alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Barbara G. NELSON, Appellant, *v.*ARKANSAS PEDIATRIC FACILITY, Appellee.

No. 99-4173.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2000.

Decided Jan. 8, 2001.

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Barbara Nelson appeals from the District Court’s1 adverse grant of summary *562judgment in her Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) action against the Arkansas Pediatric Facility (APF). Having carefully reviewed the record de novo, *see Reynolds v. Phillips & Temro Indus., Inc.,*195 F.3d 411, 413 (8th Cir.1999) (standard of review), we affirm.

Nelson is not entitled to relief on her claims that APF constructively discharged her, and that it should have offered her FMLA leave when she returned on October 14, 1998, following an illness for which she had missed approximately two weeks of work. First, she presented no evidence of the type of hostile or abusive work environment necessary to show constructive discharge. *Cf. Delph v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co.*130 F.3d 349, 354 (8th Cir.1997) (explaining that in context of racial discrimination action, constructive discharge occurs when employer renders employee’s working conditions intolerable, forcing employee to resign). Second, it is undisputed that she voluntarily returned for work on October 14, the day her doctor released her to light-duty work; she did not request further leave; and after receiving her light-duty schedule, she did not respond and elected not to return to work. *See Browning v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,*178 F.3d 1043, 1049 (8th Cir.) (holding that “under the FMLA, the employer’s duties are triggered when the employee provides enough information to put the employer on notice that the employee may be in need of FMLA leave” and “the employee need not specifically mention FMLA leave, but must state that leave is needed, and the statement should be made within one or two business days.”), *cert. denied,*528 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 588, 145 L.Ed.2d 489 (1999); *Beal v. Rubbermaid Commercial Prods., Inc.,*972 F.Supp. 1216, 1226 (S.D.Iowa 1997) (holding that employee need not expressly assert FMLA rights or even mention FMLA, but is obligated to state leave is needed as it is unreasonable to expect employer to offer leave when no request has been made), *affd,*149 F.3d 1186 (8th Cir.1998).

We reject Nelson’s attempt to raise a sexual harassment claim for the first time on appeal. *Cf. Richmond v. Fowlkes,*228 F.3d 854, 860 (8th Cir.2000) (declining to address racial-bias claim not raised before district court). To the extent Nelson is asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, this argument fails as “there is no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in a civil case.” *Glick v. Henderson, 855*F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting *Watson v. Moss,*619 F.2d 775, 776 (8th Cir.1980) (per curiam)).

Finally, we deny Nelson’s motion for appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6387

SEAN K. HEYWARD,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:20-cv-00577-JAG-EWH)

Submitted: July 21, 2022 Decided: July 26, 2022

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean K. Heyward, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6387 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Sean K. Heyward seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on June 2, 2021. Heyward filed the notice of 

appeal on March 31, 2022.1

 Because Heyward failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to 

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.2

 

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.

DISMISSED

1 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date Heyward could have delivered the notice to prison officials for 

mailing to the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 

276 (1988).

2 Heyward’s notice of appeal arguably sought a reopening of the appeal period. But 

the time for seeking reopening had already expired, see 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c); Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a)(6)(B), and the district court could not enlarge the reopening period, see Bowles, 551 

U.S. at 213-14.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6387 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Joe G. MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18126.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 10, 1960.

Fred A. Semaan, San Antonio, Tex., for appellant.

K. Key Hoffman, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, CAMERON and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the contentions of this appellant in this appeal from conviction in a nine-count narcotics case. We find them all without merit.

The judgment is affirmed.
EX-16.1

                   Resignation of Michael Johnson & Co., LLC.


April 11, 2003

Michael Johnson & Co., LLC.
Certified Public Accountants
9175 East Kenyon Ave., Suite 100
Denver, Colorado 80237
(303) 796-0099
FAX (303) 796-0137

John Melnyk
Industrial Minerals, Inc.
(formerly PNW Capital, Inc.)
One Dundas Street West, Suite 2500
Toronto, Ontario, Canada  M5G 1Z3

Dear Mr. Melnyk:

This is to confirm  that the  client-auditor  relationship  between PNW Capital,
Inc.  (Commission  File Number  000-30651)  and Michael  Johnson & Co., LLC. has
ceased at the request of PNW Capital,  Inc. Such termination of relationship was
not as a result of any disagreement with management on any matter.

In connection  with the audit of the two most recent fiscal years,  no disagree-
ment(s) exist with any former accountant on any matter of accounting, principles
or practices,  financial statement  disclosure,  or auditing scope or procedure,
which  disagreement(s),  if not  resolved  to  the  satisfaction  of the  former
accountant  would have caused them to make  reference in  connection  with their
report to the subject of the disagreement(s).

The audit report by Michael  Johnson & Co., LLC. for the year ended December 31,
2001 did not contain an adverse  opinion or  disclaimer  of opinion,  nor was it
qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope, or accounting principles.


Sincerely,


/s/ Michael Johnson & Co., LLC.
----------------------------------
Michael Johnson & Co., LLC.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT NO. 3

                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 Intrawest Corporation (the
"Corporation") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Joe S. Houssian, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,
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 Corporation.

Dated: September 13, 2004

                                       By: /s/ JOE S. HOUSSIAN
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Joe S. Houssian
                                           Title: President and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer



      In connection with the annual report of Intrawest Corporation (the
"Corporation") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Daniel O. Jarvis, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Corporation, 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 Corporation.

Dated: September 13, 2004

                                       By: /s/ JOHN E. CURRIE
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  John E. Currie
                                           Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony MORGAN, et al.

No. 10-KK-1728.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

PER CURIAM.1

| iWrit granted; relief denied. We agree with the Fourth Circuit that the trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion for release or remand to the Department of Health and Hospitals pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 648(B)(3), as amended by 2008 La. Acts 861, and therefore affirm the court of appeal’s order that the defendants are remanded “to the custody of the Department of Health and Hospitals for further proceedings consistent with the current La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 648(B)(3).” *State v. Morgan, et al.,*09-1395, p. 11 (La.App. 4th Cir.6/23/10), 44 So.3d 292.

However, the 2008 amendment of art. 648 did not by implication repeal R.S. 13:1336(0(2), 2005 La. Acts 174, which provides the Criminal District Court in Orleans Parish with exclusive jurisdiction over civil commitment proceedings involving defendants found by that court, in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction, incompetent to stand trial, not likely to regain their competency, and who are a danger | ato themselves or others. *Cf. State v. Piazza,*596 So.2d 817, 819 (La.1992)(“[T]here is a presumption against implied repeal, based on the theory that the legislature envisions the whole body of law when it enacts new legislation.”). In that same act, the legislature also enacted R.S. 13:1338(A), authorizing transfer of any pending commitment proceeding filed in Civil District Court in Orleans Parish, involving a defendant charged in pending criminal cases in the Criminal District Court found to be permanently incompetent and a danger to themselves or others, to the Criminal District Court, to “hear and dispose of the case with the same legal effect as if it had been instituted in that court in the first instance.” The legislature thereby gave the Criminal District Court in Orleans Parish limited civil jurisdiction and venue to conduct commitment proceedings under Title 28 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950.

The legislature has set a date specific for repeal of R.S. 13:1336 and R.S. 13:1338 in their entirety, December 31, 2014, also the effective date of 2006 La. Acts 621, consolidating the civil and criminal district courts in Orleans Parish. In the interim, any civil commitment proceedings involving those permanently incompetent defendants who are a danger to themselves or others, as determined by the Criminal District Court exercising its jurisdiction over pending criminal cases, shall be instituted by the Department of Health Hospitals, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, in the Criminal District Court for Orleans Parish, exercising its limited civil jurisdiction over such proceedings as a matter of R.S. 13:1336(0(2).

1

. Kimball, C.J., not participating.
EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We have issued our report dated January 4, 2005 (except for Note 12, for which the date is January 19, 2005), accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Versata, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the previously filed Registration Statements of
Versata, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-36602, 333-70946, 333-70954, 333-110551 and 333-113529).



/S/    GRANT THORNTON,
LLPGrant Thornton, LLP




San Jose, California

January 26, 2005
Exhibit 10.1 (W0195827).DOC








Exhibit 10.1




Wausau Paper Corp.

2009 Equity Incentive Compensation Plan







A portion of each individual officer’s grant, referred to below as the “Retention Award,” will vest upon meeting certain criteria relating to continued employment with the Company.  The remaining portion of the grant, referred to below as the “Performance Incentive,” will vest upon meeting both performance and continued employment criteria.  The maximum potential award for the CEO, chief financial officer, and each of the other named executive officers is described in the “Total Opportunity” column below.




				
	 
	Restricted Stock or Performance Units Granted


	 
	Retention Award*

	Maximum 

Performance Incentive**

	Total Opportunity


	 
	 
	 
	 

	CEO

	18,132

	54,397

	72,529


	 
	 
	 
	 

	Executive Vice President–Finance

	5,984

	17,951

	23,935


	 
	 
	 
	 

	Senior Vice President, Towel & Tissue

	4,488

	14,959

	19,447


	 
	 
	 
	 

	Senior Vice President, Specialty Products

	4,420

	14,733

	19,153


	 
	 
	 
	 

	Senior Vice President, Printing & Writing

	4,107

	13,690

	17,797







   *The Retention Award is a grant of restricted stock equal to 25% of base salary, which vests based on continuous employment with the Company (in the same position or in a position with greater authority) through January 5, 2011.

**The Performance Incentive is a grant of performance units equal to a specified percentage of base salary.  These performance units may vest and be converted to a right to receive common stock (or, in the Compensation Committee’s discretion, cash with an equivalent value) based on (1) continuous employment with the Company (in the same position or in a position with greater authority) through January 5, 2011; and (2) the Company’s achieving levels of Return on Capital Employed (“ROCE”) ranging from 3% ROCE to 13% ROCE.  For purposes of this plan, ROCE is determined by excluding base gains from timberland sales and adjusting for other extraordinary items (which may include, for example, facility closure charges, one-time expenses associated with certain major capital projects, or other similar items).  No shares of common stock or cash will be awarded if earnings are at the bottom of the targeted range of ROCE, and the number of shares of common stock or cash awarded will increase on a pro rata basis to the maximum potential award if ROCE is at the top of the targeted range.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jordan D. ZANTIZ.

No. 2011-KO-0481.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

In re Zantiz, Jordan D.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 436391; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0999.

Deniéd.
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel:  410 884-2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

270 Park Avenue, 

New York, NY 10017

 

RE:  Annual Statement of Compliance

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator for the 470 Vanderbilt Avenue Loan Combination (in such capacities, “Wells Fargo”), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the “reporting period”):

 

 

(a)      A review of Wells Fargo’s activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the “Servicing Agreement(s)”) has been made under my supervision; and

 

(b)     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule B.

 

 

 

March 19, 2015

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

Brian Smith

Vice President

 

 

 

To:  J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

 

Schedule A

 

 

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

 

1         Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2014 by and among J.P. MORGAN CHASE COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., as Depositor, KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LLC, as Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator and Trustee, and PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor relating to the Series JPM 2014-C19 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, relating to the 470 Vanderbilt Avenue Loan Combination, a pari passu portion of which is included in the Series JPM 2014-C20 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction.

 

 

 

To:  J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

Schedule B

 

 

Material Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

 

Not Applicable
#### David E. TURNER, Petitioner, v. Walter A. McNEIL, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D10-1540.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 6, 2010.

David E. Turner, pro se, Petitioner.

Kathleen Von Hoene, General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, and Sheron Wells, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

David E. Turner seeks mandamus relief to compel the circuit court to rule on a petition for writ of mandamus he filed in that forum. Based on the matters shown in respondent’s response to our order to show cause, we conclude that the circuit court is taking reasonable measures to dispose of the petition below, and any delay in ruling on the matter has not been unreasonable. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. Nonetheless, we encourage the circuit court to rule on Turner’s petition as promptly as circumstances permit.

. WOLF, ROBERTS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.1


                           Vestcom International, Inc.
                                5 Henderson Drive
                             West Caldwell, NJ 07006


               LETTER TO COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0408

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, Vestcom
International, Inc., has obtained a letter of representation from Arthur
Andersen LLP ("Andersen") stating that the December 31, 2001 audit was subject
to their quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to
provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
with the professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of
Andersen personnel working on the audit and availability of national office
consultation and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen.


                                    Very truly yours,

                                    Vestcom International, Inc.

                                    /s/ Michael D. Helfand
                                         Michael D. Helfand

                                    Executive Vice President and
                                    Chief 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. 01-20357 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID ALAN ZOVATH,
Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-422-1

-------------------- June 7, 2002
Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

David Alan Zovath appeals his sentence following his
guilt y plea to a charge of forging the signature of a federal
bankruptcy judge. As part of his plea agreement, Zovath waived the
right to appeal his sentence, but reserved the right to appeal the
district court’s upward departure from the sentencing guidelines.

A district court’s decision to depart from the gu idelines is

reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ashburn ,No. 01-20357 -2-

38 F. 3d 803, 807 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). Zovath has not shown

that consideration of his character and conduct for upw ard
departure is prohibited by law. See id. ; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4.

Zovath argues (1) that there was insufficient basis for

an upward departure, and (2) that the district court gave no explanation for why it bypassed intermediate offense levels in
choosing a six-level upward departure. United States v. Lambert ,
984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc)(departure pursuant to §
4A1.3). We reject the first contention, inasmuch as the evidence

of bankruptcy court fraud, a theft charge and outstanding warrants

show that appellant has a longstanding and complete lack of respect
for the judicial process not taken into account by the guidelines

for the offense of conviction . Second, as to the extent of
departure, the district court stated that it had determined that a sentencing range of 18 to 24 months was appropriate. The district
court was not required to discuss each category rejected. Id. ;

see also United States v. Lara , 975 F.2d 1120, 1125 n.3 (5th Cir.

1992). The district court did not abuse its discretion in
departing upward six offense levels.

Zovath argues that the judge should have recused himself
because of information submitted in relation to his request to be

released on bond. "[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of
facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current
proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for

a bias or partial ity motion unless they display a deep-seatedNo. 01-20357 -3-

favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible."
Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (199 4). The district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying the recusal motion.

AFFIRMED

.