alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Etelina Pinder, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 312]

*281Plaintiffs cause of action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 is not viable inasmuch as plaintiff, a nontenured paraprofessional, has no property rights in her position *(see Donato v Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. School Dist.,*96 F3d 623, 629-630 [1996], *cert denied*519 US 1150 [1997]). Nor is there is a stigma-plus” due process claim since there is no evidence that the reasons for plaintiffs discharge were published by defendants or provided to prospective employers *(id.*at 631; *see McPherson v New York City Dept. of Educ.,*457 F3d 211, 216-217 [2006]). We also take note that the record demonstrates that plaintiff availed herself of the grievance procedures contained in the collective bargaining agreement, and the availability of a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which plaintiff did not pursue, satisfies due process hearing requirements *(see Matter of Tally Constr. Co. v Hevesi,*214 AD2d 465, 466 [1995]).

Dismissal of the Executive Law § 296 claim was also proper because plaintiff did not file a notice of claim within three months of her termination *(see*Education Law § 3813 [1]; *Sangermano v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County,*290 AD2d 498 [2002], *lv dismissed*99 NY2d 531 [2002]). Contrary to plaintiffs argument that her claim did not accrue until she had exhausted all administrative remedies, an employment discrimination claim accrues on the date that an adverse employment determination is made and communicated to plaintiff, and the possibility that the determination may be reversed is insufficient to toll the limitations period *(see Cordone v Wilens & Baker,*286 AD2d 597, 598 [2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000437

13-OCT-2017

09:22 AM
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - July 2003 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Benefit payments July 2003 July 2002 

Total $735,280,000 $723,835,000 

Retired employees 468,867,000 457,468,000 

Spouses and divorced spouses 88,440,000 88,408,000 

Widow(er)s - aged and disabled 156,236,000 156,588,000 

Other survivors 21,737,000 21,371,000 

Number Average1 Number Average1 

Total 628,200 ......... 2,800 ......... ......... 

Regular employee annuities, total 293,100 $1,583 1,200 $2,119 ......... 

Age 210,800 1,547 2 600 2 2,513 3 $1,184 

Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 36,100 1,410 ......... ......... ......... 

Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 46,200 1,884 300 2,012 

Spouses and divorced spouses 147,000 595 800 756 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 159,600 976 600 1,298 

Widowed mothers and fathers 1,000 1,261 4/ 1,136 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 14,900 646 100 720 

Children 12,500 742 100 920 

Other survivors 100 649 ......... ......... ......... 

5/ / 

588 599 

852 736 

......... 

644 663 

839 922 

439 332 

$899 

......... 

......... 

......... 

Monthly benefits 

Being Paid Awarded 

Average under 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded in 

month 

Social Security 

July 2003 

5

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

Benefit payments 

July July 

2003 2002 Number Average 

$5,475,000 $5,605,000 129,300 $42 600 $41 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Number Average 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement.

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 34); about 300

other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis.

4

Fewer than 50.

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers.

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

July 2003 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Unemployment 2,700 $262 

Sickness 6,500 263 

Unemployment 

Sickness 2,655,000 3,438,000 

1,748,000 2,685,000 

Benefit payments 

July 2002 

Total $4,402,000 $6,123,000 

462 

July 2003 

Per 

full week 

$440 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period 

Average payment 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Recycled 

Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary and the Office of Public Affairs
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 LifeCare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Phillip B.
Douglas, Chief Financial 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 220, 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 position and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 15, 2007



/s/ PHILLIP B. DOUGLASPhillip B. DouglasChief Financial Officer
#### BLUFORD v. CANADA.

No. 42.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, Central Division.

Jan. 24, 1941.

See, also, D.C., 32 F.Supp. 707.

Charles H. Houston, of Washington, D. C., L. Amasa Knox, Charles H. Calloway, James H. Herbert, and Carl R. Johnson, all of Kansas City, Mo., and Sidney R. Redmond, of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.

Rubey M. Hulen, of Columbia, Mo., Kenneth Teasdale, of St. Louis, Mo., and William S. Hogsett, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

COLLET, District Judge.

The record discloses that the final judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff in the above entitled cause was entered on October 24, 1940. On December 5, 1940, plaintiff filed her notice of appeal in due form. On the same date the Clerk duly notified the defendant of the filing of that notice. On January 24, 1941, plaintiff filed her motion for extension of time for the filing and designation of the record, the transcript of the record and statement of errors provided for in Rule 75 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the United States, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. No previous order has been requested or made by the court extending the time within which the record on appeal provided for in Rule 75 should be filed with the appellate court. The present request for the extension of time for the preparation and filing of the appeal provided for in Rule 75 was, as noted above, filed 49 days after the date of the filing of the notice of appeal. The question is whether, under these circumstances, the trial court has the authority to grant the present motion.

While it may be safely assumed that the plaintiff was entitled to 90 days from the date of the final judgment within which to give her notice of appeal, yet under Rule 73(g) the 40 days within which the record must be filed begins to run from the date of the filing of the notice of appeal and not from the final date on which the plaintiff could have given her notice of appeal. Hence, under the rule last referred to, the request for the extension of time provided for in Rule 73(g) must be made “before the expiration of the period for filing and docketing as originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order.” There being no previous extension, the present request for extension must obviously have been made within 40 days from the date of the filing of the notice of appeal, to-wit, December 5, 1940. It necessarily follows that the present motion for extension being made 49 days after the date upon which the notice of appeal was filed, comes too late.

*568The grounds stated in the present motion for extension are entirely adequate to justify the granting of that motion. That motion would be granted if the court had the authority to do so. By the plain provisions of Rule 73(g), the court has no such authority and may exercise no discretion in the matter.

For the reasons stated, the motion for extension of time filed on this date should be and is hereby overruled.
Exhibit 10.5


 


Amendment Number 1

to the

Scholastic Corporation

2007 Outside Directors Stock Incentive Plan


 


1. The following
amendments are made effective as of May 21, 2013 to the Scholastic Corporation 2007 Outside Directors Stock Incentive Plan (“Plan”):


 


(a) Section 3 of
the Plan is amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end thereof:


 


“The Plan administrator may provide
in a Stock Option Agreement or otherwise that any Option outstanding on the last business day of the term of such Option (“Automatic
Exercise Date”) that has a “Specified Minimum Value” shall be automatically and without further action by the
Outside Director (or in the event of the Outside Director’s death, the Outside Director’s personal representative or
estate) be exercised on the Automatic Exercise Date. Payment of the exercise price of such Option may be made pursuant to such
procedures as may be approved by the Plan administrator from time to time. For purposes of this Section 3, the term “Specified
Minimum Value” means that the Fair Market Value per share of Common Stock exceeds the exercise price of a share subject to
an expiring Option by at least $0.50 cents per share or such other amount as the Plan administrator shall determine from time to
time. The Plan administrator may elect to discontinue the automatic exercise of Options pursuant to this Section 3 at any time
upon notice to an Outside Director. The automatic exercise of an Option pursuant to this Section 3 shall apply only to an Option
award that has been timely accepted by an Outside Director under procedures specified by the Plan administrator from time to time.”


 


(b) The Plan administrator may offer to an Outside Director
to amend any Stock Option Agreements outstanding on the date of this Amendment to incorporate the automatic exercise provisions
of Section 3.


 


2. Except as specifically
amended by the foregoing, the Plan remains in full force and effect in accordance with the terms thereof prior to such amendment.


 


3. The foregoing
amendment was duly approved by resolution of the Board of Directors of Scholastic Corporation at its meeting held on May 21, 2013
and shall become effective on May 21, 2013.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15096]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)


National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Initial Review 
Group (NCIPC IRG)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), CDC announces the following meeting of 
the aforementioned review group:

    Time and Date: 9:30 a.m.-11 a.m. July 7, 2009 (Closed).
    Place: Teleconference.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5, 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis 
and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Section 10(d) of Public Law 
92-463.
    Purpose: This group is charged with providing advice and 
guidance to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 
and the Director, CDC, concerning the scientific and technical merit 
of grant and cooperative agreement applications received from 
academic institutions and other public and private profit and 
nonprofit organizations, including State and local government 
agencies, to conduct specific injury research that focuses on 
prevention and control.
    Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of applications submitted in response to 
Fiscal Year 2009 Requests for Applications related to the following 
individual research announcement: CE09-009, Youth Violence 
Prevention through Economic, Environmental, and Policy Change (U01).
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Contact Person for More Information: Lisa Garbarino, B.S., 
NCIPC, Extramural Research Program Office, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, 
NE., Mailstop F62, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, Telephone (404) 723-
1527.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: June 18, 2009.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-15096 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
@article{1187436,
  author = {Jennifer Black and Zachary Newman and Su-peng Yu and David Carlson and Scott Papp},
  title = {Nonlinear Networks for Arbitrary Optical Synthesis},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-05-19 04:05:00},
  publisher = {Physical Review X},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=933694},
  language = {en},
}
@article{1210561,
  author = {Stephanie Holbert and Colleen E. Bryan Sallee and Keith Korsmeyer and Brenda Jensen},
  title = {Mercury Accumulation and Biomarkers of Exposure in Two Popular Recreational Fishes in Hawaiian Waters},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-25 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Ecotoxicology},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-023-02684-1},
  language = {en},
}
### The HONORABLE JOHN R. TUNHEIM, United States District Judge 1 

### for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. The Honorable Elsijane T. Roy, United States District Judge 2 

### for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 96-1617

___________ Huntsman Farms, Inc.; Keith * Huntsman; Howard Huntsman; * Wesley Huntsman; Tommy Wachtel, * * Appellants, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * [UNPUBLISHED] Mike Espy, Secretary, United * States Department of * Agriculture, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 11, 1996 Filed: January 14, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District 1 Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Huntsman Farms, Inc., and four persons who rented land from Huntsman Farms--Keith Huntsman, Howard Huntsman, Wesley Huntsman, and Tommy Wachtel
- -appea l from the district court's decision in favor of the Secretary o f 2 Agriculture. Appellants brought an action for review of the Secretary's decision denying cert ain commodity deficiency payments for the crop years 1986 and 1987 and denying interest on payments made for crop year 1987 . Having considered the arguments and briefs submitted by the parties, we

### -2-

affirm for the reasons stated in the district co urt's comprehensive, wellwritten opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Appellants' motion to supplement the record is denied. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EX-10.14



 Exhibit 10.14 
 NOTICE OF CONVERSION 
 In consideration of $46,000.00 paid to the holder hereof and
the issuance of a promissory note of the Corporation of $552,000.00 to the holder substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, along with a waiver of all dividend rights relating to the Dividend Period subsequent to March 30,
2013, the undersigned holder does hereby elect to convert 184 shares of 15% Series A1 Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series AI Preferred Stock”) into 1,159,200 shares of common stock of Arête Industries, Inc. Also, in
consideration of the above, the undersigned also tenders back to the Company these 184 shares of Series A1 Preferred Stock, such shares to be cancelled. 
  

			
	HOLDER
		
	By:	 	Burlingame Equity Investors Master Fund, LP
		
		 	 /s/ Blair Sanford

	Name:	 	Blair Sanford
	Title:	 	Managing Member of General Partner
		
	Date:	 	June 28, 2013
	
	ARÊTE INDUSTRIES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Nicholas Scheidt

		 	Nicholas Scheidt, President
		
	Date:	 	June 28, 2013
Exhibit 32.1

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

I, Quentin T. Kelly certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
report of WorldWater & Solar Technologies Corp. (formerly WorldWater & Power Corp.) on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2006 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operation of WorldWater & Solar Technologies Corp.

| |  | By: | /s/LARRY L. CRAWFORDName:  Larry L. Crawford
Title:Executive Vice President, Principal Financial
              Officer
| |  | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:
March 5, 2008

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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This
certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-KSB pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

---



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

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AKAN BOYD,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

OFFICE OF RISK INSURANCE

MANAGEMENT; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-15595

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02971-RS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Akan Boyd appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the

Administrative Procedure Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

FILED

MAR 06 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-15595

review de novo, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and we

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Boyd’s action because California state

agencies are immune from suit in federal court, and Boyd failed to amend to state a

claim against any individual defendant despite an opportunity to do so. See Will v.

Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989) (§ 1983 does not override the

states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from being sued in federal court); Riggle v.

California, 577 F.2d 579, 585-86 (9th Cir. 1978) (California Tort Claims Act does

not waive the states’ or state agencies’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from being

sued in federal court). 

Boyd’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-D ("Issuer") for the period
ending  March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 12th day of May, 2006.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-D
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-D and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-D and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the "Form 10-K") for the
year ended  December  31, 2002 of American  Insured  Mortgage  Investors  L.P. -
Series 88 (the "Issuer").

I,  Cynthia O.  Azzara,  Senior  Vice  President,  Chief  Financial  Officer and
Treasurer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:


(i)  the Form 10-K fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section  13(a) or
     section 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m(a) or
     78o(d)); and

(ii) the  information  contained  in the Form  10-K  fairly  represents,  in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Issuer.


                                  AMERICAN INSURED MORTGAGE
                                  INVESTORS L.P. - SERIES 88
                                  (Registrant)

                                  By: CRIIMI, Inc.
                                      General Partner


March 24, 2003                    /s/Cynthia O. Azzara
------------------                ----------------------------------------------
Date                              Cynthia O. Azzara
                                  Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
                                  and Treasurer