federal Credit Union Act with respect to the definition of

a member business loan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. ROYCE (for himself, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. DREIER, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. FILNER, Ms. LEE, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Ms. BERKLEY, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. HERGER, Mr. LATOURETTE, and Ms.

ROYBAL-ALLARD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Federal Credit Union Act with respect to

the definition of a member business loan.

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 ‘‘Faith-Based Lending

5 Protection Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. MEMBER BUSINESS LOAN EXCEPTION.

7 Section 107A(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Credit Union

8 Act (12 U.S.C. 1757a(c)(1)(B)) is amended—
2

•HR 164 IH

1 (1) in clause (iv), by striking ‘‘or’’ after the

2 semicolon;

3 (2) in clause (v), by striking the period at the

4 end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

5 (3) by inserting after clause (v) the following

6 new clause:

7 ‘‘(vi) that is made to a nonprofit reli8 gious organization.’’.

Æ
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

January 11, 2008

Mr. Bruce Wayne Houser

#460890

3060 FM 3514

Beaumont, TX 77705

Mr. Kenneth W. McElveen

115 W. Main Room 101

Edna, TX 77957-2799

RE:Case Number:  06-0504

Court of Appeals Number:  13-05-00426-CV

Trial Court Number:  05-2-12515

Style:BRUCE WAYNE HOUSER

v.

KENNETH W. MCELVEEN, ET AL.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-0504Page 1**
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. Robert H. NOYES, Respondent.

No. 8778.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 21, 1938.

James W. Morris, Asst. U. S. Atty. Gen., and J. P. Wenchel, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Before WILBUR, DENMAN, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon motion of counsel for petitioner, ordered petition to review herein dismissed, that a judgment of-dismissal be filed and entered accordingly; mandate forthwith.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1293
FRANKIE J. DEEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL HOLLAND; MARTY D. HUDSON; ELLIOTT SEGAL; JOSEPH J. STAHL, II, as Trustees of the 1974 Pension Plan, United Mine Workers of America; UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abing don. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-94-37-A) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frankie J. Deel, Appellant Pro Se. Matilda Ann Brodnax, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order affirming the denial of his request for disability retirement benefits from the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Trust. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Deel v. Holland , No. CA-94-37-A (W.D. Va. Feb. 6, 1996). 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven A. Swan

v. Case No. 06-cv-088-SM

Thomas P. Colantuono,

William E. Morse,

James W. Chapman, Jr.,

Roberta Keenan,

Donald Feith,

Paul J. Barbadoro,

and Unspecified Defendants

TRANSFER ORDER

All of the judges in this District are recused from

presiding over this case. Accordingly, the case shall be

transferred to the District of Rhode Island.

SO ORDERED.

______________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

March 13, 2006

cc: Steven A. Swan, pro se

Clerk, USDC, Rhode Island

Case 1:06-cv-00088-ECT Document 4 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 1
15

A.10. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Size of LoaPercent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 t

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,000 $24,000 $49,000 $99,000 $249,000 

Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 418,402 40,050 54,977 73,796 51,672 42,22

Number of loans 17,663 10,586 3,568 2,119 832 28

Weighted average maturity (months)1 37.99 9.27 9.23 8.12 20.78 49.0

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 10.58 4.53 5.50 3.86 12.23 16.1Weighted average risk rating3 2.03 2.47 2.38 2.16 2.41 2.2

Weighted average interest rate4 6.90 7.70 7.36 7.47 6.74 6.9 Standard error5 .19 .15 .11 .24 .24 .4

 Interquartile range6

 75th percentile 7.64 8.25 8.01 8.01 7.38 7.7

 25th percentile 5.89 7.18 6.92 6.93 6.00 6.1

 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.83 7.57 6.93 7.98 7.23 6.1

 Other livestock 7.26 8.17 7.46 7.41 6.64 5.7

 Other current operating expenses7 7.10 7.58 7.37 7.45 6.40 6.9

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.54 8.02 7.54 6.82 6.96 9.1

 Farm real estate 6.17 6.23 6.00 7.25 6.08 7.0

 Other8 5.64 8.45 8.05 6.39 7.76 n.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 63.17 51.57 45.10 51.57 41.23 61.1

 Under commitment 57.45 57.61 47.46 55.47 42.52 52.6

 Callable 11.26 15.37 17.83 19.89 12.18 24.1

 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 16.11 8.19 13.98 22.07 22.90 13.0

 Other livestock 9.87 11.51 11.96 26.55 15.83 5.5

 Other current operating expenses7 51.35 68.12 63.38 36.68 37.74 54.0

 Farm machinery and equipment 4.52 8.03 5.42 2.86 15.06 6.6

 Farm real estate 12.90 .97 .42 6.14 5.04 20.6

 Other8 5.26 3.17 4.84 5.70 3.45 28.6

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 18.22 4.01 2.93 11.92 6.91 26.1

 Other 80.13 89.65 93.19 87.24 89.95 73.8

 Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
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 quarterly Report of Citizens  Communications Company (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Mary
Agnes Wilderotter, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Mary Agnes Wilderotter
---------------------------------------
Mary Agnes Wilderotter
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
May 6, 2008



This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

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 Citizens  Communications  Company
and will be retained by Citizens  Communications  Company and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 4 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 5 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 6 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 7 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 8 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 9 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 10 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 11 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 12 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 13 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 14 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 15 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 16 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 17 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 18 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 19 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 20 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 21 of 22Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 22 of 22
22-1737

Lodi v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF 

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER 

IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN 

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY 

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 

2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 4th 3 day of August, two thousand twenty-three.

4

5 PRESENT:

6 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

8 MICHAEL H. PARK,

9 Circuit Judges.

10 _____________________________________

11

12 Patricia Lodi,

13

14 Plaintiff-Appellant,

15

16 v.

17

18 International Business Machines Corporation, 22-1737

19

20 Defendant-Appellee.

21 _____________________________________

22

23 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN (Thomas Fowler, 

24 on the brief), Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., 

25 Boston, MA.

26

27 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: TRACI L. LOVITT, Jones Day (Anthony J. 

28 Dick, Jones Day, Washington, DC; Matthew 

29 W. Lampe, Erika D. Cagney, Jones Day, 

30 New York, NY; J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, 

31 Jones Day, Dallas, TX, on the brief), New 

32 York, NY.
2

1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

2 New York (Koeltl, J.).

3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

4 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff’s motion to unseal 

5 is DENIED. 

6 Plaintiff is a former employee of International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”), 

7 who sued to invalidate provisions in the arbitration agreement she signed when she was terminated. 

On appeal, Plaintiff raises substantially the same issues as the plaintiffs in several related appeals.

1 8

9 We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its decision, see Lodi v. 

10 Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 21-CV-6336, 2022 WL 2669199 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2022), and for 

11 the reasons stated in our opinion in the related appeal, In re IBM Arb. Agreement Litig., No. 22-

12 1728 (2d Cir. Aug. 4, 2023).

13 We have considered all of Plaintiff’s arguments and find them to be without merit. For 

14 the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s motion to 

15 unseal is DENIED as moot.

16 FOR THE COURT: 

17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

18

1 See In re IBM Arb. Agreement Litig., No. 22-1728; Chandler v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 22-

1733; Tavenner v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 22-2318.