alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2500
EDNA M. PICKETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED; JULIE GOEMAN, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-96-952-5-F) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 28, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edna M. Pickett, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Stephen Muzingo, WALMART STORES, INCORPORATED - LEGAL TEAM, Bentonville, Arizona, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing this Title VII action alleging racial discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(e)(1); see generally Greene v. Whirlpool Corp. , 708 F.2d 128, 130 (4th Cir. 1983). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
COMPX INTERNATIONAL INC.'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          14,539
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,796
<ALLOWANCES>                                       816
<INVENTORY>                                     25,631
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,921
<PP&E>                                          90,111
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,416
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 182,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,142
<BONDS>                                         21,420
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           161
<OTHER-SE>                                     133,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   182,843
<SALES>                                         55,204
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,204
<CGS>                                           39,071
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    13
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,330
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,451
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,921
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTEED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 3 THROUGH 6 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       7,175,004
<SECURITIES>                                   995,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  116,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,332,394
<PP&E>                                         257,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                (56,498)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,920,603
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          324,618
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,751
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,593,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,920,603
<SALES>                                        485,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               485,726
<CGS>                                          273,632
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  919,581
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   102,477
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,822,905)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (380,750)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Wanda Slack, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 231 C.D. 2020

:

Frederick J. Slack, Jr., :

and James D. Lonergan :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, May 26, 2021, having considered Appellant’s application for 

reargument and Appellees’ answer in response thereto, the application is denied.
127486851.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

IN RE: BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION

Case No. 1:16-cv-08637

Judge Thomas Durkin

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

Individual Case No. 1:20-cv-05259

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

Wawa, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al.

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

OF CLAIMS BY WAWA, INC.

AGAINST DEFENDANT AMICK FARMS, LLC

Plaintiff Wawa, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Amick Farms, LLC (“Amick Farms”), by 

and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit the following Stipulated Order of Dismissal 

With Prejudice. 

1. This Stipulated Order of Dismissal With Prejudice (“Stipulation”) is between 

Plaintiff and Amick Farms. 

2. This Stipulation relates only to Plaintiff’s claims in Wawa, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, 

Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill., Case No. 1:20-cv-05259) which has been consolidated within the matter 

captioned In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, (N.D. Ill., Case No. 1:16-cv-08637), which 

is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and 

also includes any further amendments thereto and, only to the extent relating to Plaintiff, the Direct 

Action Purchasers Amended Consolidated Complaint (ECF Nos. 4243 and 4244) and any 

subsequent Direct Action Purchasers amended consolidated complaints that may be filed, 

collectively referred to herein as the “Action.”

Case: 1:20-cv-05259 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/13/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:154
2

127486851.1

3. All of the Plaintiff’s Claims asserted against Amick Farms in the Action shall be

dismissed with prejudice, with each side bearing its own fees and costs. 

4. The Stipulated Order of Dismissal, with prejudice, has no bearing on Plaintiff’s

claims against all Defendants other than Amick Farms.

SO ORDERED:

United States District Judge

Dated: 

Stipulated and Agreed to By:

/s/ David B. Esau

David B. Esau

Carlton Fields, P.A. 

525 Okeechobee Boulevard, Suite 1200

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Tel: (561) 659-7070

Fax: (561) 659-7368

desau@carltonfields.com

Dated: October 13, 2021

Counsel for Plaintiff

/s/ Howard B. Iwrey

Howard B. Iwrey

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC

39577 Woodward Ave., Suite 300

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

T: 248-203-0700

F: 855-232-1791

hiwrey@dykema.com 

Steven H. Gistenson 

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC

10 South Wacker Drive

Suite 2300

Chicago, IL 60606

T: 312-627-2267

F: 866-691-5046

sgistenson@dykema.com 

Dated: October 13, 2021

Counsel for Defendant Amick Farms, LLC

10/13/2021

Case: 1:20-cv-05259 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/13/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:155
Exhibit
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 Patriot Scientific Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an
      exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company does hereby
      certify, pursuant to Rule 13a–14(b) or Rule 15d–14(b) of the Securities and
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
      of
      the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




(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.






Date:
              January 9, 2008
            /s/
                Clifford L.
                Flowers
              Clifford
                L. Flowers
              Chief
                Financial
                Officer
exv10w3



 





Exhibit 10.3




Payment of Deferred Compensation




     This Agreement is entered into as of April 2, 2004, by and between ARI
Network Services, Inc. (“ARI”) and the undersigned participant (the
“Participant”) in ARI’s 1999 Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”).



     WHEREAS, effective January 1, 1999, Participant was granted a Salary
Increase (as defined in the Plan), which Salary Increase was required to be
deferred under the Plan until the Payment Date (as defined in the Plan).



     WHEREAS, through March 20, 2004, the aggregate Deferred Amount (as defined
in the Plan) payable by ARI to Participant under the Plan with respect to such
Salary Increase is set forth below the Participant’s signature;



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of ARI has authorized the payout of the
Deferred Amount, half in cash and half in stock;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:





      1. Payouts by ARI. Promptly following the effective date hereof, ARI
shall pay to Participant, in cash, one-half of the Deferred Amount.
Participant agrees to accept, in lieu of cash, and ARI agrees to deliver to
Participant, shares of ARI common stock for the remaining half of the Deferred
Amount. The number of whole shares of stock that ARI shall issue to
Participant shall be one-half of the Deferred Amount divided by the average of
the closing bid and asked prices of ARI common stock on April 2, 2004. ARI
shall pay cash in lieu of fractional shares. Upon such payouts, ARI shall be
released from any further liability or obligation owed to Participant under the
Plan.



      2. Termination of Further Deferrals. Effective with the beginning of the
current pay period, March 21, 2004, the Salary Increase granted to Participant
in 1999 shall no longer be deferred under the Plan and Participant’s cash
compensation will increase as a result.



      3. Investment Representations. Participant represents that he is
acquiring the ARI common stock issued pursuant to paragraph 1 for his own
account for investment purposes only and not with a present intent toward the
public sale or distribution thereof. Participant agrees that the shares may
not be transferred unless such transaction is exempt in ARI’s sole judgement
from registration under applicable federal and state securities laws, and the
certificates representing the shares will bear a customary restrictive legend.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have exercised this Agreement as of
the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	ARI Network Services, Inc.	 	/s/ Michael McGurk

	

	 	 	 	Participant Signature
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Timothy Sherlock

	 	Michael McGurk

	

	 	Timothy Sherlock,

Chief Financial Officer
	 	Print Name
	 
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	$78,288

	

	 	 	 	Deferred Amount
9887.

#### Burkhalter *v.*Savannah Guano Company.

Decided November 8, 1918.

Luke, J.

This is a suit on plain promissory notes, given for the purchase-price of fertilizers. The defendant admitted a prima facie case ‘and assumed the burden of making good his defenses, which were: (1) that the .fertilizer sold—“Southern Hustler” and “Pineland”—■ were not registered with the department of agriculture as. required' by law; (2) that the actual analysis of the fertilizers sold fell below the standard required by law; and (3) that there was a failure of consideration in the fertilizers.

1. Under the evidence adduced on the trial, the defendant failed to carry the onus assumed by him as to the 1st and 2d defenses referred to above, and therefore the trial judge did not err in charging the jury adversely to the defendant as to these defenses.

2. The 3d defense relied upon was submitted by the court to the jury, whpse verdict in favor of the plaintiff has the approval of the trial judge and is supported by some evidence, and therefore cannot be controlled.

3. In view of the rulings made above, and -after a most careful and thorough consideration of the several grounds of the motion for a new trial, this court is constrained to hold that they are without substantial merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*

*30Complaint;, from city court of Reidsville—Judge .Collins. May • *21,*1918;

*W. T. Burkhalter, H. H.Elders,*for plaintiff in error.

*Anderson, Gann, Gann & Walsh, J. V. Kelley,*contra.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ABC CORPORATION I, ABC 

CORPORATION II, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 20-cv-4806 

Judge Thomas M. Durkin 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 

NOW COMES Na Zhang, attorney of record for Defendant Gyroor-US (“Defendant”) and 

Third-Party Respondents Gyroor, Urbanmax, GaodeshangUS, Fengchi-US, Gyroshoes, and 

HGSM (collectively, “Third-Party Respondents”), and for her Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, 

states as follows: Na Zhang is no longer associated with Glacier Law LLP, and the remaining 

counsel from Glacier Law LLP will continue to represent Defendant and Third-Party Respondents 

in these proceedings. The withdrawal will neither prejudice Defendant or Third-Party Respondents 

nor delay the proceedings. 

WHEREFORE, Na Zhang respectfully requests that this Court grant her motion to 

withdraw as counsel for Defendant and Third-Party Respondents. 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 727 Filed: 09/06/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:18359
2

Date: 9/6/2024 /s/ Na Zhang

Na Zhang, Esq. 

GLACIER LAW LLP 

506 Second Ave., Ste 1516 

Seattle, WA 98104 

queena.zhang@glacier.law

206-397-8633 

Attorney for Defendant and ThirdParty Respondents

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 727 Filed: 09/06/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:18360
566 A.2d 653

#### PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Appellant, v. LOCAL 85, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, an unincorporated association, on behalf of itself and all its members, and individually, Appellees.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Oct. 3, 1989.

Decided Nov. 22, 1989.

*626James B. Brown, Alder, Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Joseph J. Pass, Jubelirer, Pass & Intrieri, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.

Before CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge, and COLINS, J., and BARBIERI, Senior Judge.

OPINION

CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge.

The Port Authority of Allegheny County (Port Authority) appeals an Allegheny County Common Pleas Court order directing it to bargain collectively with those employees designated as first-level supervisors through their authorized bargaining agent, Local 85, Amalgamated Transit Union.

In 1969, a Board of Arbitration determined that first-level Port Authority supervisors were entitled to collective bargaining rights under Section 13.2 of the act commonly *627known as the Second Class County Port Authority Act1 and from that time these supervisors were accorded those rights.2 On July 3, 1986, however, the General Assembly amended Section 13.2 of the Act, further delineating the bargaining status of first-level supervisors.

The issue here is whether, under the 1986 amendments to the Act, the supervisors retain their collective bargaining rights or are entitled only to “meet-and-discuss” rights consistent with Section 704 of the Public Employe Relations Act,3 43 P.S. § 1101.704.

Upon reviewing the legal arguments raised by the parties and the relevant statutory and decisional authority, we hold that the common pleas court correctly decided that first-level Port Authority supervisors continue to enjoy full collective bargaining rights. We affirm on the basis of the sound and able opinion of the Honorable James H. McLean, — Pa.D. & C.3d —, 137 Pittsburgh L.J. 92 (1989).

ORDER

The Allegheny County Common Pleas. Court order, Civil Division, No. G.D. 85-7513, dated January 25, 1989, is affirmed.

1

. Act of April 6, 1956, P.L. (1955) 1414, added by Section 13 of the Act of October 7, 1959, P.L. 1266, *as amended,*55 P.S. § 563.2(Act).

2

. For background on the events leading to that arbitration award, *see Port Authority of Allegheny County v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local Division 85,*430 Pa. 514, 243 A.2d 433 (1968).

3

. Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, *as amended,*43 P.S. §§ '1101.101— 1101.2301.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129106 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129106 

 COA: 260292 

Oakland CC: 2003-193604-FC 

MICHAEL DAVID VANCE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 26, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan, lv gtd 472 Mich 

881 (2005). 

t0123 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 30, 2006 

Clerk
VCAT Briefing:

Artificial Intelligence

13 JUN 2023

Elham Tabassi

Associate Director for Emerging Technologies

Information Technology Laboratory
NIST AI Program

CONDUCT FOUNDATIONAL 

RESEARCH TO ADVANCE 

TRUSTWORTHY AI TECHNOLOGIES

ADVANCE AI RESEARCH AND 

INNOVATION ACROSS THE NIST 

LABORATORY PROGRAMS

PARTICIPATE AND LEAD IN THE 

DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS 

TO ADVANCE AI INNOVATION 

CONTRIBUTE NIST’S TECHNICAL 

EXPERTISE TO DISCUSSIONS AND 

DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES

ENSURE THAT NIST HAS 

RESOURCES AND EXPERTISE TO 

CARRY OUT ITS AI PROGRAMS

ESTABLISH BENCHMARKS AND 

DEVELOP METRICS TO EVALUATE 

AI TECHNOLOGIES 

2
Trustworthy and Responsible AI @ NIST

Cultivate trust in the design, 

development, use and governance 

of artificial intelligence 

technologies and systems. 

Lead and Convene 

National AI Advisory Committee, 

international engagements, and 

more.

Guidance and Tools

AI Risk Management Framework, 

AI Standards

3

Research and development 

National AI Institute on 

Trustworthy AI (TRAILS)
NIST AI Risk Management 

Framework

A voluntary resource for organizations 

designing, developing, deploying, or using AI 

systems to manage AI risks and promote 

trustworthy and responsible AI 

4
5

THE PATH TO AI RMF 1.0

5

5
AI RMF CORE 

6
Perspectives about NIST AI RMF
AI RMF Roadmap

8
NIST TRUSTWORTHY AI RESOURCE CENTER

AI RMF 

PLAYBOOK 

AI RMF 

PROFILES 

AI RISK 

GLOSSARY 

AI METRICS 

HUB

...AND MORE

airc.nist.gov 9
Outreach to connect with all known federal 

efforts relating to AI standards development and 

use.

Support and contribute to development of AI 

standards. Develop crosswalk to international 

standards.

10

USG AI Standards Coordinator
Trustworthy AI in Law and Society (TRAILS)

“Today, the ability to measure AI system trustworthiness and its impacts on 

individuals, communities and society is limited. TRAILS can help advance our 

understanding of the foundations of trustworthy AI, ethical and societal 

considerations of AI, and how to build systems that are trusted by the people who 

use and are affected by them.” Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and 

Technology and NIST Director Laurie E. Locascio

Co-Funded by

Led by

In partnership with

11
Example of International Engagements

US-UK COOPERATION 

ON AI R&D

OECD NETWORK 

OF EXPERTS ON AI

TRADE AND TECHNOLOGY 

COUNCIL TECHNOLOGY 

(STANDARDS, AI)

QUADRILATERAL 

SECURITY DIALOGUE 

STANDARDS SUB-GROUP

12
National AI Advisory Committee (NAIAC)

13
THANK YOU

www.nist.gov/artificial-intelligence

airc.nist.gov

14

14