alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dennis James GAEDE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. James T. PODREBARAC; Leann K. Bertsch; Warren Emmer; Tim Schuetzle; Kathy Bachmeier, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-2729.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 28, 2013.

Filed: March 8, 2013.

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Inmate Dennis James Gaede appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review of the record, *see Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc.,*559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir.2009), we find no basis for overturning the grant of summary judgment to defendant dentist James T. Podrebarac, *see Beaulieu v. Ludeman,*690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir.2012) (conjecture and speculation are insufficient to defeat summary judgment); *Mason,*559 F.3d at 885 (inmate could not rely on inadmissible hearsay to avoid summary judgment); *see also Nelson v. Shuffman,*603 F.3d 439, 449 (8th Cir.2010) (inmates have no constitutional right to receive requested or particular course of treatment, and prison doctor is free to exercise independent medical judgment; inmate’s mere difference of opinion on matters requiring medical judgment does not rise to level of constitutional violation). As to the remaining defendants,2 they merely responded to Gaede’s grievances, and in doing so, they consulted with Dr. Podrebarac. *Cf. Meloy v. Bachmeier,*302 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir.2002) (prison’s medical treatment director who lacked medical expertise could not be liable for medical staffs diagnostic decisions). Finally, to the extent Gaede is challenging the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, we find no abuse of discretion. *See Arnold v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc.,*627 F.3d 716, 721-22 (8th *638Cir.2010). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Charles S. Miller, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota.

2

. Gaede has waived his claims against Warren Emmer. *See Carraher v. Target Corp.,*503 F.3d 714, 716 n. 2 (8th Cir.2007).
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


Board of Directors
American Resources and Development Company
102 West 500 South, Suite 400
Salt Lake City, Utah  84101


We consent  to use in this Form  10-SB of  American  Resources  and  Development
Company of our report dated June 19, 1997 of American  Resources and Development
Company for the year ended March 31,  1997,  and to all  references  to our firm
included in this Form 10-SB.

Jones, Jensen & Company

/s/ Jones, Jensen & Company

Salt Lake City, Utah
July 9, 1997
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 1 of 21 PageID: 5
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 2 of 21 PageID: 6
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 3 of 21 PageID: 7
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 4 of 21 PageID: 8
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 5 of 21 PageID: 9
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 6 of 21 PageID: 10
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 7 of 21 PageID: 11
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 8 of 21 PageID: 12
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 9 of 21 PageID: 13
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 10 of 21 PageID: 14
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 11 of 21 PageID: 15
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 12 of 21 PageID: 16
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 13 of 21 PageID: 17
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 14 of 21 PageID: 18
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 15 of 21 PageID: 19
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 16 of 21 PageID: 20
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 17 of 21 PageID: 21
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 18 of 21 PageID: 22
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 19 of 21 PageID: 23
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 20 of 21 PageID: 24
Case 3:10-cr-00837-GEB Document 2 Filed 12/08/10 Page 21 of 21 PageID: 25
EXHIBIT 23(a)




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Form
S-8, Nos. 33-17196, 33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491,
33-54075, 33-54079, 33-54077 333-47833, 333-28273 and Form S-3, No. 33-36001)
pertaining to various stock option, employee savings, and deferred
compensation and restricted stock plans of Wellman, Inc. of our report dated
February 12, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedules included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Wellman, Inc.




                                             Ernst & Young LLP



Charlotte, North Carolina
March 20, 1998
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

KEVIN R. CHAMPAGNE,

Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION,

Appellee.

No. 4D23-365

[June 1, 2023]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Reemployment Assistance Appeals 

Commission, RAAC 22-01950.

Kevin R. Champagne, Miramar, pro se.

Amanda L. Neff, Deputy General Counsel of Reemployment Assistance 

Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, FORST and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
FLORHAM PARK, NJ NEW YORK, NY PARAMUS, NJ

JOHN M. BOWENS

Certified by the Supreme

Court of New Jersey

Civil Trial Attorney

Admitted in NJ and CA

Direct Line: (973) 540-7357

Email: jmb@spsk.com

220 Park Avenue

PO Box 991

Florham Park, NJ 07932-0991

Telephone: 973-539-1000

Fax: 973-540-7300

www.spsk.com

February 21, 2013

Via ECF

Honorable Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J.

Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Courthouse, Room 7050

492 E. State Street

Trenton, New Jersey 08608

Re: Bayliss v New Jersey State Police, et al.

Docket No.: 11-cv-0890

Our File No.: 24090-20

Dear Judge Goodman:

At our recent conference, Your Honor requested that the Attorney General’s Office advise the Court 

if it was interested in another mediation session with Judge Keefe. The State remains committed to reaching 

a reasonable settlement and believes that Judge Keefe continues to be a valuable resource towards that end. 

During the mediation session with him, he advised that he felt that the major stumbling block was the 

parties’ divergent perspectives on the substance of the case. In his view, some limited discovery would 

likely obviate these differences and draw the parties closer in their evaluation of its settlement value.

Given Judge Keefe’s long history of success in mediating disputes, the State would defer to his 

guidance and seeks to conduct the limited discovery which he envisioned, prior to renewing mediation. We 

believe that this course represents the best chance at reaching a satisfactory resolution. 

Should the Court have any further questions, please advise us. We appreciate the Court’s courtesies. 

Respectfully yours,

SCHENCK, PRICE, SMITH & KING, LLP

John M. Bowens

JMB/mor

cc: All Counsel - Via ECF

Case 3:11-cv-00890-MLC-LHG Document 70 Filed 02/21/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 388
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-164]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Language Services 
Issue Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Language 
Services Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel 
is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, February 12, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisa Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(718) 488-3557.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Language Services Issue 
Committee will be held Thursday, February 12, 2009, at 2 p.m. Eastern 
Time. You can submit written comments to the panel by faxing to (718) 
488-2062, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 10 Metro Tech Center, 
625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY, 11201, or you can contact us at http://www.improveirs.org. Public comments will also be welcome during the 
meeting. Please contact Marisa Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 488-
3557 for additional information.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS Issues.

    Dated: December 22, 2008.
Roy L. Block,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E9-164 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2076

JERRY L. GENT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA INTERMONT COLLEGE,

Defendant- Appellee,

and

ANNE SHUMAKER; REBECCA WATSON,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.

(CA-97-101-A)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry L. Gent, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Bruce Dickert, WARREN &

DICKERT, Bristol, Virginia, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s orders reassigning the

case to a different judge, granting one Defendant’s motion to dismiss and the remaining Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gent v. Virginia

Intermont College, No. CA-97-101-A (W.D. Va. July 14, 1997 & Feb.

10 & July 9, 1998). We also deny Appellant’s motion for a ruling

concerning service. Appellant’s claims raised on appeal concerning

an alleged violation of the Freedom of Information Act and a person

not a Defendant in the instant action are not properly before this

Court. 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
EX 10.29 2012.12.31






Exhibit 10.29


Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc. 
Non-Employee Director Compensation 


Non-employee directors each receive the following compensation for their service on the Board: 
 
	
			
	ž
	 
	$60,000 annual cash retainer




 
	
			
	ž
	 
	$2,000 meeting fee for each meeting of the Board (one-half of this amount is paid for participation in any telephonic meeting unless otherwise determined by the Chairman of the Board)




 
	
			
	ž
	 
	Shares of the Company's common stock approximately equal in value to $110,000




The Chairman of the Board received an additional annual retainer of $60,000, and members of Board committees may receive the following amounts, depending upon their involvement with each committee of the Board: 
 
	
			
	ž
	 
	Audit Committee-$15,000 annual cash retainer for the Chairperson of the Committee; $5,000 annual cash retainer for other Committee members. Members of the Committee receive a $2,000 fee for each meeting of the Committee (one-half of this amount is paid for participation in any telephonic meeting unless otherwise determined by the Committee Chairperson). 




 
	
			
	ž
	 
	Compensation Committee-$10,000 annual cash retainer for the Chairperson of the Committee. Members of the committee receive a $1,500 fee for each committee meeting (one-half of this amount is paid for participation in any telephonic meeting unless otherwise determined by the Committee Chairperson). 




 
	
			
	ž
	 
	Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee-$5,000 annual cash retainer for the Chairperson of the Committee. Members of the committee receive a $1,500 fee for each committee meeting (one-half of this amount is paid for participation in any telephonic meeting unless otherwise determined by the Committee Chairperson). 




Directors have the choice to elect to take all or a portion of their Board fees in common stock of the Company and may defer all or part of their fee compensation. Directors are reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and committee meetings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                    8,556,759
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             9,548,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                208,000
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         19,046,302
<PP&E>                                    3,943,614
<DEPRECIATION>                            1,489,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           31,876,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     4,628,699
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     53,256
<OTHER-SE>                               26,894,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             31,876,118
<SALES>                                  39,508,173
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         39,508,173
<CGS>                                    14,849,729
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            14,849,726
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         19,485,372
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           44,280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           5,564,563
<INCOME-TAX>                              2,240,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       3,324,563
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                              3,324,563
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .58


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cal Dive International, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Quinn J. Hébert, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Bruce P. Koch, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to be best of my knowledge:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.





Dated:   July 29, 2010







| |                                                
| | -----------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Quinn J. Hébert                            
| | Quinn J. Hébert                                
| | Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer







| |                                                                
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Bruce P. Koch                                              
| | Bruce P. Koch                                                  
| | Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer





A signed original 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 the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Brill *against*Lord.

NEW-YORK,

October, 1817.

*A*justice has some discretion in granting an adjournment on the application of a defendant» in order to enable him to pro» cure testimony; and if the plaintiff will admit the matters expected to be proved by the absent witness, the adjournment may hé refused. After sucli admission's have been offered by the plaintiff, and accepted by the defendant, the latter is precluded from asking an adjournment to enable him to procure the testimony of the same witnes”.

IN ERROR, on *certiorari*to a justice’s court.

The defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the court below, brought an action against the plaintiff in error, and declared for a reward offered for a horse stolen from the defendant below, and for services rendered and money expended in obtaining the horse. After issue joined, the cause was adjourned, by consent, to another day, and at that day, after the parties had appeared, and the jury were called, though not sworn, the defendant below, by his agent or attorney, requested an adjournment again, on account of the absence of a material witness, and offered to make oath and give security, according to the act. Upon this the plaintiff proposed to admit what was expected to be proved by the absent witness, which being acceded to, the admission ivas reduced to writing in the justice’s book. The agent afterwards required some other admission, but the justice thinking it was unreasonable, and that the object was delay, refused an adjournment; the cause proceeded to trial, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff below, the defendant in error.

*Per Curiam.*

The evidence before the jury would not warrant the conclusion of any imposition having been practised upon the defendant, in procuring the advertisement offering the reward ; but independently of this, the proof shoxved services performed, sufficient to support the judgment, and the only question in the case is, whether the justice erred in not granting a second adjournment. We think that he did not. The object of the adjournment, as avowed, was to procure the testimony of a certain witness; and the plaintiff offered to admit, and did admit, what it was alleged the witness would prove. This was, at first, accepted by the defendant, but, afterwards, other claims were set up, which convinced the justice that delay xvas the object. The justice must have the right of exercising some discretion on this subject. The act (1 *N. R. L.*389.) requires him to postpone the ' trial for such reasonable time as will enable the defendant to procure testimony or witnesses. If the plaintiff will admit the testimony, no time can be wanted for that purpose; besides, *344in this case, the defendant had agreed to go to trial upon such ac¡m¡gs¡onSj and *fe*ought not, afterwards, to be permitted to violate such agreement. The claim to an adjournment must be deemed to have been waived : the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 10.3
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 Agreement Employee Company
 RECITALS
    AGREEMENT
  ARTICLE I  EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
 Employment
 Duties




---



##### 



Exclusive Employment
 Employee Representations and Warranties as to Employability
  1
    ARTICLE II  PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT
 Employment Period Employment Period
 Initial Term of Employment Period and Extension Terms Initial Term Extension Term
  2




---



##### 



ARTICLE III  COMPENSATION
 Annual Base Compensation Annual Base
Compensation
 Employee Performance Bonus Incentive
Compensation Bonus pro rata
 Expenses
 Paid Time Off
 Insurance
  3




---



##### 



Retirement Plan
 Grant of Stock Options
 Options
   Stock Option Plan
 Other Fringe Benefits
 Vehicle Allowance Vehicle
Allowance
 ARTICLE IV  COVENANTS OF EMPLOYEE
 Covenants Regarding Developments Developments
    4




---



##### 



Ownership and Covenant to Return Documents, etc
 Nondisclosure Covenant Confidential and Proprietary Information
  5




---



##### 



Noninterference Covenant Restricted Period
 Covenant of Nonsolicitation of Customers Customer
 Covenant Not To Compete
  6




---



##### 



Remedies for Breach
 TERMINATION
 Termination and Triggering Events Triggering Event
 Rights Upon Occurrence of a Triggering Event
 Death, Total Disability, Resignation, and Termination by the Company for
Cause
 Termination by Company Without Cause pro rated Severance Benefit
  7




---



##### 



Termination Arising Out of a Change of Control pro rated Change of Control Severance Benefit
 Cessation of Entitlements and Company Right of Offset
 Treatment of Options
 Survival of Certain Obligations
  8




---



##### 



Definitions
 Resignation
 Specified Employee
 Termination by the Company for Cause
      Termination by the Company Without Cause
  9




---



##### 



Termination Arising Out of a Change of Control Change of Control
   i.e.
 Total Disability
 ARTICLE VI  GENERAL
 Governing Law
 Binding Effect
  10




---



##### 



Assignment
 Complete Understanding
 Tax Provisions
 Compliance With Section 409A of the Code
 Compliance With Section 162(m) of the Code
 Amendments
  11




---



##### 



Waiver
 Venue, Jurisdiction, Etc
 Indemnification of Employee
 Directors and Officers Liability Insurance
 Severability
 Headings
  12




---



##### 



Notices
 Notices to Employee
 
 Notices to Company
 
 Counterparts
 COMPANY:
    
    
    
    

    EMPLOYEE:SXC HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Jeffrey Park
    
    11/6/08
    
    
    By:
    /s/ Mike Bennof
    
    11/6/08Its: Chief Financial Officer
    
    Date
    
    
    
    Mike Bennof
    
    Date
  13